This template was considered for deletion on 2017 February 7. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
US presidents template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I guarantee you the "8 Others" by tomorrow. - Wikipedia 23:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This table is ridiculous. Footers are not replacements for lists. Now we can't easily navigate from president to president. I will revert if i find no good reason to keep. -- Jia ng 00:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean? If I can't make sense of a question, how can I answer? - Wikipedia 00:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang, I don't really like it either, although I tried to clean it up. It's incredibly crowded, and it replaces the standard incumbent table. There's no real reason to leap from Eisenhower to John Quincy Adams, there is a reason to go from Eisenhower to Kennedy. Also, why is your username written as Wikipedia? That seems kind of sneaky. jengod 00:35, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
I'll write my name however I want! Is there a reason to jump from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? Is there really a reason to jump from Arizona to the U.S. Virgin Islands? - Wikipedia 00:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Grover Cleveland should be put in once for each term to show chronological order. - Wikipedia 00:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is this really such a big change? I'm adding information and that is all! I'm not removing or changing anything, I'm just linking each president to every other president! - Calmypal 01:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You are making a stupid change. Harry Potter only has a few items. The Virgin Islands and Arizona have no clear chronological order. The presidents do. -- Jia ng
I reverted your edit becuase your name was made to create mass horizontal expansion. -- Jia ng
Whatever you believe, you do not have the right to erase my comments. Whatever happened to the page itself, it had no real effect on the chat. - Woodrow 01:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I reverted Timwi up to James Buchanan, but I have to go do another thing now. Could someone take over. I'm also adding this to VFD so it doesn't happen again. Thanks. jengod 19:27, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
What is wrong with this? There's reason to go from, say, John Adams to John Quincy Adams, or Abe Lincoln to James Garfield, and we can still go from Eisenhower to Kennedy. - Woodrow 20:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where's Timwi to discuss and defend this? I guess I'll have to revert again. -- Jia ng 21:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Or not. - Woodrow 21:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Presidents of the Continental Congress were not U.S. Presidents, and the office of President of the Continental Congress was not a forerunner of the office of U.S. President. The two should not be mixed up in the same message. -- Nunh-huh 21:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Look, I think it's gratutious, clunky, overstuffed, superfluous and more, but I'm willing to compromise--how about we do both the incumbent tables and the msg:Uspresident? I think that the incumbent table is imperative, not least because several were also VP incumbents or other incumbents. The msg:Uspresidents is not just not an added-value. jengod 21:48, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
With the original version of this message, the Vice President incumbent tables were shown inside the box. If that would work now, I'd agree with this idea. The incumbent tables pretty much mirror information that's in the table at the top of the page anyway. - Woodrow 22:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Please explain the meaning of that last sentence, Jengod...
You know what? I think I've started the largest edit war ever: one spanning about 51 articles. - Woodrow 22:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From Calmypal's talk page:
Please stop adding the footer because it is a waste of time. I will revert it as long as you fail to convince us of its need and create a consensus to use it. -- Jia ng
As long as you can keep removing it, I can keep adding it. - Woodrow 22:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean "who's responsible" (see page history)? - Woodrow 22:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The reason msg's like this are not encouraged is because there are some heads of state who are one in a list of hundreds. It would be completely unfeasible to have something like this for the Popes, for example. That is why there are little navigation tables with the previous and succeeding people, rather than a big list of everyone at the end. There is no reason to do it differently for US presidents. If you want to do something constructive, you could find a way to make the current tables more attractive. Adam Bishop 22:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From John Kerry's talk page:
Normally, we count George Washington as the first President, and John Kerry will be the 44th. However, according to a rectangular box at the bottom of George Washington's article, I now see 8 Presidents of Continential Congress, making George Washington the ninth President and John Kerry the 52nd. User 66.32.68.243
First of all, John Kerry will have to be elected before he becomes any number president. Second, we do not count Presidents of the Continental Congress in the sequencing, since they were presidents of that Congress, and not the executive of the United States. Cecropia 21:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
jengod 23:22, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I should mention the main reason I put the Presidents of the Continental Congress in in the first place; George Washington's incumbent table has it that he was preceded by "Previous government under the Articles of Confederation". Are we supposed to pretend that George Washington was the beginning of formal government in the United States? - Woodrow 01:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nor should we pretend that, alphabetically, American Samoa comes after Wyoming. - Woodrow 03:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The President of the Continental Congress was no more "President of the United States" than the "President of the Senate". They conflict because the top one says "Countries of the World" and the bottom one says "insular area". -- Jia ng 00:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Continental Congress was unicameral. The President of the Continental Congress was in charge of the country. - Woodrow 00:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
