Jump to content

Talk:Trump/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as the primary topic. Will put The Donald in the hatnote.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this article be called Trump (disambiguation) and that the primary direct to "trump" be to trump cards in trick taking games such as Bridge. This is the most common and obvious use of the term. The title "Trump (card game)" is awkward as it is not refering to a game, it is a special card or assigned card suit used in certain card games.--Parsa (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not only the most common use. It is also the earliest use of the term when it was first used in tarot card games.Smiloid (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. --Doradus (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree. I think I have noticed this anomaly before, but for some reason didn't do anything about it. Hans Adler 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Two years of discussion with all four participants in favour seems to be enough for a bold move, but I can't do it because the target has a (formally) non-trivial history. So I am formally requesting this move. Hans Adler 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Trump → Trump (disambiguation) — Original and most common meaning is that in card games. Need to rename to make place for that. Hans Adler 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Trump which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Discussion is now at Talk:Trump (card games)#Requested move 9 November 2016. Dicklyon (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

People named Trump but not known as "Trump"

Among all the Trump family, Donald Trump is the only person known solely as "Trump". (For example, Ivanka is never called "Trump" -- usually "Ivanka" or "Ivanka Trump".) Including the rest of the Trump clan is partial title matching, and covered by the link to Trump (surname), and thus shouldn't also be included individually here, so I'm removing them.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

...well, someone is removing them.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I say it should be included now, he is the President now, so when people type in "Trump" in the search box, they're most DEFINITELY looking for Donald Trump. 173.68.25.111 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Trump should redirect to Donald Trump. You used to be able to see visits at the bottom of the page. I can't believe that was removed. Anyway, compare visits of Donald Trump to Trump card games and it will be obvious. Steve.schlegel (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Two different topics. The conversation here was whether Ivanka, Ivana, Barron, Eric, and other relatives should be listed explicitly on this page. None of them are commonly known as the unmodified word "Trump", so they should not be on this page. Donald Trump is quite often known as "Trump", so he should be explicitly listed here.
The question of whether the article name "Trump" should be a redirect to the "Donald Trump" page would be another, separate conversation.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Donald Trump

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Simply put, there is no agreement on whether our current President is the primary topic or not. On pure count, we have 22 supports, 30 opposes, and 1 neutral !vote; that's definitely not a consensus. This discussion is also of relevance. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I second:

"I say it should be included now, he is the President now, so when people type in "Trump" in the search box, they're most DEFINITELY looking for Donald Trump. 173.68.25.111 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)"

187.75.12.241 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment: As mentioned above, the previous discussion on this, which resulted in Trump becoming the name of this disambiguation page rather than the page about playing cards, is at Talk:Trump (card games)#Requested move 9 November 2016.--NapoliRoma (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Support as per nom. Olidog 12:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment – If you want to make this proposal, please follow the guidelines at WP:Move request. — JFG talk 18:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment - We should not second guess what readers are searching for, and this disambiguation page lists a number of possible results. The donald is but a further click away. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. This shows the page had nearly 26,000 page views following Election Day and 12,000 today, do you honestly believe they are looking for anything other than Donald Trump? MB298 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Those were two unusual days, and how many looking for Trump were astonished by a DAB page with the precise title linked at the top? On the other hand, around the world, and into the future indefinitely, how many may be frustrated finding the real meaning of trump because Donald Trump is presumed to be the only interest, even over unrelated and preceding topic? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Support First thing I do not understand why Trump is not already a redirect to Donald Trump since most users voted in favor of redirecting to Donald Trump in the previous discussion.--Red Icarus of Jakarta (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The world is bigger then the USA. Andrewa (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


Requested move 21 January 2017

Trump → Trump (disambiguation) – Per above, a proper move request was not started, I have corrected this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Champion (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

