Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents/Archive 6

Help with Andrew Jackson, please
Hi all, I am working on Andrew Jackson in hopes of eventually bringing it to GA status. The early life section is somewhat of a disaster, and since some of the sources are offline, I was wondering if anyone would be willing to help me find and verify sources and information. Thank you in advance!  Go  Phightins  !  23:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer review request
Would anybody be willing to peer review Theodore Roosevelt? It got demoted from FA back in June 2008, and I have been actively working with and  to try to at least bring it back up to GA. Beforehand, a peer review would be much appreciated. Please click here to review. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

John Adams
Why is that article being made to stand out different from the others, by having President & Vice President uncapitalized in its lead? GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The Manual of Style is a little inconsistent on this. According to many style guides, president should never be capitalized unless being used directly as a title (e.g. Adams was president of the United States, but President Adams). But our Manual of Style distinguishes between the generic term president and the formal phrase President of the United States. This makes for inconsistencies where the word could be capitalized and lowercase in the same paragraph depending on whether "United States" appears after one of them. This also causes people to apply it inconsistently between articles. It certainly has nothing to do with Adams in particular. For what it's worth, I don't like this guideline at all and would rather have it capitalized or lowercase across the board. —Designate (talk) 17:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Designate- the MoS for this is rather confusing.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 18:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * True, but why only that particular article? I've tried on many occassions to bring that one article in line with all the other Prez & Vice Prez bio articles. It's easier to capitalize that one article, then try to uncapitalize the 60+ other articles. The latter I discovered months ago. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!


Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Conformity within the Presidential infoboxes
On going discussion on conformity of President biographies. Please add your thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Series Boxes
For Presidents whose biographies and tenures contain large amounts of important, pertinent information, I am creating various 'series boxes' for use on their biographies and related pages. Series have been done for Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore. With such figures as Lincoln, Washington, etc. being complex figures, such boxes enable the ability of teh reader to efficiently navigate important points in the timeline of teh President's lives.

There is a degree of overlap, maybe a bit of redundancy with the bottom templates on each individual, however, much like an infobox, it creates an efficient, intelligible location for the organization and presentation of important topics. For William Henry Harrison or Warren Harding, such boxes are unnecessary, but in these cases, by stringing together a series of articles which represent and 'tell the story' of the said President, we create a roadmap for the reader. If the reader searches 'Gettysburg Address', he will read the page. He will also see this 'series box' on Abraham Lincoln, and it provides an efficient way for him or her to explore complicated and important figures.

For those concerned, there won't be 43 of these, one for each President. But in areas of interest and importance, their inclusion is a good direction for this WikiProject.

EXAMPLE -->

 Spartan 7W  §  05:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I will be making a style manual for these soon In the case of the series boxes for POTUS and VPOTUS, the seal at the bottom of the box, below the signature is the Presidential one. As the highest office held, the President's seal takes precedence. While Theodore Roosevelt may have held many offices, President is the highest, and the Presidential series box style reflects that. In the case of Eisenhower, the inclusion of the 5-star O-11 insignia is prudent because General of the Army is a lifetime rank, suspended 1953-1961, but restored until his death in 1969.  Spartan 7W  §  14:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Marriage template
All of the U.S. President infoboxes have been changed in the marriage field to include a marriage year template. The editor doing so is fairly new and seems to be on a mission to make the change throughout the encyclopedia. To be clear, pretty much all they've been doing since they created an account on July 21, 2015 is redoing infoboxes. Smells like a mission-oriented sock to me. Possibly blocked previously for the same behavior. Diff for one of U.S. President infoboxes is here. Until this change, all of the infoboxes had a uniformity in the marriage field. My personal opinion is that aesthetically (and in the way of reader-understanding) it's not an improvement. Further, I am not aware of any policy that all Wikipedia bio infoboxes must be changed to include the marriage template. Is there such a policy/guideline? What do those of you involved in improving US President articles think/have to say about this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was only trying to help, not "we". Obsessive over something hardly important to my work, yes, there I am again, distracted from what I really should be doing: pointless perfectionism. Your assumptions hurt, I was always told never to judge people, let alone people I don't even know. I am, a constructive contributor, full stop. Whether my opinion matters in this debate is question, but I obviously give light support to the retention of the template. Sometimes people get things wrong, and of all people I would have expected you to understand more than most. Neve-selbert (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * As I already said on my talk page, there was no offense intended. Just observations that raised some red flags for me.  I have no problem with people getting things wrong honestly.  If that's the case here, no harm, no foul, and we can just go forward. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Should I revert the edits, then? Neve-selbert (talk) 05:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seriously, don't worry about it. I'd like to see what others in this project have to say first.  One thing to remember (well, two things): you really can't break anything here and there is no deadline.  Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓  05:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine. Pointless, but harmless. Unless adding a template increases load times or something, I'd say let's leave the changes be. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Siblings of Presidents of the United States has been nominated for discussion
Category:Siblings of Presidents of the United States, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Fathers of Presidents of the United States has been nominated for discussion
Category:Fathers of Presidents of the United States, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Please See - Submissions
https://wikiconference.org/wiki/Submissions --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject United States - The 50,000 Challenge
--- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead image at John Quincy Adams
Calling all editors to form a consensus on the lead image at John Quincy Adams. YoPienso (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move notice
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:United States Presidents and control of Congress, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM   (talk to me)  20:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

