Talk:Vice President of the United States/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Final column in vacancies table

@Drdpw: Re your revert, which reverted the final column of the table

• from How vacancy filled, e.g. "Election in 1812 of Elbridge Gerry"
• back to Next vice president after vacancy, e.g. "Elbridge Gerry, after election of 1812"

Your edit summary said Previous clearer and more accurate. How is my version less clear? How is my version less accurate? YBG (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

How vacancy filled
Inauguration of Alben W. Barkley
Inauguration of Hubert H. Humphrey
Swearing-in of Gerald Ford
Swearing-in of Nelson Rockefeller

Because its neither clear "how" nor accurate to state "in fact" that any election (or even congressional confirmation vote) fills a vice prersidential vacancy. On the otherhand, it is clear and accurate to state that person Y Z did so after the XXXX election. Frankly, there was nothing problematic about the wording or the sorting in the column. That said, changing the column from Next vice president after vacancy "Y Z, after election of XXXX" to something like How vacancy filled or Vacancy filled upon or Remained vacant until "Inauguration of Y Z" (as i've illustrated to the right) strikes me as clear and accurate. Does that facilitate the "logical sorting" you seek? Drdpw (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking outside the box. My only issue with this proposal is that "Inauguration" and "Swearing-in" are very nearly synonymous. YBG (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

On further consideration, it seems to me that in a table of vacancies, the information in focus should be what created the vacancy and the process that eliminated the vacancy, not the individual who held the office before the vacancy and the individual who held the office after the vacancy. Clearly, these two VPs are part of the story, but they are significant not due to their identity but directly related to the event that filled the vacancy. And while the inauguration/swearing-in marks the exact point in time when the vacancy was ended, of more interest is the manner in which the vacancy was filled. That is to say, the inauguration/swearing-in is the denouement but the key event is the election/confirmation. And, while inauguration/swearing-in are very neraly synonymous, election/confirmation are significantly different processes. YBG (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Two posibilities come to my mind YBG ... Drdpw (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Period of vacancy	Length	Details of vacancy
1 • April 20, 1812 – March 4, 1813	318 days	Death of George Clinton; vice presidency remained vacant until after the election of 1812
17 • October 10, 1973 – December 6, 1973	57 days	Resignation of Spiro Agnew; vice presidency remained vacant until after the confirmation of a successor

OR

Period of vacancy	Precipitating event	Length	Manner in which filled
1 • April 20, 1812 – March 4, 1813	Death of George Clinton	318 days	election of 1812
17 • October 10, 1973 – December 6, 1973	Resignation of Spiro Agnew	57 days	confirmation of successor

The first option takes up much more horizontal real estate with no added benefit. As for the 2nd, I think putting the length column between the two events is a nice touch. I think the two column headers could be improved by saying "Cause of vacancy" and "How vacancy filled". "Precipitating" and "manner", to my ear, seem to border on the grandiose. YBG (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I prefer the 2nd layout as well, and like your wording suggestions. Thanks for your insight. Drdpw (talk) 15:40, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Agnew/Ford and Ford/Rockefeller are the only two cases when the vacancy wasn't subsequently filled by an election. I'm not sure a table needs that much repetitive detail. JTRH (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the column be removed from the table? Drdpw (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

"Election of 1812" and "Confirmation of successor," with links to the specific events, are perfectly adequate to me. JTRH (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Electors' names on the ballot?

Re 107.77.221.11's lengthy edit comment, within recent memory, the names of the electors appeared on the ballot in my state, but at some point were removed. I would be interested in knowing the current situation is in all 51 jurisdictions. If it can be sourced, it might even be interesting to include in the article. YBG (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Election section