For completeness, it looks like the OP is proposing that the Trump title should redirect to Donald Trump as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. — JFG talk 01:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Strong Support As per WP:PTOPIC, no evidence they are looking for something other than Donald Trump, if they are looking for the First Lady, for example, they will just search "Melania Trump", that's why Obama does not point to a disambiguation page or redirect to Michelle Obama, for that matter. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 22:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. One of the most blatantly obvious primary topics ever. Note: the proposal should say "to allow Trump to redirect to Donald Trump". --В²C ☎ 23:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Anyone could be looking for Trump (card games) or HMS Trump (P333) - Both notable subjects, Obama is irrelevant here because he was was always referred to as OBama, Donald on the other hand is always referred to as "Donald Trump". –Davey2010Talk 23:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Based on recent pageview statistics (elaborated above) I would say Donald is the intended target of 99% of "Trump"'s views. If they are looking for HMS Trump they would specifically search for the ship with its full title. Clearly Donald is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as Barack is also the primary topic of Obama. Also relating to just below, Bush is a disambig page because there were two president Bushes and people could also be searching for a bush (the plant), Clinton because it could equally refer to Bill, Hillary, or something else, etc. Eisenhower, Obama, Nixon, Reagan all redirect to the presidential article because they are fairly distinct and uncommon surnames, while Bush, Clinton, Ford, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman are shared by a large number of people. MB298 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose again nothing has changed, see Clinton Carter Kennedy Bush Thatcher all surname or dab pages....and still no evidence of Donald Trump being called "Trump" in serious sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Reagan, Eisenhower, Obama, Churchill, Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Nixon. Calidum 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Champion: your evidence is weak to the point of ridiculous. It is normal in the English speaking world to have a surname in a heading, the full name in the opening paragraph, and then use the surname again. If you can find an article that omits "Donald" you might have a case, but otherwise the sources you offer just demonstrate that he is known as "Donald Trump". StAnselm (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@StAnselm: I can't believe I have to do this, no offense, but I suppose you don't even bother to check before making such comments, there are indeed articles that mention Trump only by surname, omitting "Donald", if that does not convince you, just type Trump -Donald into Google News. So he is known as "Trump" just like Barack Obama is known as "Obama. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
But none of the references that User:Champion provided have just "Trump" at the first in-article mention of his name. They have, respectively, "President Trump", "Mr Trump", "President Donald Trump", and "President Donald Trump". StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@StAnselm: Not exactly true, none of the articles I linked above in the second set have a single mention of "Donald" anywhere in them, press Ctrl+F if in doubt, the NBC one did not even mention "President Trump" or "Mr. Trump". - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 05:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was referring to your first set, of course. StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@StAnselm: That is what I figured, also this article does not mention any of the terms you quoted above. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 06:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Absolutely needed because Trump is soon to be redirected time Donald Trump and this disambiguation page is needed. Otherwise, Trump will go to Donald Trump and this page will be blanked out. No! Samswik (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Trump to Donald, not Trump disambiguation. This doesn't mean you like or hate Donald. Obama was redirected to Barack in 2008. Only a few people were looking for Obama village, Japan. Samswik (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@Samswik: You have placed your comment in the wrong place and made two separate comments, I have moved it. In future, new comments should always be placed at the bottom of discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
The other meaning of Obama hardly compare to the long-established terms used long before Donald was ever thought of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Never mind. I'll switch to neutral due to President Trump as too recently referred and long-standing reference to card deck. --George Ho (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
By the way, Samswik, can you strikethrough your double vote? I appreciate it. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
"Trump" is not in the same league as "May" and "bush". Srnec (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
A POV statement if ever I heard one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Refusing to redirect this to the Donald Trump article is nothing but thinly veiled political bias on the part of those opposing. A cheap attempt to undermine the President by suggesting that perhaps users are searching for the stub of an article on Trump the card game, instead of Trump the President --74.102.227.219 (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • oppose per the clinton/bush examples. Obama counter example is not parallel, as the word/name Obama was previously much less notable. But people having been Trumping things for centuries, and will continue to do so for centuries more. It should perhaps be the first item on the disambig page tho. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per JFG. Trump is a dictionary word and the disambiguation page currently does its job in providing top billing for Donald Trump. κατάσταση 19:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per precedent for family names (Bush, Thatcher, Hoover, etc.) that are also used as dictionary words. jxm (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Maybe for now people typing "Trump" in the search box are looking for Donald Trump, but it will not always be that way. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
And it should change when that is no longer the case, probably after his presidency, at the earliest. Lakeshake (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
That could be because there are several big Bushes (George H.W. and W) and Clintons (Hillary and Bill). Lakeshake (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Then Carter or Ford, or Washington to avoid presentism. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – the primary meaning of trump where I live is (and will continue to be) a fart, and this trumps any US president, however egregious. Oculi (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. We already had this debate at great length, at Talk:Trump_(card_games)#Requested_move_9_November_2016, after the election result, and nothing has materially changed since then. To reiterate - trump, the card game concept enjoys considerably greater long term significance than the current president of the US. Not necessarily enough to remain primary topic (which is what that previous RM decided), but certainly Donald is not the primary topic either.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding how you could be serious about this. Have you looked at the respective page view counts? Regardless of what significance you think the card game concept has long term, users of WP who vote by clicking have a different view. The Donald article gets TWO THOUSAND TIMES as many views. Not twice as many. Not 20 times as many. Not 200 times as many. But 2,000 times as many! In comparison, Paris gets only about 12 times as many views as Paris, Texas (film) does[2]. I'm sorry, but contending that Donald is not the primary topic for Trump is as ridiculous as his claim that he lost the popular vote because millions votes illegally. Let's not stoop to that level, okay? --В²C ☎ 17:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Support for change. (should not be interpreted as support or opposition to the man, himself). I entered "Trump" and got this page. I was going to complain but then I saw that there is already a complaint in the form of this poll. Maybe after a year or two after Trump leaves offices, this disambiguation page could be the Trump page but for now, it is just a pain to come here when someone enters "Trump". Lakeshake (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose – too much recentism. This too shall pass. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd love to know why a western, British niche industry card game term has more long term encyclopedic presence then a President. One is generally taught in academia worldwide and one is a game people in countries of the former British Empire play as a hobby. talk about a western bias. GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I'm willing to bet 90-99% of the people who go to this page are looking for Donald Trump, as I was. This is ridiculous. 2606:A000:1228:16:E829:4FDF:FBD1:2AF (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Common words should always lead to disambiguation pages. NOTDIC is true, but is not something that all readers know. Page views and what most people want is out of scope, Wikipedia is not here to suit Google, and Google easily responds to what people want by sending them continually updated most likely sites. Google should not be sending searchers via a redirect title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • "Common words should always lead to disambiguation pages." I think I'll file that one under, "make up stuff as we go". --В²C ☎ 17:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Not at all. This is an approach that is usually carried. A generic concept (here, "trump" the verb, deriving from the widespread playing card term) should not easily be displaced by a specific and unrelated topic. Donald Trump is the big article. People searching on google will find that page immediately regardless of a "Trump" redirect. Any links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump from onsite or offsite, intending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump can only confuse matters. The driving motivation of the supporters seems to be to work to align with google rather than to use logical titling. If trump were to redirect to Donald_Trump, then that article would need another hatnote sentence. Hatnotes are a frustration to people wanting quick and easy access. Without the redirect, anyone putting "trump" into the wikipedia search box (a peculiar thing to do!) will be taken to a small page with a Donald_Trump at the top. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The disambiguation page includes a link to Donald Trump for people who were looking for that article. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, dictionary word, used in card games for almost five hundred years, also happens to be the name of a person. Even Washington, Lincoln, Taft and Van Buren are disambiguation pages (Garfield isn't, but it isn't the president). If a common word leads to a disambiguation page, it is much easier to avoid wrong links, and the friendly people of WP:DPL can help to fix them. —Kusma (t·c) 13:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose (at least for now) as recentism. "Trump" has been a common verb in the English language for countless years, long before the President was born let alone became famous. This is different from names like "Eisenhower" and "Obama", which are distinctly names that have pretty much always been associated with Dwight Eisenhower and Barack Obama respectively ever since they rose to prominence. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose for several reasons:
    1. This is recentism, since if anyone was looking for Donald Trump and actually typed in "Trump", this page would have been redirected there years ago. The Donald isn't a recent phenomenon.
    2. Other uses of "Trump" are notable and may be searched for as well, including the dictionary definition.
    3. No one has any data about whether readers going to this article actually wanted to go to the "Donald Trump" page instead.
    4. We already had a discussion about this, and it was agreed to keep this page at this title.
    5. We have a hatnote on the article for Donald Trump, and vice versa.
    6. There are other ways to direct readers from Trump to Donald Trump, such as putting Donald's name at the top of the disambiguation page. epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Nobody will ever have trouble finding the Wikipedia article on Donald Trump. So, the bigger concern is making sure that people wanting the unrelated trump topics, including the verb ("This trumps that", a meaning which may be mis-conflated for many), will not be sucked into bewildering circles, as they might with the current hat note at Donald Trump. And expanding the hatnote seriously detracts from that important article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Many Americans, and probably just as many Wikipedians, think of the President as the primary topic of Trump, but this is not the view of most English speakers worldwide. Andrewa (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

