Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Portraits in dispute proposal

There has been a deal of back and forth editing of Presidential portraits by registered editors. We can't have this constant image-swopping and edit-summary bickering continue. The page has been locked to admin-only status for a couple days because of this disruption. Once the protection expires, I propose that going forward, before any further portraits are changed, they first be proposed here on talk page for discussion and consensus. (just my 0.02¢) wolf 00:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

disruption continues

As soon as the previous protection expired, the constant debating-via-edit-war over presidential portraits continued. There was also blatant vandalism of these image sections as well. The page has again been full-protected (admin access only) for 3 days. I will again propose that, when the protection expires, any changes to portraits be proposed here first, for discussion and consensus. If this disruption continues, perhaps sanctions will be needed. wolf 16:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with including a "do not change photos w/o consensus" notice at the top of this page, along with a similar hidden note at the top of the list of presidents section. While these would'nt stop all editors from boldly changing photos, it would deter some, thus cutting-down the number of incidents. Drdpw (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is consensus supporting a particular image, that can be used by an editor to support reverts (meaning he's acting on behalf of the community instead of himself). If the other editor persists, it's easier to get him stopped, with a consensus to back you up. As a political article, this page might be under sanction (I'm not sure tho'), but if it is, it makes easier for admins to deal with edit-warriors and pests in general. We should probably have an RfC, list all 44/45 images, get them locked it with a consensus and refer people to that going forward. wolf 06:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I concur that opening an RfC to develop consensus on the images would be a good course of action. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Good points wolf; establishing an Rfc-developed consensus sounds like a good course of action at this time. Drdpw (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

... and it still continues

On March 5 an anonymous IP changed the photos of; John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, Lyndon Johnson, George H. W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, all without discussion. Might it be time for permanent semi-protection? -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with semi-protection for this page, somebody changed the photo of Jimmy Carter as well that I have since corrected. Bold and Brash (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah... It's unbelievable, (but also believable because after all, it is Wikipedia). Please see my comment directly above about having a RfC for all the images at once, so we can get them locked in with a consensus and hopefully cut down on all this disruptive nonsense. wolf 06:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I fully agree that the page needs to be protected... the constant swapping of images is disruptive. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Protection requested

FYI I have requested permanent ECP protection.[1] — JFG ^talk 10:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done[2] — JFG ^talk 14:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Same thing may have to be done for the List of Vice Presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Presidential images

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus of the discussion supports the current images as per Question 1. A majority of the participants prefer that future image changes be discussed first, as per Question 2. --RL0919 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

---

There has been an ongoing dispute over which images should be used in this list, involving experienced editors and newer editors, registered and IP users, those acting with good intentions and with those with more dubious reasons. The page was temporarily protected a few times, but has now been protected for a full year. This is the current version of the article as of the posting of this RfC. There are 44 men representing 45 presidencies, Grover Cleveland is listed twice, using the same image. The purpose of this RfC is to establish consensus, for the images that should be included as if it's closing, and to establish that changes to images must be proposed on the talk page first and only implemented with consensus, or are otherwise immediately reverted.

• Question 1: Do you support the current 44 images currently listed?
  • If you oppose, please indicate which image(s) you want to see changed, including a link to the replacement image(s) you are proposing and your reasoning. We'll have a straw poll for each image.
• Question 2: Do you support that any changes to images must first be proposed on the talk page and only implemented with consensus?

