text:
Template talk:US presidents

Previously unsectioned comments
I guarantee you the "8 Others" by tomorrow. - Wikipedia 23:18, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Hm, that was fast... - Wikipedia 23:25, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This table is ridiculous. Footers are not replacements for lists. Now we can't easily navigate from president to president. I will revert if i find no good reason to keep. --Jiang 00:12, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? If I can't make sense of a question, how can I answer? - Wikipedia 00:23, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Jiang, I don't really like it either, although I tried to clean it up. It's incredibly crowded, and it replaces the standard incumbent table. There's no real reason to leap from Eisenhower to John Quincy Adams, there is a reason to go from Eisenhower to Kennedy. Also, why is your username written as Wikipedia? That seems kind of sneaky. jengod 00:35, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'll write my name however I want! Is there a reason to jump from Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban to Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets? Is there really a reason to jump from Arizona to the U.S. Virgin Islands? - Wikipedia 00:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland should be put in once for each term to show chronological order. - Wikipedia 00:43, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * A fact that used to be indicated by the incumbent table. I think this should have been discussed on Talk:President of the United States before you unilaterally decided to "update" the president pages. jengod 00:46, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Is this really such a big change? I'm adding information and that is all! I'm not removing or changing anything, I'm just linking each president to every other president! - Calmypal 01:01, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are making a stupid change. Harry Potter only has a few items. The Virgin Islands and Arizona have no clear chronological order. The presidents do. --Jiang

 * I think that for things which come in chronological order (like U.S. presidents), the succession box should be used. For relatively short, absolutely-set lists of items, the listbox is occasionally acceptable. - Seth Ilys 01:05, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Don't remove comments that were not your own or attributed to you, Jiang. "Absolutely-set"? Why is this? - Woodrow 01:09, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I reverted your edit becuase your name was made to create mass horizontal expansion. --Jiang

Whatever you believe, you do not have the right to erase my comments. Whatever happened to the page itself, it had no real effect on the chat. - Woodrow 01:14, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hey, I reverted Timwi up to James Buchanan, but I have to go do another thing now. Could someone take over. I'm also adding this to VFD so it doesn't happen again. Thanks. jengod 19:27, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

What is wrong with this? There's reason to go from, say, John Adams to John Quincy Adams, or Abe Lincoln to James Garfield, and we can still go from Eisenhower to Kennedy. - Woodrow 20:04, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where's Timwi to discuss and defend this? I guess I'll have to revert again. --Jiang 21:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Or not. - Woodrow 21:43, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Presidents of the Continental Congress were not U.S. Presidents, and the office of President of the Continental Congress was not a forerunner of the office of U.S. President. The two should not be mixed up in the same message. -- Nunh-huh 21:46, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Look, I think it's gratutious, clunky, overstuffed, superfluous and more, but I'm willing to compromise--how about we do both the incumbent tables and the msg:Uspresident? I think that the incumbent table is imperative, not least because several were also VP incumbents or other incumbents. The msg:Uspresidents is not just not an added-value. jengod 21:48, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Whatever else happens, the predecessor/sucessor information should take precedence. I personally see no need for the larger box. If there is a meaningful link between James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson, then it will appear in the text of the Buchanan article. Otherwise, it is link-bloat. The idea that a reader would have to wade through the the Continental Congress presidents to get to the successor of William Howard Taft is simply ridiculous. -- Decumanus | Talk 22:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

With the original version of this message, the Vice President incumbent tables were shown inside the box. If that would work now, I'd agree with this idea. The incumbent tables pretty much mirror information that's in the table at the top of the page anyway. - Woodrow 22:10, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Please explain the meaning of that last sentence, Jengod...

You know what? I think I've started the largest edit war ever: one spanning about 51 articles. - Woodrow 22:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From Calmypal's talk page:

 Please stop adding the footer because it is a waste of time. I will revert it as long as you fail to convince us of its need and create a consensus to use it. --Jiang

''As long as you can keep removing it, I can keep adding it. - Woodrow 22:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)''

What do you mean "who's responsible" (see page history)? - Woodrow 22:27, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm asking you to discuss this and you dont seem interested. --Jiang
 * I want to discuss this, but I'm losing patience. All evidence has been presented, all we can do is deliberate. It would be foolish of me to make a table of every company president, President of Georgia, President of Mexico, and so on, but the U.S. presidents are relevant to each other. - Woodrow 22:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The reason msg's like this are not encouraged is because there are some heads of state who are one in a list of hundreds. It would be completely unfeasible to have something like this for the Popes, for example. That is why there are little navigation tables with the previous and succeeding people, rather than a big list of everyone at the end. There is no reason to do it differently for US presidents. If you want to do something constructive, you could find a way to make the current tables more attractive. Adam Bishop 22:33, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Popes? No, completely unfeasible. U.S. Presidents? Feasible, obviously, for, as you can see, I have already done it. - Woodrow 22:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant. Adam Bishop 22:37, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

From John Kerry's talk page: ''Normally, we count George Washington as the first President, and John Kerry will be the 44th. However, according to a rectangular box at the bottom of George Washington's article, I now see 8 Presidents of Continential Congress, making George Washington the ninth President and John Kerry the 52nd. User 66.32.68.243 '' ''First of all, John Kerry will have to be elected before he becomes any number president. Second, we do not count Presidents of the Continental Congress in the sequencing, since they were presidents of that Congress, and not the executive of the United States. Cecropia 21:16, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)'' jengod 23:22, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not calling them Presidents of the United States, I'm calling them Presidents of the Continental Congress. - Woodrow 23:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Look, it doesn't matter, the US presidents don't get a MediaWiki message like this because no heads of states do. That's really all there is to it. Adam Bishop 23:39, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The Sandbox doesn't get to stay because no pages that lack useful content get to. That's all there really is to it. - Woodrow 23:47, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * The sandbox doesnt stay - it keeps getting wiped, and someone keeps restoring it. :) I think this might work if it was a sidebar, and if the Continental Congress Presidents were excluded. - SV  (talk) 00:04, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Bush I and Bush II? L.B.J.? T.R.? If I'm looking for Teddy Roosevelt, I think I'll overlook T.R. I disagree with your changes, and I feel you're being a bit too bold, but I want to know what others think of the presidents you've changed the names of. I refuse to give up the Presidents of the Continental Congress, however. They were the first leaders of our country, which I consider to have technically been in a state of anarchy preceding the ratification of the Articles. - Woodrow 00:23, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * '"I feel you're being a bit too bold"' Snort. jengod 00:26, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Huff. - Woodrow 00:28, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki messages are not the place to impose your point of view. The presidents of the Continental Congress were not presidents of the US, a nation formed after they were in office. It's misleading to imply the office has any sort of historical continuity with the presidency. -- Nunh-huh 00:30, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I have not given that office continuity with the current one. The United States of America was established under the Articles of Confederation. but it was then decided that they didn't work well. Until that decision was made, the Presidency of the Continental Congress was the highest position in U.S. government. - Woodrow 00:36, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Give them their own message. This one has already confused one reader, and would confuse more if left as is. - Nunh-huh 00:38, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Was it confusion or a sarcastic comment? - Woodrow 00:42, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I took it at face value. - Nunh-huh 00:52, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I should mention the main reason I put the Presidents of the Continental Congress in in the first place; George Washington's incumbent table has it that he was preceded by "Previous government under the Articles of Confederation". Are we supposed to pretend that George Washington was the beginning of formal government in the United States? - Woodrow 01:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * No. Nor should we pretend that he succeeded Cyrus Griffin. - Nunh-huh 02:13, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nor should we pretend that, alphabetically, American Samoa comes after Wyoming. - Woodrow 03:06, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No we shouldn't, and that leaves us with the awkward situation of have two conflicting footers in the same article. --Jiang 00:15, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * What do you mean "not really president" and why do you say they conflict? - Woodrow 00:36, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The President of the Continental Congress was no more "President of the United States" than the "President of the Senate". They conflict because the top one says "Countries of the World" and the bottom one says "insular area". --Jiang 00:40, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Not quite answering my question...

