Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 14

Presidents who left office, not a member of the party they came into office with.
Recommend we divide up the party colours again, in the John Tyler & Andrew Johnson entries, the way they used to be. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That could work. Johnson did rejoin the Democrats near the end of his term. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't forget AJ. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * JQ Adams as well, as the Democratic-Republican Party disintegrated after 1825. Also, as this issue generated much discussion in the past, quick changes should not be made now. Drdpw (talk) 15:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If JQ Adams had won reelection, we would've had his second term as a National Republican. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Regarding Jackson, probably OK to leave "Democratic" alone, as the Jacksonian faction of his 1st term became the Democratic Party of his second. Drdpw (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * How was that? Reverted edit was an updated code of previous John Tyler. I also tried to update the em height before edit conflicts. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Before you make such changes, it would be best to get a consensus here first. PS - I've made this discussion into an RFC, to attract more input. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Support of OP w/ the additional recommendation of adjusting the em height of Abe Lincoln to 11 em Republican/ 1 em National Union. -- Sleyece (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * {| class="wikitable" style="text-align:center;"


 * - style="height:11em;"
 * style="background-color:" |
 * Republican
 * - style="height:1em;"
 * style="background-color:" |
 * National Union
 * } Here's a reference table of what that would look like in action. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No to varying the height of individual cells in the Party column. Note the height uniformity in the Election and the Vice President columns. Drdpw (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:HA User's disagreement has nothing to do with "uniformity". -- Sleyece (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect; the disagreement expressed is solely about "uniformity" as stated. I have nothing against you and am certainly not out to prevent you from making edits to U.S. political articles. I always assume your edits are made in good faith, even when I have an issue with them. Drdpw (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you assume my edits are in good faith, but you treat me as if I'm too stupid or unworthy to edit U.S. politics articles... A lot of ice pick lobotomies were performed assuming good faith, too. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not cite behavioral policies like WP:HA when people simply disagree with you. And article talk pages, much less RfCs on article talk pages, are not the venue for interpersonal disputations. User-talk pages and WP:DR venues exist for a reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:27, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support restoring layout of Party column to how it was as of February 20, 2020.
 * specifically inviting your input as you changed the column to its current layout.
 * Drdpw (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support restoring to layout of February 20, 2020. I don't agree with fiddling with the cell heights, which is simply going to look messy and is likely to result in readability problems for some.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oof, I hadn't thought of readability issues. I no longer support weighting the split based on time in office. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sleyece, before including the proposition if/when it does get voted on, please do not change Tyler's portrait as you in your revised edit. We previously discussed that on this page. Thank you. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did that by accident; it was part of some old code I copied into the new edit. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My feeling on this is, it should only reflect what party they were elected from. "switching parties" or "joining" another party is not necessarily an official act, especially not one that always has a specific date. I would include only the parties they were elected from, with a footnote indicating that they began caucusing or officially representing a different party at a certain point in their administration. --Golbez (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But, if you insist on keeping it, then I agree that there should be zero "weighting" for the time spent with each party; split it evenly. --Golbez (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per above. ~ HAL  333  19:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support for the February 20, 2020 layout. Altanner1991 (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment How many people need to vote "Support" or "Strong Support" before we can declare this a consensus? -- Sleyece (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of numbers for/against, it's about consensus (which IMO has been achieved).Drdpw (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Look, admins putting off closing this RFC because they don't like the consensus is unlikely to change it... Can someone PLEASE take some action? -- Sleyece (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * : Would an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, please review this discussion, and, if appropriate, render a decision. Thanks.Drdpw (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support as per the others, amazed this was ever changed. VeritasVox (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright there's been no action taken on this yet and all the input for a month has been approval of the change. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to go ahead and implement this now. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm unable to work the proposal into the current table, someone who can please do and we'll see if that works out. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can do it; it's tedious because one bit of data in the wrong place can ruin the whole table. I won't make the change until someone closes this thread, though. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus for proposal is overwhelming, thread closure isn't necessary. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per your statement, I will make the consensus changes later. I won't have the time to do work that time consuming until after I put my son to bed. -- Sleyece (talk) 16:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I made consensus changes for President Tyler; I elected not to do the same for J.Q. Adams or Andrew Johnson because I haven't seen evidence that there is consensus for them. More specifically, I don't think editors agree if it should be denoted in the list if the POTUS left the party due to it's dissolution. I feel like that question, if answered, would require an entirely new RfC. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC included Andrew Johnson in its premise, and was titled in a way that implies any president who left their party during their term. Abraham Lincoln shows the change of party affiliation, not sure why others would be different. Why would we need a separate RfC for J.Q. Adams? If they left their party due to its dissolution this can be placed in a note. Altanner1991 (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Andrew Johnson was included in the RfC, but his situation and Adams' is different. I haven't seen consensus for that change yet, but I'll make the change soon if it appears. Specifically, Tyler and Lincoln changed parties as a result of their own choices as President; Quincy Adams and A. Johnson left their parties as a result of forces external to themselves. It's just WP:NOTQUITEYET. -- Sleyece (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see the distinction, but we can explain that via notes. I assume you'll have to done for Quincy Adams and A. Johnson as well soon? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll make the changes for A. Johnson and J.Q. Adams before bed tonight. It seems there is enough consensus for that; just make sure the notes are thorough. (The note I added recently for Adams is insufficient if we're going to split his party affiliation) -- Sleyece (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree with Altanner1991 here. We didn't agree on the different cell heights either, you proposed that but most users here (or all of them, really) weren't voting for that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:45, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cell heights are the same. It just looks staggered on the table. I'll try to fix it, though. -- Sleyece (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the users in this thread don't understand how CSS works, so I'll explain.. The consensus was for split terms to have an even 6em-6em split; That's what I did. Now I've adjusted the em height to a staggered 8em-2em split so the the table cell visually looks even for Tyler and Lincoln. Is that what y'all wanted? I can change it back, but coding CSS height evenly never looks even in the final product; It's counter intuitive. -- Sleyece (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The way it looks now is fine. The thing about Lincoln is he was still a Republican, his "party change" was just a coalition ticket, whilst A. Johnson actively tried to establish it as an actual party, so one being bigger than the other is justifiable. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus was no weighted heights for split party; I'm sticking to that no matter what's "justifiable". We can explain the rest with notes. -- Sleyece (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What I need to know is do y'all want the em height even or the visual height even in the table? -- Sleyece (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between "em" height even and "visual" height even?
 * The proposal seemed to move to a consensus for equal cell heights. So far, both each Presidential entry, and each Vice-Presidential entry, is using equal cell heights, and therefore so should the political parties. Aside from John Tyler, there is also Abraham Lincoln showing varying heights and this was agreed IMO within this discussion. There is also just Richard Nixon showing a varying height formatting, probably left over from previous edits. Again none of the others are using what could be varying heights, maybe because equal heights are easier right now. Altanner1991 (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The visual height and the cell height are the same thing; em height is that height as its coded. Basically, if it's coded even then the cell height will be uneven and vice versa. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok thank you for explaining that. Altanner1991 (talk) 03:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, the cell heights need to be 6em-6em for these changes because all other cells in the table are coded as a devision of 12 (either 12em, 6em-6em, 4em-4em-4em, or 3em-3em-3em-3em). For the changes to be standardized with other consensus, I won't be adjusting cell heights again -- 09:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

