Yes, it says after leaving the Presidency, but Hoover ran for President WHILE President, and he is still included, so either he needs to be removed from the list or the three failed reelections need to be added. 156.77.111.17 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Term column, should be changed back to Election column
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion
Exactly when was the Election column changed to Term column? Now we've got something that seems clunky & a tad confusing. With more then twice as many years linked within each presidents sections, it's cumbersome. Should be the way it is at List of Vice Presidents of the United States. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed; "election" is a more accurate title for the column, changing back makes sense, and would bring it into sync w/the VP-list table. I will be bold and make the change (if reverted, we can discuss it here). Drdpw (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Completely disagree. An election and an inauguration constitutes a presidential term. The status quo is utterly fine.--Nevé–selbert19:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Take Ford for example, he was never elected. If we changed the column title back, we'd be doing our readers a disservice.--Nevé–selbert21:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, hence the reason why I believe the column title should remain unchanged. He was never elected and merely finished off Nixon's second term.--Nevé–selbert21:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Should be changed back to Election column, with those inauguration dates removed. We already have enough info, showing presidential tenures. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree that "term" is more appropriate, and in the case of Ford and the like, his never being elected to the presidency could be confusing to the casual visitor with the heading "election." I agree even more that the column has become clunky with the additional numbers. If I wasn't the frequent visitor that I am, I would never click on any of those. I feel like it was cleaner before, but can't remember what it looked like. It presents as trying to do too much in too small a space, though the information is relevant. The "election of" links could be attached to the term numbers, further making the words "term" and "election" interchangeable. I'm not sure what to do with the inauguration links, but even if those stayed as they are you would then have only one year displayed (or in some cases two). RM2KX (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Anchor tags
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Why? That's a large amount of seemingly extraneous mark-up. How would adding these anchor tags improve the list or its usefulness? Drdpw (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Why not? Seems like a potentially useful idea, and doesn't hurt a bit, as it's fully invisible to readers and markup size is minimal. — JFGtalk09:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Under "Subsequent Public Service," it says "Four presidents held other high U.S. federal offices after leaving the presidency." By the wording, Cleveland should not be included as becoming President again is not some "other office." It is the same office. I suggest this be changed to three presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.147.22.94 (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Harry S. Truman
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Since President Truman's entire middle name was the letter S[1], I suggest the period after it in his name be omitted, although this is routinely not done elsewhere in Wikipedia. ☺Dick Kimball (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
^While the "S" did not stand for any one name, it was chosen as his middle initial to honor both of his grandfathers, Anderson Shipp Truman and Solomon Young. (from Wikipedia entry "Harry S. Truman")
I know that the article title could be argued either way, but regardless of which way we go, should the heading be consistent?
I changed the heading to be capital P Presidents, but it was reverted without explanation except a vague reference to MOS. Well, MOS is unclear. And regardless of what it says, shouldn't it apply the same to the question of the P capitalization in the title as in the heading?
Article title should have "presidents" in lowercase. Titles are only capitalized when preceding the person's name, i.e. we write "President Trump was elected" but "Trump is the current president." — JFGtalk14:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the capitalization of "president" in the title of the numerous POTUS articles has been an on-going topic of discussion, but no (to answer User:Born2cycle's question), the article title and list section heading do not need to use consistent capitalization styles. MOS:SECTIONCAPS says to "use sentence case, not title case, capitalization in all section headings. Capitalize the first letter of the first word, but leave the rest lower case except for proper names and other items that would ordinarily be capitalized in running text." In other words: "List of presidents". Now, the heading could be shortened to one word: Presidents, as it's obvious that it's a "list of", and stating so refers redundantly to the subject of the article. Drdpw (talk) 14:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Any objections to lower-casing the P in Presidents in the title or do we need an RM? --В²C☎00:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Objection Unless there's a broad consensus to change every "List of Presidents of the United States by ..." and every "List of Vice Presidents of the United States by ..." article (and by extension, ever "List of Prime Ministers of Canada by ..." article as well). Drdpw (talk) 03:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Okay, no title change, at least not without an RM. But we're still left with uppercase Presidents in the title and lowercase in the section heading. Frankly, it looks stupid and unprofessional. We need to get our act together. Suggestions? --В²C☎04:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Sources and copyright status are documented together with each individual image file; you can click on the image and the "More information" button to see details. It is not Wikipedia practice to repeat this information in the body of the article. — JFGtalk09:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2017
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
On the list of the president of the united states, all the way at president Richard Nixon's prior office held. It says he had the 36th presidency, while on Dwight D. Eisenhower's it say's his vice president was Richard Nixon.
