Talk:List of presidents of the United States

Due to having non-consective terms, these two have separate image boxes≤. Both office holders currently use the same image for both images boxes, as has been the practice for Cleveland for some time. With the recent election of Trump, there has been some calls to use different images, for both office holders. State your preference below, for either or both;

• I think we should keep the status quo and use the same images for both Cleveland and Trump. I believe the consistency looks better, and makes their entries as two-term presidents more obvious. - \\'cLf 18:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC) (OP)[reply]

Please use the new photo. I literally made a Wikipedia account just to post this. It is the official White House photo, & will be displayed across every federal agency. Use the 2017 official portrait for Trump’s first presidency and the 2025 for his second. It is incredibly frustrating that some users keep changing this. TrumpPhoto (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Trump's 2025 photo, I previously stated:

"Official or not, it's a terrible portrait. Wikipedia is not bound by what's shown on https://www.whitehouse.gov/ and therefore should use the same one from 2017."

And

"it's a terrible portrait and since Wikipedia is not obligated to use it, I would suggest staying with the one from 2017."

My vote is still the same. Assadzadeh (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Trump's new portrait is being used on basically every page involving him and is on WhiteHouse.gov, it does not matter whether or not you think the portrait is "bad" and no consensus is needed, please go to the talk page on the Donald Trump page if you would like to raise any arguments about the portrait. Until then, it will be changed back to the 2025 one. 6218946rr (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@6218946rr Please refer to the previous discussions on this page regarding profile photos for Trump (and Grover Cleveland too) and you will note that consensus has not been reached yet. Wikipedia is not the same as whitehouse.gov and therefore is under no obligation to use the 2025 photo. Assadzadeh (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I could change every single portrait on this article because whitehouse.gov is not Wikipedia. 6218946rr (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you stop changing any portrait on this page. You've no consensus for what you're trying to do & continuing to attempt to implement, may be seen as disruptive. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I do recommend you take this up on the Donald Trump page as well. 6218946rr (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the Trump page. This isn't. GoodDay (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Separate portraits should be used to denote that they are the only two presidents with two non-consecutive terms and to highlight the difference between their two presidencies. It is obvious they're the same person even without using the same portraits. In fact, it is actually significantly worse and inconsistent to apply the same rules to Cleveland and Trump as the other presidents when they're clearly NOT supposed to fall under the same category. Trump's second portrait being terrible and making him look like a Bond villain isn't a justifiable reason to not use it. It is still an official portrait that appropriately represents what his second term stands for. A better argument needs to be made as to why it shouldn't be used. Otherwise, SEPARATE portraits for these two. Samhiuy (talk) 06:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As much as I hate Trump's 2nd term portrait, I concede, as it seems that the majority of folks would prefer to have two separate portraits. However, regarding Grover Cleveland, I would suggest that a different portrait be used for his 1st term than the one suggested, (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grover_Cleveland,_Pres._U.S._LCCN2003688983.jpg) as it seems to be too dark. Assadzadeh (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What else needs to be done for consensus to be reached? Assadzadeh (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone (I'll do it if no else does) posts a close request and an admin pops in to just that and will state there is either a consensus, or no consensus, for both Cleveland and Trump. There's really no need to strike your !vote just because you think opinion is swaying against you. It doesn't help the admin or the process in any way (it would be better if you and GoodDay had just let them stand, imho). - \\'cLf 16:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I walked away, because an editor was being obnoxious towards me. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Sorry bro, didn't realize that. Just the same, we can't let NPA violators drive away experinced, net-pos+ editors like yourself, just so they can bludgeon, badger and battle their way having the pov they've been pushing for. Hope you stick around, or at the very least, un-strike your !vote - you put a lot of time and effort into this page, you should get to have a !ballot, just like everyone else. - \\'cLf 21:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)}}[reply]

I totally agree. TrumpPhoto (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Same portraits - By having the same portrait for both of Cleveland's terms & the same portrait for both of Trump's terms? We further demonstrate that it's the same individual who got non-consecutive terms. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different portraits for both The more information on the persons, the better. PuppyMonkey (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different pictures for both provides no more information Then, having the same pictures for the non-consecutive terms for both. Drdpw (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, if one picture is worth 1,000 words, then two pictures must be worth 2,000 words. PuppyMonkey (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chungy: (Not sure why you posted 4 sections above the most current one, but hopefully we got all that sorted now.) This is not "editorializing", it is simply WP's process to settle debates regarding content. As Assadzedah said, WP is not obligated to use the "official" image of anyone on any articles related to them. The community decides which of any available images is best suited in any given circumstance. That is what we are doing here now, and hopefully it will be resolved shortly. Meanwhile, just a little patience will go a long way to a collegial outcome. - \\'cLf 16:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This talk section is a mess, I didn't realize where the appropriate place to post was.