H.W. Bush portrait proposal


Essentially the same photo, however my proposal is not slanted like the current one. It also is clearer on Bush's face and has colors toned to be less jarring to the reader. My proposed one has also been adopted by Bush's own article. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The colors seem a little faded, but overall, it’s a better and more clear image, so I support the change. Relevation Animations (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

FDR photograph proposal
Typically on Wikipedia, we like to use color photographs over B&W photographs. So, with that in mind, I would like to propose we use this photograph instead of the currently used one. It has several advantages.

1. It was still taken while he was president.

2. Almost all articles on FDR use this photograph including his main articles on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.

3. Somewhat obviously, this photograph is in color and the current one is in B&W.

So, what do you guys think? Relevation Animations (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've always been against this photo being used to universally portray FDR. It was taken in 1944 near the end of his 12-year long presidency, and he would die several months after it was taken. It doesn't accurately represent him throughout his presidency, rather, it shows him near the end of it in the ill state that it led him to. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point, however, It’s not like using aged photographs is a particularly uncommon occurrence on this list. Look at Q. Adams and Van Buren. Their photographs were taken decades after their presidencies, and we used them not because they were accurate representations of their time as president, but because they were close enough and more importantly, they were high quality. The current portrait for FDR is grainy, and this new proposal is much more high quality. And to add more fuel to the fire, I noticed that towards the end of 2019, this new proposal was being used, and I couldn’t find a discussion about the change to the current image in the archives. This means that the image was changed without consensus and thus should be reverted. Thoughts? Relevation Animations (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * True. However, in the cases of Quincy Adams and Van Buren, they look remarkably similar in their photographs to their portraits they were depicted in during their presidency. It's similar to why we don't use Andrew Jackson's photograph, cause he aged so bad he didn't resemble himself during his presidency anymore, unlike Quincy Adams and Van Buren. I'm not strongly against this photo of FDR like I would be for Jackson's, even though I don't agree with it's depiction being used universally. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, since FDR didn’t age poorly during his later years like Jackson did, you would not be opposed to switching the B&W photo with this new proposal. Relevation Animations (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly supportive or opposed to it at this point. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. First of all your premise is incorrect that "we like to use color photographs over B&W photographs". That mindset has been criticized several times in your edits. We use the best quality image that is most representative of how the subject looked, not whether it is color or B&W. In this case, I agree with MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken that the color image shows Roosevelt when he was in poor health and is not representative of his presidency. Sundayclose (talk) 00:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Barack Obama presidential portrait


Currently the first picture is in use but the second picture is a lot better and more professional looking, plus it’s used on his own Wikipedia page, so why aren’t we using that one? Ciaran.london (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * First photo is best, as it keeps with the consistency of showing the presidents at bust level. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

New Fillmore image


I feel that we should change the image of Fillmore to this. It’s a more bust level photograph, it doesn’t show him as a grumpy old man like the current image, and it’s a more appropriate photograph for this list. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current image. BTW: Alec Baldwin would be perfect to play Fillmore, in a movie. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reason for disliking my proposal? The Image Editor (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * His face in not in the same direction as his torso. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That is a very niche and minor criticism that most readers will not notice. Besides, this is also true for Cleveland’s image, and people seem cool with keeping that image. I actually kinda like the fact that his head is turned. It makes it look more professional. The Image Editor (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current image. The Image Editor, I'm afraid you don't have any better grasp of what "most readers will not notice" than any of the rest of us. The reason provided by is perfectly legitimate from the standpoint of photography, certainly as legitimate as the preferences you express. Sundayclose (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer the proposed image because the eyes are facing forward. The side-eye glance of the current image is off-putting and strange. It doesn't look like a formal portrait. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Revert
May I ask why you reverted my edits? Esszet (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't constructive. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Esszet (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

