Forum:Federal States/Vice Presidents List
Forums → Federal States → Federal States/Vice Presidents List
 | Voting will remain open until 23:59 UTC on 07 September 2026 To vote, click here to go to the submissions and nominations area, and add your signature by typing four tildes (~) without spaces. |
Hi all,
With the presidents list nearly 3/4ths finished, I think it'd be helpful for us to add a column for the corresponding vice presidents. However, the process for adding a vice president should be slightly different than a president's. Rather than simply allowing anyone to take up any spot, people would have to ask the president's creator for permission. Admittedly, it's a little difficult finding that out seeing how much of the page history was erased when the wiki was recreated, so a column for that might be helpful, too. Adding a column for VPs for help us in two ways: one, we have a little more to work with if we ever start the process of creating some official background of our presidents. Two, its influence can be visible on the map, as VP John C. Calhoun for example has 11 counties named after him. This is a minor change that can be easily implemented, so let me know what you all think.
--IiEarth (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)
Something we might want to add is a way to tell who created each president; as someone who is relatively new to the FSA project, I'm unaware of who each president "belongs to". PoisonDog522 (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
- I like this idea and suggest we go ahead with it. If we can establish who named the president then that person should be able to approve someone else's vice president name suggestion. For presidents whose name we can't establish credentials for, I think a column be added for anyone to make suggestions and those can be voted on at the next ballot. I'd also suggest a 2 name limit per mapper. So all suggestions should be attributed. Ruadh (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
- As a counterpoint, I think it would be hard and potentially excluding if we decided to peg a VP to approval by whomever created the president name. There are quite a few new people in the project that weren't here when the list was made, and there are those of us (myself included) who never submitted a name. That said, I'm not immediately opposed to it, but I find it a bit narrow in some ways, as it gives a user control over a presidency to some degree. We worked hard to avoid that before. Accordingly, I think that anyone who has left the FSA project should no longer have the rights over a name. If that person is gone, they are gone. The names then become community-based. I would suggest we pool together a list of names first and work to either fill out a couple more early presidencies, assign VPs to relinquished administrations, etc. A big list can be appropriated for early generals, explorers, and other things as well. — Alessa (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- While I do understand why an approval might complicate things, I'm trying to think about the long-term impacts of assigning VPs. If it was done without approval, then once we do end up fleshing out our presidents' histories, you'd be 'forced' to work with a user you might not want to work with. The list isn't finalized and still has 11 empty spots which could be broken up to accommodate more people. People who haven't contributed to the list still might add presidents to the list (though I'm unaware what the current process looks like). While I get why users weren't given control over things like origin state, background, etc, I feel like having some control of the meta (which user you're working with) is a must. However, I completely agree with your point about former mappers. --IiEarth (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I get what you are saying, but that contradicts what I was led to believe the point of codifying a presidential list was in the first place. It was presented as a nomination of name but not ownership of a person. What this suggests to me is that the nominator owns the character and will get to do what they want with it. I find that untenable in a larger project like this, where trying to build a cohesive history will matter. It seems far better that we work through the list methodically and decide as a community where things should be and any bits about the administration if relevant to national lore. In other words, no one owns Louis Huntington—we all do. So, we all get to decide where he is from, where he grew up, where his tomb is, etc. (obviously using the one that no one would try to own as an example). If this is not the case, then I would object to the entire process altogether. Others may disagree, but that would be my objection. — Alessa (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with the prospect of nobody owning a president, but my only worry is that it may be quite a large and unwieldy project to decide all of these aspects of the presidents nationally when we'll have a list of around 50 people to decide these details about. PoisonDog522 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- It might just be how I am viewing the president/vice-president list, but how much are we really deciding? If we are just assigning names, then this could be done in bulk. If we are getting a bit more detailed with how an administration was run, then we would systematically and carefully work through key individuals first. Not every administration is going to have the national impacts on the map that require major discourse. My biggest concern on that latter point is also how much we are looking to pin down. I strongly believe that the FSA project does best when we pin down only broad, sweeping meta rather than specifics. So, other than a few key people like 'founding fathers,' it is going to be generalized statements like "introduced the national park system" or "started the first Federal motorway network." In my mind, we can do this in stages and be more effective: get the names in there and vote on them (no individual ownership); vote on some basic biographic things for a dozen or so key people (e.g., role in independence, a major achievement or two in general terms); then work outward from there. Then again, this doesn't matter if individuals control administrations and the rest of us are iced out. — Alessa (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Alessa as in my opinion, once a name has been submitted and approved on the president/vice-president list, it becomes community owned. Any additional names can be submitted by any FSA state-owner for a desired spot, but it requires a community vote to be listed. Glauber (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think that's fair. In the interest of moving this idea ahead, I propose having its question on the omnibus be something among the lines of 'Add a column to the presidents list for their corresponding VPs?' Exact instructions for how to contribute to the column can be fleshed out later. --IiEarth (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with Alessa as in my opinion, once a name has been submitted and approved on the president/vice-president list, it becomes community owned. Any additional names can be submitted by any FSA state-owner for a desired spot, but it requires a community vote to be listed. Glauber (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)
