Talk:List of presidents of the United States by time in office

message: There is no consistency of the order the Presidents are listed when they are tied in number of days.  It looks like sorta alphabetical with inconsistencies.  I suggest for ties, that they be listed in chronological order.  So Jefferson before Madison before Monroe before Jackson and so on. NoSeptember (talk) 01:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Order in list when tied

message: Do you think there should be an explanation of why each president served the amount of time he did, just like how it's shown on the Vice President term length page? --RandomOrca2 18:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Never mind, I added it. --RandomOrca2 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons why?

message: *I made a few format and style changes like the Vice President term length page.  Comments welcome.  -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format changes

message: I have proposed that List of United States Presidents who served one term or less and List of United States Presidents who served more than one term be merged into this page.  Since the basic information from those pages is already availible here all that a merger would require is checking that all the details of their service are covered in the notes section and then redirecting the redundant lists.  I'll be happy to do it myself but wanted to make sure of consensus first.  Eluchil404 07:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  Not sure what an appropriate title would be.  List of United States Presidents by ??? — MrDolomite | Talk 15:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, those two belong on the same page, alot of these Presidential lists belong should be merged where the content is so similar.  I have been merging some which were in danger of deletion.  I merged First, Middle and Last names into the Nickname page and I'm waiting for an okay from the "delete club" to redirect them all. Jjmillerhistorian 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merger

message: Speaking of Leap Years, what about Leap Seconds? Reagan and Clinton both served an additional 5 seconds due to the insertion of leap seconds during their tenure. George W Bush served an additional 2 seconds. There have been no other 2 full-term presidents serving during the time when leap seconds have been added to the international calendar. See chart at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second#Insertion_of_leap_seconds  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netrc (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding leap seconds as a footnote would be worthwhile. I attempted to do this but it was reverted because someone else thought it irrelevant. Is there a consensus one way or the other? Volcycle (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's irrelevant trivia. It does not matter at all and should not be listed here. Earthscent (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I concur, it's irrelevant trivia, and, IMO, adding this incidental detail would not enhance or improve the table in any way. Drdpw (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Actually, Bill Clinton was president in the year 2000 (the multiple of 400, which makes it an exception to the rule that years ending in -00 are not leap years), so it's Clinton who benefits from not having a time in office one day shorter than other two-term presidents, not Bush.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.104.138 (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

text: No, the person meant 2097–2105, as 2100 is the next non-leap year evenly divisible by four. Of course, dying or resigning on January 19 of the year the second term ends would yield the same result -Rrius (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the president will serve one less day even if he/she serves the full eight-year term from 2093 to 2101 Juve2000 (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as an eight-year term, but you are right that it doesn't matter if the 2097 term is the person's first or second. The winner of the 2096 election (assuming our system continues until then) is the one who matters. -Rrius (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Another Leap Year Note

message: A footnote should be added to this page about David Rice Atchison, the man who some argue was President de jure for one day.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.144.254 (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Rice Atchison

message: At present, the article says this:
This is not exactly what the amendment says.  The amendment says, in part:
The difference is that the amendment only speaks of being elected President.  It says nothing about serving as Vice President (through election or appointment) and then becoming President through the death, resignation, or conviction of the current President, and nothing about doing this any number of times.  Granted, this may seem like an impossible loophole, but, there's clearly a difference.
65.186.210.247 (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why it says "and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President". It clearly does apply to people who were vice president and succeed to the presidency, such as Ford and LBJ. If Ford had been elected in 1976 he would have been ineligible to run in 1980. Ratemonth (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think IP's point is that a person could be elected VP and succeed to presidency over and over again, thereby serving as president for more than a decade, but without ever being elected president. -Rrius (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  The amendment says nothing about being President.  It only speaks of being elected President.  The article (as it is currently, and above) is clearly wrong. If Ford had been elected in 1976, he would have been eligible to run for Vice President in 1980, such as with Reagan, and then be President, had Reagan left office before his term expired.65.186.210.247 (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: More discussion on this topic is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interaction_with_the_Twelfth_Amendment.  It is, at least, an unanswered question whether or not a person ineligible to be elected President is eligible to be elected Vice President, or to otherwise be in the line of succession.  I'd interpret the text as indicating a difference between being elected and serving.  But, at the least, it is an unclear and untested Constitutional issue. 65.186.210.247 (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There would seem to be other ways that more than ten years could be accumulated, though: a person might be elected Vice President to several different Presidents, and become President during the term each time, plus they might then have up to one term in which they themselves are elected President. OK, not very likely, but we're talking here about what's possible. I think the point is that the Amendment doesn't say "ten years" so we have no business to try and interpret the Amendment and its interaction with other parts of the Constitution. I've changed it to say only what the Amendment actually says, and added a "likely" to cover any technically possible but extremely implausible way for someone to surpass FDR in the future. mooncow 12:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also seem to be legal for a retired, two-term President to run for a seat in the House of Representatives from where he resided. He could then be elected Speaker of the House and become second in the line of succession. (And of course he could get there, with diminishing likelihood, via Senate pro-tem or a cabinet post.) WHPratt (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually write "legal but unlikely" to summarize some of the above scenarios. Carlm0404 (talk) 19:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: 22nd Amendment