New Grant image


I feel like we should change the image for Ulysses S. Grant. The current image has a weird facial expression, has somewhat mediocre color contrast, and overall feels subpar compared to the other images around it. While I will concur that it is a serviceable image for this list, I think that my proposal is a better image. It has better color contrast, it was taken in the middle of the 1870s, so it’s a more accurate representation of Grant during his presidency, it’s used FAR more widely on Wikipedia, and it’s both marked as a featured image, and is considered the most valuable image of Grant on Wikimedia Commons. While I don’t think the current image is that bad, I still think that my proposal is a slightly better image for this list specifically. We tend to use the highest quality image for each president. Well, for Grant it is my proposal. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 23:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why do say it was taken in the middle 1870s? The Library of Congress labels it as between 1870 and 1880, so it might be post-Presidency. Station1 (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of life (birth and death) years
I have noticed that sometime during the last few months, the long standing birth and death dates were removed from the table as well as what prior offices the presidents held. The table has been streamlined for the worse, and if you look at this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&offset=&limit=500&action=history) you will see an unstable and more active article history with lots of reversions in the last few months. For reference, this is how the article looked like in October (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States&oldid=921455113), The table had looked like that for many years before this year. what exactly has happened? Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We already have articles that deal with the birth/death dates of US presidents & vice presidents. GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What happened was, I removed extraneous trivia from this article. Their lifespans are not relevant to this article. Some extraneous trivia was added back while valuable information was removed, but that's on y'all. --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The prior positions tab should've been kept, that's mainly what crippled this article and made it look mediocre as a result. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Adds nothing to an understanding of the subject, just as lifespans add nothing to an understanding of the subject. --Golbez (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Lifespans and prior positions are incomparable, the positions give you background into the individual's political, military, and business careers. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They tell you either their immediate previous job - which may have nothing to do with why they were elected - or their "biggest" job, which is typically subjective. Lists like this should concern themselves only with: Who was in the office; how did they get there; why did they leave. For example: James Madison. Was he elected because he was Secretary of State, or because he was James Madison, one of the main founding fathers? Had Hillary Clinton won, what had more impact on her winning: Being Secretary of State, Senator from New York, either first lady post, or her work with the Clinton Foundation? Was John Quincy Adams elected because he ... okay I seriously have nothing against State, it's just that all these examples were SecStates. But was he elected for that, or being John Adams son? Was George W. Bush elected for being Governor of Texas, or for being George H. W. Bush's son? Was William Henry Harrison really elected because of his awesome job as ambassador to Colombia? And does it matter that John Tyler was Vice President for 33 days, when his real previous post was that he'd been a private citizen for five years, and a senator before that? My point is: It's nearly circumstantial to their post. It adds little, if anything, to an understanding of the subject. TBH I'd be more in favor of including their state - and only state - of origin, since that has constitutional ramifications wrt voting. --Golbez (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're assuming "prior position" means "this is why this guy got elected" when its just a biographical illustration of their job before becoming president, nothing more, nothing less. I agree with you on including state information, though, but it should be both their state of origin and the state they later affiliated with when becoming president. Such as Eisenhower being born in Texas but affiliating with Pennsylvania and New York during his two runs for the presidency, or Donald Trump being born in New York, affiliating with the state in 2016, but having switched affiliation for Florida in 2020. We should include both so as to not mislead the reader or confuse them. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If it has nothing to do with why they became president, then why include it? And no, later affiliation wouldn't be relevant since what matters is what they were elected from. Then again, I feel the same about party affiliation, and some people seem to undo that too. --Golbez (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to comprehend what I'm suggesting. Trump was elected from New York, he switched to Florida, if he wins in 2020 he'll have been elected from Florida. Its not a hard concept to understand. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. It should note that he's from New York. If he wins in 2020, it should say Florida. But you keep on with that there condescension, I think we're done here. Y'all have a good day now. --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Golbez, sorry the birth and death dates are relevant in this article. The listing of presidents provides a snapshot of their lives, and it is nice to see how much longer a president lived after completing the term as a president, or as an FYI James Polk was the last president born in the 1700s. The associated article on vice presidents still show the birth and death dates, so why can't this article on presidents show it like it did for several years?! Dkf12 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It can, I just don't want it. Others might agree with me, iunno. And I disagree - what does it add to an understanding of the list of people who have been president to know that James Polk was a toddler in 1799? And yes, Hoover and Carter have both had extremely lengthy and fruitful post-presidencies, but that has nothing to do with this list. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not an issue if James Polk was a toddler in 1799, though in reality four year olds are not considered toddlers. It's more that one can see at a glance that James Polk was the last president born in the 1700s and Dwight D. Eisenhower was the last one born in the 1800s.  Likewise, George Washington was the first one born in the 1700s, Milard Filemore was the first one in the 1800s, and Lyndon B. Johnson was the first one in the 1900s.  Plus, one can see how long presidents lived after serving, such as 31 years for Herbert Hover and now 44 years for Jimmy Carter. Without the dates, one will have to look elsewhere, maybe outside of Wikipedia.  Now, the birth dates and death dates if applicable was in this article for many years and for quite some time, the month and day was included.  It is a mystery why the years had to be taken out now. Dkf12 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You haven't demonstrated that these add something to an understanding of the subject, though. What one does before or after becoming president is not relevant to a list of presidents (unless of course it directly impacted their entry on the list, like a mention on List of Governors of Arkansas that Bill Clinton resigned to be president.) It's relevant to their articles, sure, but not this one. That Carter has lived so long has no bearing on his entry in this list. I'm sure there are other lists that deal with the trivia of presidential lifespans and retirements; in fact I'm positive of it, for some reason a lot of people care about that. And I personally find it fascinating that 3 of the last 4 presidents were born in 1946 - but this isn't a list of fascinating facts. All that is helpfully shunted off into separate articles. I'm 100% aware that people can reasonably disagree with me, which is why I've pledged not to war on this article - but I'm just one man. GoodDay appears to agree with me, and I can't speak for what actions they'll take. --Golbez (talk) 13:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not putting those dates back into the article. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still a mystery why the years were removed when they had been present for a very long time. I'll use sources outside of Wikipedia to get what I need.  My concern is how this impacts others out there. Dkf12 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My concern is that you're not getting the hint. No mystery. A few of us here wanted them removed & so we removed them. Now, please drop it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The question is how many of the readers out there "wanted them removed". Dkf12 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not adding them back, so stop complaining about it & move on. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to this, we should remove the party, dates of presidency, and vice presidents' names. They add nothing to the article, which - let us remember - is "List of presidents". Not party membership, dates, or Veeps. Actually we should take out the pictures, too, and that huge lead. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Articles like this should concern themselves with who was in the office, how they got there, and why they left. The dates are relevant. The party, unfortunately, is relevant. The Vice President is relevant, but sure, you could argue against that if you like. I also agree that we could do without the pictures, but you know how Wikipedians like their pictures. The intro is relevant to establish the above terms. If you had asked about any of this, we may have been able to help, considering this is your first edit here in at least a year, so your uninvited snark on a talk page you haven't remotely interacted with before now is certainly conduct unbecoming. Thanks for your interest. --Golbez (talk) 03:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Just quickly pointing out that I came to this article to find that particular information (I wanted to see how many former presidents were alive at a particular date), and will now have to find that information on a different site, which is slightly less convenient, and I feel often less trustworthy. Not sure whether other people ever do the same, but just feel it's of relevance that it happens occasionally. Setting that aside though, I'm slightly in favour of keeping them, for consistency if nothing else. Most other lists of national leaders (most lists of people in fact) on wikipedia have them.120.138.17.53 (talk)
 * Better than this article is the one designed for that very purpose, Living presidents of the United States. --Golbez (talk) 04:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020
Add Joseph R. Biden But As A Prediction For 46th President. Because Biden Only Needs To Win Nevada To Win The Election. A State He Leads In. WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC) ❌ – Biden, if he wins, will not become president until January 20, 2021; he will not be added to the table until 12:00 noon EST that day. Drdpw (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. No rush. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would disagree; once he's certified as a winner we can at least add him as president-elect. Even if he dies before taking office, at that point, he would have earned a spot. --Golbez (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is certainly a reason. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I dove into the talk page archives . . . What was done in November 2016 was to add a subsection Incoming presidency with a one-row table with information about Donald Trump. If Joe Biden wins and we do the same thing this time (when the dust settles and Joe Biden is acknowledged by reliable sources as President-elect), the table would look like. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No prob with me, since that's how we done it in 2016. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable course of action. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (3)
acroospulle 16:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Since Joe Biden won the 2020 election. I'm making a request to add to the page of the presidents of the United States of America. acroospulle 16:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