The Continental Congress was unicameral. The President of the Continental Congress was in charge of the country. - Woodrow 00:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * No, the president of the Continental Congress was in charge of the Continental Congress. - Nunh-huh 01:10, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Which WAS the country. The Articles were more like a treaty than a constitution. Read them. - Woodrow 01:24, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Now you're just being silly. - Nunh-huh 22:33, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Last week I was just being silly. - Woodrow 02:24, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NGI (If you can figure out how I pronounce that)! It appears to me to mainly be Jiang and jengod going against this by themselves. How many others have aggressively campaigned against this? If anyone else was disturbed by this, they would be the ones removing the notice from every page. Personally, I consider it acceptance when it is allowed to remain on George W. Bush! - Woodrow 00:53, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Look, I think it's gratutious, clunky, overstuffed, superfluous and more, but I'm willing to compromise--how about we do both the incumbent tables and the msg:Uspresident? SANS the Continental Congress nonsense. jengod 01:06, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't have anything to add, but I want to chime in. I like the box and think it should be kept but agree that the Continental Congress prezes need to stay removed. Tuf-Kat 01:27, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

From VfD

 * Being used to replace standard imcumbent navigation, unwieldly. jengod 19:30, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * VFD should not be used for editorial decisions! This element is currently linked to by all of the president articles; if you dislike the change (I have no opinion on it), be bold and change it back. It's irrational to bring up a vote on an element used in 40+ articles. — Sverdrup 20:25, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep this time. Please sort this out on the talk pages of the articles or the mediawiki message, not use VfD to short-circuit consensus-based discussions. If there's some agreement, list it here then. Jamesday 20:34, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * delete, of those willing to discuss, consensus on MediaWiki talk:Uspresidents is for deletion. --Jiang 22:41, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I gladly delete unused MW elements. This one however, was pulled into vfd while still being used by every president article, and it is still used in 10+ of them. Any Wikipedian could make the editorial decision of reversing the change. Why don't do that first, then bring it to vfd?! While you are still unwilling to actually reverse the changes in the articles, it's just silly to argue pro/con deletion. — Sverdrup 11:47, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for the consensus described above but all I see on that link is a vote to keep. ? - Texture 17:27, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * editorial decisions reversing the change will create edit wars and have less community input. When I made that statement, Calmypal was trolling on this page and what I stated was the truth.--Jiang
 * Keep. I agree it shouldn't be used on every single President page, but that doesn't mean it might not prove useful for certain other pages. Anthony DiPierro 22:58, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but remove the Continental presidents. Use standard abbreviations T.Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, LBJ, Bush I and II. The problem with this is that it needs to be as compact as possible. - SV (talk) 03:33, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are many possible compromises (e.g. removing Contental presidents, or breaking up by era).  Nonetheless, the current myopic (<-last POTUS next->) thing looks pretty klunky too. -- RobLa 07:20, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but don't necessarily link to every other president. e.g. to some of the lists instead. --User:Docu

Template not needed, redux
Now that we have categories, this is redundant. Some presidential articles are getting too long. This is one of the things we no longer need. --Jiang 01:44, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Category pages sort alphabetically, not chronologically
 * The category has links on a separate page
 * - Calmypal 01:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jiang. I still don't see the need. Johnleemk | Talk 14:23, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

One-year anniversary
We are now at the one-year anniversary of the beginning of the most interesting period of Wikipedia article history to study (How many of you Wikipedians can remember this time in Wikipedia history??):

On March 18, 2004, Calmypal brought up his President's template, taking all the President articles, removing the navigation tables, and replacing them with his template. Then, Jengod, finding the template, reverted them to the previous version with the navigation tables. and wrote a message on Calmypal's talk page. The argument went on for a while. Then came Timwi, who did the exact same thing; he took the President pages and replaced it with Calmypal's template. There was still no consensus to keep Calmypal's template. Then, several more times, Calmypal and Jengod argued on whether to use the navigation tables or Calmypal's template should be used. For a while after then, Calmypal's template remained absent. In April, it was finally a consensus; keep both the navigation tables and Calmypal's template. Georgia guy 02:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've changed so much since then. For instance, I now know what "pecuniary" means. Having this argument today, I would definitely not have written some of the things I did, but I still like the box. What's funny is that today I look at it as some convenient thing that's just there. I've totally forgotten it's a personal accomplishment. - Calmypal 02:53, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Succession box redundancy
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)

Template fix
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)

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

Acting Presidents
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)
 * 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)
 * I don't need to, see Acting President of the United States there were two official Acting Presidents: Bush (I) and Cheney. Therequiembellishere 04:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I guess I haven't put up links, so I'll do that now. Therequiembellishere 05:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Last name only?
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)
 * 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)

Adding of Clinton or Obama to the list
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)

maybe we should add Thomas E. Dewey and Al Gore to the list, on account of they OUGHT TO have won the elections that got stolen from under their feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.107 (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki
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)