message: Not sure if this could be added to the list (of if we would want to) but if the list is accurate then the total days served by all presidents plus the days the USA was without a president (from the Declaration of Independence to the day when George Washington started his first term) should equal the total number of days the USA has existed.Juve2000 (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand Total

message: Although eligible for a third term under terms of the 22nd Amendment, as it was ratified during his term, did not seek reelection.If the 22nd Amendment was ratified (ie applicable) as of 1952, then he WASN'T eligible for a third term. Was he actually eligible for a third term because it didn't come into force yet? It sounds like he was eligible UNDER THE 22nd Amendment, when in fact he was eligible because the 22nd Amendment didn't apply yet.  Also, if he was on the ballot in 1952, presumably "did not seek reelection" is also wrong. Silas Maxfield (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The amendment does not apply to Truman. It makes that very clear: "But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress" Ratemonth (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Truman - clarifcation needed or just plain wrong? 

message: When you click on the number of days served to try and list the Presidents by length of term, it appears out of order. William Harrison should be first, with the shortest term, but he's not. Arrange the list from longest to shortest, shortest to longest, and it's out of order.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.216.104 (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I see what you mean. The length of days button isn't working right. Ratemonth (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: This should be fixed now.  I've added explicit data sort types so that it treats the numbers like numbers and the words like words.  Did a default get changed?  Eluchil404 (talk) 21:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it may have been the use of .  This template isn't compatible with plain numbers since it adds a hidden sort key.  The sort key isn't necessary, though, if all the cells in the column are numbers. Jimp 21:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: List broken

message: On this page Obama has 2,724 days while on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_time_in_office Biden right now has 2,726 days. They were sworn in the same day, they've served the exact same time. Why is Biden showing 2 more days than Obama? Earthscent (talk) 18:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  biden and obama aren't matching up 

message: What about the three instances of assumed powers and duties as Acting President under the 25th Amendment? (Of note, all three were due to colonoscopies or colon surgery.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.89.75.122 (talk) 11:13, 18 July 2016
:Such instances do not change who is POTUS. A Vice President does not take the presidential oath of office when becoming Acting President. Being Acting President is not the same as being President. An Acting President merely exercises the powers and duties of the President, without actually holding the office of President. Drdpw (talk) 20:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Acting Presidents

message: I have removed the WP:PROD tag which suggested that this article should be deleted as an unnecessary duplicate of List of presidents of the United States.  I did this mostly on the basis that this article is sufficiently long-standing and popular that it should not be deleted without a discussion.  On the merits I favor keeping this a separate list, though a merge is certainly possible.  There is no obvious way to sort the main list by length of service and it does not include things like the length of served time in days.  Admittedly, this is trivia, but as long as it reflects coverage in reliable sources there is no policy based reason to keep it out of Wikipedia.  Eluchil404 (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Matthurricane's opinion. If anyone wants to draw up a comparison of Presidents by their lengths of office, this compilation would be much easier to use that going through a list of Presidents listing them by the order in which they assumed their position. DanielC46 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Presidents of the United States by time in office. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101008201611/http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/taylor/essays/biography/6 to http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/taylor/essays/biography/6
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Vice Presidents of the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: I just think it makes more sense for it to say "assassinated" to distinguish, albeit in a very short commentary, the difference. Some presidents died in office naturally, some were assassinated, I think it is important to make that distinction. Plus it isn't that big of a deal to change it. Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it says it now is fine by me. Zdawg1029 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording 