INTERIM SUMMARY

Uncalled for. Consensus will be assessed by the closer. — JFG talk 07:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

For the Trump page to be redirected to Donald Trump page (SUPPORTS),

  • 19 users mentioned that the vast majority (or 2000 times more or some other overwhelming term) intend to read Donald Trump. 2 users dispute this. 2 other users say this will not always be the case. For this point, overwhelming (or WP:SNOW) points to a Trump to Donald Trump redirect.
  • 4 users mention "strong support" versus only 1 user "strong oppose". This might lean towards a redirecting Trump to Donald Trump but I put only a little weight into it because some people may not put "strong" even though they mean it.
  • a few say he is a more notable topic. A few say the card game is more notable. I believe the truth is Donald Trump is more notable.
  • a few mention the Obama page being redirected to Barack Obama.

For the Trump page to stay a disambiguation page,

  • a few say that Donald Trump will no longer be as notable. There is clear reason to disregard that now but to change it when that occurs, maybe in several years, at the earliest.
  • 5 users claim that the card game is more notable. I believe these are "alternative facts" or "falsehoods".
  • a few say Donald Trump is recentism. I think partly true but only in the sense of years, not days or weeks, such as news stories.
  • Bush and Clinton are given as examples but there are multiple famous Bush and Clinton people.
  • Trump means "fart" and that is most notable. I believe that is clearly a minority viewpoint.
  • one user says Donald Trump is more notable so he should NOT be redirected to. (very odd logic)
  • one user says that people looking for the Donald Trump article won't enter "Trump" but will use a different search term.

Complicating matters is that Donald Trump is the most hated U.S. President in recent history. Even among people who voted for him, many do not like him. To redirect the article makes some people mad.

WP:REDIRECT states "Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read". For this reason, a redirect should be the conclusion unless one can show that people want to read about farts or the card game more than Donald Trump when they enter "Trump". I believe there is complete or near complete consensus on that point. Lakeshake (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hell no! There are 12 opposing votes! How does that come out to a consensus? Because you do not think the opinions of people who disagree with you are important? And how does WP:SNOW apply? See Wikipedia:Snowball clause#The snowball test and note the word "unanimous" is there! There is by no means a Snowball clause situation here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I made no comments of a consensus or lack of consensus, merely summarizing the votes. There is little opposition to the fact that people are looking for Donald Trump. Those that oppose redirection to Donald Trump give other reasons for the most part. Lakeshake (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Snow only applies to the fact that people looking for Donald Trump will enter the word "Trump" often. Nobody disputes that except one voter.
Please be clear. You think the 12 opposing !voters believe that more people searching for "Trump" are looking for the fart or the card game than for The Donald? --В²C ☎ 22:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
No, only 2 voters believe that. That rest cite other reasons, like Donald Trump won't be so notable in a few years or that Clinton is not redirected to either President Clinton or Secretary of State Clinton. Lakeshake (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I can agree about the Clintons, but I can't agree Donald Trump will not be notable in a few years, any claims like this is purely crystal ball speculation, there is no basis in fact, if it does turn out to be the case, we can revisit it then. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
———
Sorry, my question above was intended for User:Richard-of-Earth. Anyway, Lakeshake's original sentence structure was not ideal, but I think what was meant is that there is "complete or near complete consensus" on the point that "people want to read about farts or the card game more than Donald Trump when they enter 'Trump'" is NOT the case. Champion, also recognizes that we have near consensus (all but two) on this point. Well, people mostly searching for one particular topic when entering a given term is what makes that topic the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term, by definition. That's the point. I don't understand how anyone can reasonably disagree with this without denying the very definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Or is their position that they recognize The Donald is the primary topic for "Trump", but just don't want Trump to redirect to the article about him anyway? --В²C ☎ 20:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I am disinclined to participate in these surveys for the very reason of what is going on here. People pretending consensus is reached when it is not and throwing around WP:SNOW where there is just rain. Particularly when participants are clearly inclined to long arguments, twisting other people's words, challenging individuals to defend their opinions or positions and generally intending to "win" the survey at any cost. I do not edit Wikipedia to be subjected to such disrespect. I apologize if over the years I have overly sensitive to it all.
That aside, no I do not think Donald Trump sufficiently fulfills the requirements of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Trump" to warrant redirecting this page. It lacks the long-enduring requirement. Redirecting this page will subject everyone who is looking for something else to wait for that long article to load before clinking the link to come to this list and will require adding yet another hat note to the Donald Trump article that people will keep screwing with. Not redirecting means people looking for Donald Trump's article will be subjected a short article reminding them that trump means other things and the link they need at the top. So, I am still opposed to redirecting this page. That you do not think my opposition is important because you lack the imagination to see how anyone could disagree or simply do not care to give up your delusions of consensus, does not change that fact. (Please attempt to take my crotchety rant in good humor.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Page Views