Seal in title bar
I really don't think there's any value in adding the seal to the title bar. For one thing, it's shown (legibly) in the expanded navbox. Secondly, even when it isn't visible when the box is collapsed, the seal is a completely illegible smudge at the resolution required to fit it into the title bar. This should be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree: I made this change to help distinguish this nav bar from others which use flags, logos, or symbology to ID what category they are in. For example, you can see at the bottom of the President of the United States article, this sets off this navbar category well from the Presidential Elections navbar and the others. Likewise, if you see how this sort of icon identifier sits when grouped with others, such as at the bottom of the United States Secretary of the Navy, it works quite well. While the details are of course lost, as a graphic designer by vocation, I will state professionally that this sort of icon helps to visually cue the viewer/reader that this is a differentiated navigational element that is a member of a distinct category. (FYI, my apologies for misreading the rv tag as suggesting this was a vandalism case in the edit summary.) Lestatdelc (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there no more legible device which could be used, rather than the seal? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was kind of neat, despite the loss of graphic resolution... Foofighter20x (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Support removal. The seal adds nothing information-wise to the template, and seems to be essentially for decoration. I would support removing it. Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Update
So this issue has come up again, and brought up a relevant MoS entry: WP:ICONDECORATION. I think this supports the removal of these emblems in this case, as one is a duplicate of the right-hand image and one is a flag (always pretty contentious). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am in line with Lestatdelc in the sense they que the readers eye to the most important navboxes rather than the needless ones, and it makes them identifiable to a country or office. If you do delete them from the US ones then you would have to do the same for the European Union, Israel and Canada! Consensus has been established in part!  Bluedogtn (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to argue that they should be deleted from other articles as well, but the existence of other things is not necessarily an indicator of a consensus - there may well be plenty of contraindicators on other templates. As for making the templates "identifiable", flags are only barely legible at 16px and Presidental seals are just blobs - they're not recognisable as anything. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not happy b/c everything does not have to be bland and banal like you want it and the navboxs for each country can be unique and since I am an American I want to have the seal and the flag! I am proud of my homeland, do the same for yours thank you Stephen_Harper and Tzipi_Livni.  I like their nationalistic pride and zeal for their offices and wanted to do the same for my country.  I hope you do the same for your country of Great Britian!
 * by the way it says its up to the editer user to determine if comparables can be used in an argument defeating your own point! Bluedogtn (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Manual_of_Style_(icons). First line Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Gnevin (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If a navbox is "needless", then why is it in the article in the first place? And who decides which are the "most important" navboxes?  — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Central discussion of flag and icon additions Gnevin (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of my comment above concerning the "neat" factor, I think the WP:ICONDECORATION is pretty clear cut: these icons are not necessary to the boxes content, and thus don't need to be included. Foofighter20x (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Not listing Obama
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)
 * 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)

At what time should Barack Obama be added to the template? --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Noon, EST. That is, 1200pm in Washington D.C., some 43 minutes from now... Foofighter20x (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Succession numbers
The succession numbers are not "gaudy", they are "necessary". Without them, the list of names is practically meaningless. I have made those numbers less prominent. Also, the Readers of this encyclopedia should not be made to jump all over the place in order to obtain information. This template is made far more meaningful with these succession numbers. Those numbers represent the place in the succession that these presidents served their country. Please discuss here before taking action. – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX   )  03:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cartoon Boy, this list is useless without the succession numbers, and part of being an editor is to make things better and easier for readers, not harder. Why would you want to make things harder for readers? – Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX   )  08:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would it be meaningless without the numbering? Maybe I'm too familiar with the names, but shouldn't it be taken for granted that the 44 names are in succession of one another? No other template I'm aware of has numbers presented in such a way, and we should also strive for some consistency here. It's an easy-to-access list of Presidents so you can click from one name to another. We don't need succession numbers, term dates, birth/death dates, middle/birth names, height info, mother's maiden names, et cetera, crowding up the list. When it was just last names, it was fine. When they added first names, it was understandable. We should be wary of any more info creep on any more info-creep on a template who's sole purpose is to go from point A to point B, C, D, E, Z, or RR.--(unsigned)
 * Those of us who are familiar with the presidents are not the only ones who read Wikipedia. There are children who read who might want to know at a glance who the 16th president of the United States was.  The consistency then should go in the right direction, not the wrong one.  No one added any of that other info, so I have no idea what you're striving for with "height info".  You're being facetious, of course, I know.  But Wikipedia is also for those who are NOT so knowledgeable about things, and a list of presidents, without showing succession requires them to then HUNT for that info, which they should not be required to do. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX   )  16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but the "height info" is about as important as the succession numbers. In that they have no bearing on the presidencies' themselves and in fact bring unnecessary debate and complexity to an otherwise simple template for getting from point A to point B, C, or D. At a glance, children might want to know who the tallest President is, or the ones who were in the Whig Party, or the ones who had different birth names or were born in the 18th century. But we can't provide all this info at a glance and the template should do what it was designed to do. List and link to the 44-ish United States Presidents. If we list numbers here, we should list them at Speakers of the US House, or Presidents pro tempore of the US Senate, or Prime Ministers of the UK, or Kings of Bhutan. Numbering these all are impossible, unnecessary and bring up debatable issues (Do nonconsecutive terms count seperate elsewhere? or only in America? or only in the Presidency?).--Tim Thomason 20:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are making all this much more complicated and "controversial" than it actually is or needs to be. The succession numbers in and of themselves may not seem very important to some, however, they are actually very important to others, and so, should be included.  This list is in succession format with each president who follows in the list doing so in his unique succession location.  This might be actually visualized by those who know the presidents and who know their succession location.  However, to the untrained eye, their "obvious" succession format is unknown unless their succession is pointed out using numbers.  Heavens man, if we're going to LIST them in succession, then we should also INCLUDE their succession numbers for those readers who may want to know them by their name AND by their succession number.  If we don't include the numbers, then questions may arise, e.g., Why is Grover Cleveland's name shown two times?  Who was the 3rd president?  Was John F. Kennedy the 35th or 34th president?  These and other similar questions ought to be answerable in ready fashion rather than making the reader hunt for them.  You can add other info if you think it is needed.  I happen to consider succession numbers to be needed on this template, and I consider the template to lack substantial meaning to readers if those succession numbers are not right there and readily available. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX   )  21:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I repeat my unanswered question to the editor who keeps reverting but who refuses to discuss it here:
 * Cartoon Boy, this list is useless without the succession numbers, and part of being an editor is to make things better and easier for readers, not harder. Why would you want to make things harder for readers? –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX   )  06:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, because of the apparent controversy (NOTE: I did not revert anything, despite my opinion on one side), we might need to list this somewhere. I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia enough to know if RFC or whatever is the best course of action.--Tim Thomason 14:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I've said when reverting, it is the number of editors who agree with the proposed change that allows that change to be permanent. If you're the only one who is in favor, it carries no weight.  This is something I have come to learn when arguing for or proposing a change on talk pages.  And I again ask, how is going to the other articles, or simply clicking on the president's article to find out which number they are, harder for readers?  It only takes a few seconds. The list is linked in the template. And again, readers are capable of counting the names. It's not like three-year olds are coming on this site.  - Cartoon Boy (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Cartoon Boy, not three-year-olds, however there are many people in other countries who read Wikipedia with varying degrees of English reading ability and far less knowledge of America than someone brought up here. They may not quickly grasp that succession information is available at the links mentioned.  However, if you want to maintain this template in its present meaningless form (virtually meaningless to all but those of us who firmly grasp English and how to find information readily using links), then so be it.  I'll spar with you no longer.  Thank you for discussing it. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX   )  06:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Template content simplified
I removed the links to the many Presidency of Name articles, as it made the template content too cluttered. GoodDay (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your edit and invite discussion on whether or not links to the various Presidency of ... articles should remain included or removed from the template. Drdpw (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They cause too much clutter & besides, the template is about the individuals, not their administrations. Anyways, whatever the rest have to say, is fine with me. GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I added the presidency articles to the template this past August because several presidents now have articles specifically about their administrations, and to cut down on the high number of "see also" entries (the various presidency pages) being added to POTUS-related pages. If others concur that the presidency links clutter the template and are tangential to it, then I'll construct a separate navbox and simplify this template. Drdpw (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, I see a couple ways to declutter the template without removing the presidency links: 1) have each presidency article link to the appropriate presidency (succession) number; or 2) Create two template groups, the 1st, "Biographies", for the personal articles, and the 2nd, "Administrations", for the presidency articles (last names only would be used, except to distinguish between the presidents sharing the same last name (such as J. & J. Q. Adams). Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on these possibilities.
 * Spartan7W, AndrewOne, Cartoon Boy, Orser67, Jhenderson777, and Neve-selbert, as you've contributed to this template over the past few months, I want to invite you to weigh in on this conversation. Thanks. Drdpw (talk) 14:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I dislike the parenthetical 'presidency'. That doesn't belong here. This template is chronological navbox for Presidents alone. These parenthetical add clutter, look bad, and they add confusion in the case of a transition, as the president-elect should be italicized but they confuse with that. Remove them.  Spartan7W  §   15:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