There has been a lot of activity recently in § Election, and I have been an enthusiastic participant. However, looking back at it all, I'm wondering if this much detail really belongs in this article. It seems to me that there is too much detail here about the process, surely a briefer summary would be better. It could be argued that the parts of the process where the VP is in focus -- the 12th amendment transition from runner-up to separate EC ballots and the contingent election -- belong here, but the rest of the minutiae could be dispensed with. Comments? YBG (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I've come to the same conclusion – key election points are being obscured by process minutiae. After giving it some thought, I've gone ahead and trimmed the subsection, using an old version from a month ago as a starting point. I believe it's clear, concise and informative. Feel free to tweak it a bit. Drdpw (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Whatever is on this page should be consistent with (or maybe even identical to) the equivalent presentation in the article on the President. JTRH (talk) 23:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, we could easily make the case that this page could be briefer than the POTUS page, as the POTUS is the focus of the election. IMHO, the POTUS and VP articles should both include the broad brushstrokes, each article should include the major facts that are particular to the office, but the details would be relegated to appearing only in the Electoral College article, which, of course, would also repeat all of the EC info from the POTUS and VP articles. I would hope that we could broadly agree on this division of information, though I expect it may require some consensus-building to assign some of the factoids to the appropriate category. YBG (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The election subsection on this page and it's "sibling subsection" on the POTUS page are, for the moment at least, consistent in presentation and diverge only in the final paragraph, where one talks about contingency elections for vice president, and the other talks about contingency elections for president. Drdpw (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Require vs penalty

One example of minutiae that does not belong here (imho) is the fact that some states impose a penalty and others actually force the electors' vote by dismissing unfaithful ones and appointing replacements. Those details belong in Electoral college (United States), not here. YBG (talk) 05:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I concur; the current statement is sufficient: "Currently, while there is no constitutional mandate or federal law requiring them to do so, the District of Columbia and 30 states have laws requiring that their electors vote for the candidates to whom they are pledged." It's enough to state that D.C. and 30 states bind—legally require—their electors to vote for the candidates to whom they are pledged. We don't need to get into which laws have "teeth" in them & which ones don't. Drdpw (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I actually think that we would be better served by saying much less in this article, cutting the current section in half. The pertinent facts are (a) the election is indirect (b) the electors are people chosen by the voters in 50 states and DC (c) the same electors vote separately for President and VP (d) the contingent election by the Senate. There may be a few more high-level points, but this is all that occur to me right now. In an article that focuses on the whole gamut of the VP, I don't think details about faithless electors - much less legislative efforts to eliminate such faithlessness - serve the reader. YBG (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

As far as the Election subsection goes, I could see cutting the above mentioned sentence and the one preceding it perhaps, but that's about it. Now there are, however, a couple other areas in this article that are definitely in great need of attention. IMO, both the Nominating process and the Growth of the office subsections ramble-on too much; the article would be greatly enhanced by trimming and refining them. Quite frankly, I think we're dinked around in this one long enough. Drdpw (talk) 22:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I have trimmed the election section, a bit more than you suggested, but a bit less than my own inclination. Hope you appreciate the results. I agree that the Nominating section need a severe pruning; I haven't looked at the growth section, but I wouldn't be surprised about that. However, those sub-topics are of less interest to me than this one. I hope you will turn your attention to them. As I am able, I'll chime in and help. Thanks, and happy editing! YBG (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: Senate President and NSA chairman

@Colonestarrice and Thewolfchild: Per WP:BRD, when someone makes a bold edit, and someone else reverts it, the next thing is to discuss it on the talk page and reach a consensus. Now, I happen to prefer the wording of the bold change, but I reverted it the 2nd time it was made in order to promote the bold-revert-discuss process. Let's try to reach a consensus. I have an opinion, but can be persuaded. YBG (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

@YBG:lol... ok. I'm aware of BRD, but thanks for the tip. I only reverted the one time because I agree with Drdpw's edit, and I think Colonestarrice needs ease up on the page controlling, disruptive edits, revert-warring and arguing-by-edit-summaries. I don't see any need for "persuasion" btw. Have a nice day. - wolf 00:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a summary of the edits:

Status	S1	Colonestarrice (2x)	Second-highest executive branch officer
	S2	Thewolfchild, YBG	Second-highest executive branch officer // President of the Senate
Member of	M1	Colonestarrice (2x)	Cabinet // National Security Council // National Space Council // (as its chairman) // United States Senate // (as President of the Senate)
	M2	Thewolfchild, YBG	Cabinet // National Security Council // National Space Council (Chairman) // United States Senate (President)

In a while, I'll add diff links and edit summaries. YBG (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Depite your unusual post here (a table...?), it is as I said; I only made one revert. The edit before that was just that, an edit. Following that, Drdpw made further changes to the same content and I agree with his changes, but don't agree with the reverts and other behavior that followed. And, I'm not sure what this here is all about, but if it floats your boat, then carry on. (Can you do a graph next? That would look neat-o). - wolf 05:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

As promised, here is a summary of the edits:

1. special:diff/856497698 Colonestarrice: "President of the Senate" is not a status, the format and stylistic changes of this version correspond more with the standards (bold)
2. special:diff/856511149 Thewolfchild: take it to the talk page (a revert requesting discussion)
3. special:diff/856521690 Colonestarrice: why? (IMO, a clear violation of WP:BRD)
4. special:diff/856526285 YBG: Why, you ask? Because of WP:BRD (an attempt to enforce BRD)

As I said above, I prefer S1/M1 over S2/M2, but recognize the importance of BRD. If anyone wishes to argue in favor of S1/M1, this is the place to do so. Otherwise, S2/M2 should remain. I don't feel strongly about this. By the way, I made the table because it helps me see things clearly; if it helps others, fine; if not, no worries. YBG (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

From the comments above, it appears that Wolf thinks that I pinged both editors to say that both violated BRD. In fact, as I've said here, I think it is clear that Wolf was abiding by BRD, but that Colonestarrice was not. I pinged both users as a courtesy. My apologies for being unclear and for appearing to be condescending or lecturing. I do recognize that my tables may seem a bit over the top, but then, as I said above, I built it to help me think things through. Happy editing to all, and to all a good night! YBG (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the dispute is about, but "President of the Senate" is the title specified by the United States Constitution. JTRH (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

And that is already noted in the infobox. The "dispute" was about a single editor trying to cram in their preferred edit, and refusing to discuss (and resolve) here on the talk page, despite multiple editors encouraging them to do so. They instead edit-warred and argued via edit-summaries, until a 4RR vio was reported, then they went quiet (as most do, hoping the report will just go away). While nothing came of the report, this user has still refused to take part in this discussion. So it remains to be seen if they will continue to disrupt this and other similar infoboxes they way they have previously, or if they will finally discuss these issues on article talk pages and work towards a collaborative resolution. - wolf 03:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: I didn't refuse to participate in this discussion i was on vacations and therefore could't participate. And for not caring about me that much you have a pretty enormous obsession with trying to get me blocked. In this discussion and all others I have never actually seen a single reason why you support Drdpw's preferred version. And I did not accept WP:BRD because it includes that person who reverts does so with valid reasons and arguments, Drdpw didn't provide any of them, and this is a false accusation and not a legitimate revert-reason.

As I already explained in my edit summary: I removed "President of the Senate" as a status of VPOTUS (which by the way I myself falsely added in the past) because it is a power/role/duty of the Vice President and can therefore not be seen as a status. I changed the format from

---

National Space Council (Chairman)
United States Senate (President)

---

to

---

National Space Council
(as its chairman)
United States Senate
(as President of the Senate)

---

because Chairman and President alone aren't very comprehensive and the style corresponds more with Wikipedia's standards. Colonestarrice (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Colonestarrice: - ...aaannd he finally replies 3 days later. What a shock. And with the "i was on vacations" excuse. (Who edits Wikipedia while on vacation?) Apparently being on vacation did not stop you from edit-warring, so there was no reason to not discuss the matter on the talk page. You clearly violated 4RR and dont think that because an admin chose to let you off with a warning instead of blocking you, that means your behaviour or disruptive editing was in anyway acceptable. Nor is the personal attack you just posted here. When you edit pages on my watchlist, that is how I come to be aware of them. While I did disagree with with the admin about his choice in regards to your 4RR violation, it appears you have gone stalking through my contribs to know about that. So it is somewhat hypocritical, and ironic, that you are calling me "obsessive" here. (Perhaps we can dispense with he name calling?)

You say you "...did not accept WP:BRD because it includes that person who reverts does so with valid reasons and arguments, Drdpw didn't provide any of them,", while BRD is not a policy, the concept behind it, in some circumstances, such as; discussion instead of blatant edit-warring, is not optional. And, you don't repeatedly debate edits via edit summaries, that is what the talk page is for. You not only edit-warred, but you did so against WP:CONSENSUS, and that is a policy. There were three different editors who disagreed with your edits, reverted you and encouraged you to go to the talk page (not just Drdpw). If you feel Drdpw posted "false accusations" against you, then take it up with him, not me. I've never known Drdpw to refuse to engage in discussion, so your excuse for refusing to collaborate rings hollow. You need to accept you were in the wrong here. Learn from it and move on. - wolf 14:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I see where this is leading and i see what kind of person you are, this is why I'm not going to reply to your message, I joined Wikipedia to work and not to talk. There is one small thing is still want to address: No I did not search through your contributions, I expected you to attack Swarm, because it's the only thing you actually do on this platform.