All Presidents are politicians?
There is discussion (Donald Trump talk page) about whether Donald Trump should be called a "politician" as part of the lead and list of occupations.

Some feelings include that Donald Trump is going to be President, which is a political office. Other feelings include that Trump was elected as being not a politician. Still other feelings are that Trump has not held prior political office. Another feeling is that mentioning politician if the only political office held is president because it is redundant.

An examination of other articles of Presidents show that generally they are not called politicians in the lead.

This discussion was prompted by the Trump article but is brought here for the improvement of all Wikipedia presidential articles.

Proposal: All articles of President should not have the occupation of "politician" added for consistency except in very unusual cases. 19:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC) (Original unsigned proposal posted by Usernamen1)


 * Later, alternate proposals posted by Lakeshake:
 * Pardon my language but this RFC is so fucked up. Let me suggest a new RFC with the following language:
 * Proposal: All articles of President should not have the occupation of "politician" added for consistency except in very unusual cases. (copied from above)
 * Alternative proposal: All articles of President should not have the occupation of "politician" added for consistency except in very unusual cases.
 * Alternative proposal: All articles of President should have the occupation of "politician" added for consistency except those who never held office before, which would be Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, and (vomit) Trump.
 * Note: Since the RFC is what it is, don't vote on these alternatives but you can comment on them.

Lakeshake (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as nominator. Usernamen1 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment:, I think you are going to want to read WP:Advice pages; per longstanding consensus and a number of ArbCom rulings, WikiProjects are not the space to hold broad-ranging RfCs or other discussions which attempt to restrict the content of a large number of articles which the members of the WikiProject can view as within the purview of the project. Creating a standard on a WikiProject and then attempting to enforce it as a "guideline" on all articles that one views as within the scope of that project is considered WP:Disruptive editing and can lead to sanctions. Rather,  editors working on each individual article will still need to construct their own WP:Local consensus on each article, based on the content, sources, context, and any applicable policies and guidelines (again a discussion on a WikiProject constitutes neither local consensus nor a guideline in any sense, and attempting to enforce the outcome of such a discussion is prohibited, while even attempting to create such an idiosyncratic standard on a WikiPorject is generally viewed as counter-productive, to the extent that editors will try to use it as evidence to force a particular outlook in a local consensus discussion or set aside a decision made via local consensus).


 * Taking all of this together, you may wish to close this discussion and concentrate your energies on the discussion on the Donald Trump talk page, for two reasons: 1) whatever decision reached here, it will not mandate a specific approach on any article, though it may confuse some novice editors into thinking they can take the result of this discussion to an article talk page to enforce the outcome here upon that article, which will almost certainly lead to disruption and administrative oversight, and 2) this looks an awful lot like WP:FORUMSHOPPING (i.e. you are concerned that your preferred approach may not prevail in the local consensus discussion already underway on this topic on the Trump page and you are therefore trying to override it by establishing your preferred interpretation here). That too is considered problematic and disruptive, which has particular implications in light of the fact that the Trump article is covered under WP:discretionary sanctions.  S n o w  let's rap 09:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is very disruptive editing to falsely accuse others of disruptive editing. Rather one should realize that article talk pages often have isolated groupies and discussion on a wider scale is helpful to gain direction.