My first choice is deletion. But, your proposal of 2 templates (Biographies, Administrations), is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I like the two templates idea Orser67 (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We apparently have a consensus for two separate templates, and so I've created Template:US Presidential Administrations. I will remove the "presidency of ..." links from this template. I will also remove this template from the "Presidency of ..." articles and insert the new template in its place. Cheers and thanks for the input. Drdpw (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to redesign the Administrations template
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)

Grover Cleveland
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)
 * As Grover Cleveland-22 & Grover Cleveland-24 were the same person, with the same name, two links to one article seems redundant. Additionally, the Navigation template style guidelines state, "Avoid repeating links to the same article within a template." None the less, Cleveland was POTUS on two separate occasions, and he was listed twice in the template prior to this past August. (removed at a time when several "presidency of ..." articles were being added, which my be why the change went unnoticed until now) Is listing him once okay, or should he be listed twice? Thoughts/opinions? Drdpw (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If we decide to go along with the redesign, I'm fine with including Cleveland just once (since it saves space). With the current design, I'm not too sure.--Nevé–selbert 23:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Quincy, Henry & Howard
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)

Current design
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)
 * Agree with this Aza24 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

FDR disambiguation
, – 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I prefer the status quo. The compromise was to appease Aza24. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * It seems we have an editwar here... The Banner  talk 14:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Unfortunately, your desperate attempt is even more disruptive to the flow than my solution The Banner  talk 15:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * You are not the owner of this template. The Banner  talk 19:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not & neither are you. GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Open up an RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Any solution that shows two different timespans is not acceptable. --Marbe166 (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No objections? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 11:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Give us a visual example, here. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * example The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * So the issue is solved. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The disambiguation page-in-question, has been put up for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The template now links to "Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt", not to that DAB page. Drdpw (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, we're back to the satus-quo. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 18:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The result is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, though, as noted, that page is now a SIA rather than a DAB page. Drdpw (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We get to keep showing "1933–1945" unbroken. I'm quite content :) GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Stripes
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)

title: Template talk:US presidents


text:
Round World Version of Tolkien's legendarium

The Round World Version is an alternative creation myth to the version of J.R.R. Tolkien's legendarium as it appears in The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings. In that version, the Earth was created flat and was changed to round as a cataclysmic event during the Second Age in order to prevent direct access by Men to Valinor, home of the immortals. In the Round World Version, the Earth is created spherical from the beginning.

Tolkien abandoned the Round World Version before completion of The Lord of the Rings but later regretted this decision. He felt that postulating an ancient flat world detracted from the believability of his writings. He planned a new round world version, but only got as far as an outline. He created a Round World Version of the Akallabêth, the central story of the submerging of Númenor, "The Drowning of Anadûnê", but felt unable to proceed with it because the Flat World version was so deeply embedded in his mythology. He never resolved the dilemma, continuing to redraft his published works to make them compatible with a round world version for most of the rest of his life. His son Christopher, editing The Silmarillion which he published after Tolkien's death, considered adjusting the text to comply with Tolkien's wish to return to the Round World Version, but decided against it, not least because the Akallabêth relies intrinsically on the Flat World cosmology.

History

Tolkien gives the fullest account of the creation myth in the Ainulindalë ("Music of the Ainur"). He wrote the original version in the 1930s, calling it the "Flat World Version" or later the "Old Flat World Version" after he had created a new flat world version. In 1946 he wrote the "Round World Version", intending this to be the published version. Tolkien sent both the "Old Flat World Version" and the "Round World Version" to Katharine Farrer (mystery novelist and wife of the theologian Austin Farrer) for review in 1948. Farrer replied to him in October strongly supporting the Flat World Version – "The hope of Heaven is the only thing which makes modern astronomy tolerable..." Farrer seems to have influenced Tolkien to abandon the Round World Version, which he did before completing The Lord of the Rings, or even starting its last volume, The Return of the King. Tolkien created a new manuscript from a heavily edited Old Flat World Version. He then produced a final polished version with illuminated capitals.