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If failed attempts to be reelected as President after serving as president is going to be included in the list of fail attempts at another office, then this needs to be consistent. Gerald Ford (1976), Jimmy Carter (1980), and George H.W. Bush (1992) all failed in a reelection campaign in which they were the nominee for their party. These three needed to be added to that list for consistency sake.
No they do not, and that is because those 3 were in office at the time, whereas the others were not. Drdpw (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of Presidents of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The entry on the page for the 33rd President Of The U.S.A, Harry S. Truman, lists him under "Previous Office" as "34th Vice President of the United States". Surely this should be "40th Vice President of the United States" (the 34th was Calvin Coolidge). SkyBod (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Harry S. Truman was the "34th Vice President of the United States". Calvin Coolidge was the 29th vice president of united states. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★09:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Change of portraits: John Quincy Adams through William Henry Harrison
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
The four portraits of John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison were taken after their presidency (except william henry harrison but the picture used for him isn't really the best portrait of him). Therefore I would suggest changing the portraits of the four presidents to painted portraits made before, during or shortly after their presidency instead of photographs taken LONG after after their presidency.
Support – This sounds like a very sensible idea, to avoid anachronism. For recent presidents, we have been using contemporary portraits of their time in office; we should follow the same rules for ancient presidents. — JFGtalk14:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Oppose – At least with the options provided. The portraits of Adams and Van Buren were painted in 1844 and 1858 respectively, long after their presidencies' ended. This is around the same time that the photographs of Adams and Van Buren that are used in this article were taken so replacing those two photographs with the suggested paintings would not do much to depict the men as they were when they were POTUS. The painting of Van Buren would also look much too small in the table used in this article. The photograph of Harrison used in this article is from 1841, the year of his presidency, but the suggested portrait of Harrison is from 1813, nearly three decades before he became president. Adding that portrait of Harrison to the article in place of the current photograph would actually make the article more anchronistic, not less. The Jackson portrait is from the shortly after his presidency and I think File:Andrew_jackson_head.jpg is better portrait of him anyway, although I think the currently used photograph (and the other three as well) is still the best option. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Conditional oppose I agree that portraits made shortly before, during or shortly after the presidency should be preferred, however, as Millionsandbillions points out, the suggested replacements don't fit that bill in three of four cases and in the case of Jackson I agree that the current picture is preferable. Regards SoWhy16:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Support for Jackson, Van Buren. Weak support for Adams. Oppose for Harrison I support all of the paintings' inclusions but I am very unsure of the portrait for Adams as provided, can we not crop the official painting? As for Harrison I prefer his photo as it is. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Changing all the head of states and governments pitctures back to their old size before they kept on turning small.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I read something about the lack of presidential photographs in gov buildings that said something along the lines of "President Trump and Vice President Pence still have yet to sit for an official photograph." Hopefully a PD one is coming. MB298 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
COMMONNAME?
Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion
I changed them to H. & Q., so that less familiar readers wouldn't be confused by Martin Van Buren & think that 'Van' was a middle name, which it isn't. GoodDay (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
What if it confuses less familiar readers? concerning Van Buren? Those are separate articles, where's here, the names are all together. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
What if your way confuses less familiar readers who never heard of John Q. Adams. William H. Harrison, or William H. Taft? And how much does it really matter whether "Van" is a middle name or not? And even if it mattered, how many of these less familiar readers do you think will survey the entire list, note that only one name shows a spelled-out word between the forename and surname, and conclude therefore that it must be part of the surname? ―Mandruss☎02:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Sorry but your arguments don't hold water, so I'll stop arguing with you and wait for consensus to do its job. ―Mandruss☎02:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Keep exact names following article titles. We defer to editors of each President's article to have chosen the appropriate WP:COMMONNAME as established by sources. — JFGtalk03:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Wouldn't it be less confusing, if we were to pipelink the prez election articles into the chronological number? Example: [United States presidential election, 1788-89|1], [United States presidential election, 1792|2], etc etc. Because having the inauguration years and the election years both shown, is quite messy. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I think the currently existing portraits of the Presidents do a poor job of representing the men in question.
FDR's was taken near the end of his term during his 1944 reelection campaign, he was close to death. And Truman's is just of poor quality, Truman's main page has already change its portrait from the one here to a far superior portrait of much higher quality. So I am suggesting a change of their portraits. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 00:30, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I recommend changing the Obama portrait:
Current
Proposed
I recognize that the current photo shows a close-up headshot similar to the other presidents, but in cropping the image this way, Obama becomes the first president since Johnson not to have an American flag appear in the background. Given the anti-Obama birther sentiment, I feel that this non-flag image is discriminatory against Obama. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!!20:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
The fact that you're making this a race issue is problematic. If you notice, Bush 41 doesn't have an American flag in his portrait either... instead it looks to be the President's flag. Are we discriminating against Bush 41, too? I see no reason to change it, plus this was discussed at #Obama photo above with the reason as being "second term portraits". CorkyBuzz by the Hornet's Nest21:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
You are correct -- the Bush 41 image does not contain a US flag. I had not examined it closely enough to note the difference.
I don't believe the earlier discussion of Obama's portrait addressed the point of the flag. The "Official Portrait" released by the White House at the end of Obama's second term was a half-body shot with both the US and Presidential flags in the background. The version used in this article is a crop of that portrait, apparently to make it match the "headshot" style of the rest of the portraits.
Rather than making this a race issue, I believe I am trying to address a race issue that already exists. Obama was repeatedly smeared as non-American by those who believed him to be a non-patriotic Muslim (which should not on its face be considered non-patriotic anyway!) who was not born in the United States. Using a portrait that does not include the American flag in the same manner that all other recent presidents' portraits do only serves to underscore that racist assumption of non-patriotism.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Current
Proposed
I'm proposing we change Pierce's current portrait to the much more accurate newly cropped version of him recently made. The old one showed an inaccurate mirroring of Pierce's original portrait when in fact it was the other way around. The proposed cropped image matches with Pierce's portrait as seen on his wikipedia page. John C. O'Reilly (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
there is a mistake in the column of George H. W. Bush whose prior office was not 43rd vise president but 40th vice president. and also in a column of others president whose prior office is wrong. Sabindahal (talk) 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Not doneWell he was the 43rd VP. The VP number doesn't line up with the president number as the president at the time, Reagan, was the 40th. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, so if you can provide a source, I will make the change.--JOJHutton14:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Recommend you check the article List of Vice Presidents of the United States. There you'll find that Presidents Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant, Cleveland, McKinley, F. Roosevelt & Nixon have had more then one person serve as their vice president. Meanwhile Vice Presidents G. Clinton & Calhoun have each served with more then one president. What it adds up to? the USA has had more vice presidents, then presidents. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2018
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I'm opposed to this. The portraits are, by necessity, small in the table. This makes the face of Adams very hard to see now because the new portrait is a full-body portrait. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
John Quincy AdamsHow about we use this photo of Adams, the viewer can more easily make out his face in this portrait as opposed to the current one. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Not done It says "after leaving the presidency", so attempts at office while president aren't a part of that list. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
No action. The article says that Nixon was the 36th Vice President, which is correct. SkyWarrior 03:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Harry S. Truman was the "34th Vice President of the United States". Calvin Coolidge was the 29th vice president of united states. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 09:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Done Also changed John Quincy Adams portrait to use official White House portraits for both per [3] Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Done replaced John Quincy Adams full-length portrait with cropped version to make face more prominent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