 * It is very disruptive to falsely accuse others of forum shopping when simply the next level and one level only was used to gain insight. Forum shopping is when one does not only a RFC on a WikiProject page but also goes to ANI and/or the Arbitration Committee at the same time.


 * Wikipedia is suppose to have a uniform standard which doesn't mean that Wikiproject make widespread law but does give some direction. For example, the aviation wikiproject gives guidelines on how to write airline flight crash articles. To say that every single crash must re-hash if the crash is notable and what format is frankly poor advice. Usernamen1 (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Except you aren't here for the sake of generating input on just any particular issue or general area of advice--you are here to ask the exact same question already being discussed on the talk page for a particular article, and furthermore, you've done it with an explicitly non-neutral RfC introduction that does not present the issue from both sides, as RfC guidelines direct, but in fact advocates very clearly for a particular perspective which will be dispositive as to the issue on the Trump page, where previous consensus seems to be against your position; I'm just trying to tell you how that looks. Look, two things: First, I absolutely WP:AGF that your intention is not disruption here. But as fairly new editor who seems to be operating mostly on a single issue here, which happens to fall under discretionary sanctions, you might consider that you don't know all of the ins and outs of how these processes work here and consider taking the advice in the spirit it was offered.  Second, and for contrast, you're also free to ignore said advice.  But don't say I didn't warn you if it blows up in your face!  S n o w  let's rap 05:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Comment - I generally agree but think one should state the advice as what to do rather than as what to not mandate. In this case I think one could make a general WP:BLP case that the article body should show significant events and basic stats (marriage, birth, children, school, etcetera) and the lead as summary show the more prominent life roles listed roughly in order of prominence in reliable sources.  Presidents seem to show 'politician' unless that is precluded by 'statesman' (higher level of service for the country and public regard) or general that then became president due to his fame as general.  For Trump, I suspect his most prominent or frequent label is 'billionaire', followed by 'real estate developer' and 'reality-show star', with politician not prominent.  By simple Google I see 770+ million hits without politician' and only 53 million with, so I'd lightly lean on it not going into the lead but OK if it does.  Functionally he is doing politics now and will in the future so 'politician' may rise in public perception and WP:RS, but until and unless that is the case I think there is a minor preference but folks can go either way.  Markbassett (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Given that Trump has been in the public eye at a consistently high level for decades and only recently entered into politics as a candidate, I would say that 53 million out 770 million (or roughly one in fifteen of all sources) suggests that the vast majority of contemporary sources are associating the term politician with him. But I'm really glad to see someone making an argument from the sources in any event; looking at Donald Trump talk page, it looks like almost everyone involved in the current round of this discussion is making arguments that are plainly based on their idiosyncratic notions of what makes a politician (that is to say, WP:Original research).


 * Indeed, the OP has brought that same mindset here in the statement of the RfC which, aside from beign completely non-neutral as to the arguments, makes absolutely zero reference to either a single source or a single Wikipedia policy; they simply have a notion of what Donald Trump "obviously" is/is not. If I were to respond to his arguments off-wiki, I'd say the following: Donald Trump is obviously a politician, by any reasonable customary use of the term.  He has run for (and won) the highest office in the U.S., personally overseen on of the largest and most involved political campaigns in history, mobilized his base through rhetoric relating to the public good, held rallies, given speeches, engaged in public debates, proposed domestic and foreign policies, held extensive discussions with other politicians about said policies, gathered endorsement, made political appointments for his incoming administration, publicly critiqued his opposition in the campaign on grounds of policy, character, and qualification, entered into publicized negotiations ostensibly on the behalf of American citizens....the list goes on and on.  Virtually every activity which defines the work of a politician, Trump has engaged in on a large, public, and professional level.  Frankly this desire to avoid any kind of attachment of politics to his name is unnerving and speaks to a burgeoning cult of personality employing a kind of newspeak.  To a vocal contingent of Trump's core supporters, he simply can't be a politician because for them (and in much of Trumps own campaign rhetoric), "politician" is a bad word; politicians are the guys in the swamp that Trump is going to drain, so  "obviously"  trump can't be one of them.  But politician as as it generally applied, as Wikipedia uses it and (crucially to this discussion) as most of our sources use it, is not derogatory--it's a clinical, empirical word that simply means something along the lines of "one who engages in the political process at a significant level, as something more than a private citizen."  I understand why a large number of Trump supporters are keen to distinguish him from "career politicians" or "establishment politicians"; at this point in time, that seems like a fair distinction.  But to say he is not a politician at all, just to support his branding? Nonsense.