Regardless of all this useless talk, neither you nor Drdpw nor the imaginary third person did indicate a sole reason why you oppose my changes. I therefore guess we can restore my version when the page protection expires? Colonestarrice (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

"I see where this is leading and i see what kind of person you are..." - Yet another personal attack. You know what they say about glass houses...? (Because you don't seem to be a very very nice person).

"this is why I'm not going to reply to your message" - And yet you did anyway.

"I joined Wikipedia to work and not to talk." - Communication is part of the collaborative process here. Refusing to engage in discussion, especially when it's called for, could lead to you being blocked. Many of your edits are reverted as disruptive or are simply unneeded, as are many of the pages, templates, etc. that you've created. This type of behaviour necessitates discussion and you are expected to take part. Furthermore, you need to learn to focus on edits, not editors.

"There is one small thing is still want to address: No I did not search through your contributions, I expected you to attack Swarm, because it's the only thing you actually do on this platform." - And yet more personal attacks. I did not "attack" Swarm, I criticized a bad decision. Being an admin means getting feedback, both positive and negative. (And you "expected" it? Yeah, riiiight...) How can you say it's the "only thing I do", unless you're claiming you stalked through all 22,000+ of my edits? Unless you haven't, in which case you lied. Stalker or liar? Either way, the hypocrisy of your comments is appalling, as attacking me is the only thing you've done here so far.

"Regardless of all this useless talk" - "Useless"...? Why? Because you're not getting your way? Or because you're hearing truths that don't suit you?

"neither you nor Drdpw nor the imaginary third person did indicate a sole reason why you oppose my changes." -Actually, YBG (a very real editor), also reverted you and encouraged you to go to the talk page.

"I therefore guess we can restore my version when the page protection expires?" - Nope, not unless you have a consensus to do so. For that, you need to learn to discuss matters on talk pages. You also need to learn to stay on topic and stop attacking others. Good luck. - wolf 18:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I can now proudly present to you "Thewolfchild singularity" a region where the irony becomes infinite. I just deeply hope that most people don't fall for your bad propaganda. And by the way I still can't see a single reason or argument against my changes on VPOTUS. Colonestarrice (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

So, because I have to keep asking you to stay on topic, I myself am not discussing the topic, that's irony? And because I've had to ask you so many times, that somehow makes it "infinite irony"? Um, whatever... but I don't see what "black holes" or your silly attempt at humor have to do with this article. But you threw in that last little comment about your edit, so that's supposed to make everything ok, right? Instead of Googling the definition of "infinite" a few minutes ago, you should've looked up the meaning of "hypocrite". Meanwhile... Drdpw's edit was the better edit, it was more consistentemt with Wikipedia's standards. - wolf 21:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If you want to continue discussing behavior, you could do it here in this section - or better yet some other place. But I have started a new section and hope that it will be used only to discuss content. YBG (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I already asked Colonstarrice to confine his off-topic comments to his own talk page, hours ago. I also told him I was willing to discuss article content with him as long as he can be mature and remain on topic. We'll just have wait and see if he is capable of that. Thank you for starting a new section and trying to steer things back on topic. - wolf 21:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: Senate President and NSA chairman (take 2)

Here are some alternatives for infobox wording:

Status	S1	Second-highest executive branch officer
	S2	Second-highest executive branch officer // President of the Senate
Member of	M1	Cabinet // National Security Council // National Space Council // (as its chairman) // United States Senate // (as President of the Senate)
	M2	Cabinet // National Security Council // National Space Council (Chairman) // United States Senate (President)

Please contribute in the two subsections below. A brief summary in § Preference !votes with brief reasons would be particularly helpful, even though this will be repeating information from previous discussions and edit summaries. This invitation is extended not only to those who have participated in (or been mentioned in) the above discussion (@Colonestarrice, Drdpw, JTRH, and Thewolfchild:), but to all page-watchers and any and all interested editors. YBG (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Preference !votes with brief reasons