NGI (If you can figure out how I pronounce that)! It appears to me to mainly be Jiang and jengod going against this by themselves. How many others have aggressively campaigned against this? If anyone else was disturbed by this, they would be the ones removing the notice from every page. Personally, I consider it acceptance when it is allowed to remain on George W. Bush! - Woodrow 00:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Now that we have categories, this is redundant. Some presidential articles are getting too long. This is one of the things we no longer need. -- Jia ng 01:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We are now at the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the most interesting period of Wikipedia article history to study (How many of you Wikipedians can remember this time in Wikipedia history??):
On March 18, 2004, Calmypal brought up his President's template, taking all the President articles, removing the navigation tables, and replacing them with his template. Then, Jengod, finding the template, reverted them to the previous version with the navigation tables. and wrote a message on Calmypal's talk page. The argument went on for a while. Then came Timwi, who did the exact same thing; he took the President pages and replaced it with Calmypal's template. There was still no consensus to keep Calmypal's template. Then, several more times, Calmypal and Jengod argued on whether to use the navigation tables or Calmypal's template should be used. For a while after then, Calmypal's template remained absent. In April, it was finally a consensus; keep both the navigation tables and Calmypal's template. Georgia guy 02:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi there:
I noticed that the template has a row whose members are {{{before}}}, {{{after}}}, and {{{years}}}, and I'm going to eliminate this row once I've posted this message. Here's why:
— DLJessup 04:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This template needs repair. (The image of the seal falls outside and under the box. It should be inside, on the far right.) I'm going to try to read up on templates, to see if I can figure it out. If someone who know how could repair it, that would be great. Thanks. -- Evb-wiki 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on the layout of the template. Please see the version here which uses {{ Navigation with image}} and the other version there which uses the {{ Dynamic navigation box with image}}. Thanks. — MrDolomite • Talk 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Though their terms as Acting President were extremely short, they were the interim and should be treated as such. Therequiembellishere 01:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason why only the last names are listed? If any list of people would deserve both first & last name, this would be one. Does anyone object to listing them by both first & last name, and an occasional middle initial?-- Old Hoss 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I happened to be reading about the presidents and noticed that Barack Obama's name had been added. I removed it, you may consider protecting this from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txredcoat ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
maybe we should add Thomas E. Dewey and Al Gore to the list, on account of they OUGHT TO have won the elections that got stolen from under their feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 03:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please add into the Template czech interwiki---> cs:Šablona:Prezidenti USA and the same step into the czech version. Thank you. -- 83.208.117.159 ( talk) 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think there's any value in adding the seal to the title bar. For one thing, it's shown (legibly) in the expanded navbox. Secondly, even when it isn't visible when the box is collapsed, the seal is a completely illegible smudge at the resolution required to fit it into the title bar. This should be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was kind of neat, despite the loss of graphic resolution... Foofighter20x ( talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support removal. The seal adds nothing information-wise to the template, and seems to be essentially for decoration. I would support removing it. Kaldari ( talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
So this issue has come up again, and Gnevin ( talk · contribs) brought up a relevant MoS entry: WP:ICONDECORATION. I think this supports the removal of these emblems in this case, as one is a duplicate of the right-hand image and one is a flag (always pretty contentious). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of my comment above concerning the "neat" factor, I think the WP:ICONDECORATION is pretty clear cut: these icons are not necessary to the boxes content, and thus don't need to be included. Foofighter20x ( talk) 20:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
On this template, I wish for there to be a hidden comment at the top of the page stating the following:
Is this useful?. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
At what time should Barack Obama be added to the template? -- AEMoreira042281 ( talk) 15:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Noon, EST. That is, 1200pm in Washington D.C., some 43 minutes from now... Foofighter20x ( talk) 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The succession numbers are not "gaudy", they are "necessary". Without them, the list of names is practically meaningless. I have made those numbers less prominent. Also, the Readers of this encyclopedia should not be made to jump all over the place in order to obtain information. This template is made far more meaningful with these succession numbers. Those numbers represent the place in the succession that these presidents served their country. Please discuss here before taking action. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 03:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Cartoon Boy, this list is useless without the succession numbers, and part of being an editor is to make things better and easier for readers, not harder. Why would you want to make things harder for readers? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 08:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I repeat my unanswered question to the editor who keeps reverting but who refuses to discuss it here:
I removed the links to the many Presidency of Name articles, as it made the template content too cluttered. GoodDay ( talk) 05:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I dislike the parenthetical 'presidency'. That doesn't belong here. This template is chronological navbox for Presidents alone. These parenthetical add clutter, look bad, and they add confusion in the case of a transition, as the president-elect should be italicized but they confuse with that. Remove them. Spartan7W § 15:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