At the conclusion of this RfC, we should have a set list of 44 (or 45) images and going forward, (hopefully) have a mechanism in place to prevent any further disruption to the page. wolf 16:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1, the current list, and support 2, proposing changes first. (rfc proposer) wolf 16:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• Don’t object to the current pics... but also very open to discussing alternatives. The key word is “discuss”. Strongly support proposition #2... Once a consensus is reached on a pic, it should remain in place until a new discussion is held and new consensus is reached. Again... “discuss” is key. No more edit warring. Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
• I support the current list as well, and also support proposing changes first. I actually would like to propose that the policy for photos on this page simply be that we use the official White House portrait of the POTUS, that way we can be consistent with other online sources and wiki pages. ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1, but 2 needs work - not an expert, but those images seem the appropriate ones to use. However, the 'appropriate ones to use' needs to be something more than simply "discussion" judging from the fluctuations over which Trump photo to use as "nicer" or "I have cleaned up for use" or "from inauguration" etcetera. I suggest it be explicitly stated in the section at the top of the article or at the top of this TALK that the image is the 'official portrait' obtained from government sources, not altered except possibly minor cropping/resizing. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  Comment: @Markbassett: I understand and appreciate your remarks in regards to question #2, but you realize we're just trying to create some stability going forward. If we can agree here and now by consensus that future changes art to be proposed first, that will help create that stability as no single editor can over-ride that consensus. But we can't just create an "official image only" policy here. If an editor proposes an image, (even a non-official one), and a new, stronger consensus supports that, then that image goes in. For what you're asking, I would suggest you propose at MOS:IMAGE to see if you can have written as a guideline or policy for all related articles. Thanks again. wolf 20:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 – I don't see any images that are unacceptable, such as Abe Lincoln with a goofy grin. Oppose 2 – Editors who don't respect Wikipedia behavior policies are not likely to respect a local rule established by this RfC. If the existing mechanisms for enforcement of those policies are inadequate to deal with violations, they will be equally inadequate to deal with violations of a local rule. Community focus should be on trying to improve behavior policies and their enforcement (such as elimination of some of the hoops one has to jump through to even stand a chance of admin action), not on things that aim to compensate for their shortcomings. Even if such a local rule actually improved things, behavior policies should not be made even less relevant than they already are. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  Comment: I'm not sure if it's just me not following your meaning on #2, or if you're not the following the meaning of #2 in the first place. As you can see above, I've pointed out to one editor that anything beyond a local consensus for adding and maintaining content of this page (eg: a behaviour policy) would have to be dealt with elsewhere, as it's beyond the scope of what we can do here. #2 is to simply reinforce #1, once we have a consensus for the entire list. Something along the lines of a hidden note at the top & bottom of the list mark-up stating something to the effect of "all changes made without the support of consensus on the talk page will be immediately reverted" (or whatever language is agreed to here if #2 is adopted.) It's just a tool for editors to help maintain the page against fly-by editing by one-time ip users and those who think "BOLD" means they can do whatever they want. It's just to say, "no, there is a consensus supporting the image(s) you wish to change. If you want to change it/them, you need to propose it on the talk page and get a stronger, or more recent, consensus. This isn't about the project's behavioral policies, they still stand, regardless of the outcome of this RfC. wolf 10:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  I don't get why normal BRD wouldn't work equally well (or equally poorly).
  Let's say you get blanket consensus for 1 but 2 fails. Two weeks later, I come along and boldly change Calvin Coolidge's photo. So you or somebody else revert me per BRD, with the edit summary "rv per existing consensus at [wikilink to this RfC]". At that point I'm expected to start a discussion or drop the issue. If I re-revert instead, you have a solid start to an edit warring or disruption case against me.
  Now let's say there is a consensus for both 1 and 2. If I'm the kind of editor who sleeps with WP:IAR under his pillow and doesn't care about any silly old rules that stand between me and a better encyclopedia (or I'm a simple belligerent), I'm going to ignore your local rule and just edit, and you're going to revert me with a slightly different edit summary. If I re-revert, you have a solid start to an edit warring or disruption case against me.
  I see only two things accomplished by 2. First, a possible reduction in perfectly routine use of the BRD process. And the addition of yet another degree of complexity to the overly-complex editing environment by making this article different from almost all others. Why do so many newer editors seem angry all the time? Because they are fed up with tiptoeing through the minefield and still being wrong all the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What you call "another degree of complexity", I call a tool for editors, and if need be, admins, to quickly dispense with any needless debate or edit-warring. Like you say, someone comes along, changes an image; an editor here reverts, and already has a solid consensus in his pocket to support the revert. So if the first person really wants that image changed (properly), he knows what hill he needs to climb to do so; start an RfC and get a stronger consensus. Hopefully that puts a stop to a majority of pointless image debates right there. But, if he says "screw the rules" and tries to push the issue with an edit-war, then there's already a consensus on record for an admin to quickly resolve the issue, either block the edit-warrior, or lock the page with the consensus supported version in place, as opposed to asking everyone involved to discuss it (all over again) and sort it out. We can teach new editors how to "get thru the minefields" without continually disrupting this article in process. wolf 20:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