• S1: Because it is shorter, and the added information is included not provided it is included under Member of. YBG (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• M1: Because the longer form ("as ...") seems to flow smoother, and includes the full constitutional title "President of the Senate". YBG (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• S1: "President of the Senate" is not a status but a power/role/duty. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
• M1: "Chairman" and "President" alone don't say much and the stylistic changes correspond more with Wikipedia's standards (see the common usage of the "Style" parameter of infobox official post). Colonestarrice (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• S2 indicates his status as the "second-highest executive branch officer" and his status (in the legislative branch) as "President of the Senate" (full title, linked).
• M2 Is straight forward and concise; "Member of" - "(name of group)" - "(position)". This is the infobox, we keep things simple and to the point, hence all the point form and bulleted lists instead of paragraphs of info. That's what the article body is for. We don't typically use, and don't need, partial litte sentences such as "as its chairman" Listing "President" on it's own is more than sufficient, and preceding it with "as its" does not "say much" more, or say much of anything. It's needless and redundant. As is writing out the full title, again, and linking it again, when that is already done just a couple lines above. These persistent changes to infoboxes for purely decorative and personal preference are both unneeded and inconsistent with Wikipedia's standards. - wolf 21:56, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

• S2: While "President of the Senate" may not belong in the status group, "Highest Senate officer" (with or without a link to P-S article) does belong, as it accurately describes the VP's U.S. Senate status and dovetails nicely with "Second-highest executive branch officer." Drdpw (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• M2: Going by the style parameter of infobox official post and by the way that template is used in various other articles, the bodies/groups that the Vice President belongs to should be listed alone—without parenthetical notations—except for "United States Senate" which, to be truly accurate, should be followed by "(Ex officio member)". That said, there is no reason to make extraneous stylistic changes to the infobox; let's keep things simple and succinct. "Chairman," if it must be stated, is all that needs to be stated; likewise for "President" – or preferably (IMO) "Ex officio member." Drdpw (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

"Second highest officer in the executive branch"

This is incorrect. If there is a second-highest officer, it is the Secretary of State. In reality, there is no second person in the executive branch because all executive power is vested in the president.

I recommend this opening line instead:

"The vice president of the United States (informally referred to as VP, or veep) is an officer of the U.S. federal government whose primary role is to automatically succeed to the presidency should that office become vacant." 107.77.221.6 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Capitalizing "Vice President"

You would capitalize "Vice President" when referring to specifically to the Vice President of the United States, similarly when referring to the "Senate", "House of Representatives", "Congress", and "Constitution" of the United States, because they are referring to a specific title/position/legislature/body/congress/body. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanical Keyboarder (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Your reasoning is inconsistent with English Wikipedia's manual of style. This is explained in the hidden comment that you attempted to remove. Please take any further discussion to WT:MOSBIO, as this is not an issue unique to this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

capitalization per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography - Positions, offices, and occupational titles MOS:JOBTITLES "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description"Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"The" is a definite article. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• Merged discussions of same issue from Talk:Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and Talk:United States Secretary of the Treasury and wherever else Mechanical Keyboarder recently changed titles to caps. I applaud him opening these discussions, but let's keep them as one. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Mech, please look at the examples of the different use cases in MOS:JOBTITLES, which may be more illuminating than trying to apply the "rules" where the conditions may be subtle. In particular, the condition "addressed as a title or position in and of itself" is not met in most of these uses you capped. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think that titles like "vice president of the United States" should be capitalized in normal running text, but I think it should be capitalized when used alone, like in the infobox or the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  If our style was to use title-case for headings, then yes. But we do headings in sentence case. So then the rationale for capping in infobox headings would have to be that it's referring to the title of the office per se; seems OK to me. Looks like Eyer agrees in some of his recent edits. Dicklyon (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Vice President of the United States → Vice president of the United States – Per consensus here. Interstellarity (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC) Interstellarity (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be a misreading of the consensus. The consensus was about an article with a title that contained a plural of the job title, per MOS:JOBTITLES, as a common noun describing a category of people. The article considered here is in the singular form as a proper formal title. I think this proposal does not even merit discussion unless the proposer says they disagree with that reading. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. I supported the recent move of the lists, but this is a different case. "Vice President of the United States" when used alone, such as in the article title and infobox, should be capitalized, even though it's not capitalized in running text. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Snow close requested: This has no chance of approval. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • While a snow close would probably be appropriate, I think it's a good idea to let this discussion run for the full 7 days, just to make a clear distinction between this case and the "list of" case, and to firmly establish what the "new" consensus is regarding capitalization of offices in titles. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose, of course not. Per above comments. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose – this article title is arguably about the office/title itself, which is generally treated as a proper name, as MOS:JOBTITLES says. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Completely different case. Unique posts only held by one person at a time are capitalised. Lists of their holders aren't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is about the office itself and the capitalization in its title ought to follow the pattern for a proper name. Drdpw (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Dicklyon, Drdpw, would that upper-casing apply throughout the page when it's clear that the office is being discussed (at first mention, etc.)? Randy Kryn (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES applies to articles, yes, not just titles. Each case of vice president needs to be looked at for whether it's about the title/office per se or about a person holding that office. The lead is currently written about the non-specific person, with "The", as opposed to the office, so it's lowercase: "The vice president of the United States (informally referred to as VP, or veep) is the second-highest officer..." If you prefer to cap it, change that to "Vice President of the United States" is the office ..." Dicklyon (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - per everyone else. GoodDay (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose: As the capitalization is standard for a title (and, indeed, Art. II, Section 1 capitalizes the office/title of "Vice President"), the proposed move is wholly incorrect. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 01:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support vice president per the latest consensus Talk:List of presidents of the United States. Sawol (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  It sounds like you mis-read or over-extrapolated that result. Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article is about the office, not a person. 107.77.217.167 (talk) 07:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per above reasoning.Theoallen1 (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. In this case "President" is part of the proper noun phrase, "Vice President". Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  16:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vice President Salary