No version of the Ainulindalë was published during Tolkien's lifetime, but a heavily edited version later formed the first chapter of the 1977 The Silmarillion edited by Tolkien's son Christopher. The earliest version (not named Ainulindalë) was published in 1983 in The Book of Lost Tales volume 1. The Old Flat World Version was included in the 1987 The Lost Road and Other Writings. Both the Round World Version and the New Flat World Version were included in the 1993 Morgoth's Ring. The latter is a more faithful reproduction of Tolkien's manuscript than the version in The Silmarillion.

Tolkien wrote a Round World Version of the Akallabêth ("The Downfall of Númenor"), possibly in 1948 to match the Ainulindalë Round World Version. This is an Atlantis-like story of the destruction of the island of Númenor, brought about by their deception by Sauron. This geographic change is part of the transition from flat to round world. Like the Ainulindalë, the Akallabêth was not published during Tolkien's lifetime, but it was included in The Silmarillion.

As late as 1966 Tolkien was still attempting to make the Round World Version work across his body of work. In The Hobbit he has the Wood-elves lingering in the twilight of the Sun (Round World) instead of lingering in the twilight before the raising of the Sun (Flat World).

An internal problem: impossible to the Númenóreans

According to the lawyer and author on Tolkien Douglas Kane, the fundamental problem Tolkien had with the Flat World Version was that the Númenóreans, the ancestors of Men, were the means by which the legends of the earliest days were transmitted to later generations. Tolkien believed that the Númenóreans would understand that a flat Earth was impossible.

An external problem: incredible to the ordinary reader
The Tolkien scholar John D. Rateliff takes a different view of the problem, writing that Tolkien had changed his mind about what an ordinary reader would be able to believe, or the extent to which that reader might be able to suspend their disbelief, in the face of a medieval cosmology. Rateliff wrote that

"Tolkien had come to believe that the average reader’s astronomical knowledge by the middle of the twentieth century was sufficient that the idea of a flat earth—circled by a little sun and moon that were glowing fruits and flowers from magical trees carried in flying boats, each of which, steered by an angel, sails in the sky from east to west before travelling back beneath the earth by night—simply [wouldn’t] do."

The horns of the dilemma
The Flat World Version, Tolkien had come to feel, was thus essentially unacceptable, whether internally or externally, requiring replacement. But the story of the submerging of Númenor relies intrinsically on this cosmology. Many other dramatic moments would be lost or need serious revision to make a Round World Version consistent across all of the works in the Middle-earth legendarium. Amongst the tales that would need revising, but for which Tolkien produced no alternative version, is the story of the Two Trees. Matthew Dickerson calls these "the most important mythic symbols in all of the legendarium".

The Round World Version thus represents a major, concrete part of Tolkien's attempt to entirely rewrite the mythology of Middle-earth. Rateliff comments that Tolkien had an "extremely good" grasp of the "cascading effects" of making such a change in his legendarium; and that this change was uniquely awkward, as it stood at the junction of the myths from Valinor and the legends of Beleriand. Tolkien saw that he would have to rewrite the early tales that set out his cosmology, and stop work on the legends until the cosmology had been made fully consistent. In Rateliff's view, Tolkien "became convinced that he had to make changes he simply couldn't bring himself to make", and became stuck. As if this were not enough, in 1951 his publisher rejected The Silmarillion. Even if Tolkien could have resolved one or other of these issues, Rateliff writes, the two together "probably" ensured that The Silmarillion would not be published in his lifetime.

Tolkien named the Akallabêth Round World Version The Drowning of Anadûnê. He described this as the "Man's version", possibly to distinguish it from the Elvish version in the Akallabêth, and to reconcile why there are two versions in the legendarium. Much as he would have liked to abandon or heavily revise the Flat World Version, he writes that he cannot, as it is already too deeply embedded in the universe he has created. Tolkien was attempting, but failing, to reinforce the sense of believability in his mythology by bringing it more into line with scientific knowledge of the history of the Earth. Further, the Round World Version generated as many problems as it solved, such as where the earthly paradise of Valinor might now be placed. The Tolkien scholar Verlyn Flieger described the attempt as "a 180% turn" and "'a fearful weapon' against his own creation".

Choice for The Silmarillion
While preparing The Silmarillion for publication, Christopher Tolkien was aware that his father had intended to update it to a new Round World Version. He considered editing the manuscripts to comply with this wish. In other respects, he had edited the stories to make them internally self-consistent, and consistent with the already published canon. He later published several edited versions of his father's Silmarillion stories in the 12-volume The History of Middle-earth.

Christopher decided against such an update for several reasons. What his father had left of the Round World Silmarillion was no more than an outline of his intentions. The earlier Round World Version was no longer viable, because by this stage it differed too greatly from already published works. The Silmarillion would either need major rework, or the change would have to be allowed to introduce new inconsistencies.

In-universe description
Christopher Tolkien described the Round World Version as "de-mythologised". As well as removing the flat Earth, it abolishes the need for the Sun and Moon to be transported by mythical beings. Also gone are the two enormous lamps that light the Earth before the creation of the Sun: the Sun shines from the beginning. In the Round World Version, the Earth has always been round, and Arda is the name for the whole solar system, not just the Earth. The Sun and the Moon are not the fruit of the Two Trees, but preceded the creation of the Trees. Instead, the Trees preserved the light of the Sun before it was tainted by Melkor. The Moon is not created by Eru, the supreme being, as in the Flat World Version, but by Melkor, his chief antagonist, who tears it from the Earth. The Moon becomes Melkor's stronghold, and because of this, it is moved further away from the Earth by the Valar to diminish Melkor's influence. Christopher Tolkien considers this a further piece of de-mythologising: the Moon is created after the Earth and from a part of it, in accordance with the scientific paradigm.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament

The NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament, sometimes referred to as Women's March Madness, is a single-elimination tournament played each spring in the United States, currently featuring 68 women's college basketball teams from the Division I level of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), to determine the national championship.

The tournament was preceded by the AIAW women's basketball tournament, which was organized by the Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women (AIAW) from 1972 to 1982. Basketball was one of 12 women's sports added to the NCAA championship program for the 1981–82 school year, as the NCAA engaged in battle with the AIAW for sole governance of women's collegiate sports. The AIAW continued to conduct its established championship program in the same 12 (and other) sports; however, after a year of dual women's championships, the NCAA prevailed, while the AIAW disbanded.