My first choice is deletion. But, your proposal of 2 templates (Biographies, Administrations), is acceptable. GoodDay ( talk) 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I like the two templates idea Orser67 ( talk) 20:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: I have moved the discussion (posted here, December 2016) of the proposal to redesign Template:US Presidential Administrations from this page to Template talk:US Presidential Administrations in its entirety, because this discussion was primarily about that template and not specifically about the US Presidents template alone. The result of this discussion was no consensus. Also, a RfC on the same topic has been opened on the Template:US Presidential Administrations talk page. All editors are invited to participate in that new discussion. Cheers. Drdpw ( talk) 15:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Recommend we list Cleveland twice, which is what's done at List of Presidents of the United States & most other lists I've seen off Wikipedia. Even the coin collection has 2 Grover Cleveland coins. GoodDay ( talk) 00:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on the renewed merge proposal following RfC consensus on styling. See the proposed combo navbox at Draft:US Presidents navbox. — JFG talk 14:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Can we please put all 'middle names' into initials, so our readers won't confuse Van as a middle name in Martin Van Buren? GoodDay ( talk) 00:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't say I'm a fan of the way the template is currently set up, with the timeline articles appearing next to the presidents, because the current design makes the template too crowded. Looking at the timeline on my pc, the parentheses after Roosevelt overlaps with the 44 next to Obama, and the parentheses after both Bushes overlaps with the presidential seal. I'd prefer we restore the version with the links to the timeline articles at the bottom. Anyone else have any thoughts? Orser67 ( talk) 05:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Drdpw, GoodDay – linking to a disambiguation page is not helpful; one of the four options is already in the template, and the bibliography will certainly not be what the reader is looking for. We need to figure out a way to link both presidency pages without making it look like FDR was out of office during 1941. Aza24 ( talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Give us a visual example, here. GoodDay ( talk) 00:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Drdpw: The edit you undid was itself undone because the party stripe template added every page it was transcluded onto into a hidden error category. That issue has since been resolved, which is why I restored my original edit. Please kindly restore my edits unless there is another issue with them. WMSR ( talk) 21:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
This template was considered for deletion on 2017 February 7. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
US presidents template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I guarantee you the "8 Others" by tomorrow. - Wikipedia 23:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This table is ridiculous. Footers are not replacements for lists. Now we can't easily navigate from president to president. I will revert if i find no good reason to keep. -- Jia ng 00:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean? If I can't make sense of a question, how can I answer? - Wikipedia 00:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang, I don't really like it either, although I tried to clean it up. It's incredibly crowded, and it replaces the standard incumbent table. There's no real reason to leap from Eisenhower to John Quincy Adams, there is a reason to go from Eisenhower to Kennedy. Also, why is your username written as Wikipedia? That seems kind of sneaky. jengod 00:35, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
I'll write my name however I want! Is there a reason to jump from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? Is there really a reason to jump from Arizona to the U.S. Virgin Islands? - Wikipedia 00:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Grover Cleveland should be put in once for each term to show chronological order. - Wikipedia 00:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is this really such a big change? I'm adding information and that is all! I'm not removing or changing anything, I'm just linking each president to every other president! - Calmypal 01:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
You are making a stupid change. Harry Potter only has a few items. The Virgin Islands and Arizona have no clear chronological order. The presidents do. -- Jia ng
I reverted your edit becuase your name was made to create mass horizontal expansion. -- Jia ng
Whatever you believe, you do not have the right to erase my comments. Whatever happened to the page itself, it had no real effect on the chat. - Woodrow 01:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hey, I reverted Timwi up to James Buchanan, but I have to go do another thing now. Could someone take over. I'm also adding this to VFD so it doesn't happen again. Thanks. jengod 19:27, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
What is wrong with this? There's reason to go from, say, John Adams to John Quincy Adams, or Abe Lincoln to James Garfield, and we can still go from Eisenhower to Kennedy. - Woodrow 20:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Where's Timwi to discuss and defend this? I guess I'll have to revert again. -- Jia ng 21:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Or not. - Woodrow 21:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Presidents of the Continental Congress were not U.S. Presidents, and the office of President of the Continental Congress was not a forerunner of the office of U.S. President. The two should not be mixed up in the same message. -- Nunh-huh 21:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Look, I think it's gratutious, clunky, overstuffed, superfluous and more, but I'm willing to compromise--how about we do both the incumbent tables and the msg:Uspresident? I think that the incumbent table is imperative, not least because several were also VP incumbents or other incumbents. The msg:Uspresidents is not just not an added-value. jengod 21:48, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
With the original version of this message, the Vice President incumbent tables were shown inside the box. If that would work now, I'd agree with this idea. The incumbent tables pretty much mirror information that's in the table at the top of the page anyway. - Woodrow 22:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Please explain the meaning of that last sentence, Jengod...