It's one thing to consider historical significance as well as page view counts, especially when page view counts are not too far apart. But in this case the president is TWO THOUSAND TIMES more likely to be viewed than is the card term[3]. It's not even close. Let us not allow our personal political opinions and concerns influence how we title WP articles. Trump is more likely to refer to the president than Paris is likely to refer to the city in France. By the logic much of the opposition is relying on here, Paris and Reagan should be disambiguation pages too, which of course would be ridiculous. So is having a dab page at Trump. --В²C ☎ 20:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, surely by watching those stats, the current dab setup hasn't prevented people from finding the Donald Trump article! — JFG talk 22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course. But WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not address the problem of people being unable to find primary topic articles; it just allows them to arrive there with less clicking. --В²C ☎ 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Recentism?

Some are citing recentism as reasons to oppose. My understanding of recentism is we shouldn't allow events with a sudden short-lived spike in interest to dictate our decision-making, and "short-lived" is in terms of days or maybe a few weeks. I don't see how that could apply here, a situation where the subject will be president for at least four years. If interest wanes in this topic to be approximate to that of what the card game topic is, perhaps a few years after Trump's term is over, then we could always move back. But given that we're talking about years, "recentism" does not apply here. --В²C ☎ 19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No, recentism can refer to any period of time. For example sports people from the eighties, nineties and noughties tend to get more coverage than equivalent stars of, say, the twenties or thirties. And the presidents of the twentieth century get more coverage than those of the nineteenth. The principle if combating recentism aims to put everything in its proper long term encyclopedic context. Trump cards were around long before the Don was born, and will remain around long after he is dead and some other president is stealing the headlines. Long term significance is a specific consideration for primary topics Aimed at tackling this kind of recentism.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
"Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process"[4] - events longer than a few days or weeks in time are not "a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process". The historical significance consideration should not be conflated with Recentism. In any case, the two PT considerations should be balanced appropriately. How important is it historically than the other? How much more likely is it to be sought than the other? The idea that a card game concept is more important than a US president is pretty funny - one can argue that the card game is not even sufficiently encyclopedic to have an entry. I note that the Donald Trump article has existed since early 2004, while the card game concept was not created until mid 2006 - 2 1/2 years later. And that was long before he was a candidate, let alone an actual president. The historical significance of pre-presidential Trump might have arguably dissipated quite a bit in the future, but now that he has been elected, his historical significance cannot be questioned, and compared to the simple card game concept? Please. One more indicator of significance is the relative sizes of the two articles, and here again The Donald article easily wins (318,000 to 6,000 bytes - a factor of 53). By any reasonable measure we have a clear primary topic situation here, as clear as any other on WP. By every conceivable measure of historical significance -- page view counts (2000 to 1), article creation date (by 2 1/2 years), article size (50 times), page watchers (1700 to 79), etc., etc. -- the article about The Donald is shown to be more significant. The only historical significance factor in favor of the card game concept is that it existed before he did, but if that were a decisive factor then almost all of our primary topic articles would be different. --В²C ☎ 23:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Like Obama, Japan was around centuries before Barack Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeshake (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Except Obama, Japan, didn't gain worldwide popularity until Barack ran for president. The word "Trump," on the other hand, was famous for many things long before Donald Trump was even born. epicgenius (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the relevance of "worldwide popularity" - what matters is notability on WP, and about when each of these topics became considered notable for inclusion on WP. The articles we're discussing and their creation dates:
  • Obama, Fukui September 27, 2003 [5]
  • Donald Trump January 8, 2004 [6]
  • Barack Obama March 17, 2004 [7]
  • Trump (card games) August 16, 2006 [8]
    • NOTE: The original article was about the card game named Trump, not the card game concept. The concept was not considered to be notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia until January 19, 2007[9], three years after the article on Donald Trump was created.
I'm not arguing that the city in Japan is more notable then the ex-president. I'm noting that it has existed longer and has been considered notable on WP longer, but these are not significant factors for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determination of "Obama". Nor should these similar factors regarding the card concept, which is relatively obscure and (more importantly) rarely visited compared to the article about the president, be considered significant in determining the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Trump" --В²C ☎ 21:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that the creation of an article at a given time means that it's necessarily more notable. On the other hand, more recent events do tend to have more coverage from news sources, since there's more readily accessible sources about them. epicgenius (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily, but it's a strong indication. Trump was not notable in 2004. Was the card game concept? Sure - it's not more nor less notable today than it was then, but the point is its notability is relatively low. The article was up for deletion consideration at one point. There is no question about the notability of Trump, and there never was. The relative notability is much, much higher for him. I think people just don't want to feed the narcissist. I get that. But we need to put such considerations aside when deciding primary topic. --В²C ☎ 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I understand. My argument isn't about not petting The Donald's ego. It's the fact that "trump" can refer to a whole lot of things, including the 45th US president, the card-game term, or the word meaning "to beat (someone or something) by saying or doing something better." In this case, I don't know if Donald Trump trumps mention of trump cards or trumping other people. epicgenius (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
The dictionary definition is irrelevant here. See Nice. The card-game term is relevant, although I dispute that it is sufficiently notable. The number of times users here refer to "the card game" suggests that they do not know what it is, since it isn't a game, but a card. Although it is possible they are just being sloppy. Srnec (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I would be interested in seeing data for how many people link to Nice, the French city, when they mean "pleasant" or "subtle." I suspect not a lot, because "nice" is an adjective and doesn't need wikification in 99% of the cases, but "trump," on the other hand, is a noun and might be legitimately linked to several things. epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
In other words, this RfC asks "Does Trump trump trumps?" — JFG talk 07:12, 29 January 2017 (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.