As of 2022, the tournament follows the same format and selection process as its men's counterpart, with 32 automatic bids awarded to the champions of the Division I conferences, and 36 "at-large bids" extended by the NCAA Selection Committee, which are placed into four regional divisions and seeded from 1 to 16. The four lowest-seeded automatic bids, and the four lowest-seeded at-large bids, compete in the First Four games to advance to the 64-team bracket in the first round. The national semi-finals, branded as the Women's Final Four, are traditionally scheduled on the same weekend as the men's Final Four, but in a different host city. Presently, the Women's Final Four uses a Friday/Sunday scheduling, with its games occurring one day prior to the men's Final Four and championship, respectively.

Attendance and interest in the women's championship have grown over the years, especially from 2003 to 2016, when the final championship game was moved to the Tuesday following the Monday men's championship game. The tournament is often overshadowed by the more-prominent men's tournament; after a gender equality review following the 2021 tournament, the NCAA expanded it to the current 68-team format of the men's tournament and extended the "March Madness" branding to the tournament as well. The 2024 women's championship was the first to receive higher viewership than the men's championship the same year. Still, the tournament receives a smaller amount of funding from broadcast rights (which are held by ESPN, and are pooled with those of other NCAA Division I championships besides golf and men's basketball) and sponsorship (which are sold by CBS and Turner Sports) than the men's tournament.

With 11 national titles, the UConn Huskies hold the record for the most NCAA Women's Division I Basketball Championships, which included four straight championships from 2013 through 2016. The team had also made the semi-finals for 14 consecutive tournaments.

Tournament format
From 1982 to 1990, 1996 to 2002, 2017 to 2019 and since 2021, the Women's Final Four is usually played on the Friday before the Men's Final Four or the hours before the men played on the final Saturday of the tournament. The final, since 2023, is played the Sunday afternoon following the Men's Final Four; from 2017 to 2019, 2021 and 2022, Sunday evening.

The tournament bracket is made up of champions from each Division I conference, which are automatic bids. The remaining slots are at-large bids, with teams chosen by an NCAA selection committee. The selection process and tournament seedings are based on several factors, including team rankings, win–loss records, and NET data. Since 2022, 68 teams qualify for the tournament played in March and April. Of these teams, 32 earn automatic bids by winning their respective conference tournaments. Since 2017 the Ivy League conducts its own post-season tournament. The remaining teams are granted "at-large" bids, which are extended by the NCAA Selection Committee. Dr. Marilyn McNeil, vice president/director of athletics at Monmouth University is the current chairwoman. On March 1, 2011, Bowling Green State University's director of intercollegiate athletics, Greg Christopher, was appointed chair of the NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Committee during the 2011–12 academic year.

The tournament begins with four opening-round games known as the First Four. Like the men's version, the women's First Four involves the four lowest-ranked conference champions playing for 16 seeds in the round of 64, and the four lowest-ranked at-large teams playing for their own spots in the round of 64.

The tournament is split into four regional tournaments, and each regional has teams seeded from 1 to 16, with the committee ostensibly making every region as comparable to the others as possible. The top-seeded team in each region plays the #16 team, the #2 team plays the #15, etc. (meaning that all first-round games involve teams whose seeds add up to 17).

Number of teams, and seeding
The first NCAA women's basketball tournament was held in 1982. The AIAW also held a basketball tournament in 1982, but most of the top teams, including defending AIAW champion Louisiana Tech, decided to participate in the NCAA tournament.

The championship consisted of 32 teams from 1982 to 1985 (in 1983, 36), 40 teams from 1986 to 1988, and 48 teams from 1989 to 1993. From 1994 to 2021, 64 teams competed in each tournament. From 2022, the tournament will involve 68 teams, matching the size of the D-I men's tournament.

Prior to 1996, seeding was conducted on a regional basis. The top teams (eight in the 32-, 40-, and 48-team formats, and 16 in the 64-team format) were ranked and seeded on a national basis. The remaining teams were then seeded based on their geographic region. Teams were moved outside of its geographic region only if it was necessary to balance the bracket, or if the proximity of an opponent outside of its region would be comparable and a more competitive game would result. In 1993, all teams except for the top four were explicitly unseeded. The regional seeding resumed in 1994. In 1996, seeds were assigned on a national basis using an "S-Curve" format similar to the process used in selecting the field for the men's tournament.

The following table summarizes some of the key attributes of the seeding process:

Selection process
A special selection committee appointed by the NCAA determines which 68 teams will enter the tournament, and where they will be seeded and placed in the bracket. Because of the automatic bids, only 36 teams (the at-large bids) rely on the selection committee to secure them a spot in the tournament.

NCAA Championship by conference
Note: Conferences are listed by all champions' affiliations at that time; these do not necessarily match current affiliations.

NCAA Final Four locations

 * 1982 – Norfolk, Virginia
 * 1983 – Norfolk, Virginia
 * 1984 – Los Angeles, California
 * 1985 – Austin, Texas
 * 1986 – Lexington, Kentucky
 * 1987 – Austin, Texas
 * 1988 – Tacoma, Washington
 * 1989 – Tacoma, Washington
 * 1990 – Knoxville, Tennessee
 * 1991 – New Orleans, Louisiana
 * 1992 – Los Angeles, California
 * 1993 – Atlanta, Georgia
 * 1994 – Richmond, Virginia
 * 1995 – Minneapolis, Minnesota
 * 1996 – Charlotte, North Carolina
 * 1997 – Cincinnati, Ohio
 * 1998 – Kansas City, Missouri
 * 1999 – San Jose, California
 * 2000 – Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 * 2001 – St. Louis, Missouri
 * 2002 – San Antonio, Texas
 * 2003 – Atlanta, Georgia
 * 2004 – New Orleans, Louisiana
 * 2005 – Indianapolis, Indiana
 * 2006 – Boston, Massachusetts
 * 2007 – Cleveland, Ohio
 * 2008 – Tampa, Florida
 * 2009 – St. Louis, Missouri
 * 2010 – San Antonio, Texas
 * 2011 – Indianapolis, Indiana
 * 2012 – Denver, Colorado
 * 2013 – New Orleans, Louisiana
 * 2014 – Nashville, Tennessee
 * 2015 – Tampa, Florida
 * 2016 – Indianapolis, Indiana
 * 2017 – Dallas, Texas
 * 2018 – Columbus, Ohio
 * 2019 – Tampa, Florida
 * 2020 – New Orleans, Louisiana
 * 2021 – San Antonio, Texas
 * 2022 – Minneapolis, Minnesota
 * 2023 – Dallas, Texas
 * 2024 – Cleveland, Ohio
 * 2025 – Tampa, Florida
 * 2026 – Phoenix, Arizona
 * 2027 – Columbus, Ohio
 * 2028 – Indianapolis, Indiana
 * 2029 – San Antonio, Texas
 * 2030 – Portland, Oregon
 * 2031 – Dallas, Texas

Result by school and by year
Two hundred and eighty-three teams have appeared in the NCAA tournament in at least one year starting with 1982 (the initial year that the post-season tournament was under the auspices of the NCAA). The results for all years are shown in this table below.

