Talk:Grover Cleveland

Restrictive / Non-Restrictive Clause

[...] the only president in American history to serve two nonconsecutive terms in office from 1885 to 1889 and from 1893 to 1897.

A COMMA (or a colon) SHOULD BE INSERTED - AFTER THE WORD "OFFICE." Otherwise, the sentence appears to be claiming that Cleveland was the only president to serve two nonconsecutive terms IN THOSE PERIODS OF TIME.

Trump

Someone has added a note to say Trump should only be added when all sources have confirmed his victory, but surely he shouldn't be added until he is actually sworn in. Until then he is only president-elect and hasn't started serving a second term. I suppose until then you could say he was the second person to have two non-consecutive election victories. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 10:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, although I question whether it is necessary for the Grover Cleveland page to mention Donald Trump at all. 2401:7000:CAE9:1A00:5558:EA88:D66A:E112 (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point - I guess as long as it says first (as opposed to only) to serve non-consecutive terms, that should be enough. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the top post. For now it could just say "so far" he's the 1st and only person to serve..... such and such. (in 2 months to inauguration anything could happen to Trump) This is the shortest way of saying it CNNsOneViewer (talk) CNNsOneViewer (talk) 14:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump's second term as president should definitely be mentioned, but I agree with @CNNsOneViewer that it's okay to leave it until he's officially inaugurated. Twinbros04 (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Footnote b currently reads "Cleveland was the only president to earn this distinction". That should be changed to "Cleveland is so far the only president to earn this distinction". 2401:7000:CAE9:1A00:5558:EA88:D66A:E112 (talk) 17:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Now that two people (Cleveland and Trump) have been elected to non-consecutive terms, it's not nearly as big a deal. It used to be clearly part of Cleveland's notability, and so we had to mention it in the lead paragraphs, even though it is basically just the answer to a trivia question. ("Which president was elected to two non-consecutive terms?")

But now, it's just blah. I suggest that we don't mention, in the lead paragraphs, either Cleveland or Trump having this "distinction". Save us some edit warring, anyway. Bruce leverett (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It has been almost 150 years since Cleveland and in both cases it was luck that created events that swayed the public to reelect both Cleveland and Trump.

The first reason alone is enough to note the achievement. Nsinger998 (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It's still pretty rare for a POTUS to serve nonconsecutive terms, so it's still important to note that Cleveland did so. 203.211.72.76 (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2024

Lynn452 (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Because i want to fix a incorrect line in the words

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. FifthFive (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Grover Cleveland was not the 24th president

It is impossible to be both the 22nd and 24th president. Finnigami (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Is this an attempt to continue the closed discussion at Talk:List of presidents of the United States/Archive 17#Presidential Numbering: Biden is NOT the 46th President of the United States? Bruce leverett (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Except it's totally possible. Cleveland did it by getting elected to non-consecutive terms. 2401:7000:CA83:7400:E0FA:CE53:8C3B:60BA (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Image

I restored this image, which took about half-an-hour, of Cleveland which I have also nominated for a featured picture because I feel it meets that quality. However, since I don't want to edit war and get in a fight with @Drdpw, I want to discuss the images. The image I restored (left) is claimed to have worse coloring and less visual appeal.

I disagree and even if on the surface, the photo is "visually more appealing/superior", it has many issues from aging. Another issue brought up is the color of the images, and I do not like this argument as I think that B&W should not be considered the default standard. This is a carte de visite

• 
• 

Wcamp9 (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare the two. But I don't like it that I have to look for the delineation between his forehead and the background to the left of it.

Do you know of any other biographical articles whose lead images are cartes de visite? Bruce leverett (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

This is cropped, but the image is also more like a cabinet card, which a few 1800s articles have. W.E.B DuBois and W.S. Gilbert are examples Wcamp9 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

At least I can say, looking at those two articles enabled me to see that it's normal and OK to have a non-strictly-black-and-white coloration. I still am not real excited about this one, but we'll see what kind of discussion there is. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I wan't to hear your side now, do you support or not. Wcamp9 (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I would stick with the image on the right. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)