- It might just be how I am viewing the president/vice-president list, but how much are we really deciding? If we are just assigning names, then this could be done in bulk. If we are getting a bit more detailed with how an administration was run, then we would systematically and carefully work through key individuals first. Not every administration is going to have the national impacts on the map that require major discourse. My biggest concern on that latter point is also how much we are looking to pin down. I strongly believe that the FSA project does best when we pin down only broad, sweeping meta rather than specifics. So, other than a few key people like 'founding fathers,' it is going to be generalized statements like "introduced the national park system" or "started the first Federal motorway network." In my mind, we can do this in stages and be more effective: get the names in there and vote on them (no individual ownership); vote on some basic biographic things for a dozen or so key people (e.g., role in independence, a major achievement or two in general terms); then work outward from there. Then again, this doesn't matter if individuals control administrations and the rest of us are iced out. — Alessa (talk) 12:59, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree with the prospect of nobody owning a president, but my only worry is that it may be quite a large and unwieldy project to decide all of these aspects of the presidents nationally when we'll have a list of around 50 people to decide these details about. PoisonDog522 (talk) 03:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
- I get what you are saying, but that contradicts what I was led to believe the point of codifying a presidential list was in the first place. It was presented as a nomination of name but not ownership of a person. What this suggests to me is that the nominator owns the character and will get to do what they want with it. I find that untenable in a larger project like this, where trying to build a cohesive history will matter. It seems far better that we work through the list methodically and decide as a community where things should be and any bits about the administration if relevant to national lore. In other words, no one owns Louis Huntington—we all do. So, we all get to decide where he is from, where he grew up, where his tomb is, etc. (obviously using the one that no one would try to own as an example). If this is not the case, then I would object to the entire process altogether. Others may disagree, but that would be my objection. — Alessa (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- While I do understand why an approval might complicate things, I'm trying to think about the long-term impacts of assigning VPs. If it was done without approval, then once we do end up fleshing out our presidents' histories, you'd be 'forced' to work with a user you might not want to work with. The list isn't finalized and still has 11 empty spots which could be broken up to accommodate more people. People who haven't contributed to the list still might add presidents to the list (though I'm unaware what the current process looks like). While I get why users weren't given control over things like origin state, background, etc, I feel like having some control of the meta (which user you're working with) is a must. However, I completely agree with your point about former mappers. --IiEarth (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- As a counterpoint, I think it would be hard and potentially excluding if we decided to peg a VP to approval by whomever created the president name. There are quite a few new people in the project that weren't here when the list was made, and there are those of us (myself included) who never submitted a name. That said, I'm not immediately opposed to it, but I find it a bit narrow in some ways, as it gives a user control over a presidency to some degree. We worked hard to avoid that before. Accordingly, I think that anyone who has left the FSA project should no longer have the rights over a name. If that person is gone, they are gone. The names then become community-based. I would suggest we pool together a list of names first and work to either fill out a couple more early presidencies, assign VPs to relinquished administrations, etc. A big list can be appropriated for early generals, explorers, and other things as well. — Alessa (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
- After discussing it with the regional admin, an agreed plan of submissions will take place, followed by voting. — Alessa (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
Submissions and nominations
 Important technical notes to users |
|---|
| If you are an FSA state-owner or state coordinator, please place your nominations below by including the proposed name, the years in office, and your signature. To sign your name, place four tildes (~~~~) after your nomination. Ineligible submissions will be removed. |
State owners/coordinators may submit one unique name and/or one existing presidential name to the vice-president listing and choose which presidency that person was a part of.
|
Initiative 1: Submission of Names and Tenures
- Charles Blaney (VP term: 1771–1775, Sutton's second term). IiEarth (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)
- Nathaniel G. Fontaine (VP term: 1911-1915, under Eric Morgan). Mantan (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Pierre DeNord (VP Term: 1979-1987, under Ryan Leo). RhodeIslandWV (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
- Melvin Robert Osborne (VP Term: 1815–1818, under Brian McPherson). — Alessa (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- Elias Kennard (VP Term: 1843-1846, under Taylor Gellard) Glauber (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
- B. Hezekiah Myers (VP term: 1871-1875, Schmidt's first term). JustSomeMapper (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
- Ronald J. Norris (VP Term: 1955-1959, under Gerald Bowers). ItsTybear (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
- Thomas Ulgers (VP Term: 1967-1971, under Lewis's first term) Pole (talk) 03:40, 6 September 2026 (UTC)