Template talk:US Presidential Administrations

Proposal to redesign the Administrations template

 * The following is a closed discussion of a proposal to redesign Template:US Presidential Administrations. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in the RfC secton below on this same subject. Note: this discussion was originally posted on, and has been moved in its entirety from, Template talk:US Presidents. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Drdpw (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I made a redesign separating the U.S. presidential administrations via century, here. Comments are much welcome.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No probs. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Are the changes you made in that test edit&mdash;replacing cardinal numbers with ordinal numbers and a colon; replacing full names (that match the article title) with last names only (using initials where necessary); and dividing presidents into century groupings&mdash;changes you're intending to propose for this template as well (and the VPOTUS template too)? If so, how about putting together a design concept for this template in your sandbox, that way we can discuss this template, rather then another. Drdpw (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, . I don't intend for any changes to this template, just for the Administrations one.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see,, OK. You've anticipated 2 changes to the new template that I'm planning on making later this evening, employing last names (with initials added as necessary) and expanding the list to include all presidents' "presidency of" links. I'm also going to switch to cardinal numbers so as to match this & the VP templates. Regarding ordinal numbers plus colons and grouping names by centuries, those changes would need a broader discussion, as 3 templates are involved. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I am opposed to the 'administrations' template. It was a good idea, but it is pointless. Most of the 43 Presidents do not have articles dedicated specifically to their presidencies/administrations. As a result of this, most of the links are links to the biographies of said men. Unless we have articles on most, if not all presidencies, this box end up being the same thing as the Presidents' box with a few links to presidencies rather than to specific articles.  Spartan7W  &sect;   15:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * At the present time, 23 of the 44 persons (52%) who have (or will soon, this numbers includes Trump) have "presidency of ..." articles. I've created one and am working on another (Madison). has written several, and will perhaps do more in the future., could you create a couple articles? I see your point, but rather then seeing it as a reason for deleting the template, I see it as a reason to create new articles (and I mean going beyond simply cutting and pasting from the main bio articles). Might you u|Spartan7W, be willing to create an article? Would anyone else be? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I'm done making presidential articles for now, but I'd like to once again say that I support the separate templates. It may never be worth creating presidency articles on all of the presidents (looking at you, William Henry Harrison), but we have articles on over half of the presidents, including all but two of the two-termers (Madison and Monroe being the exception) and all of the post-World War II presidents. I think the template could be very useful for the reader in learning about and navigating to different presidential administrations. Orser67 (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would note that only seven of our fifty-four prime ministers in Britain have a "premiership of ..." article, but that doesn't stop us from creating British premierships. So what if Presidency of John Adams is a redirect? It really doesn't matter. Someday perhaps, an article for John Adams's presidency will be created (perhaps after you or I have left Wikipedia). There is every chance that someone could forget to update US Presidential Administrations. If were to just add "presidency of ..." redirects to the template, there wouldn't be any problem if anyone forgot to update it, since the hitherto redirect link would already be there in the first place.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I have reviewed your observations about my original new draft and I have thusly made a number of tweaks. See here for the revised template. Instead of centuries, I separated presidents from (a) the beginning of Washington's term (b) the end of the Civil War (c) end of the second World War (d) end of the Cold War. Looks pretty neat, IMO.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * , why does the presidential administrations template need a new design? It's formatted to (closely) mirror this template and the US Vice Presidents template. These templates are a set. What's wrong with the way this set of 3 templates is formatted? (I know that you "don't intend for any changes to this template, just for the Administrations one", but one shouldn't be altered in isolation from the others). Drdpw (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily need a new design, but I don't see a problem why not. Yes this design happens to be quite different from US Presidents and US Vice Presidents, but I don't see what's wrong with spicing things up a bit (since otherwise the US Presidential Administrations just looks like a spin-off/fork of the US Presidents template). It looks a lot neater the way I redesigned it, and looks a lot less like a unnecessary duplicate of the US Presidents template. Have you any comments about the specific aspects of the redesign, ? Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Navigation template style guidelines I can find no justification for labeling the administrations template as its presently formatted a "spin-off fork" or an "unnecessary duplicate" of the presidents template (I find the opposite actually). Regarding specific aspects of your proposed redesign, why those specific period divisions? Why any? Why the change from center-align to left-align? Why remove the presidential seal? Everything you've said up until now in support of your redesign can be boiled down to "I like what I've come up with", and that's not a valid reason to alter the template. Drdpw (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not attempt to justify labelling the administrations template as either a "spin-off fork" or as an "unnecessary duplicate". All I'm saying is that some people may look at it that way. Shying away from making the administrations template rather different from its parent template should not be dismissed unreasonable; it actually helps us differentiate it from the parent template and hence justify its existence as a separate template. (FWIW, I based the new design on United Kingdom premierships.)
 * Why those specific period divisions? Why any?
 * Those specific period divisions signify the most important and seismic eras in American history.
 * 1789: when Washington was inaugurated as America's first president.
 * 1865: when the American Civil War ended with the first assassination of any American president.
 * 1945: when World War II ended with America eventually vying with the Soviets for nuclear superiority.
 * 1991: when the Cold War ended with America as the sole superpower on the planet.
 * Those divisions also help to neaten and organise the template IMO. We live in an era of Make America Great Again anyway, so the era divisions certainly strike a chord with plenty people.
 * Why remove the presidential seal?
 * Looks like superfluous clutter to me. It is already included at parent US Presidents anyway, getting rid of it helps make the administrations template look less like a duplicate and more like a template on its own and in its own right. I did compensate with the American flag, which takes up a lot less space and appears much more compact than the seal.
 * Everything you've said up until now in support of your redesign can be boiled down to "I like what I've come up with", and that's not a valid reason to alter the template.
 * Neither is it a valid reason not to alter the template. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and dismissing this redesign out of hand just because you just don't like it is neither fair nor democratic. Hello, what are you thoughts on the proposed new layout? Thanks.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are you turning this into a battle? My reticence here is not because I "don't like" your redesign; I'm not dismissing it out of hand. No, its because you're pushing a new design for a template that doesn't need a new design, and because you're insisting on making changes to one template, when it's part of a set.
 * Regarding your redesign, I do have some thoughts on the specifics. The divisions seem too random and, unlike your original centuries idea, aren't very useful. In fact, I only have minor hesitations about dividing the presidents by century. Reading the seal, while it may seem like superfluous clutter to you, its the presidential seal and this template is about presidential administrations. The seal also servers to tie that template with the main presidential template. I know you wish to differentiate them, one from another, but they're part of a set, and ought to be similar in layout. That said...

