Talk:Lifespan timeline of presidents of the United States

size

how about shrinking this? Its well over a typical screen size, and does not allow for a fuller picture, because you can't see it all at once. it is long, and can stay long, but the width is unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nnnudibranch (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's something useful and necessary (even if not of the profoundest importance), and very similar to something I've attempted myself, but I have no easy way of shrinking it so the different columns can be seen simultaneously, which is where the most value can be drawn from this table (e.g. seeing all the past and future Presidents in Martin Van Buren's life at the same time). Suggestion to creator: send the original to Wikicommons, and then post an appropriately sized thumbnail (they can be as many pixels wide as you wish) here. Suggestion to fellow-users: perhaps an Internet Explorer page can be shrunk to accommodate this. Thanks, by the way, for all the work that went into this. Shakescene (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On looking closer at the chart, I see that the columns are so wide because they accommodate the Presidents' names. Although it may be counter-intuitive, this might work better with a horizontal time axis from left (18th century) to right (now), allowing bars of uniform height to easily fit names of any length. You'd have to do a lot of horizontal scrolling, but that's inevitable and perhaps easier for any one decade, when you could just scroll down to see the past and future Presidents. Shakescene (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it's incredible! How else could you easily learn that Calvin Coolidge was the first president born after the death of Abraham Lincoln? That Woodrow Wilson likely would have been influenced by President Lincoln because he was alive and young during his presidency! How cool!--I suggest flipping it to horizontal (landscape), it might work better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've wanted to see a timeline like this for quite some time. Under Firefox 3 it's possible to zoom out and view more. I'm slightly partial to this vertical timeline since web pages usually posess more V than H content anyway. Schweiwikist (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

I don't have the skill to edit this, but the bar on the far right (which displays which party controlled the presidency at each point in history) shows Woodrow Wilson's first term as a "Democratic" presidency, while Wilson's second term is shown as a Republican presidency. This is inaccurate -- Wilson was reelected as a Democrat. Can someone please fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.151.192 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for noticing this, whoever you are. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Going to 2009?

You know-I think that it should not go to 2009, considering as far as we know someone could die this year. So yeah, it should end at 2008 UNTIL 2009 starts! The Robot 2000 (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• When someone dies, they're still colored for the part of the year they were alive. Even though LBJ died in January 1973, his bar is still there for 1973, because he was alive for part of that year. So, this should be extended to 2011, and always extended again at the beginning of each new year. -LtNOWIS (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Starts of centuries

The graph is slightly incorrect in a few areas; as discussed ad nauseum back in 1999-2000, the century begins on the 1's, not the 0's, so the 21st century should be shown as beginning with 2001, the 20th with 1901, and so on. 68.146.25.241 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:My recent edit

I'm making a substantial change to the timeline and wanted to note it here on the article's talk page. I did take some time to read the comments here and in the July '08 deletion discussion as I undertook this overhaul effort. This is an interesting timeline, and it could be a useful resource. I hope what I've done is helpful. Drdpw (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Help, please

I'm trying to use this timeline in the Portuguese Wikipedia using it for the Portuguese Presidents. However, there are five Portuguese Presidents who were in office less than a year. When I try to put that information in the table, the time in office doesn't show. What should I do to fix this? Joaopais 03:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Party colors

I put some effort in building a version with party colors, matching List of Presidents of the United States, which Drdpw swiftly reverted as "irrelevant". I would argue that the party coloring improves the page, giving the reader an at-a-glance overview of the alternance of power and increasing its educational value. Besides it is more legible than the single-color version, as the alternating colors provide visual anchor points. Pinging contributors @Leifern, GMMarques, Purplebackpack89, Drdpw, DEIDATVM, JaconaFrere, Oshwah, Smyth, and PogingJuan: Opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 12:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your change for the reasons given. – Smyth\^talk 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no problems. Have at it, yo ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. pbp 13:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with JFG's points and also add that this page serves not just as a timeline of Presidents' lifespans, but also as a timeline of presidencies, and their parties would be relevant to their time in office. Perhaps the color of the National Union party should be more distinct from that of the GOP, but that problem seems to be a carryover from List of Presidents of the United States. — DEIDATVM (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback; I have restored the colored version. Agree that National Union party color is too close to Republican; perhaps that's on purpose, I'll ping Talk:National Union Party (United States) for guidance. — JFG ^talk 18:14, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I like the improvement. GMMarques (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