Requested move 12 February 2017

Hell no. Will be topic banning OP. --NeilN talk to me 18:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump → Donald Trump. The 2nd RM was disputed and the 3rd RM was closed by me but there was confusion. Therefore, I re-form it without an opinion. The arguments for and against it have been stated and maybe could benefit from explanation.

To those oppose to RM, it would be good to explain why it should not be even though it is, by far, the most preferred term. To those in favor of RM, it would be good to explain why farts is a common usage or that the card game is an old game. It is probably fair to state that hatred of the man is not a good reason for opposing RM and liking the man is not a good reason for supporting RM.

Lastly, anyone who has been involved in this, whether me, NeilN, Warrior, or anyone commenting even on user talk pages should not close this. In fact, leaving it open for a long time may be better rather than quick closure. Maybe even a month so there will not have to be re-voting on fixed RMs. Chris H of New York (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


Trump → Donald Trump – see above in the Trump (disambiguation) talk page Chris H of New York (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Speedy close this malfomed RM. It makes no sense to move the disambig page to the president's name, and it's too soon to turn this into another attempt to do the opposite. Dicklyon (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trump

MOS:DABORDER --Josef9 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to what some believe, Donald Trump is not the centre of the universe, and is not the primary topic of the word "Trump". Gain consensus here before changing, I'd say. TheValeyard (talk) 05:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
He was at top till less of 2 hours before my edit User:TheValeyard, please read link sir "In cases where a small number of main topics are significantly more likely to be the reader's target, several of the most common meanings may be placed at the top, with other meanings below." --Josef9 (talk) 11:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no single primary topic, but there are two major topics: the President and the card; it is appropriate that they go at the top. StAnselm (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
At least put the sections in alphabetical order; WP:DABORDER recommends that, and this discussion is about whether or not Donald Trump and Trump (card game) should be at the top, not the alphabetical order of the sections; otherwise it's really an uncontroversial move. SkyWarrior 19:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but the edits were done together and then reverted, so there should be a discussion here. StAnselm (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I was the one who did those edits together. My main objective in that edit was to put the sections in alphabetical order. In doing so, I also moved the two sectionless links (Donald Trump and the card game link) to the top of their respective sections. I'm okay with those two links being above the sections (although I feel it's unnecessary for them to be there), but the sections should at least be in alphabetical order. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move moratorium

If anyone who hasn't chimed in but wants to, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Moratorium_on_requested_moves_of_Trump.3F. It's due to be closed soon. --NeilN talk to me 20:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion above closed, 6 month moratorium imposed. --Mike Cline (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Alternate view (not only to be confused with "alternative facts") is that Wikipedia is discussion. Discussion could better mean that there should be either six months of discussion or a discussion open for six months *subtle difference). Personally for myself only, I favor a discussion open for six months which means I will add a comment for or against or neutral later. Maybe in 3 minutes, maybe in 3 months but when it comes, I hope it will be profound and well thought through. If we all thought of this carefully in the next six months, but not bicker, we could have a very thoughtful conclusion rather than a discussion ban then short window of a vote later this year.Samswik (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  • comment: improvement An improvement on the moratorium is that there be no decision for RM but that careful consideration be given in the next six months with a request for limited and careful comments by all. Samswik (talk) 14:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Samswik:. You may encourage any discussion you would like re the title of this article on the talk page. However, because of the controversial nature of the topic, the title should only change if consensus, evidence and policy dictates so in a properly conducted RM. AND there is 6 month moratorium on any new RMs. Discussion on the talk page cannot be used to circumvent the RM process. Many editors who routinely follow and participate in RM discussions maybe totally unaware or indifferent to the talk page discussion and not participate. AND care must be taken not to WP:CANVASS editors to participate in the talk page discussion thinking consensus outside the RM process will result in a title change. --Mike Cline (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@User:Mike Cline: Moratoria come with the standard caveat that if there is clear evidence that consensus is likely to have changed or someone has solid, policy-based reasoning that hasn't already been discussed, then in those cases, the mandatory waiting-period may be bypassed. This was discussed at articles like "Genesis creation narrative", "Hillary Clinton"' and "Chelsea Manning" (in Manning's case it was actually implemented). Your statement seems (I could be entirely mistaken) to imply that you feel that six months is required in addition to one of the above criteria, rather than in lieu of them. This is not the case, per long-standing consensus at other controversial-title discussions (and IAR). Joefromrandb (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
that sounds like a bad faith assumption. Having people think about it for six months with no hurry to rush to write their RM vote is a good thing. Even I come with an open mind and don't feel pressured to vote or comment for several months. But if there is a RM, the comments here should be considered as if they were RM votes. Samswik (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
@Samswik: A quick point about RMs. They are not votes where majority rules. They are discussions where evidence and policy positions on a a particular title are held. They are decided by a combination of an assessment on the consensus of the discussion weighed heavily agains Title Policy. An editor can certainly adopt a position in an RM that was espoused in a talk page discussion. But we don't" !vote in consensus based discussions, as editors, we provide positions on a proposed article title change along with evidence to support that position. The RM process is well established and a lot of editors keep track of what's in the RM que. They may or may not routinely participate in active talk pages discussions on any given article. Any discussion outside an RM certainly can bring antidotal information to an RM discussion, but Not VOTEs. --Mike Cline (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2017