message: At this edit on April 24, 2020 I again reverted the insertion by another editor of "Serving incumbent term" into the table to denote Donald Trump's "Number of terms", and restored the long-standing statement "Serving first term". Once again, however, that editor has reverted my revert. Is it correct/accurate to state in the table that Donald Trump is currently serving his first term? Drdpw (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "currently serving", for now. It can be changed, if Trump is still president after January 20, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

text: "First" is infinitely better than "incumbent". Were he to be re-elected, we would need to note then that he was serving his second term, and "incumbent term" would be even less helpful. --Golbez (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I just scrolled through the article's history to see how Obama was listed in April 2012 and it just said Incumbent in bold. Here's the link: . How about that? Though personally I think "Currently serving" as it says now accomplishes the same thing. Axedel (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Incumbent would be better, its essentially "currently serving" summarized. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Incumbent" is succinct and consistent with our past practice. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

text: Note: from January 20, 2017 until dates were added to the Order of presidency column on December 9, 2017, the Number of terms column—at the time labeled "General details"—stated "Incumbent, serving his first term of office". From then until just recently the column stated "Serving first term". Additionally, since December 9, 2017, the Order of presidency column has stated "45th • January 20, 2017 – Incumbent". Drdpw (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If Wikipedia had been around during the presidency of Jimmy Carter would this page have listed him as "serving his first term"? I hope not, because it'd be silly. "First" definitely implies there will be a second. That's a clear crystal ball violation. Axedel (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: First term remains first term even if that President ends up never getting another term, and "first" does not necessarily mean there would be a subsequent term.  As is the case with courses at a school, it should be OK to note a term as being in progress as opposed to having been completed. Carlm0404 (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, newly/recently elected officials are commonly referred to by the media and in general discourse as “serving their (his or her) first term”. That said, let's leave the issue to rest for now; we can discuss it again in 6½ months if DT is not going to be inaugurated to a second term on 1/20/2021. Drdpw (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denoting Donald Trump's "Number of terms" 

message: The sentence "The length of a full four-year presidential term of office amounts to 1,461 days (three common years of 365 days plus one leap year of 366 days)" is not correct in that the 1797-1801 (John Adams) and 1897-1901 (McKinley) terms were full four-year terms, but were only 1460 days, because 1800 and 1900 were not leap years in the U.S. or other countries using the Gregorian calendar.  Leap years are years that are either (a) divisible by 4, but not by 100, or (b) divisible by 400.  There are 97 leap years in every 400 years.
Please change "The length of a full four-year presidential term of office amounts to 1,461 days (three common years of 365 days plus one leap year of 366 days)" to "The length of a full four-year presidential term of office amounts to 1,460 or 1,461 days (four years, usually including one leap year)" with link to the existing note "Of years evenly divisible by 100, only those evenly divisible by 400 are leap years. The years 1800 and 1900 are divisible by 100, but not by 400. Thus, John Adams's term and McKinley's first term did not include a 366-day leap year, so those terms were one day shorter than a normal full term. The year 2000 is divisible by 400 and so did include one, thus Clinton's second term was not shorter than his first."47.139.41.132 (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 

message: Washington was sworn in on 30 April 1789, but that doesn't mean that's when his term started. His first term started on 4 March, and ended four years later, in March not April 1793. He should be in joint 2nd place, not 14th. Richard75 (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of George Washington's term 

message: ‎ "(If 2nd place is tied then the next in the list would be 3rd place.)"
That's not the common convention. The last on the list has to be 45th in this case. If an Olympic event has a tie for the gold medal, the third competitor still gets bronze, not silver. WHPratt (talk) 14:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: enumerating ranks 

message: Clinton was President during the year 2000, which did not have a leap day. The number of days should be one less. 2601:2C1:8800:110:60B8:7024:CAF6:2401 (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. 2000 was in fact a leap year. The century years divisible by 400 are an exception to the exception. WHPratt (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton one day too long 

message: The redirect Time in office has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Time in office]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]