Template talk:Infobox MexicanPresident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Creation notes

• Based on "Infobox President", with the following changes:

1. Elimination of "Order No." -- this gives a very false idea of continuity that is not appropriate to the entire run of Mexican presidents since 1824.
2. Elimination of "Vice President -- for obvious reasons.
3. Spaces around the en-dash in the Term of Office dates -- per Manual of Style
4. Background colour -- same as pre-existing old-fashioned table markup, for consistency's sake.

Comments, fine tuning, all welcome. –Hajor 01:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. I never liked the pink color, so I decided to change it to match the existing Template:Infobox President, for general consistency with other Wikipedia articles; in fact, I think that Infobox should replace this one, but I didn't want to go that far. As for the order, I agree that continuity in that sense has not been a characteristic of the Mexican governments, but in recent years it has, and if we know the order, I don't see why it shouldn't be included. Cheers. Alan MB 5 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)

Wouldn't ordering from Carranza as No. 1 have been an acceptable compromise, in line with the comments User:Aserje and I made on Talk:Vicente Fox? –Hajor 5 July 2005 23:34 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I had clear forgotten about that discussion. I think what you say would be an ordering of the post-revolution presidents, but then we could also have a numbering of the independence and reform periods presidents... I don't mind having both orderings, but wouldn't that look even more weird? Alan MB 6 July 2005 00:41 (UTC)

I see someone else has already deleted the "order" line from the other template, so I'm not the only one who thinks its inappropriate. I'll put a note on Talk:Vicente Fox and try and drum up some discussion. –Hajor 6 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)

Ok, a bit late, but here's my opinion: I don't think it makes sense to start numbering Mexican presidents. The political history of Mexico is quite "complex" and there are several periods, such as the War of Reform (or is it Reformation War?), the French intervention or the Aguascalientes Convention, where you just can't tell precisely who was the leader of the country, let alone THE legitimate leader/president. On the other hand, choosing the 1917 Constitution as the starting point seems a bit arbitrary, particularly if chosen to suggest that some sense of political stability was achieved since its promulgation. Let's keep in mind that the promoter of the constitution got killed in a quasi-revolt, out of nowhere a third-party was chosen as a substitute, the revolter became president and a few years later, against all odds, got reelected (!) in a gross contradiction to the Constitution. And I am not not even getting into the Maximato.

In addition, as far as I can tell, the non-enumeration of heads of government/state seems to be the rule rather than the exception among most republics. Cheers, Ruiz 00:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)