President-elect Joe Biden?
Many news outlets have project Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 election, but the results have not been certified and are contested by the Donald Trump campaign. I think a note should be added to the president-elect section explaining the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020
Add Joe Biden please. Thanks AlexCruz289 (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Drdpw (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Missing from "Several presidents campaigned unsuccessfully for other U.S. state or federal elective offices after serving as president"
Shouldn't Ford, Carter and H.W. Bush be included in the section titled "Several presidents campaigned unsuccessfully for other U.S. state or federal elective offices after serving as president"?
 * No, because they did so while in office, not after serving as president, . Drdpw (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * they did so while serving as president not after they were still president when they lost the election עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't seek any office after their service as president. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Maybe "after serving as President" isn't Encyclopedic enough because Ford, Carter, and H.W. losing should be included somewhere. Exempting folks that lose while Incumbent seems like SYNTH. Some of y'all I know are going to want to add something about Trump losing an election if he's a one-term President... I'm just saying the premise is a little off to me. -- Sleyece (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We'll add Trump if he loses in 2020 & later runs again in 2024, or runs for any other political office. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note Since mid-June 2020 the only table in the "Subsequent public office" section is one listing "former presidents who held another U.S. federal office after serving as president".


 * Correction It says 44 have served as president and then lists 45. Seems like we should include the most recent president, no matter how controversial his time in office has been? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.189.45 (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The 44 does include him. Remember Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms.Xenologer48 (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson Portrait
Photographic Portraits were taken of Andrew Jackson during his lifetime. I think the painting portrait should be replaced with a photograph as that would make the formatting more consistent. This is especially true because his predecessor and successor are both shown in photographs. Please let me know what you think about my proposed replacement photographic portrait below. This was taken a few years after he was president. But this is also true about the currently used portraits of John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.114.246 (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Restore old columns
So, is now an appropriate time to restore the "Previous office" column, which was a) encyclopedic, b) due, c) referenced, and d) interesting and relevant information? Seems to have been removed a few years ago because one of the entries might have been blank, or something, but we have a policy for that. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, its removeal (which I supported) came after a lengthy discussion at the start of this year (2020). I would point out that individuals' prior office information can readily found at: List of presidents of the United States by military rank List of presidents of the United States by military service  List of presidents of the United States by other offices held  List of presidents of the United States by previous experience. Drdpw (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see it now - funny, I could have sworn the column was removed after a debate four years ago; possibly it was discussed then, too. Ok, the removal was discussed in January by a small number of editors, and the information is available by clicking through several other articles. I'm at a loss to understand how scattering information through several articles is an improvement, but hey, consensus can change. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * a) It offered little to explain why someone was elected (Was Trump elected because he was president of the Trump Foundation? was William Henry Harrison elected because we was ambassador to Colombia? Was it Lincoln's single term in IL-7 that captured half the nation's heart? At best it applies to VPs who became president, and generals) and the years and numbering were extraneous. Also, it's subjective - do we include their "best known" office, or only their immediately previous office? It's simply not something that's best handled in a list format, you should rely on prose for that kind of info. b) "due"? d) Lots of things are interesting but they don't go in every article. We could include their hometown, lifespan, spouse, etc., all of which would be interesting to some people (and have been included in lists like this before) but are ultimately irrelevant for this list. --Golbez (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTPAPER. Why not include information that's available? WP is for the reader, not the editor. Including prior office wasn't/isn't there to explain why someone was elected. Nobody sait it was. It was there to tell you what the prior office held by a particular president wsa. Excluding material because it's covered in another article is possibly reason to look at merging the likes of List of presidents of the United States by other offices held (11,867 pageviews in the last 30 days) and List of presidents of the United States by previous experience (262,691 pageviews in the last 30 days) into this one (2.5 million pageviews in the last 30 days). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because not every tidbit of information belongs in every article? Yes, WP is for the reader, which is why we shouldn't inundate with irrelevant information that is more easily accessible in other articles. "It isn't there to explain why someone was elected" then why is it here? All that should be here is a list of the people in the office, the relevant information of how they were in that office (term, party affiliation, deputy, how they left, how they entered), and the information about said transitions (constitutional requirements, term limits, etc.) Or as I tend to put pithily, what the office was, who got there, and how. Everything else is extraneous to an understanding of the subject of "list of presidents of the United States". We could include all their children, especially the famous ones; we could say who their parents were; we could say that once, they helped lead the US to victory in a particular battle or war. But we don't. Because that's not relevant to this list, and IMO, neither is the previous office. The fact that one article has many many times more views than the other perhaps indicates that an infinitesimal percentage of the readers care about the subject; I of course realize it could be that an infinitesimal percentage of readers don't know the other article exists, but that's not exactly our fault, it's linked here. Also, the information is easy to aggregate as needed, along with life spans, places of birth and origin, etc., should one have an academic interest. --Golbez (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose restoring the old columns. GoodDay (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why? Surtsicna (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For the reasons that others have mentioned for their opposition. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * !votes don't count. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * what votes, i see a section full of discussion --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GD couldn't even be arsed to muster a "per so-and-so", just an "oppose", a few lines above. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because I've grown tired of repeating myself. But if it'll help - It can be misleading, showing prior offices. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020 (2)
Joe Biden Is Now POTUS!!!!!!!!! Add Him! WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Drdpw (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * When was Biden officially certified as the winner, or when did Trump concede? Until then, he should be listed as the projected winner. Media outlets don't decide Presidents. There is a legal process. Jbo5112 (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , neither is required. We listed Trump as the president elect four years ago when the networks called it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2020
Joe Biden is not the president elect. There are still ongoing investigations and widespread fraud. He will not be the president elect until the Electoral College votes him as the next president.

