Template talk:US Chief Executives

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Presidents / Government / Governors This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States This template is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents. This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government. This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. governors. Politics: American This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics This template is supported by American politics task force.

Since the link has long been to List of Presidents of the United States, rather than the article on the office, I've naturally considered this to be an navigation template to the lists. The examples of NE, CO, and MS was offered. However, CO's article is in fact the list article, and MS's link redirects to the list. So, really, we're down to two men out, it seems: CA and NE. I don't see why these two exceptions are suddenly the rule. BRD demands I discuss this before reverting. --Golbez (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NJ, NH, NC, NY too. And probably others (trolling thru all 50 to check would be a PITA). IMO, many of the List articles have only been made into lists so they can become WP:Featured lists, not because organizing/separating them into lists is organizationally superior. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Got confused with {{USExecutives}}. These really need merging. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now TfD'd. But yeah, an editorial decision on Office vs. List articles needs to be made. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierGreen: states that the US directly administered it... but by that logic, shouldn't we also include the military and civilian administrators of Iraq? Or Okinawa? Or occupied Germany and Austria? --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, Cuba is listed already and i think at one point the military governors of those other polities were listed here as well.XavierGreen (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But to be pedantic, the template is specifically "Chief Executives of the United States." Santo Domingo, Cuba, Iraq, Germany, Austria, Okinawa, etc. were administered by but never claimed or annexed by the US, unlike the Philippines, Canal Zone, and ... actually I'm not entirely sure about the status of the TTPI. --Golbez (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah but the chief executives of the administered areas in question were indeed appointed by the United States and and held office under the authority of the United States, so they are indeed Chief Executives of the United States from that point of view.XavierGreen (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]