why do you want to change the pics? עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Who do you think "wants to change the pics"? I haven't seem anyone !vote for that, or even mention it. wolf 20:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support 2 I don't support 1 only because i don't know if there are better pics we can use instead עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look and decide before !voting...? You're against a proposal and you don't even know why... wolf 20:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to support 1 if I don't see what other pics we can use instead and I'm not going to research all the alternate pics because i don't have the time to waste on that. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll comment after your second post below so we don't have two different strings going. wolf 22:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1, the current list, and support 2: The incessant image-changing on this page needs to be curbed, and this proposal is a good first-step toward doing so; well stated wolf. Drdpw (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 and support 2: IT's tedious and a waste of everyone's time to re-fight these cosmetic battles everytime a new editor shows up. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support 1 and Support 2. The images are already good like that but if anyone wants to improve/swap, I think it is a good idea to propose it on the talk page first. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support 1 and Support 2. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose 1. All images appear consistent with MOS, however this RfC is just a paper tiger designed to scare away newcomers. Sure there will be lots of votes here, but where is the individual reasoning for each image? Its on the individual talk pages for each president. Refer people there first, then have an individual RfC on the image. Support here will just be a hollow consensus. Oppose 2. This would just create an image mafia. Essentially a feral pseudo form of article protection; one without strict guidelines or a time limit. I can forsee edits being eternally reverted solely on this RfC, not allowing for the creation of new RfCs. Controversial edits naturally progress to discussion and consensus. Unmanageable distruption already has remedies. This second proposal is obsolete. Cesdeva (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

that's the point this is not the same page as the presidents own page so we can have a different pic it just needs consensus to change itעם ישראל חי (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