Please change this misinformation. 102.32.81.55 (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We follow consensus of the reliable sources, which all call him president-elect. All the states have certified their results and the Electoral College casts its votes for Biden on Monday. There are no ongoing investigations or proof of widespread fraud, just fraudulent lawsuits. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

New Truman image
The image for Truman is WAY too tight of a crop for this list, which prefers bust level photographs. My proposal is effectively the same image, just in the form of a looser crop. Thoughts? The Image Editor (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "looser". Also, I think the image fits well with the others. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Problem with President-elect of the United States, it isn't factual, yet
'''I'm not arguing for or against either candidate! Just appealing for accuracy!'''

The Constitutional process of selecting the next President isn't over yet (as of Nov 28, 2020). The election was held and Biden is the PRESUMPTIVE President-elect. But the Electoral College has yet to vote. The election is in dispute, just as it was with Bush-Gore in 2000. Until the dispute is settled either in the courts or by the Electoral College or by vote in the House. Article II, Section 1, Clause 3

For the sake of accuracy, I advocate changing the section on President-elect of the United States to reflect this. Perhaps as Presumptive President-elect of the United States, pending finalization of Constitutional process as outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3.

Shouldn't we try to keep these pages accurate?

Embunker (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't anything like 2000, so I oppose your proposal. GoodDay (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is very much like 2000 in that ballots are in dispute. Details differ, but the main thrust is the same. I was an active duty Air Force member and voter at the time. I recall the situation quite well. The election hasn't been finalized by the Electoral College, so there is not definitive winner. Can you provide some facts to back up your opposition? I'm interested in seeing them. Embunker (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , no, this is not like 2000. In 2000, Florida's electoral votes were determinative of who won the entire election, less than 600 ballots separated Bush and Gore in Florida, and there were butterfly ballots, hanging chads, and all sorts of other issues. None of that is the case here. Biden won, decisively. Trump's lawsuits are not going well. There is no case to reach SCOTUS this time. We always treat the winner of the election as the president-elect prior to the Electoral College's formal vote. We did it four years ago for Trump, so we do it now for Biden. We follow reliable sources. You'll find that they refer to him as president elect.One example – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

There are many anomalies in the votes in swing states. There are 100's of affidavits that suggest wide spread fraud. Yes, 2000 was pretty narrow. The votes in dispute is what I was referring to, not that they were identical. Common practice isn't law, when it comes to deciding an election. The Constitution lays out two ways for the election of the President: one is the Electoral College and the second is by vote in the House if the Electoral College can't come to an uncontested decision. In most cases in recent elections one candidate will concede. In this case there are numerous lawsuits underway. Some are working their way up to the SCOTUS level. I believe that everyone is rather jumping the gun here, taking the election as given while there is still legal dispute ongoing. But I can see that you care more for your ideology than for the factual matter of how the Constitution lays the process out. I at least tried. Too bad that ideology seems to have blinded the editors of Wikipedia to the pursuit of truth and accuracy. Embunker (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , affidavits are meaningless without evidence. And the courts are throwing these cases out. None of them are "working their way up to the SCOTUS level", they're getting tossed "with prejudice" by the district court judges. Also, Biden's wins in the swing states have been certified. The Electoral College vote is a rubberstamp on the popular vote, and Biden is president-elect. This is all accurate. What else is accurate is that your user page makes it clear that you're a Trump supporter, so it's funny that you're criticizing our "ideology". We're adhering to the ideology of facts, not alternative facts. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * TBH, Embunker, you're wasting our time here. GoodDay (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seconded. "I was an active duty Air Force member and voter at the time." I'm very curious what your status in the military has to do with your knowledge of voting laws and news. "Can you provide some facts" Don't do it, friends. Don't do it. That's bait. We can't win this one, the only acceptable move is not to play. --Golbez (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thirded (is that even a word?) Our job doesn't extend to assess the credibility of the results. Reliable secondry sources (not Trump, his supporters or Republicans) all call Biden the Vice- President-elect then so do we. The fact that it isn't, technically, legally the case yet is irrelevant. This is no different than in 2016 when we named Trump vice- president elect (a concession is nothing more than being a good loser, it doesn't actually mean anything). SSSB (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What? Trump vice president? GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm wrongly blaming this on the surgery I had last week. SSSB (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"The fact that it isn't, technically, legally the case yet is irrelevant." Says it all right there. At least y'all admitted it. Embunker (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Whatever. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I imagine you were upset that Wikipedia labeled Trump the president elect the day after the 2016 election? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