I think this page should go to Donald Trumps article like Obama goes to Barack Obama

Kara Kara99883 (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Mlpearc (open channel) 16:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 3 October 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Trump → Trump (disambiguation) – I don't support or oppose the moving of this page, but I there are no discussion after moratorium and leaving Donald Trump linked to Trump (president) in this page. Hddty. (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2017 (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.

Removal of entry for comic book character

Please remove the following line (from Trump#Fictional characters):

* [[Trump (comics)]], a character appearing in books published by Marvel Comics


"Trump" is not mentioned in List of Marvel Comics characters: T. See the final line of MOS:DABMENTION. (Also, The Trump (comics) redirect was also deleted as part of a a recent AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump (comics) then recreated by one of the contributors to the AfD.)

143.159.145.178 (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Done AdA&D 20:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
"Trump" was added to the list and is there now, so I've restored the entry with a link directly to the entry. If it gets removed there, we will remove it here again. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

End this silly page

I read Wikipedia not write it but this flaw is so bad that I am writing.

Look at many, many news articles. They say "Trump" and they mean Donald Trump. They don't mean the Trump card game is threatening nuclear war. I know people hate Trump so much but Wikipedia is not a hate forum and, besides, there are articles on Stalin and Hitler.

Let's end this for all and make the Trump page show Donald Trump. Remember, if you hate Trump, that doesn't mean you should support Wikipedia having a wacky Trump page like this (instead of Trump going to Donald Trump). Newyorklauren (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Newyorklauren: There have been repeated attempts to move this page to Trump (disambiguation), and they've failed. Unless you have some new data showing that Donald is the primary target, then the dab page won't be moved. —C.Fred (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
See also dab pages like Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, Johnson, Bush, Clinton: They're not "hated" either, they're just not the only significant users of the name. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Give it up. Trump is hated. Because of that hate, Trump will always be a disambiguation page. If people voted logically, Wikipedia's Trump page would redirect to Donald Trump. New2018Year (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
You mean like we do for Bush, Clinton, Washington, Hamilton… except these are all disambiguation pages. Just like this one. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible move request

Collapsing unnecessary discussion of possible RM by editor now under indef block.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Aervanath, an administrator, has called for a new RM and there is no mention that the 6 month moratorium is valid.

Should we listen to Aervanath, an administrator?

If so, the snow closure of October 2017 should be vacated. The snow closure is highly suspect because it is not plausible that RM feelings could go from mixed to unanimous so quickly. Only in North Korea are there elections where one side gets 100% of the vote. New2018Year (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, comply with Aervanath's administrator's instructions for a Requested Move. Unless there are more opinions from other administrators and wheel warring, the word of an administrator is to be followed. I am open to this, whether or not we should follow an administrator's instructions about relisting RM before 6 months. New2018Year (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You're simply being disruptive now. That's not what was said at the Move Review. I think you're trolling, and possibly a sock-puppet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"Calls for"="Says you can do it if you want to." Nothing is in need of vacation. Do it if you feel it's necessary. The moratorium expired in August. The process for instituting a move request is at WP:RM. Please fish or cut bait. Dekimasuよ! 22:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this the final answer, that a RM is ok now. If yes, there is some chance that I will not start a RM. I just don't like it when due process is disrupted by a manipulative SNOW closure. I don't care much about Trump. That is not trolling. New2018Year (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Have you ever edited this talk page under a different username? Dekimasuよ! 22:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Wrong. "The word of an administrator is to be followed" for things like topic bans and content disputes. Being an administrator doesn't give you special status when calling for an RM. Furthermore, I don't see any link to that admin's recommendation. As far as I can tell from looking above at this talk page, the most recently closed RM was in October. So it's really irrelevant to be discussing it now. And just because a moratorium has expired doesn't mean another RM should happen. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, the previous RM was opened with the sole rationale that the moratorium had expired, no other evidence or argument whatsoever. Hence why it was speedy closed.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are debating the page move

There was no debate, and the person who started the move review was blocked as a sock. Nothing else to see here. SkyWarrior 01:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018

Add the dabpage Trump card under § See also. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done SkyWarrior 04:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect to Donald Trump (2)

I recommend that there be continued discussion.