 * But again, that's all really incidental; these kinds of interpretations amongst our editor base are, at best, a little of useful context for framing the issue; the major lever upon which we have to make this decision will be what the WP:Reliable sources say. If the community decides that the WP:WEIGHT issues are such that politician should not appear in the lead, that would be the wrong call in my opinion (which is probably why it seems as if every time this topic has come up on the talk page, the "Trump is not a politician" argument has been rejected), but it would be a legitimate expression of consensus based on the policies.  By contrast, anyone trying to argue that Trump is or is not a politician based on their own view of what constitutes a politician is obviously a very inexperienced Wikipedia editor--or else one who has allowed their personal feelings to cause them to lose sight of policy.  Which is why I am not surprised to learn that Trump's article has been added to the discretionary sanctions list; I expect we'll be seeing a lot of discussions like this as every third RfC notice I have received in recent months has been for that talk page...  S n o w  let's rap 02:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

* Oppose  Donald Trump is now President-Elect. As such, he's a politician, just as much as he's a businessman. It's a fact at this point, so I see no compelling reason to exclude that term from his list of accomplishments.  (* This post was edited by KoshVorlon - due to a mistake in the vote * )  Kosh Vorlon '''  20:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please clarify. Are you saying you think "politician" should be included or excluded in the description of presidents (and Trump) on BLPs? The proposal is very strangely worded. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying that "politician " should be included in the description of the presidents. Presidents, no matter what their background, enter, work and live in a political world. They are, then, by definition and in fact, politicians. It is their job, once they enter the whitehouse. (I'm not being snippy or anything, just seems obvious to me that that's what they are :) )   Kosh Vorlon '''  21:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the original poster has proposed the excluding of the word politician, so I'm guessing your !vote to support the proposal should probably be a !vote to oppose. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - All biographies of living persons about politicians, including presidents, should have "politician" in the lede of the article. This should include anyone who has successfully run for office, which would thus apply to Donald Trump. I also strongly oppose the existence of this RfC on the basis that it is essentially forum shopping, and I am particularly irritated that the original poster failed to inform anyone at Talk:Donald Trump about this discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support and oppose. There should be some sort of consistency. Other crap exists is not an excuse. All US Presidents should have an occupation of "politician" except in unusual circumstances. Maybe Washington may be given that benefit. Maybe stop at Washington. If expanded, candidates might include Grant, Eisenhower, and Trump. But Trump is so unpopular, including him may cause people to vomit. Lakeshake (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since launching his campaign in 2015, Trump has been the very definition of a politician. I'm not aware of any "unusual circumstances" whereby a politician should not be called a politician. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

* Comment  You're vote makes absolutely no sense. You can't oppose and support simultaneously. Kosh Vorlon ''' 14:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * comment This RFC has been a learning experience for me. I concede that it could have been written much better. To mention Trump in only makes it more complicated and detracts from the RFC. I now think that there should be no absolute rule but there should be some form of uniformity between similar articles, like US presidents. If that is the conclusion of the RFC, then that's that and no need to discuss specific exceptions in this RFC. Since nearly all Presidents have been either career politicians or have had fairly long stints of political office, that points to one direction. Finally, the nominator shouldn't control the duration of the RFC so I make no motion to close or continue it.Usernamen1 (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 *  Comment  You're correct.  I just changed my vote from oppose to support. My bad!  Kosh Vorlon '''  14:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification: The RFC reads "Proposal: All articles of President should not have the occupation of "politician" added for consistency except in very unusual cases. 19:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)" I support consistency except in very unusual cases. I oppose that the word "politician" is prohibited from the article. Lakeshake (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Somebody please close this malformed proposal. It is pure forum shopping, from a user who is losing an argument at one page looking for a fresh audience who might be persuaded to agree with him. As proposed it doesn't even make sense: "All articles of President should not have the occupation of "politician" added for consistency except in very unusual cases." Does that mean we must REMOVE politician from all the presidential articles? Or simply that not all presidential articles must have it? The way it's worded makes it impossible to even characterize one's opinion as "support" or "oppose". In any case, on the merits: the lede sentence of a biography gives the title or titles of the person's primary occupation/identity: "painter", "professor", "film actor", etc. Someone who runs for and wins the office of POTUS is by definition a politician. In the vast majority of presidential articles here that is the ONLY identity given in the lede sentence, since it overshadows other or previous identities such as "lawyer", "author", etc. In rare cases, where the person had a long-standing and highly notable primary activity prior to assuming the presidency (Reagan "actor", Eisenhower "general"), that activity is mentioned along with "politician" in the lede sentence, and that will probably be the case with Trump. But "politician" needs to be included, as it is for virtually all other presidential articles - no matter how much his sympathizers try to deny that he is one. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And BTW I apologize to the good folks here at WikiProject Presidents for this proposal messing up your page. If you want to comment in a better defined and more focused discussion, you are welcome to the Donald Trump talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know if this is snow because the RfC is confusing as to what we are supporting. I suggest that the OP withdraw. Objective3000 (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Reopen
All the commenting editors are Trump people, MelanieN, Usernamen1, Objective3000, Scjessey, Madrus. There needs to be non-Trump editors to have some input. By Trump people, I mean those who edit that article a lot. Ideally, there should be historian type editors that edit articles like Lincoln, Jefferson, Hoover, etc. Otherwise, we will get a Trump view, which is weird.