At least the word "disputed" should be placed after "President Elect". This is not too much to ask, for accuracy. To not acknowledge the current controversy makes Wikipedia look biased as "fake news" to half of Americans who are Republicans, and will probably decrease respectability and donations. This tends to drive users to alternatives such as Scholarpedia. Sad. 67.55.221.3 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that's alot to ask. Just because you dispute facts doesn't mean they're actually "in dispute". The concern trolling about donations isn't going to move any of us. We regular editors are volunteers, you know. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * IP, you're wasting our time. Go find an alternate-universe site & enjoy yourself there. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The U.S. Library of Congress is a credible source of information and does not list Biden as president elect. Wikipedia should to likewise. Library of Congress List of American Presidents 67.55.221.3 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden is the president-elect. You're wasting our time, IP. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason Biden isnt on that list is because he isnt president. He is still president elect. The only sad thing here is that Trump is acting like a spoiled 3 year old. Stating that Biden is the disputed president elect is inaccurate as there is no credible evidence that the election result could be overturned. One man and his cronies claiming election fraud (and brainwashing others to believe the same) does not make Biden a disputed president elect. SSSB (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A lot of that stuff is a backlash to the Russiagate BS, over these four years. Remember how Hollywood, Maxine Waters, etc behaved right after the 2016 prez election. The attempts to persuade (via Hamilton petition) electors not to vote for Trump & then the disruptions during the certification of the electoral votes in Congress? Then a few Democrats refusing to attends Trump's inauguration? GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

President Biden/Harris?
There is still pending states in the 2020 election and since networks don't decide the president, Biden should not be listed as the 46th president or president-elect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4010:2830:a859:6ad:5d27:616e (talk • contribs) 19:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We follow reliable, secondary sources. They (virtual) all project Biden as president-elect so we do too. SSSB (talk) 09:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Associated Press is calling the election, and they are cautious to a fault, then I think the race has been decided. Trump would have to win back Georgia and Pennsylvania (where he is down 66,000 ballots) as well as either Michigan (where is currently trailing by almost 150,000 ballots) or Wisconsin (where Biden is up 20,000 ballots) or Arizona (down 18,000) to get reelected. True, the Supreme court could overturn the ballots received in Pennsylvania after election day, but their number is too small to make up the difference. -- Kndimov (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)67.55.221.3 (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're wasting our time, IP. Suggest you find another site to push your theories. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The United States does not choose Presidents based on the Associated Press or any other media organization. The section on "President Elect Biden" is inappropriate, premature, and inflammatory to 75 million Americans. Wikipedia should wait until the evidence for massive voter fraud is specifically reviewed by the Supreme Court, for example: Georgia Senate Judiciary Committee hearings 67.55.221.3 (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We've heard this old argument before. Too bad about you & the rest of the 75 million Americans, but Biden won. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * United States does not choose Presidents based on the Associated Press or any other media organization.
 * That's irrelevant. As mentioned elsewhere we follow reliable sources. If reliable sources stated that there was evidence of mass voter fraud we would have reflected that, but they didn't.
 * The president elect is chosen by the electoral college, who have voted in Biden as president elect.
 * Waiting until the supreme court makes a ruling would be ignoring the truth. Biden IS president elect. Assuming he lives till noon on January 21, he WILL be president. You are wasting our time and if you think that the election will be overturned you need to wake up and get over the fact that Biden beat your candidate. SSSB (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean of course, Noon EST on January 20. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Official Photos?
For some reason, most of the presidents use there first term picture, but George W. Bush has his second term picture instead. Shouldn’t We Use His 2000 Picture? Here Is The Picture I Am Talking About. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMakersOfOurTime (talk • contribs) 20:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide explanations when responding to new issues brought to the talk page's attention. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the photo we have, it was actually taken in 2003 during Bush's first term, so we technically are using a portrait from his first term. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2021
I would like to add president Funny Valentine because I realized he is not on it. President Funny Valentine was the 23rd president of the United States. 73.243.71.194 (talk) 16:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: joke request. Benjamin Harrison was the 23rd president. SK2242 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Inauguration
Biden has just been inagurated, can I put him under Trump? AaronCR7god (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , no, Biden isn't president until midday Eastern Standard Time. That's in approximatly 13 minutes. SSSB (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay then AaronCR7god (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The note should really say a time on inaguration day, not until after he sworn in, then. Banak (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Biden's photo
Can we please decide on a 'new' image for President Biden? I realise that a few editors don't like the status-quo image, as it's of Biden as vice president. GoodDay (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think that's a silly rationale, he still looks pretty much the same. However, I suggest this one, which is a frontal shot (instead of the 3/4 shot people keep inserting) whilst being a recent picture. Seems like a reasonable compromise. SSSB (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm firmly in favour of File:Joe_Biden_official_portrait_2013_cropped_(cropped).jpg. It may be him as VP, but I'm not sure that's a good enough reason to do away with it given how recent it is. This image is more consistent with other presidential images (facing the camera directly), and so I think it's an acceptable temporary picture until his official Presidential portrait is released. — Czello 14:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm content with using the veep image, until the White House releases the official presidential image. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that he looks exactly the same, I think in more recent pictures he looks quite different from the Veep picture from 2013. Are Jay Morrison (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Images need to stay as is...
...up to and including Trump. People are still swapping images about, bur there is a consensus established for the images on the list (as 04/2018), and any changes to them should be discussed first. There are suppressed notifications advising users of the RfC, so they should be abiding by that. - wolf  17:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's been a struggle ever since. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So I see... - wolf  22:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to add an "Elections as President" column
It wasn't at all clear to me from this table that there were 5 Presidents who were never elected to the office (John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A Arthur, Gerald Ford) and who were thus only chosen by at most one party, and only one who was elected more than twice (Franklin D. Roosevelt, 4). An extra column with this number wouldn't take much space and would help in understanding the table. Chris55 (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If the existing "election" column isn't clear to readers, I suggest we simply change that existing "election" column rather than add another. SSSB (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that that column is already overloaded, dealing as it does with both presidential and vice-presidential elections, either of which may not extend to a full term. It does a good job at the moment, but trying to make it do more would probably break it. Chris55 (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would oppose adding another column. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For Wikipedia tables this is pretty slim. If you want to see what it looks like, I've made a version in my sandbox. Chris55 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seen it & still oppose. We don't need more columns. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok another option is to add it after the president's name. e.g. George Washington (2) or after the dates. Chris55 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There's a better alternative that could be pulled from the governor lists that I could implement. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Something like this? Drdpw (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Notes