As we are supposed to be discussing the US Presidents template on this talk page, what does the group think about implementing century (or any other period) divisions on this template (as well as on the administrations & VP templates)? Also, should the seals be removed? Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave it the way it is (with the Cleveland exception, see below). GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily pushing for the redesign. For starters, I'm open to bringing back the seal, if it really is that big a deal. For the record, I have to disagree with your description of the era divisions as "too random" (I mean, surely the end of the Civil War and of WW2 signified the end of an era and the opening of a new one?). As I happen to see it, America's place in the world changed drastically in 1865, 1945 and 1991 (correct me if I'm mistaken). In my opinion, it's frankly ahistorical to believe that wasn't the case. Perhaps an RfC is in order here, as only you (and I think GoodDay) have commented on this matter as yet.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are the only one pushing for the redesign; you seem to also believe that its implementation is already a fait accompli. Drdpw (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It as much a fait accompli as it is for Mitt Romney to become your next SoS. Besides, not many people have commented on the redesign. I changed the period divisions from just years to names with this edit BTW. Sorry to ping/bother you again (YBG). I would very much appreciate your comments on this redesign of the US Presidential Administrations. Thanks. (FWIW, if I was really that arrogant about the redesign, I would have been WP:BOLD and implemented it myself.)--Nev&eacute;–selbert 10:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I must have read too much into your comment about restoring the seal in you reply to GoodDay, my error, sorry about that. Drdpw (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I fully approve of the redesign, it is an improvement. --Marbe166 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As the format of US Vice Presidents would be impacted by any changes decided upon here, a notice regarding this discussion, along with an invitation to participate, has been posted at Template talk:US Vice Presidents. Drdpw (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood this proposal. US Vice Presidents will  NOT  be affected by this proposal in any way.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 23:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not misunderstand your proposal. What I am attempting to get across to you is that your proposal should not be implemented on only one of 3 closely related templates. As I've stated before, US Presidents, US Presidential Administrations, and US Vice Presidents are a set, and should resemble each other as closely as possible. You can say, "but I like what I've come up with", and, "they don't have to be the same", but that won't change reality here. You've become so focused on pushing your redesign for that template that you can't see the forest for the trees. Take a step back, look at the big picture, and then, let's talk about change. Drdpw (talk) 23:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Last time that I checked, it wasn't Wikipedia policy to make certain that templates "in a set" (your words) should have the exact same design. The template as it currently stands looks nothing more than a WP:FORK of US Presidents. I am trying to differentiate US Presidential Administrations from its parent template to justify its existence as a standalone template, to set it apart and make it look unique so that any merge proposals in future would render redundant. This so-called "reality" that you speak of is completely subjective, as there is no consensus of sorts to justify it. Please stop trying to suggest that I'm "pushing" for a redesign. Of course, I fully register that you are not too keen (only a fool wouldn't know that). But to infer that I am "pushing" for a redesign is just aggressive rhetoric on your part to discourage me from trying to change the layout. Per WP:CON I am going about this proposal the right way (without edit-warring or threats, whatnot). You are not the owner of US-president related articles. (I must stress this again emphatically, as it really does feel that you are the chief steward in control of everything to do with these articles/templates) I would counter that it is you that should be the one taking a step back and looking at the big picture.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 00:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a redesign proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made the RfC secton below on this same subject. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC about whether this template should be redesigned
Should we keep the current design of this template concerning the presidencies of the United States, or consider a redesign? The issue was discussed above but without a consensus, with one user in favour and one  opposed. The reason why I feel the template should be revamped is rather straightforward; it looks more or less like a copy of US Presidents (with only terms of office to set them both apart), and a redesign would help differentiate it from that template and give it its own sort of feel. Furthermore, I chose to separate the presidents by era (rather than by century or whatnot) given that many regard the Civil War, WW2 and the Cold War as pivotal epochs in American history. Thoughts are much welcome.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 04:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the proposed redesign:


 * Comment: I like categorizing the presidents, in the first column, but think the categories should be by a set of years, also keep the years of the terms for the presidents next to each president.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think it's ok how it is. If it did get a new design, I think separating the presidents by century could work. Orser67 (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I concur Orser67, (for the reasons previously stated) the template is OK how it is. I also agree with you that, if a consensus is ultimately reached to change the formatting, that the presidents should be separated by century, not as originally proposed. I'd also prefer that the presidential seal be in the header rather then the American flag. Cheers Drdpw (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: The template in its current form does what a navigation template is supposed to do (provide navigation between existing & related articles) and does it well; it's a clear and succinct navbox. There is no compelling need for a redesign. Now, one change that might enhance the template would be adding a listing of presidential TL articles beneath. Timelines that currently exist are: Kennedy · Ford · Obama (2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, January 2017) · Trump.  Drdpw (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrations lacking their own article
Here's a list of the presidential admins that don't have an article, with my personal evaluation of whether they're ready for a split


 * 15 Buchanan-A little short, but presidency section seems pretty good for a non-GA (~25k). I'm going to try to improve the bio article, then split off presidency article.
 * 11 Polk-I plan on improving this article in the next month or two and then splitting
 * 8 Van Buren-Very short (14k), requires expansion, bio article is a good length overall and seems pretty good for non-GA.
 * 6 JQ Adams-Working on this after Buchanan. I'm going to improve the main article a little and then split.