Not addressed was the fact that an overwhelming number of people are looking for Donald Trump, according to the Wikipedia editors above. This should be discussed. Lakeshake (talk) 00:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The above has been open for 7 days and therefore is ripe for closure. The result is move approved. This is because there are multiple citations by users that an overwhelming number of users are looking for Donald Trump and not Trump, the card game. There is an opinion by a few that Donald Trump's notability as the main subject is limited and this should definitely be entertained, probably in the year 2021. It is settled. Chris H of New York (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The mechanics is that Trump should go to Donald Trump with a note on that page that there is a Trump (disambiguation). Chris H of New York (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not how it works. The user above is referring to the above RM discussion, which closed as no consensus, not move. If you wish to contest the move, then please follow the process outlined at WP:MRV. SkyWarrior 03:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The discussion was already closed as no consensus. You don't need to suddenly approve the move just because someone proposed reopening the discussion, specially if no one has answered, imo. --TL22 (talk) 03:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No, there was a re-RM which I saw and closed. If you disagree, then appeal it. The closure before that did not address the point that I addressed. I recommend that if you do not want to appeal it, wait for 6 weeks then open a RM. Chris H of New York (talk) 03:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Please link to this re-RM; I'm not exactly finding it myself. The discussion started by Lakeshake is not a re-RM, but rather a contestion to the above RM; if you wish to contest, please follow through with a request at WP:MRV. SkyWarrior 03:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't think an MRV or a re-RM was ever opened, but all I could find was a relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Moratorium_on_requested_moves_of_Trump.3F. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right. The above comment by Lakeshake was mistaken by Chris H as a re-RM, which is in turn a(n attempt at a) contest of the move closure above. No MRV discussion was initiated because... well, I can't really answer that. The AN discussion is directly related to this whole brouhaha. SkyWarrior 03:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Nobody would usually go to Trump to find a card game that barely anyone knows. When people come to Wikipedia, type in the search bar "Trump", they are probably looking for President Trump not that card game. Bobby (Here's Bob's talk page.) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reagan redirects to Ronald Reagan, why doesn't this? 74.108.224.146 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Because there is not as many alternative meanings commonly use for Reagan as for Trump. Compare Trump to Reagan (disambiguation). The use of "trump" in card games is the tipping point for this not being a redirect. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Support – Adding onto Bobby's words, I suggest moving the current page to "Trump (disambiguation)" and make the new "Trump" page into a redirect to "Donald Trump". —Wei4Green (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Wei4Green: This is not an active move discussion; there have been several, above and below. If you would like to open a new one, see WP:Requested moves#CM. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2018

Remove the § Other uses entry on flatulence, per this request at Talk:Flatulence. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Sakura CarteletTalk 00:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! As amusing as the forever-adolescent part of my mind finds it, it seems highly dubious. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Under § Card games: “Trump: The Game, a board game based on Donald Trump's career in real estate”, or similarly brief description of what the board game actually is. Also, it probably shouldn’t be listed as a “card game.” —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Sorry. I don't think you proposal can be justified in terms of WP:DAB (or MOS:DP). The purpose of disambiguation pages is similar to that of indices in tree-killed encyclopaedias: merely, to disambiguate between entries by providing only as much information as is needed to do so.
Since this is the only game actually called "Trump" listed on the comprehensive BoardGameGeek website, this MOS:DABENTRY wouldn't seem to require further description, other than "board game" (to distinguish from "Trumps"). The only other game listed on BGG with "Trump" even in the title is a card game based on playing cards (using the primary-topic sense of an card of higher rank) called "Trump, Tricks, Game!".
If you'd like information about the game's theme, you should just click on the link to the article. Other entries I've seen for board games on dab pages, don't usually mention themes.
Regarding your second point, MOS:DABGROUPING section titles are, by their nature, to be interpreted broadly (and are sometimes unavoidably ambiguous), so I don't personally have a problem with the status quo: in the broadest sense of the expression, "Trump: The Game" is a card game since it requires a lot of cards. Having said that, if you put a more specific request on here with what you want the title changed to (e.g.: "Games"), I'll change it for you. Whilst, there is a video-game entry under "Fictional Characters", that isn't a game per se if gaming-related (so there is unlikely to be confusion). "Table-top Games" is another option, although perhaps too esoteric for a heading and is often considered not to refer to more traditional playing-card games.
Llew Mawr (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Llew Mawr: Wow, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response!
I could have sworn a short (not minimal) description was recommended (and maybe it was at one point), but now that I look: Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.. So while I personally disagree, you’re right.
As for the heading, all I can think of is “Games” or “Gaming.” “Card games” typically implies the game is played exclusively with cards (usually with a standard 52-card deck or a subset), at least in my experience; but yes, Trump is technically a game that involves some sort of cards. Maybe not the strongest argument, but it’s all I’ve got. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and renamed it to "Games" (since to my mind and Wiktionary's "gaming" without delimiting refers exclusively to video gaming). As you imply aobve and in my table-top gaming experience, players even usually refer to card games without any board that aren't CCGs or traditional playing cards as board games (and they cetainly don't call them "cards games" colloquially). So I've come to agree with you that the status quo caused too much SURPRISE (to comply with that policy) to most readers. After alphabetising, "Fictional characters" is now at the top, avoiding the potential suprise I alluded to that the gaming character isn't under "Games".
Llew Mawr (talk)

Belated update: the farting sense of the word is supported by the OED, in the verb sense of its second entry. Flatulence cites it. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Changed disambiguation page

The old version said that Trump most commonly refers to Donald Trump. If this is true (and it is so so very true), the page should redirect to Donald Trump.

However, Trump haters (don't accuse me of being a Trump lover) cannot bear to see that happen so they insist that people looking for Trump are not looking for Donald Trump. Therefore, I have changed the disambig page to read...