 * I support #1 proposal. PS - The notes where required, can be used to elaborate on tickets. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Almost; the newer format is to not include the election for people who weren't elected in it. So I would do it like this, plus all my other favorite new formattings:

Notes


 * My reasonings for the above:
 * The color bar serves as a useful anchor for the row; as it does not transmit information itself, it does not need to be tied to the party column.
 * The scope is the president, not the presidency, so their name should be given the row scope.
 * In this example, the 1864 election was for Lincoln and Johnson to the presidency and vice presidency. As this is a list of presidents, not vice presidents, we should not just rowspan 1864 to include Johnson as well. This should instead be a small bit where we explain why Johnson is now president.
 * We don't need to fill in the dates where the office was vacant, or when they succeeded, because that is handled by the term column (which now includes why they left office)
 * This is a personal crusade of mine, but party changes should only be included if that was what they were elected under. If the president is the anchor of the row, the election is the pivot. It defines everything about their party, their running mate, etc. The party should only reflect how they were elected, with footnotes for changes. It's too hard to pin down party registrations, or if that should even matter.
 * Likewise, if they weren't on the ballot on election day, I prefer to consider them 'not candidate', even if they were in the running earlier but gave up or didn't win the nomination. Again, it's a minor thing, but I prefer to tie all this info to the concrete election, rather than having to dive into oft-incomplete party records and contemporary news.
 * Having a second color bar for VP helps balance the row visually, and gives a visual note closer to the election. We don't need to explain their party unless it's different from the president. --Golbez (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Problem is, an election covers the entire 4-year term, regardless of whether it's the same president throughout that term. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An election is a discrete event. This makes this a useful column to help explain how someone became president, and the small text in date helps explain how someone stopped becoming president. It moves info from footnotes into the table in an inobtrusive and, imo, understandable and accessible way. --Golbez (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, the 2nd of these proposals solves the issue I mentioned although at the cost of an extra column. Thinking about it the simplest way to present the information is to use the President column as shown below. (The full table is at my sandbox2.) Chris55 (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I oppose #2 proposal. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Notes


 * We'd be better off sticking with the status quo. Otherwise, you'll have a mess with the Nixon entry, which has his two veeps serving in a unique situation. Trying to fix this, will only mess it up. GoodDay (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the current format has problems—e.g. the inability to sort columns—but does handle all the strange situations. Adding the (0) after Gerald Ford (&c) provides a clue for the first time reader of the table to make sense of the situation that isn't there at the moment. Chris55 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I absolutely must argue against the numbers as they mean absolutely nothing without any further context. --Golbez (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not entirely remove the election column from this article & from the List of vice presidents of the United States article. GoodDay (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it adds useful information, and has been a part of multiple featured governor lists? --Golbez (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would make the table even more difficult to understand. A simpler way would be to stop the extension of one box of the election column extending further and simply leave the second box empty or with a suitable statement. What would you use: assumed or ascended or? I'm not used to these constitutional niceties. Chris55 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I concur with Golbez regarding #3, that the numbers "mean absolutely nothing without any further context". Also, I am opposed to cutting-off the extension of an election cell when a POTUS dies/resigns and is succeeded by the VOPTUS, as the Electoral College votes for both and so both are indeed elected to their respective office in that election (this of course was not the case for Ford in 1974). My proposal, #1, attempts to address the original core issue, though it does not denote which VPs who succeeded to the presidency intra-term were never "elected POTUS in their own right" and does not contain the additional column. How could the efn-notes in #1 be improved? Chris55: would adding a sentence stating "He was never elected president in his own right" (to Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur & Ford) work?  Drdpw (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm rather confused by all these numbers. Is the original proposal deemed to be #0? It seems to have been missed. Assuming that to be so, no, Drdpw, a footnote wouldn't achieve the same effect. My proposal is for the simple-minded reader who probably won't read them anyway. I don't understand why they "mean absolutely nothing without any further context". The context is all around. Is this an ideological stance (can't have an unelected president!!!)? In most cases (except Ford) the evidence is there. Chris55 (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * My reasoning for cutting it off: Look at the first example. Harrison president until April 4 1841, then Tyler president. Why? There is zero context in the table itself as to why Tyler is president. You have to go to footnotes. That's bad design. So, first, we put in the term column the reason the president left office. But that doesn't in itself explain why Tyler became president. That can happily go into the election column. Yes, they are both elected together, but this is a list of presidents, not vice presidents, and therefore should concern itself primarily with that. The election column is a useful place to add changes that happened outside the context of an election. Neither Tyler nor Johnson were elected to the office of president; therefore they should not have an entry in the election column. I would be against adding a footnote about "not elected to presidency in own right" as, well, I'm biased for my own proposal, but it handles that without further need for notes. --Golbez (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would oppose the numbers in parentheses as well. In addition to being confusing (to me at least), I really don't think it is necessary to include the number of elections as president in the table. It is no more notable or useful than other pieces of trivia, such as home state, or birth and death years. Drdpw's proposal #1 is the best, in my opinion. Jacoby531 (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I oppose the #3 proposal. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not support or oppose any of the above, for I know that despite being used in multiple featured lists, the community on this article has long been against modernization, and I don't expect that to change. --Golbez (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could support proposal one and two, proposal three is just (at least to me) unclear what the numbers in brackets represent. SSSB (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No drastic changes needed
This started with: "It wasn't at all clear to me from this table that there were 5 Presidents who were never elected to the office (John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester A Arthur, Gerald Ford)...". We're only talking about five guys. Why make changes to the entire table when a simple linked note will do? The numbers are just... no. And little notations such as "(not candidate for election)" are not at all helpful. It just creates questions for the reader which necessitates a search for answers. Any President or Vice-President with any usual circumstances can just have them ref/noted. (jmho) - wolf  23:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