Presidential Executive Order 13901 changed salaries, including the VP. Effective 1/1/2020 the salary of the VP is $253,300. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.125.244 (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The first Monday after the second Wednesday in December

The first Monday after the second Wednesday in December would be the Monday that falls between December 13 and December 19. Why does this keep getting reverted? It helps people understand when the date in question falls. "The first Monday after the second Wednesday in December" takes some thought, but is the official wording. The Monday between December 13 and December 19 is easier for the layman to understand. Here's how it works:

if December starts on a Wednesday, the first Wednesday is December 1 -> the second Wednesday is December 8 -> the first Monday after that is December 13. if December starts on a Tuesday, the first Wednesday is December 2 -> the second Wednesday is December 9 -> the first Monday after that is December 14. if December starts on a Monday, the first Wednesday is December 3 -> the second Wednesday is December 10 -> the first Monday after that is December 15. if December starts on a Sunday, the first Wednesday is December 4 -> the second Wednesday is December 11 -> the first Monday after that is December 16. if December starts on a Saturday, the first Wednesday is December 5 -> the second Wednesday is December 12 -> the first Monday after that is December 17. if December starts on a Friday, the first Wednesday is December 6 -> the second Wednesday is December 13 -> the first Monday after that is December 18. if December starts on a Thursday, the first Wednesday is December 7 -> the second Wednesday is December 14 -> the first Monday after that is December 19. 1779Days (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

If a reader can't successfully process "The first Monday after the second Wednesday in December", their English language competence is well below our target reading level. I suspect you were reverted because the addition was unnecessary. Process notes:

• Your BOLD edit was fine from a process standpoint.
• The reversion by GoodDay should have included an edit summary providing the reason for the reversion.
• Per the nutshell at WP:BRD, you should have dropped it or started this discussion, instead of re-reverting. Many editors consider that the first shot fired in an edit war. But better late than never.
• The reversion by Drdpw properly returned the article to status quo ante pending a consensus for your change. It should have included an edit summary to that effect.
• In other words, zero out of three editors did it completely right this time. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I should've included an edit summary, with the words "Not necessary". Indeed, our readers can figure out the date range, themselves. GoodDay (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

My error, I did not summarize what I was thinking at the time of my revert: "parenthetical note is not necessary for understanding". Drdpw (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

capping VP or no

How come the article uses capital V and P but the intro sentence with bolded term does not? Inconsistent. WakandaQT (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:JOBTITLES. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

kamala harris

Should Kamala Harris be mentioned as the vice pres. elect of the united states? On the page President of the United States biden is mentioned as such Jcoolbro (talk) (c)

No here & shouldn't be at the other page. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove part of intro section

Since it’s protected (understandably), can the last part of the intro where it mentions Biden and Harris be removed? It’s not on the presidents page it shouldn’t be on here too especially since it’s about the office of the VP and not POTUS. SirEucalyptus (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Needs to be updated Nov 2020

A former vice president is running in 2020 (Joe Biden) under the Stepping Stone to the Presidency section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.223.77 (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Do not update for Kamala Harris until she in inaugurated

I'm making this section to remind everyone to not update the page for Kamala Harris until she is inaugurated tomorrow and officially the Vice President. Updating prematurely can be uninformative and damaging. To anyone with edit access, please revert the page back for the current VP Mike Pence. Void previous statement if he is no longer the Vice President upon reading this.