You know what? I think I've started the largest edit war ever: one spanning about 51 articles. - Woodrow 22:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From Calmypal's talk page:
Please stop adding the footer because it is a waste of time. I will revert it as long as you fail to convince us of its need and create a consensus to use it. -- Jia ng
As long as you can keep removing it, I can keep adding it. - Woodrow 22:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean "who's responsible" (see page history)? - Woodrow 22:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The reason msg's like this are not encouraged is because there are some heads of state who are one in a list of hundreds. It would be completely unfeasible to have something like this for the Popes, for example. That is why there are little navigation tables with the previous and succeeding people, rather than a big list of everyone at the end. There is no reason to do it differently for US presidents. If you want to do something constructive, you could find a way to make the current tables more attractive. Adam Bishop 22:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
From John Kerry's talk page:
Normally, we count George Washington as the first President, and John Kerry will be the 44th. However, according to a rectangular box at the bottom of George Washington's article, I now see 8 Presidents of Continential Congress, making George Washington the ninth President and John Kerry the 52nd. User 66.32.68.243
First of all, John Kerry will have to be elected before he becomes any number president. Second, we do not count Presidents of the Continental Congress in the sequencing, since they were presidents of that Congress, and not the executive of the United States. Cecropia 21:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
jengod 23:22, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I should mention the main reason I put the Presidents of the Continental Congress in in the first place; George Washington's incumbent table has it that he was preceded by "Previous government under the Articles of Confederation". Are we supposed to pretend that George Washington was the beginning of formal government in the United States? - Woodrow 01:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Nor should we pretend that, alphabetically, American Samoa comes after Wyoming. - Woodrow 03:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The President of the Continental Congress was no more "President of the United States" than the "President of the Senate". They conflict because the top one says "Countries of the World" and the bottom one says "insular area". -- Jia ng 00:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The Continental Congress was unicameral. The President of the Continental Congress was in charge of the country. - Woodrow 00:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
NGI (If you can figure out how I pronounce that)! It appears to me to mainly be Jiang and jengod going against this by themselves. How many others have aggressively campaigned against this? If anyone else was disturbed by this, they would be the ones removing the notice from every page. Personally, I consider it acceptance when it is allowed to remain on George W. Bush! - Woodrow 00:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Now that we have categories, this is redundant. Some presidential articles are getting too long. This is one of the things we no longer need. -- Jia ng 01:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We are now at the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the most interesting period of Wikipedia article history to study (How many of you Wikipedians can remember this time in Wikipedia history??):
On March 18, 2004, Calmypal brought up his President's template, taking all the President articles, removing the navigation tables, and replacing them with his template. Then, Jengod, finding the template, reverted them to the previous version with the navigation tables. and wrote a message on Calmypal's talk page. The argument went on for a while. Then came Timwi, who did the exact same thing; he took the President pages and replaced it with Calmypal's template. There was still no consensus to keep Calmypal's template. Then, several more times, Calmypal and Jengod argued on whether to use the navigation tables or Calmypal's template should be used. For a while after then, Calmypal's template remained absent. In April, it was finally a consensus; keep both the navigation tables and Calmypal's template. Georgia guy 02:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hi there:
I noticed that the template has a row whose members are {{{before}}}, {{{after}}}, and {{{years}}}, and I'm going to eliminate this row once I've posted this message. Here's why:
— DLJessup 04:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
This template needs repair. (The image of the seal falls outside and under the box. It should be inside, on the far right.) I'm going to try to read up on templates, to see if I can figure it out. If someone who know how could repair it, that would be great. Thanks. -- Evb-wiki 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Looking for feedback on the layout of the template. Please see the version here which uses {{ Navigation with image}} and the other version there which uses the {{ Dynamic navigation box with image}}. Thanks. — MrDolomite • Talk 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Though their terms as Acting President were extremely short, they were the interim and should be treated as such. Therequiembellishere 01:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason why only the last names are listed? If any list of people would deserve both first & last name, this would be one. Does anyone object to listing them by both first & last name, and an occasional middle initial?-- Old Hoss 02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I happened to be reading about the presidents and noticed that Barack Obama's name had been added. I removed it, you may consider protecting this from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Txredcoat ( talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