Probably unnecessary to have standalone articles
 * 20 Garfield (FA bio)-probably unnecessary to have a standalone article; the bio and assassination articles seem to cover his presidency pretty well
 * 12 Taylor (GA bio)-he did serve for more than a year so a standalone article could make sense, but bio article seems to cover presidency pretty well
 * 9 WH Harrison (FA bio)-Died one month into his presidency, so I would say there's definitely no need

Orser67 (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought Bill Harrison died one month into his administration, March 4 - April 4, 1841. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right, thanks for the correction Orser67 (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Garfield & Harrison will be the most difficult to get info for their presidency articles, but not impossible. Garfield's clashes with Conkling & the fact that Arthur sided with Conkling, is definitely article worthy. As for W. Harrison? there was a spat between him & Henry Clay. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well imho the spat between W. Harrison and Clay can be adequately covered in Harrison's (and Clay's) article. But you may be right about Garfield. I certainly wouldn't call for the deletion of a solid Garfield (or Taylor) presidency article. Orser67 (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Orser67, I see from your updated list above that you're attending to the Buchanan, Polk & JQ Adams articles, so after taking a look, I'll work on improving/expanding the main Van Buren article some and then split the presidency section. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Orser67 (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Timelines
I've added links to presidential administration Tls, which I made mention of in the rfc above. One note, rather then link to each annual B.O. Tl, I made one link to the disambiguation page listing all 9. Of links to each one is preferred, I have no objection to changing it. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Timeline work
For anyone's who's reading this: the presidential timelines need work!!! They're pretty easy to work on! I can't do them alone! The timelines provide great reading material for many Wikipedia readers. -Ethanbas (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I will say this, that the current format looks like a bunch of names and dates crammed together in paragraph form. Since the presidents are 'displayed' in chronological order I would recommend arranging them in column form, perhaps in two columns. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅, hope you like it. — JFG talk 22:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice work! Looks so much better and easier to navigate. Many thanks. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Bold restyling
The recent discussion did not result in consensus to merge this navbox with US Presidents but we were pretty close to consensus on improving the style, and I see a similar request here. So I boldly applied the responsive-columns style, which you can exercise by widening or narrowing your browser window. Enjoy! — JFG talk 21:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks better to me. Ethanbas (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Looked abysmal, sorry. Feel free to revert, but I honestly believe we should aim for consistency with the sister template.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 18:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted because several editors approved the restyling, so probably we should have a discussion. One change where I agree with is that the links to articles about presidencies feel more natural on the dates than on the presidents' names. This would in turn beg for linking each name to each president's biography… but then we would have essentially created a merged template with US Presidents and we had no consensus for that. — JFG talk 02:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Informal poll
Let us propose three options for the styling and linking of this template: Opinions welcome. — JFG talk 02:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * A.
 * B.
 * C. Column version with links on the dates instead of the names, e.g. "Eisenhower (1953–1961)" instead of "Eisenhower (1953–1961)"
 * A- It's simple, clear, orderly and user friendly. Drdpw (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. It's fine and consistent with the sister template. As far as I can tell, that revision is totally shipshape.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a new draft here, if you're interested. Added a couple flags for decoration, while linking dates per Option C.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Why add decorative flag icons? Their inclusion would add nothing useful to the template. Drdpw (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There's hardly any harm done with a little decoration.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Harmless decoration is discouraged by MOS:FLAG. Doesn't seem to add value to this particular template. And I still believe the column layout is easier to read. — JFG talk 23:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Combo navbox proposal
Please comment on the renewed merge proposal following RfC consensus on styling. See the proposed combo navbox at Draft:US Presidents navbox. — JFG talk 14:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)