The President and Vice President elect are not in office until they take the oath of office, not at midnight.

Thank you to user TheGeneralUser for reverting the page back to the appropriate person.

Kamala Harris was inaugurated as the 49th Vice President of the United States on January 20th, 2021. Congratulations to her and to her friend, Joe Biden, who was also inaugurated as the 46th President of the United States on that date as well. This section is now irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Shackleford (talk • contribs) 09:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kamala Harris 139674503 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Infobox: Appointment

We should add that (under Section 2 of the 25th amendment), the vice president can be appointed by the president. The electoral college isn't the only mechanism for choosing the vice president. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Should we just put Electoral College<br />President or something along the lines of Electoral College<br />President (confirmed by Congress)? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest President via Section 2 of the 25th amendment. But I don't know how to directly link to that Section of the amendment. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Would this link do? I think that we do have to be careful about not making the phrasing too long. How about: [[Article Two of the United States Constitution#Clause 3: Electoral College|Electoral College]]<br />[[Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Section 2: Vice presidential vacancy|President, confirmed by Congress]]? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks great, but I would separate President from confirmed by Congress - Example:

President,

via Congressional confirmation.

GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks excellent to me! Thanks for making the edit. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Inaugurations before 1937

Should we include/clarify (if a source is available) that vice presidents were sworn in (separately from the president) on inauguration day in the US Senate chamber, due mainly to their being president of the US Senate? GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

The 15 who later became US President

Where & how do we include the fact that 15 vice presidents went on to serve as president? GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

A sentence to that affect has been added; it was inadvertently left out while I was editing the article yesterday. Drdpw (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Capacity to reject electoral votes as officer presiding over their counting

@Drdpw Given that one of Trump's plans to remain President involved having Pence unilaterally reject certain electoral votes, and that people looking for information on this subject could end up at this article, I think it is appropriate to add a sentence explaining the issue to the subsection describing the VPOTUS's function in presiding over electoral vote counting, as follows:

Around that time, some Trump supporters proposed that Pence unilaterally reject electoral votes from certain states, giving Trump a majority of those certified; it is generally agreed that the Vice President does not have that power, per the wording of the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act, as well as common law principles. Robert (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

This is not the proper article in which to detail the finer points of alternative views of the VP's election certification powers. The proper articles, both of which cover the topic, are Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election and 2021 United States Electoral College vote count. Drdpw (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the "P" in "president" be in uppercase (article title) or not (article lead)?

Apokrif (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Uppercase - This type of situation was handled about a year ago with Deputy Prime Minister of Canada's title. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

In Talk:Deputy_Prime_Minister_of_Canada#Use_of_capital_letters_in_the_titles_of_Canadian_federal_government_ministers ? Apokrif (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

That deals with info within a page, but not the page name. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This RM says upper case for article titles. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you requesting the article title be changed to Vice president of the United States? If so, that would require an RM. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm asking what the right spelling is. Apokrif (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

You're confusing me. Which are you asking about? The article title or the article intro? GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Both. Is there a reason why they should have a different spelling? Apokrif (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The current article title (Vice President of the United States) and the current opening sentence ("The vice president of the United States (VPOTUS) is the second-highest officer...") both follow MOS guidelines. Drdpw (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't get this either. What's the difference between the article title and the lede that makes one capitalized and the other not? :3 F4U (they/it) 00:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Concur with Drdpw. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Of course according to the laws of the English language, it should be capitalized. This is not only because its a proper noun, but it is an official title that transcends the original meaning of "president" (to preside). Its analogous to the titles King or Queen, which are always capitalized even if used mid-sentence. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Support Capitalization: The title of the article and the use in the lead should all be capitalized. This is about a specific position. There are many vice presidents all over the world, but there is only one office that has been designated Vice President of the United States (or "Vice President of [other specific country with a vice president]"). Furthermore, the term Vice President is capitalized in the text of the US Constitution, which describes the responsibilities of the office. Capitalizing the term in the lead sentence would also be in accordance with MOS:LEADSENTENCE, in which the title of the article should appear in the first sentence. - Boneyard90 (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion per WP:BRD