That being said, picking and choosing what portrait to use, especially when the available ones are both public domain (Wikipedia often lacks good photos of many people because of copyright restrictions), is editorializing. Much of the discussion has been about how "terrible" the portrait is (it may be to you, but that's merely an opinion).

Consistency with President Cleveland makes sense as far as it is possible, which raises an obvious question: Does he have separate official portraits for his terms as 22nd and 24th president of the United States? If so, I'll be in favor of changing his entries to reflect this as well. If not, then President Trump is a new case without precedent. Likewise, President Cleveland being from the late 19th century would also explain why a recency bias hasn't affected his entries on the list as much. Chungy (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Prefer it as the same photo, it's more helpful that way to easily visually see the cases where the same president appears twice. Would it also be useful to semi-protect the article? Seems like it gets a lot of back-and-forth edits here. Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Use same picture – One Grover Cleveland picture for his non-consecutive terms, and one Trump picture for his non-consecutive terms. It makes more visual sense to use one photo for the same person, and is the logical way forward. Drdpw (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Separate photos for both - It would be appropriate to use their official portrait from each term and more distinguishes that they served non-consecutive terms. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 18:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Separate photos for both Cleveland 22 and Trump 45 should have portraits from their first time and Cleveland 24 and Trump 47 should have portraits from their second term. See simple:List of presidents of the United States as an example. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separate photos for both - Placing the 2017 image next to "January 2025" is somewhat ridiculous. Same goes for Cleveland.

We have public domain images for all 4 required images. What's the fuss other than "Trump's new portrait is ugly"? 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 18:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Separate photos for both - Agreed with the users above, since its commonly agreed that they both had separate presidencies (22/24 and 45/47). —JJB^ers 00:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Directing multiple threads to one

We have multiple sections above on this same subject. Everytime another new user (or maybe they're all the same user) pops by to post a request about the images, they don't bother to read the page, they instead just create another new section. Then other users seem to use any one of those sections to comment, instead of reading the page and posting to the most recent section. I have closed all of them now, and directed attention to this section. Hopefully we can have enough participation to gain a consensus either.

This section will be seven days old on 1 February. If at the point or later an admin would like to sort through all the posts among all nine of these sections and try to determine if there is a consensus on either Cleveland's images, Trump's images, or both, that would be great. Hopefully there will be a clear consensus one way or the other on both presidents and this can finally be put to rest. For a awhile. - \\'cLf 16:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully there will be a clear consensus one way or the other on both presidents and this can finally be put to rest. For a awhile.

I wish that could be the case, but this issue seems to be very contentious and I doubt we will ever have consensus. Assadzadeh (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The related sections above are as follows;

Previous threads above;

1. #New portrait
2. #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2025
3. #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2025 (2)
4. #Should Cleveland and Trump have different photos for each presidency?
5. #Use appropriate picture
6. #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 January 2025
7. #Second Trump portrait
8. #Cleveland Portraits
9. #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2025

Subsequent threads below;

1. #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2025
2. #Which Cleveland and Trump photos to use
3. #Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2025

Close request

I have posted a request to close this discussion at WP:ANRFC. Hopefully someone will be by shortly to assess this discussion to determine if there is a consensus, and (if so) what that consensus is. Hopefully people can keep their pants on til then and stop disrupting the article, but those who haven't yet, should still contribute their !vote and/or opinion, if they have one. - \\'cLf 13:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

The close/consensus that was posted here a couple days ago has been retracted. There is now a request at AN for an experienced editor or admin to come and review all this and hopefully we will have a conclusion soon. - \\'cԼF 13:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The AN post has been closed & archived, and another close request has been posted at ANRFC. - \\'cԼF 23:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What was the reason that the WP:AN post was closed & where is it archived? I searched, but couldn't find it. Assadzadeh (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has an experienced editor or admin reviewed all the comments and come to a consensus yet? If not, can we just tally the previous comments ourselves and come to a conclusion? Assadzadeh (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild Has an experienced editor or admin reviewed all the comments and come to a consensus yet? If not, can we just tally the previous comments ourselves and come to a conclusion? Assadzadeh (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Assadzadeh: Not yet but that's also not unusual. We can't just "do it outselves" because we took part and we're involved. It'll happen, you just need to be patient. (And, no need to ping me, I watch this page). - \\'cԼF 18:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]