I've already said that this RFC is fucked up but I added some ways to fix it. Lakeshake (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Some passages of Calvin Coolidge's article are not followed by citations
There are parts in the Calvin Coolidge article that are not followed by source numbers. For example, the article said that Ronald Reagan's favorite 20th-century President was Calvin Coolidge, but I did not find a source in the paragraph. I am bringing up this issue here because I do not want to see this article eventually become demoted from the FA status. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 19:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote that article and still have the sources I used. It needs some improvement--FA standards have gotten stricter over the years. If there's something you think needs citation, leave a note on my talk page and I'll be glad to fix it (or delete it if it cannot be sourced). I also would like to see it keep its FA status. --Coemgenus (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute over whether a vice president takes office immediately or after inauguration
Calling all editors to consider comment at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 22:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Question on whether two links should be linked together in a president's infobox
Take Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, each of their infoboxes have them as the "3rd President of the United States" and "4th President of the United States" respectively, with "3rd" and "4th" linked to the list of presidents and "President of the United States" linked to the article of the same name. However with George Washington and John Adams we have "1st President of the United States" and "2nd President of the United States" linking to the list of presidents only. There is a major inconsistency here, of all 43 presidents (excluding Trump) only 11 follow the Jefferson precedent versus 32 that follow the Washington one. Which one should it be? Note per WP:SOB that. --Nev&eacute;–selbert 05:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer two separate links & will procceed to fixe the inconsistency. GoodDay (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely better to have a singular link per WP:SOB plus they both pertain to the same thing Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree, one link is to the office & the other to the list of individuals. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * We may need to open an RfC on this. Any thoughts?--Nev&eacute;–selbert 06:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added links to both articles, on all US Presidents & Vice Presidents bios articles infoboxes & intro paragraphs. Note: In all my years on 'pedia, it's very difficult to keep a series of articles in sync. GoodDay (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Two links are appropriate in this case. That being said, achieving consistency between 45 articles on Presidents is not a top encyclopedic goal, just "nice to have". — JFG talk 09:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Two links makes sense to me. More functional that way. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer two links, but per WP:SOB adjacent links should be avoided to prevent reader confusion. The MOS suggests two single-link alternatives: omitting one of the links or using just the more specific link. To retain both links, the MOS suggests rephrasing to separate them. I can think of three ways to do this, but there may be others:
 * 1st of the Presidents of the United States
 * (1st) President of the United States
 * President of the United States (1st)
 * If the links can be separated using one of these or some other technique, then I say use it consistently throughout in all articles. However, if we don't separate the links, my personal preferences are forced to yield to reader clarity. YBG (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Article similar to Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States at AFD
There is an article at AFD Articles for deletion/Lifespan timeline of Prime Ministers of Singapore which is similar to Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States. It would be helpful if people can contribute and discuss whether these are kind of articles are encyclopaedic. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Presidential sidebars
FYI, I have created a derivative of Sidebar called Sidebar/US President series which provides a uniform styling as defined by and tweaked by me. I have applied it to all presidential sidebars I could find in Category:President of the United States navigational boxes, except for Donald Trump series because that one has code to toggle the display of signature. Not sure we should keep this exception; other presidents have duplicated signatures between their infobox and their sidebar. Opinions? — JFG talk 02:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All signatures should be toggled. It just never occurred to me to change them all.  Spartan7W   &sect;   03:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see how to code this. — JFG talk 10:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ and the signature links to the main biography article. — JFG talk 11:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