 * Notes

Top-ranked teams
Since the women's tournament began in 1982, 20 teams have entered the tournament ranked #1 in at least 1 poll and gone on to win the tournament:
 * 1982: Louisiana Tech
 * 1983: USC
 * 1986: Texas
 * 1989: Tennessee
 * 1995: UConn
 * 1998: Tennessee
 * 1999: Purdue
 * 2000: UConn
 * 2002: UConn
 * 2003: UConn
 * 2009: UConn
 * 2010: UConn
 * 2012: Baylor
 * 2014: UConn
 * 2015: UConn
 * 2016: UConn
 * 2019: Baylor
 * 2021: Stanford
 * 2022: South Carolina
 * 2024: South Carolina

Champions excluded the next year
Only once has the reigning champion (the previous year's winner) not made it to the tournament the next year.
 * 1985 champion Old Dominion went 15–13 in 1986.

No. 1 seeds
Since 1982, at least one #1 seed has made the Final Four every year.

Under coach Geno Auriemma, Connecticut has been seeded #1 a record 22 times. Tennessee is second with 21 #1 seeds.

All four #1 seeds have made it to the Final Four 4 times (champion in bold):
 * 1989 Auburn, Louisiana Tech, Maryland, Tennessee
 * 2012 Baylor, UConn, Notre Dame, Stanford
 * 2015 UConn, Maryland, Notre Dame, South Carolina
 * 2018 UConn, Mississippi State, Notre Dame, Louisville

The championship game has matched two #1 seeds 15 times:
 * 1983 USC beat Louisiana Tech
 * 1986 Texas beat USC
 * 1989 Tennessee beat Auburn
 * 1991 Tennessee beat Virginia
 * 1995 UConn beat Tennessee
 * 2000 UConn beat Tennessee
 * 2002 UConn beat Oklahoma
 * 2003 UConn beat Tennessee
 * 2010 UConn beat Stanford
 * 2012 Baylor beat Notre Dame
 * 2014 UConn beat Notre Dame
 * 2015 UConn beat Notre Dame
 * 2018 Notre Dame beat Mississippi State
 * 2019 Baylor beat Notre Dame
 * 2024 South Carolina beat Iowa

Three teams have beaten three #1 seeds during the course of a tournament (the largest number of such teams that can be faced) (all three teams won the national championship as beating a 3rd #1 seed in a single tournament can only happen in the finals):
 * 1987 Tennessee (beat Auburn, Long Beach State, Louisiana Tech)
 * 1988 Louisiana Tech (beat Auburn, Tennessee, Texas)
 * 2005 Baylor (beat LSU, Michigan State, North Carolina)

Prior to the expansion of the tournament to 64 teams, all four #1 seeds advanced to the Sweet Sixteen with three exceptions. Notably, the first two times this occurred were at the hands of the same school:
 * 1986 East #1 seed Virginia lost to #8 seed James Madison
 * 1991 East #1 seed Penn State lost to #8 seed James Madison
 * 1992 Midwest #1 seed Iowa lost to #8 seed Southwest Missouri State

High seeds

 * 1999 was the first time in tournament history (since the expansion to 64 teams) that all top seeds (1, 2, 3, and 4 seeds) made it to the Sweet Sixteen.

Teams entering the tournament unbeaten
Of the 20 teams who have entered the tournament unbeaten, 10 went on to win the National Championship.

The first record here refers to the record before the first game of the NCAA tournament.

Undefeated teams not in the tournament
The NCAA tournament has undergone dramatic expansion since its first edition in 1982, and only one unbeaten team has failed to qualify for the tournament—California Baptist in 2021, which was 24–0 after winning the Western Athletic Conference Tournament. As, by definition, a team would have to win its conference tournament, and thus secure an automatic bid to the tournament, to be undefeated in a season, the only way a team could finish undefeated and not reach the tournament is if the team is banned from postseason play. (Other possibilities are that the team is independent, or is from a conference not yet eligible for an automatic bid.) Postseason bans can come about for one of two reasons:
 * The team is serving a postseason ban due to NCAA sanctions.
 * The team is transitioning from a lower NCAA division, during which time it is barred by NCAA rule from participation in NCAA-sponsored postseason play. This is the case for California Baptist, which began a transition from Division II in 2018 and thus could not play in the NCAA tournament until 2023. California Baptist was eligible for the WNIT because that tournament is not operated by the NCAA, unlike the men's version (or the Women's Basketball Invitation Tournament introduced in 2024); the Lancers lost in the quarterfinals to eventual champion Rice.

Home state
Only one team has ever played the Final Four on its home court. Two other teams have played the Final Four in their home cities, and seven others have played the Final Four in their home states.

The only team to play on its home court was Texas in 1987, which lost its semifinal game at the now-defunct Frank Erwin Special Events Center.

Old Dominion enjoyed nearly as large an advantage in 1983 when the Final Four was played at the Norfolk Scope in its home city of Norfolk, Virginia, but also lost its semifinal. The Scope has never been the Monarchs' regular home court. ODU has always used on-campus arenas, first the ODU Fieldhouse and since 2002 Chartway Arena. The following year, USC won the national title at Pauley Pavilion, the home court of its Los Angeles archrival UCLA.

Of the other teams to play in their home states, Stanford (1992) won the national title; Notre Dame (2011) lost in the championship game; and Western Kentucky (1986), Penn State (2000), Missouri State (2001), LSU (2004), and Baylor (2010) lost in the semifinals.