This kind of blanket consensus is inherently weak and serves as nothing but a distracting stick to beat people with in future. Issues about images need to be hashed out as specific detailed RfCs. There is no easy way out. As true as it is that this is a different page to the individual president pages, what makes a lede image suitable there almost certainly makes it suitable for this list. A mirror in denial is still a mirror. Cesdeva (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• #1 is unclear (invited by the bot) The answer to #1 can be interpreted 2 ways. One is the the images look OK as-is. The other would be to interpret this RFC as locking in the current images. It's likely that support for number 1 really means only the former. I support "OK as-is" meaning of #1. I grudgingly support #2. I would think that BRD and other normal practices should be able to handle it, but this might bring a little extra hysteresis and thus a little extra stability to the article which is apparently needed. North8000 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Actually, #1 is not the 'either/or' scenario you make it to be, it is actually both. We are hoping for a consensus that the current line-up of images is "OK as-is" and therefore would like to 'lock it in'. As for #2, the "make bold changes and then follow BRD" normal practice has repeatedly failed, leading to constant edit-wars and disruption on this page, and hence the reason we're having this RfC, the idea of which is; "leave the list alone, if you want to change any image(s), propose them here first, and if there is a clear a consensus in favor, strong enough to over-ride this one, then the change can be made. If not, the list stays as is. No more disputes and disruption (hopefully). Thanks for taking part. wolf 06:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support 1 and Support 2. (Summoned by bot) Support 1 in the "OK as-is" sense mentioned by North8000 above. Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• Comment I think that since each presidents page has his official portrait that this page could use a different one so people can see other portraits of that president. עם ישראל חי (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not exactly what this RfC is about, but basically, you "oppose" #1, you are against the current images. All of them. So why don't you find alternate images of each and every president, post them here and we can have a straw poll to decide on each one, as suggested above. wolf 20:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't have the time for that and I don't mind if the pics stay the same i just think it's a good idea to have a variety so when other editors give a choice of pics to use per this RFC I'll choose what I like. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to support 1 if I don't see what other pics we can use instead and I'm not going to research all the alternate pics because i don't have the time to waste on that. עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to grasp the purpose of this proposal. The purpose is to create stability, by basically 'locking in' the current list of images, and hopefully cutting down on the constant flip-flopping of pics, edit-warring and disruption. I haven't presented other images to choose from because the current list seems to be the most preferred and stable one, and also with sound reasoning, namely using the official portrait from each BLP. You say it's a "waste of time" to look for alternative images, but you expect other editors to go hunting for a selection for you, so you can "choose what you like"...? Well, that's not on table. If you're for the current list, great! (but say so, otherwise your !vote against has been recorded). Perhaps another editor will present some alternatives during this RfC, but it won't be me. If people want a "variety" of images of presidents, they can always go to Commons - wolf 22:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't oppose 1 I just don't actively support it as i said before and i do support 2 to stop the constant changing. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Question (point of clarification): עם ישראל חי, is it accurate to say that, regarding 1 you are neutral, and regarding 2 you are support? Drdpw (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, it's helpful. wolf 20:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

sorry if i wasn't clearer before. עם ישראל חי (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Proposal #2 is the key here. If we adopt #2, then #1 becomes a TEMPORARY measure (to end edit warring). #2 means that nothing is being set in stone... alternatives can be examined and used... we simply have to discuss any alternatives first, and reach an agreement to use them. Blueboar (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed images to replace current images as noted in RfC

• I suggest to change the current picture (of Gerald Ford) to this one (#1)--85.23.98.247 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose that's the one that's being used just not cropped. עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - current image looks better uncropped. wolf 17:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

proposed image gallery

• 
  Gerald Ford image #1

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.

Some concerns and requests for changes

I'm coming from the lists of governors, so the situation is slightly different, but I have a bunch of issues I want to bring up, which I'll do one at a time so as not to flood. But my main thing with lists like these, is they should be very trim: What is the office; how do you get into it; who was in it; and if it changed out of turn, why.

So, that put forth: Why do we need how long the president lived, or their current age? That has nothing to do with the office, it doesn't enhance an understanding of the topic. Like, with Hoover - He lived 90 years. Cool? It's entirely irrelevant to his presidency, however. Maybe if you said his retirement was 31 years, but that also doesn't add to an understanding of the topic. I also dislike even having the year range there at all, as that also doesn't really enhance anything, but I figured I'd leave that for later, as that likely has more support behind it and I want to start with low-hanging fruit.

So, issue #1: I propose removing the age of the president. --Golbez (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've no objections to trimming this article (and the List of Vice Presidents of the United States), via removing said trivial info. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Golbez:Well, I do see your point, in general, about addressing needless columns, and specifically, about the superfluousness of including their age, but I don't see the need to belabor this, column by column, one at a time. Here are all the columns, (and their necessity, as I see it);

• Presidency
  • Numerical order - keep
  • Term; start & end date - keep
• President
  • image - keep
  • Name & Years of birth & death - keep (+total age†)
• Prior office
  • as stated (some include terms) - optional?
• Party
  • Color codes - keep
  • Party name(s) (some include dates) - keep
• Term
  • as stated - with start years - duplicate/merge
• Vice President
  • as stated - Names (some include dates) - keep

†this is the age value you propose removing, and if this was a separate column, I'd be inclined to agree. But it's not, it's simply added as small text to the existing years of birth and death column. I see no real need to keep it, nor any real need to remove it.