New infobox for presidential documents
Discussion at Executive Order 13769 has thrown into light that there is currently a gap when it comes to infoboxes for Executive Orders and other Presidential Documents. I have started work at User:Sasuke Sarutobi/Template:Infobox U.S. Presidential Document, so will be grateful for any and all feedback. Thank you — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Lists of presidents (or lists of Presidents)
Currently existing articles include: and I'm sure there are many others. Now, some or all of the sub-lists under the last one have notes on their talk pages pointing to the move discussion at Talk:United States Presidents and control of Congress, where it is resolved that the word "presidents" in such article titles should not be capitalized.
 * List of Presidents of the United States
 * List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States
 * List of Presidents of the United States by net worth
 * List of presidents of the United States by military rank
 * Lists of fictional presidents of the United States

I suggest:
 * 1) That all such article titles should use a consistent style of capitalization&mdash;that this aspect of the talk page discussion should apply equally to all the articles I listed and others, whether they were mentioned in the discussion or not.
 * 2) Therefore, that lower case "president" should be used in all cases. Presumably this requires prior discussion, and I don't know where to suggest that that should be.
 * 3) That there should be a list of Lists of presidents of the United States, that would list all articles that list all the actual presidents in some manner. (The list of fictional presidents can go in a "see also".)  This is more convenient than finding them through a category such as "lists related to the US presidency".  I actually expected to find these lists listed in the "See also" section of either President of the United States or, more likely, of List of Presidents of the United States, until I glanced at the category and realized that there are probably quite a lot of them.  But a single "See also" item pointing to a list of lists would make sense.

I don't intend to stick around and participate on this. If the members of this WIkiproject think these are good ideas, then I leave it to someone else to run with them. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 13:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Donald Trump regarding lede sentence
Please comment on this RfC here regarding Donald Trump as president. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

List of nicknames of Donald Trump
Hi all, please note List of nicknames of Donald Trump as a list of interest to this WikiProject. It looks like a fork of List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States, which requires "common usage" for inclusion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:Donald Trump
You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Donald Trump. - MrX 🖋 18:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

New user request response about president rabbit attack
 Blue Rasberry  (talk)  14:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk:Jimmy_Carter_rabbit_incident

Discussion of interest
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptions of the Presidents' articles
is changing all of the short descriptions of the presidents to "American politician" (instead of "nnn president of the United States"). We need to establish and document a consensus on what these short descriptions should say. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I definitely oppose such changes to "American politician",, as it's too generic and the Presidency is a very distinct title that fewer than 50 people so far in history have ever held. SNUGGUMS (talk / <b style="color:#009900">edits</b>) 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see how that would be an improvement. Orser67 (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Balance at Forced into Glory
Please see:.

The article (on a somewhat controversial biography of Abraham Lincoln) rarely has editors or even talk-page comments, so additional input is requested. PoV issues with our article have been pointed out since 2009, and the off-site academic controversy involving the book's notable author, Lerone Bennett Jr., and his views about Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation goes back to the 1960s. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment at Dwight D. Eisenhower
Hi all, I'd like to request comments for an ongoing dispute between myself and another editor at Dwight D. Eisenhower. The gist of it is that, on the basis of WP:SummaryStyle, I shifted material from Eisenhower's main article to a few different subarticles on Eisenhower. The other editor disagrees and has reverted my entire edit. Thanks for your time. Orser67 (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Gerald Ford FAR
I have nominated Gerald Ford for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:32, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Nominee Sucession Boxes.
At Talk:William McKinley, there was talk over whether party nomination succession boxes should be included. If I'm correct, he is the only or at least one of the only presidents not to have these succession boxes list. Should they be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:B5B7:CC4D:4D7F:7FC2 (talk) 23:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Speech of LBJ
Hello everyone. I "published" the article Let Us Continue a few days ago. It deals with the first longer speech of Lyndon Johnson as US president. I translated the article from de.wikipedia.org This is my home wiki. There I had written this article from the scratch. Since I am not a native speaker, it would be helpful if someone interested in the topic could look at the article and improve it (wording, expression, grammar), if necessary. Thank you in advance. Atomiccocktail (talk) 06:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)