Template talk:US presidents

message: Hi there:
I noticed that the template has a row whose members are , , and , and I'm going to eliminate this row once I've posted this message.  Here's why:
* The succession row is redundant with the succession table which every President already has.
* We could theoretically remove the entry succession table instead of the succession row, but the succession table reports the President's term to a finer level of accuracy.  Moreover, the succession table handles Cleveland's nonconsecutive terms much more elegantly than the succession row can.
* The  and  is redundant with the USpresidents template itself.
— DLJessup 04:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Succession box redundancy

message: 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)
thread_title: Template fix

message: Looking for feedback on the layout of the template.  Please see the version here which uses  and the other version there which uses the .  Thanks. — MrDolomite • Talk 06:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Navbox layout feedback

message: 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)
replies: text: Convention disagrees with you: can you produce a List of Presidents of the United States that includes Acting Presidents? Biruitorul 03:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to, see Acting President of the United States#Invocations of 25th Amendment there were two official Acting Presidents: Bush (I) and Cheney. Therequiembellishere 04:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  As I replied on my talk page, prior to editing the template, I saw no links/info around the template space that confirmed or explained the interim status of Cheney and Bush.  Did I miss those somewhere?--Riurik(discuss) 04:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I haven't put up links, so I'll do that now. Therequiembellishere 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Acting Presidents

message: 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)
replies: text: I went ahead and reverted it back to full names; apparently when it was 1st created someone changed it to only last names because at the time (2004) footers were new and disliked, so last names were used to conserve space.  However, currently it seems acceptable to list full names.  If there is any objection, and a desire to revert it back to only last names, please discuss.  Regards.--Old Hoss 21:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Last name only?

message: 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)
thread_title: Adding of Clinton or Obama to the list

message: 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)
thread_title: Interwiki

message: On this template, I wish for there to be a hidden comment at the top of the page stating the following:
:Do NOT list president-elect Barack Obama until he is sworn in as president.
Is this useful?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hidden comment has been added.  Not sure how many people would look at it when they go in to vandalize, but it is worth a shot!! --Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 03:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Un-hid" the comment. Put it in noinclude so that it isn't propogated out to pages displaying this template. Good idea with the comment, though. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With the way it was added, it doesn't look too good, though it is straight to the point. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not listing Obama

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal to redesign the Administrations template 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Grover Cleveland 

message: 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)
replies: text: – Templates were merged per discussion outcome. — JFG talk 15:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combo navbox proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Quincy, Henry & Howard 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree with this Aza24 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current design 

message: ,  – 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)
replies: text: A compromise - FDR's years as, 1933–1945, as it's important not to divide the 12 years service. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt now includes only the two FDR presidency articles (as it should, given that it's a DAB page for the 2 Presidency of FDR articles and not a general FDR index page). I'm ambivalent about your proposed compromise, and encourage others to weigh in on the matter. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the status quo. The compromise was to appease Aza24. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ,  sorry if I was being difficult. The adjusted disambiguation works fine for me — and doesn't mess up our rather convenient formatting :) Also, can we restore the timelines? It looks like some random editor removed them without discussion a couple of months ago. Aza24 (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I have restored the link to the two articles. Linking to a disambiguation page is NOT a good idea. Claiming that is gives the impression that FDR left office in 1941 is not a proper argument. Effectively, creating 155 links to disambiguation pages.The Banner talk 14:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems we have an editwar here... The Banner talk 14:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, we have an editor, you, who has twice taken inappropriate actions. Your flat-out rejection of another editor's rationale is not proper either. What do you think of the compromise offered? What compromise you you have to offer? Drdpw (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no compromise to offer, I just solved the link to the disambiguation page. Templates are quite good monitored, so more then likely someone else will solved the issue the same way I did. And you get hammered for edit warring when you keep reverting without serious arguments. The Banner talk 14:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hoped you might help discern a consensus way forward. At any rate, your solution disrupted the flow of the navbox by creating column overflow.  & : I have modified The Banner's solution to the formatting issue; does it work for you? Drdpw (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This will not do, it continues to create the impression that FDR wasn't president briefly in 1941. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  Unfortunately, your desperate attempt is even more disruptive to the flow than my solution The Banner talk 15:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I've implemented my compromise, which links to both articles, while continuing the correct appearance of "1933–1945". GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain ambivalent about your compromise, though it is simpler and looks cleaner than mine, which was simply an attempt to clean-up the column overflow problem. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. The status quo is my first choice, but I hope my compromise will end the dispute :) GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The compromise is rather misleading. And I do not get your argument "it continues to create the impression that FDR wasn't president briefly in 1941" Why? The Banner talk 16:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That's too bad that you don't understand my stance on showing "1933–1945" to our readers. I'm not going to budge on it & thus will not except any version that splits FDR's tenure, to our readers. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not the owner of this template. The Banner talk 19:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not & neither are you. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I do not own the template, so I requested opinions from outside the group discussing here. The Banner talk 19:46, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Open up an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Keeping the years at 1933-1945 seems the best solution to me, as readers will immediately upon hovering over or clicking one of the two years will see the two-article separation and should understand that there is another article covering the two other terms. This keeps page consistency without really putting any hardship on readers' navigation. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Any solution that shows two different timespans is not acceptable. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

text: An alternative could be using the trick book, creating a link 1933-1945. According to the maintenance bot, you are not linking to a disambiguation page and the template will not be added to the maintenance list "Templates with disambiguation links". The Banner talk 20:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

text: No objections? The Banner talk 11:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

text: example The Banner talk 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection from me. However, use of Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt (disambiguation) in the template has been rendered unnecessary, as Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt has been reclassified as SIA by another editor. Drdpw (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So the issue is solved. The Banner talk 13:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. The disambiguation page-in-question, has been put up for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template now links to "Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt", not to that DAB page. Drdpw (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we're back to the satus-quo. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, as there is no link to a disambiguation page any more. It is now a link to a Set Index Article. The Banner talk 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The result is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

text:  Yes, though, as noted, that page is now a SIA rather than a DAB page. Drdpw (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We get to keep showing "1933–1945" unbroken. I'm quite content :) GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: FDR disambiguation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stripes