Category talk:Presidents of the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Why isn't Grover Cleveland in this article?? (This must be why it has only 29 categories instead of 41; note the reason I say 41 is that Grover Cleveland is a single person and doesn't count twice in Wikipedia articles.) 66.245.99.35 17:30, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A strange list[edit]

How does Max Bemis get his name onto this page? How does one delete it from here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.208 (talk) 12:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

categories to go where?[edit]

discussion: Only those presidents who have categories of their own. Some of these articles have many category links, while their corresponding category have few links; some have many links in their category, but few in their corresponding article; some have many, duplicative category links in both their article and their category. Could there be a rule here? I personally think the president's article should only be in one category, the one named for the president; all other category links would be in the president's category. Your ideas? Thanks Hmains 17:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been extensively discussed in various parts of the Category:Categories named after people hierarchy. The consensus is that the person's category should have only one category link, that being the appropriate "Categories named after people of type X" tag, and all the other category links should go in the article.
The reason for this is that most of the articles in, say, Category:George W. Bush don't belong in most of the categories George W. Bush belongs in -- Jenna Bush has never been US President, Cowboy diplomacy was not born in 1946, The Pet Goat is not an American Methodist, and so on. --Paul A 07:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

changed sort order[edit]

Without discussion or agreement, an editor has changed the sort order in which articles appear in this category. Ordering by name is what is used in categories, so it is what readers expect. Ordering by sequence of holding the office is one method of sorting in lists, not categories. This new sort order should be completey reverted by the editor in question. Hmains (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly. However User:Kauffner has a history of ignoring such complaints. Is there an easy way to mass-revert? Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]