Championship margins

 * Overtime games in a championship game:
 * Tennessee 70, Virginia 67/OT (1991)
 * Maryland 78, Duke 75/OT (2006)
 * Smallest margin of victory in a championship game: 1 point
 * North Carolina 60, Louisiana Tech 59 (1994)
 * Baylor 82, Notre Dame 81 (2019)
 * Stanford 54, Arizona 53 (2021)
 * Biggest margin of victory in a championship game: 33 points
 * UConn 93, Louisville 60 (2013)
 * Margin of 10 points: Louisiana Tech (1982), Tennessee (1987 & 1989), Purdue (1999), UConn (2000, 2002, 2009, 2013, 2014, 2015 & 2016), and Baylor (2012) are teams to win every game in the tournament by 10 points or more on their way to a championship. The 2016 UConn team won every game by more than 20 points.
 * Top 9 largest point differentials accumulated over the entire tournament by tournament champion. Notably, Louisiana Tech's differential is prior to the expansion of 64 teams and the addition of one more round of play.
 * 2016 UConn (+239)
 * 2010 UConn (+214)
 * 2013 UConn (+208)
 * 2015 UConn (+197)
 * 2000 UConn (+187)
 * 2002 UConn (+161)
 * 2019 Baylor (+159)
 * 1982 Louisiana Tech (+158)
 * 2014 UConn (+156)

Same-conference championship games
7 championship games have featured two teams from the same conference (winner listed first and bolded):
 * 1989 SEC, Tennessee and Auburn
 * 1996 SEC, Tennessee and Georgia
 * 2006 ACC, Maryland and Duke
 * 2009 Big East, UConn and Louisville
 * 2013 Big East, UConn and Louisville
 * 2017 SEC, South Carolina and Mississippi State
 * 2021 Pac-12, Stanford and Arizona

Television coverage and revenues
Broadcast rights to the NCAA women's basketball tournament are included in a larger package covering most NCAA Division I championships, outside of men's basketball (which is held by CBS and TNT Sports), and golf (which is held by Golf Channel). ESPN has held exclusive rights to the tournament since 1996; beginning with an 11-year, $200 million contract renewal in 2003, ESPN would televise all 63 games in the tournament on television (increasing from 23), with games in the first and second rounds airing regionally on ESPN and ESPN2. Out-of-market games were carried via pay-per-view. Coverage later expanded to include ESPN's college sports-oriented network ESPNU, and ESPN360 for streaming. In 2011, ESPN renewed this agreement through the 2023–24 season, in a deal reported to be worth $500 million in total. The deal also included rights to the men's tournament outside of the United States for ESPN International. In 2024, ESPN renewed the contract again through 2032 (aligned with the end of the media rights for the men's tournament), in an agreement valued at $920 million over eight years.

In the first two rounds, one channel (typically ESPN or ESPN2's high-definition feed) typically aired "whiparound" coverage during each window, carrying rolling coverage of all games in progress. ESPN's standard definition channels were used to broadcast games on a regional basis, while games could also be viewed in their entirety on ESPN3 or alternate channels. In 2021, ESPN adopted a broadcast arrangement similar to the men's tournament, with all games airing nationally in their entirety on either an ESPN linear channel or, for the first time, ABC. The Women's Final Four and championship remained exclusive to ESPN. In 2023, the national championship game aired on ABC for the first time.

In data issued by the NCAA in 2021, it was stated that 15.9% of the value of the contract was allocated to the women's tournament, or approximately $6.1 million annually. In comparison, the contract for the men's tournament is valued at over $700 million annually. Amid scrutiny of inequality between the men's and women's tournaments that year, it has been suggested by critics that the structure of the NCAA's contract undervalues the media rights to the women's tournament. Based on average viewership, Emily Caron and Eben Novy-Williams of Sportico estimated that the women's tournament could fetch at least $20 million per year if its media rights were sold separately. America East Conference commissioner Amy Huchthausen argued that the ESPN contract "provides a measure of financial certainty, but it does not provide women's basketball (or any of the other sports, for that matter) an incentive to grow".

Following major media criticism of inequities between the 2021 men's and women's tournaments, the NCAA commissioned a comprehensive gender equity review of its championships by the law firm Kaplan Hecker & Fink. Among the report's findings was that U.S. television rights for the women's tournament would be worth at least $81 million annually by the time the current broadcast contract with ESPN expires in 2024 (in comparison to the $34 million value of the NCAA package as a whole).

In an interview on NBC's Meet the Press on the day of the 2023 national championship, new NCAA president Charlie Baker implicated that the media rights to the women's basketball tournament may be sold separately in the next rights cycle, stating that "we do have an opportunity to put it out separately, and we're going to work really hard to make sure that those student-athletes, those schools, those programs get what I describe as what they should get." Interest in Caitlin Clark's tournament run had led to record viewership of Iowa's Women's Final Four and championship games on ESPN and ABC, respectively.

Nevertheless, the NCAA renewed its existing agreements with ESPN in January 2024 under an eight-year agreement, with ESPN paying approximately $115 million per season, and the NCAA having valued the media rights to the Division I women's basketball tournament at $65 million. The agreement also includes expanded rights for ESPN to sell sponsorships (although CBS/WBD will still administer the NCAA Corporate Champion and Partner Program sponsorships per its rights to the men's tournament), and guarantees that the national championship will air on ABC annually.


text:
Black tetra

The black tetra (Gymnocorymbus ternetzi), also known as the black skirt tetra, petticoat tetra, high-fin black skirt tetra, black widow tetra and blackamoor, is a freshwater fish of the characin family (Characidae).

It is native to the Paraguay River basin of south-central Brazil (mainly Pantanal region), Paraguay and northeast Argentina, but there are also populations in the upper Paraná and Paraíba do Sul Rivers that likely were introduced. It was formerly reported from the Guapore River, but this population is part of G. flaviolimai, which is found throughout the Madeira River basin and was described in 2015. The black tetra is often kept in aquariums.

Growing up to 7.5 cm in length, the black tetra has a roughly tetragonal body shape and is greyish in colour, fading from near black at the tail to light at the nose. Two prominent, black, vertical bars appear just posterior to the gills. It is easily distinguished from all of its congeners by the presence of a dense field of dark chromatophores spread homogeneously over the posterior one half of the body unlike the lack of such pigmentation in all congeners.

The black widow tetra is a shoaling fish that feeds on small crustaceans, insects, and worms.

In the aquarium
The black skirt tetra is a common fish that is widely available for purchase.

Hobbyists often provide live foods such as Daphnia and mosquito larvae, and frozen foods like bloodworms.

The species reaches sexual maturity at about two years of age. Like most characins, this species spawns by intermittently releasing and fertilizing eggs among plants. It frequently eats its own eggs, so keepers remove the fish after spawning.

The lifespan in captivity is 3 to 5 years. The black tetra was also used to make genetically modified fish sold as GloFish (fluorescent colored fish), available in a wide variety of colors.

Similar names
The black phantom tetra (Hyphessobrycon megalopterus) is a separate species. The black neon tetra (Hyphessobrycon herbertaxelrodi) is sometimes also called the black tetra.

title: Black tetra


text:
User:Adoran2

Joined on 18 March 2003. Fascinated by Wikipedia and just finding my feet at the moment!

andrewdoran.uk

title: User:Adoran2