maybe we should add Thomas E. Dewey and Al Gore to the list, on account of they OUGHT TO have won the elections that got stolen from under their feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.107 ( talk) 03:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Please add into the Template czech interwiki---> cs:Šablona:Prezidenti USA and the same step into the czech version. Thank you. -- 83.208.117.159 ( talk) 04:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't think there's any value in adding the seal to the title bar. For one thing, it's shown (legibly) in the expanded navbox. Secondly, even when it isn't visible when the box is collapsed, the seal is a completely illegible smudge at the resolution required to fit it into the title bar. This should be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was kind of neat, despite the loss of graphic resolution... Foofighter20x ( talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support removal. The seal adds nothing information-wise to the template, and seems to be essentially for decoration. I would support removing it. Kaldari ( talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
So this issue has come up again, and Gnevin ( talk · contribs) brought up a relevant MoS entry: WP:ICONDECORATION. I think this supports the removal of these emblems in this case, as one is a duplicate of the right-hand image and one is a flag (always pretty contentious). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of my comment above concerning the "neat" factor, I think the WP:ICONDECORATION is pretty clear cut: these icons are not necessary to the boxes content, and thus don't need to be included. Foofighter20x ( talk) 20:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
On this template, I wish for there to be a hidden comment at the top of the page stating the following:
Is this useful?. — Mythdon ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
At what time should Barack Obama be added to the template? -- AEMoreira042281 ( talk) 15:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Noon, EST. That is, 1200pm in Washington D.C., some 43 minutes from now... Foofighter20x ( talk) 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The succession numbers are not "gaudy", they are "necessary". Without them, the list of names is practically meaningless. I have made those numbers less prominent. Also, the Readers of this encyclopedia should not be made to jump all over the place in order to obtain information. This template is made far more meaningful with these succession numbers. Those numbers represent the place in the succession that these presidents served their country. Please discuss here before taking action. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 03:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Cartoon Boy, this list is useless without the succession numbers, and part of being an editor is to make things better and easier for readers, not harder. Why would you want to make things harder for readers? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 08:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I repeat my unanswered question to the editor who keeps reverting but who refuses to discuss it here:
I removed the links to the many Presidency of Name articles, as it made the template content too cluttered. GoodDay ( talk) 05:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I dislike the parenthetical 'presidency'. That doesn't belong here. This template is chronological navbox for Presidents alone. These parenthetical add clutter, look bad, and they add confusion in the case of a transition, as the president-elect should be italicized but they confuse with that. Remove them. Spartan7W § 15:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
My first choice is deletion. But, your proposal of 2 templates (Biographies, Administrations), is acceptable. GoodDay ( talk) 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I like the two templates idea Orser67 ( talk) 20:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: I have moved the discussion (posted here, December 2016) of the proposal to redesign Template:US Presidential Administrations from this page to Template talk:US Presidential Administrations in its entirety, because this discussion was primarily about that template and not specifically about the US Presidents template alone. The result of this discussion was no consensus. Also, a RfC on the same topic has been opened on the Template:US Presidential Administrations talk page. All editors are invited to participate in that new discussion. Cheers. Drdpw ( talk) 15:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Recommend we list Cleveland twice, which is what's done at List of Presidents of the United States & most other lists I've seen off Wikipedia. Even the coin collection has 2 Grover Cleveland coins. GoodDay ( talk) 00:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on the renewed merge proposal following RfC consensus on styling. See the proposed combo navbox at Draft:US Presidents navbox. — JFG talk 14:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Can we please put all 'middle names' into initials, so our readers won't confuse Van as a middle name in Martin Van Buren? GoodDay ( talk) 00:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I can't say I'm a fan of the way the template is currently set up, with the timeline articles appearing next to the presidents, because the current design makes the template too crowded. Looking at the timeline on my pc, the parentheses after Roosevelt overlaps with the 44 next to Obama, and the parentheses after both Bushes overlaps with the presidential seal. I'd prefer we restore the version with the links to the timeline articles at the bottom. Anyone else have any thoughts? Orser67 ( talk) 05:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Drdpw, GoodDay – linking to a disambiguation page is not helpful; one of the four options is already in the template, and the bibliography will certainly not be what the reader is looking for. We need to figure out a way to link both presidency pages without making it look like FDR was out of office during 1941. Aza24 ( talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Give us a visual example, here. GoodDay ( talk) 00:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Drdpw: The edit you undid was itself undone because the party stripe template added every page it was transcluded onto into a hidden error category. That issue has since been resolved, which is why I restored my original edit. Please kindly restore my edits unless there is another issue with them. WMSR ( talk) 21:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)