There are six columns, three of which have two sub-columns for a total of nine. Other than the "Prior office" column (#5) and the duplicate "Term" column (#8), all the other ones appear relevant and necessary. I'm sure many would support the "Prior office" column as 'interesting', and while I agree, I don't see it as 'necessary'. As for the dual "Term" columns, I'm not really sure why there are two, but I would think the 2nd one could be merged into the first. But this is just my take on it. With your proposal opening the door for discussion, and all the columns listed here, others can also comment, and we can possibly determine if any of these columns should be changed and/or removed (or perhaps some even added). - ^theWOLFchild 20:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith but you should know that my first reaction to this was that it felt like an attempt to crowd out my small request by adding in a bunch of others and building a straw man - Vice President? Really? Of course we're keeping that. Of course we're keeping party. Of course we're keeping NAME. Why did you even feel that those needed to be mentioned? You may not feel the need to belabor this but I do, as a guest in this article and as someone who doesn't know the history behind some of the decisions made here.

You want me to share all my issues? I can do that. But I'd rather we investigate each one on its own merits rather than part of an omnibus. And this isn't about narrowing the table, or getting rid of columns - it's about getting rid of irrelevant, extraneous information. And I wanted to start with this one single bit of info before moving onto others that I think should be thrown out, like lifespan, prior office, the natures of vacancies, and the confusing handling of the Term column. --Golbez (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Whoa... chill. First, you don't start a post by claiming you're going to "assume good faith", then immediately start dishing out a shitload of bad faith accusations with the very next sentence, and continuing throughout the next two paragraphs. Second, there was absolutely nothing negative intended in my post. I didn't "specifically" mention any one particular column, especially any obvious 'keeps' like VP, to "crowd out" your suggestion or "build a straw man" (how does that even apply? fyi; it doesn't). I listed all the columns, along with mho on each one. If you noticed, I went beyond just what should be cut... I was also looking at what could be changed, such as merging the 2 "Term" columns into one. The "Term" column is just as obvious a "keep" as VP, but I can't suggest changes to it without mentioning it, now can I? Who knows? Maybe someone else will suggest changes to some of the other "obvious keep" columns, are you gonna flip out on those users for mentioning them as well?

Other than removals and changes, I also mentioned the possibility of someone suggesting an additional column, which could effect the existing "obvious keeps", would mentioning any of those columns then "crowd" you with a herd a "straw-men", soliciting further cranky replies? Lastly, 'yes' I would prefer you mention "all your issues" at once (hence another reason I listed all the columns, in hopes of narrowing this down). I think we can do without the suspense and people here are perfectly capable of discussing multiple columns at once and giving each suggestion it's due attention and discourse. I believe that's preferable to having a whole discussion on a single column, forming a consensus, making a change, then starting all over again on your next "issue", then yet again for the next, lather, rinse, repeat... Have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 00:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Would you prefer I have been dishonest and not shared my initial feeling? That it happened is fact, and that I'm trying to work past it is also fact, but that it influences my further discussion is also fact. But I said "I want to discuss this one thing right now" and your first response was "no, let's ignore what you just put and discuss these 10 other things, 8 of which are obvious keeps". That's how it initially came across to me - I'm being honest rather than lying in saying that good faith is 100% assumed. I could have just been an asshole; instead, I'm acknowledging that I'm an asshole. There's a difference. But I do apologize, and I've created an strained atmosphere. Sorry.