As I see it, there are no problems at all :) The timeline actually became more informative after you have put their political parties-when-in-office. ~Manila's PogingJuan 02:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I just changed the color for National Union Party to better distinguish it from the Republican Party. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait until January 20, 2017

Why is Donald Trump being added to this article, when Obama is still in office & thus Trump isn't the 45th Prez, yet? GoodDay (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Because Trump is President-elect. Barring exceptional events, he will take office. Readers worldwide deserve clarity as to the seriousness of the country's political transition. — JFG ^talk 08:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

He's not President yet, though. Readers worldwide deserve accurarcy. Be patient. GoodDay (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to clarify the situation. Hope this meets your agreement. — JFG ^talk 09:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The footnote is good. Re-adding the bar isn't, though. Anyway, I'm too tired of arguing. Do what ever you want. GoodDay (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Right, there is no point in dueling. At this stage I would suggest listening to what other editors of this page think would be the best course of action. @Leifern, GMMarques, Purplebackpack89, Drdpw, DEIDATVM, JaconaFrere, Oshwah, Smyth, PogingJuan, Nnnudibranch, Paulmcdonald, Schweiwikist, Shakescene, and LtNOWIS: Opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 09:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, in adding Donald Trump in the timeline, we must wait at least until the Electoral College formally elects Trump on December 19 and at most until his inauguration. We still don't know what will happen on the next days, especially Hillary Clinton have likely won the popular votes and many people are protesting Trump's win and urging electors to elect Clinton on December 19. Remember, it is 'constitutionally possible' and 'technically' that Clinton has still a chance to be formally elected by the Electoral College and become the President-elect of the United States.[1][2][3] There can be unusual events that may happen, we don't know, so right now, it is not right for Trump to be included in the timeline. He is still not a president until he becomes. ~Manila's PogingJuan 10:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the footnote is fine, the bar is premature. – Smyth\^talk 11:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait- while DT will most likely become POTUS on 1/20/17, he is not president yet, and so does not belong on the graph until then. Drdpw (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait- this timeline is about the Presidents, not the Presidents-elect. Wykx (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Per consensus I have commented out Trump's bar. — JFG ^talk 14:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Looks like it's already decided, but I'd go with wait myself. However, I would not object (and would in fact welcome) an additional "supplemental" paragraph of some type explaining the current events of the general election, electoral college process, and upcoming inauguration. That seems like a reasonable inclusion at this time even though it is "newsy" and "current events" -- I believe it is also warranted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Hey, sorry to be late to the party. Thinking about this in a purely encyclopedic sense, I agree that waiting until it's government official is the right thing to do. Cheers, everyone! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

That only timeline needs its own place

That old timeline should get its place. That was a great timeline.Wikideas1 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It has its place, which is in the revision history of the page. Drdpw (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Greatly improved

Congratulations to all of those who've worked on this timeline since I last did. It's very clean, and clearly shows all the important points. Partly because I now have a relatively wide flat-screen monitor in place of my older CRT’s, and partly because of the horizontal format, I can now see much more together at once.

Although 280 years hardly allows much space for months, you can see fairly easily, for example, that FDR started office with only one former President (Hoover) at his inauguration, but ended it with eight future Presidents. Similarly, the relatively-large number of ex-Presidents when Lincoln, Clinton, G.W. Bush and Obama were inaugurated. And the relatively few (or none) when Hoover and Nixon left office.

WP: Barnstars all around. —— Shakescene (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Article similar to Lifespan timeline of Presidents of the United States at AFD

There is an article at AFD Wikipedia: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) 15:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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)