45 presidents
Thanks for letting me know this has been discussed, Drdpw, but I cannot find the threads. How is "45 persons who have served as President of the United States" different in meaning from "45 presidents"? The nuance is entirely lost on me. Surtsicna (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Biden is the 45th individual to serve as US president. Why is he numbered as the 46th US president? Because Cleveland is counted as the 22nd & 24th US president, due to his serving non-consecutive terms. If Trump were to run again (in 2024) & win back the White House? He'd be listed as the 45th & 47th US president. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, but that does not answer my question. 45 people who have been president = 45 presidents, right? Surtsicna (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For less familiar readers, I recommend changing it to "45 individuals have been president". GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Because otherwise people might think "45 presidents" = "45 people each following the last one" which is not correct thanks to Cleveland who both followed and preceded the 23rd president. Regards So  Why  19:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How does "45 persons have served as President of the United States" make it clear to people that they did not each follow the last one? It means exactly the same thing as "there have been 45 presidents". I am genuinely perplexed. Surtsicna (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Surtsicnac: Looking back, I see now that this topic has only been discussed a couple times over the years; I must have mixed-up talk pages. Mea culpa. The nuance is that there have been 46 presidents of the United States but only 45 persons have served as president. Drdpw (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not sound right at all. Cleveland having served two non-consecutive terms (and being counted officially as both the 22nd and 24th president) does not make him two presidents. Do reliable sources really say that Grover Cleveland was two presidents? Surtsicna (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * He was president twice, as the 22nd president and as the 24th president. Drdpw (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand, but that does not mean he was two presidents, does it? The only way there could have been 46 presidents is if Cleveland is considered two presidents. Is that not ludicrous? Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, while it might sound ludicrous to you, it does mean that he was in essence two presidents. "While Donald Trump will be the 45th president, he will be only the 44th person — the 44th male — to actually hold the job." [] – Drdpw (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do hope it sounds ludicrous to you too, and I must take issue with your claim that Cleveland was "in essence two presidents". What kind of essence goes against basic arithmetic? I understand that Trump is conventionally called the 45th president. That is still different from there having been 46 presidents. Do we have sources for the number (not numbering) of presidents? Surtsicna (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Google it; primary and secondary sources will say that, including the incumbent, there have been 46 U.S. presidents. Drdpw (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am Googling but finding little support for the notion in academic literature. Perhaps you could provide a source or two? What I have found are books by constitutional law expert Henry J. Abraham, who in 2008 wrote of "our 43 presidents" and in 1999 of "our 42 presidents". Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And I just realized that does not help my case. Surtsicna (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I've lost track here. What exactly is being disputed? Including the incumbent, 45 individuals have been US president. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody can blame you. What is being disputed is the difference between 45 individuals having been US president and there having been 45 US presidents. Apparently, those are not the same thing. Surtsicna (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that they are not the same thing. Cleveland is considered the 22nd and the 24th president. Sources say that Biden is the 46th president. (I.e. including Biden there have been 46 presidents) despite being the 45th person to hold that role. As daft as it sounds, this is what sources often say. SSSB (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The third sentence of the lead reads; "Since it was established in 1789, the office has been held by 45 people in 46 presidencies.. I think that makes it clear enough, 45 Presidents/ 46 presidencies. Not sure what the debate here is otherwise. - wolf  20:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That wording was introduced as a result of this discussion. Surtsicna (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, didn't see where any changes had been proposed and agreed to. Just figured the word "presidencies" would be helpful with what otherwise was a seemingly endless, circular exchange. - wolf  01:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What was the write up before Biden took office? GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Prior to Inauguration Day the sentence read, At the start of this discussion—post-Inauguration Day—it read,  Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How about we got with "Since the office was established in 1789, there have been 46 presidencies, while 45 men have served as president". GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like it the way is now, consensus wording that is clear and concise. Drdpw (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Prior Office
I see that on 20. jan 2020 the section for Prior Office was removed with the explanation "Whoops bye bye prior office, no one will miss you". I don't see the reason for removing this, and I think it should be added back.

Though I think in cases of a Vice President succeeding to Presidency it should also include their previous elected office before becoming VP.

2001:700:302:11:0:0:0:110 (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, for clarification, that edit was 20 Feb (Special:Diff/941739042). Also note that a simiar proposal was made in November 2020. Also note that the column removal was discussed here in Jan 2020.
 * Personally, I don't see how such a column is necessary or waranted there, given that we actually already have such a list, List of presidents of the United States by other offices held. I'm also not sure what the relevance is of such a column being added here. Prior office is not a condition of presidency, nor does it appear to be something voters pay attention to (Trump had no prior office and still became president over politicians who were significantly more expirenced than him). SSSB (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't see how such a column is necessary or waranted there, given that we actually already have such a list, List of presidents of the United States by other offices held. I'm also not sure what the relevance is of such a column being added here. Prior office is not a condition of presidency, nor does it appear to be something voters pay attention to (Trump had no prior office and still became president over politicians who were significantly more expirenced than him). SSSB (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)