But sure, issues:

• The table is not sortable.
• The table is inaccessible.
• The party numbering at the top should go - it adds nothing to an understanding of the office, as - for example - FDR would be counted as one democrat, but Cleveland would be counted twice, and Whig - despite being in office for 5 months, having been elected once - is counted twice. It lacks this needed context and is purely subjective (Do we count party changes, like Lincoln? Do we count only elections, leaving out Ford?)
• "Presidency" is replace with "No." and just contains the official number of the presidency. Link it to the article on the presidency if you so like.
• "President" is de-colspanned, as Portrait should not be included in it, it mungs up mobile.
• "President" should lose the big, the lifespan, and the years - scope="row" handles the emphasis.
• "Prior office" absolutely goes away, it adds nothing in most cases, and is subjective in others (Was W. Harrison elected because he was an ambassador? No. Why is Taylor noted as "no prior office", but Pierce isn't? How is Trump's position, which is not in the government at all, the proper thing to say? Chairman of a company is equal in emphasis to any other private position he could be holding.)
• Low priority but for consistency and to kind of the give the table a visual anchor, move party color bar to be by the name.
• Rowspan the party color bar.
• "Term" becomes "Election" and contains only the year as a link to the relevant election.
• Add a party color bar for Vice President, as not all shared their president's party. Also serves as a visual counteranchor.
• Remove the overexplanation of vacancies - of course the vacancy after Clinton died as the balance of his term, what else would it be?
• Remove extraneous dates in the VP column - we know Clinton's term began March 9 1809, so we simply can say "died April 20, 1812".
• I find the table vastly overreferenced - we can give a single link to each major list of presidents, instead of having three references in every single row.
• Remove subsequent public office - adds even less to an understanding of the office than it does for governors, and is ultimately subjective and difficult to maintain.
• Move all footnotes to the new election column, as they're ultimately only relevant there.

So. I'm working on this in my sandbox. --Golbez (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you propose, except for removal of subsequent office. There are relatively few instances of this, and they all significant. In comparing lists in other reference sources, they are always given. Indeed, the other reference books usually give them a separate column, but it would make our format unwieldy. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

So, I'm working on this in my sandbox. - OK... let us know when you have a proposal worked up. - ^theWOLFchild 02:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing: User:Golbez/sandbox Check 'er out. Haven't moved the color bar yet or added one to the VP side; not sure if either is needed. --Golbez (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Golbez - Looks good so far, but I see you've made it sortable and it seems to have same problem as noted in the section below. You might want to consider removing the sort option until that issue can be fixed. - ^theWOLFchild 16:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sortable table

So another editor made the table sortable today which didn't seem like a bad idea to me... until I tried it. If you click on any column, it creates multiple entries for most of the Presidents, at least two, several with three and some with four (FDR & Nixon). I think it might have to do with the number of VPs, but didn't look that hard. Even clicking back on the "Presidency" column to put the table back into it's original ranking order, does not set it back to a single entry per President. So I've removed the sortable markup for now. If someone knows how to make the table sortable without this problem, I wouldn't object to it being re-added. - ^theWOLFchild 02:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

That's unavoidable because of the rowspans. Either we make it sortable, or we remove rowspans. There's no other way. --Golbez (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed, when rowspans and colspans don't align there are going to be "problems", as evidenced by the List of presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate table. The problem was delt with in the List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives table by confining one Congress to one row, and putting "xxth Congress" as the 1st column. On this page it would require confining one presidency (counting only Cleveland twice) or one 4-year term to one row. Drdpw (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Or we don't consider it a problem, since it looks fine until someone sorts. The only reason someone would want to sort this table is to get an alphabetized list of names, so at that point the rest doesn't matter. There's literally no other reason to want to sort. Frankly I'm not a fan of it in something like this, but people seem to want it. --Golbez (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

New Image Proposal

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.

---

Proposed Image

Proposed one is less compressed and tightly packed than the current one of George Bush Sr. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2018 (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.

Number of Presdents incorrect in 2nd paragraph...

Top of article, 2nd graph: "Since the office was established in 1789, 44 men have served as president." Should read "45". Elsewhere, the correct number is reported. Hope you can soon edit. Thanks! --Tami. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.10.6.120 (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

44 is correct, as Grover Cleveland served as the 22nd & 24th president. Though Trump is the 45th president, he's the 44th person to serve as president. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)