I didn't open a WP:BRD discussion simply because I don't see any way a reasonable observer would describe my edit as "bold". I added a relevant and encyclopedic sentence about the Vice-Presidency with citations to two highly reputable publications. The phrasing was modest and avoided using Wikipedia's voice for the observations of journalists. I do not understand the basis for your edit summary removing the material ("Sentence offer nothing of substance"). As I requested, please explain your thinking here and let's see what we can figure out together. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I was objecting to a vague supposition by unnamed journalists in opinion piece articles. I did keep the first source as it verified information already in the paragraph (the second is behind a paywall). The first source also got me focused on Mondale not wanting to be pigeon-holed into specific responsibilities, which I have added. Drdpw (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I suppose "vague supposition" vs "observation" is a matter of opinion, so no point going back and forth on that. But while the journalists may have been unnamed in the sentence as I wrote it, they are both individually notable and experienced journalists, not total unknowns, and they were publishing in two highly regarded publications. At the time of writing, each was the designated Washington correspondent for their news organizations. And to be clear, neither piece is marked as Opinion - they are in-depth analytical news articles focusing specifically on the role of the Vice-Presidency. These seem like reasonable sources for a statement about the Vice-Presidency, especially since I carefully avoided giving it in Wikipedia's voice directly. Finally, the second piece is available via archive here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw, any others, any further thoughts? —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

A specific example from either article of how recent VPs with few specific assignments were still/yet able to be powerful presidential advisors and/or governing partners could be added in the proper subsection. Drdpw (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you oppose adding the more general observation about the modern role of the Vice Presidency to the 'Modern roles' section? I hope I answered the concerns you raised in your prior comment. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

The statement not supported by either source. The New Yorker article makes the point that VP candidate Biden appears to understand "what might be called the Mondale Rule: that the most powerful Vice-Presidents are those who take on the fewest assignments." The Financial times article makes the point the VP Biden "is following what some have called "the Mondale rule": that the best vice-presidents are those who take on fewest tasks and avoid being restricted to ceremonial duties only." Neither article makes a general observation about the modern role of the vice presidency. Drdpw (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

But that is a general observation of the modern role of the Vice Presidency! What else would it be? I think you are misreading the articles. They are both stating that Biden is adhering to an adage which applies to the modern Vice Presidency generally. The statement, as I wrote it, was that "Some journalists have suggested that the most powerful vice presidents have been those with the fewest specific assignments." Some journalists have said that - the statement is 100% supported by the sources, whose reliability we have already discussed. I'm sorry, but your explanation for why this sentence should not be added keeps shifting. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw, any further discussion? I'd prefer not to reinstate the addition unilaterally - it would be great to come to consensus on this if we can. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Reinstating the change, as there has been no further discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw, if you don't wish to discuss further, just let me know, and I'll seek a third opinion to try to achieve consensus. But days of silence followed by an immediate revert is frustrating. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You are too quick to reinstate the addition unilaterally. Sometimes it takes more than a few days for others to weigh in on the statement. Drdpw (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you have anything else to add yourself? This talk page has over 400 watchers and it's been a week - of course, someone may weigh in at any time, but no one has so far. I'm happy to wait a few more days, but if no other comments are forthcoming here I think WP:3O would be a reasonable option to try and seek consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

What I hear the two journalists saying is: "The most influential vice presidents in recent decades have been those who were given the fewest bureaucratic assignments, and more involved with policy development and promotion alongside the president." A statement along those lines would work. Drdpw (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me - do you want to add that to the article? —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

A third opinion. Best to leave out. GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Veep Bust collection

Updated, as Gore was honoured with a bust, in 2017. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

"elected ... by the voters"

In the Election section, the first sentence states "The vice president is elected indirectly by the voters of each state and the District of Columbia through the Electoral College ... ". Anyone who is elected to anything is elected by voters, so the "by the voters" part doesn't confer any new information. The "voters" could be a group of twelve oligarchs for all we know. I changed it to "by the citizens" and it was reverted. We should specify who is doing the voting. The point that the sentence is supposed to make is that the vice president is being elected indirectly by popular will. We can do better to convey this understanding in the reader than to just say "elected ... by the voters". I welcome any input and suggestions. 24.155.192.61 (talk) 00:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The voters elect the Electors. Then, the Electors elect the president & vice president. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Permanent disability

To clarify. Wouldn't a vice president continue as acting president for the rest of the disabled president's term? No matter how long that would be? GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

That is correct, he or she would indeed be acting president for the duration of that service. Drdpw (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)