Trump most commonly refers to

  • Trump card game

May also refer to

  • Donald Trump

New2018Year (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I have made further changes to the page. Which are to:
    • remove an unneeded "may also refer too" when it is clear that most people on the page will be looking for one of the two top items, which are now equally placed.
    • I have taken the liberty of using an invocation to randomise which will appear first, so no arguing over it, it's a random selector that is either showing the card game or the president first in the list.
    • I fixed the extra redirect that was using server resources to send people via a needless page as: <!-- please don't fix link; it is to a redirect so statistics can be kept on how people are finding the article. --> which seems dubious to me, if you need such analytics for some reason there are other ways to get the data. (actually there aren't).
    • I moved Donald Trump in popular culture#Comics from "Fictional characters" to "Literature" because Trump does not become fictional if depicted in a comic, that is just not how it works.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I really like the randomiser. Having Trump in second place seems WP:POINTy to me, and this is a great workaround. I have notice the redirect comment in the past, and have always wondered if it is based on any sort of policy or guideline, or indeed if it was the result of consensus. Hopefully someone can clarify that. StAnselm (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I have some concern over the randomiser because it assumes all choices are equally picked. What if Donald Trump were picked 30% of the time, Trump card game picked 5% of the time, Trump Colorado picked 0.5% of the time, and a redirect to Donald Trump 64.5% of the time. That would be more fair.
Another concern is that we are giving different versions of wikipedia to different users and that may be improper.New2018Year (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I restored the extra link. There have been discussions on this and it needs to be there. If there is other way to track how often people click that link please detail it here. But do not remove it until this supposed other way is shown to work. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
By the way, using this double link it is easy to see from this graph that on any given day one half to two thirds of the visits to this page are to find the Donald Trump article. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Here’s one including the page about trump cards, showing the past 60 days from whenever you click it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • There does not actually seem to be another way to get the data. For some reason I assumed that Wikipedia:Web statistics tool included referrer information, but it seems that is just external referrer information for the overall project. I am not sure that finding that up to 2/3 of people visiting this page go onto Donald Trump will ever make it the main topic, not least because the Donald Trump article would need a new hatnote pointing to the card game or a Trump (disambiguation) page. However I do think the slightly curious workaround here makes sense. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    I agree. Also people looking for something other then Donald Trump would have to load the whole page, which loads slow, to get at the hatnote link. Whereas this page is short and loads fast. So, ultimately it is better the way it is even if it seems wrong to some. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
    I disagree because most people are looking for Donald Trump, not Trump Colorado. This should be voted on and the winner decided on both wisdom and numbers as wikipedia is not a vote. New2018Year (talk) 21:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I see that in the redirect page Donald Trump is listed as one of two possibilities that Trump most commonly refers to but he is not listed as a person. That seems strange. Also, when I search for Trump I do not see Donald Trump as a possibility, I must either search for Donald Trump explicitly or go to the redirect page first. So I can get to the Donald Trump page but it seems that some people are still trying to deny his existence. Sam Tomato (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

If someone searched for Trump it is unclear what they are looking for so yes they go to this page. The problem of typing a last name in the search box and not getting a selection of people with that last name is a systemic problem of Wikipedia. Something to take up at Wikipedia:Village pump. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

July RM

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: consensus against - there is consensus against this move request. While it is true that WP:RECENTISM is neither a guideline nor a policy, as Rreagon007 points out, there is a consensus that Donald Trump does not meet the criteria for being the primary topic/WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


Trump → Trump (disambiguation) – - You know, everyone, I've been thinking that when people type the word "Trump" into the encyclopedia, I don't think they are looking for content on dominant suits in cards. I am actually very certain that the word "Trump" in news and scholarly articles and books and the world in general, the word "Trump" far more commonly refers to Donald Trump, the sitting president of the USA. I'm pretty confident that his article is the most popular in terms of pageviews, since it is the second-most commonly read article of all time on Wikipedia, sandwiched between the United States and Barack Obama. I'm also pretty sure that he's certain to have long-lasting educational significance: see how many news articles and books include the terms "Trump" as well as "historic" (usually in a pejorative sense).

We do our readers a disservice by distancing them from the article that they almost certainly are trying to get to when they type in "Trump". Regardless of how you feel about Donald Trump, I think we can join together and say that the base word Trump, just like Nixon, Reagan, Obama, Merkel, Putin, Bolsonaro, etc., should redirect to the most noteworthy, most viewed, and most historically significant subject that bears that name, which in this case is the current sitting U.S. President. It has been over two years since a move request was contemplated--but it was right to move it then and it's far more correct to do so now. Red Slash 17:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Weak oppose the views for Trump were 9,058 and the views for Trump (president) were 6,168, this doesn't suggest that readers are overwhelmingly looking for the president with "Trump". While the "more likely than others combined" is satisfied I'm not entirely convinced that PT#2 is given that while the president is clearly far more common and important its not clear how common the unqualified "Trump" in a generic context refers to Donald, given that we'd land (based on the stats) nearly 1/3 of the readers onto a large page (that could take a long time to load) and the long-term significance for plain "Trump" I'm afraid I'm going to have to oppose. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I just want to elaborate on Crouch, Swale's use of stats here, because it took me a second to follow: Trump (president) is a redirect to Donald Trump which is used on this disambiguation page (and nowhere else). So the stats tell us that, in the last 20 days, of the 9,058 visitors to this dab page, 6,168 went on to click the link to Donald Trump. (The ratio is very similar if you look at the extended stats over the last year.) Colin M (talk) 00:54, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
"Donald Trump" "Trump" and "Trump (president)" pageviews as a single graph! (Be sure to select "Logarithmic scale") Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Do you actually believe in primary topics? Your track record says no. Calidum 16:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
IIO has supported PTs at Bones[10] (for anatomical meaning), Cambridge (for English city), Durham (for English city), Plymouth[11][12] (for English city), Reading (for process), Worcester (for English city) to name a few. In all those cases probably because of PT#2. And in all of those but Bones and Reading (where you didn't participate) you (Calidum) supported having no PT. Personally if it wasn't for the page view stats for the redirect I might have leant towards supporting this but the stats show that if we move this we will inconvenience a significant minority (by landing them on a large page even ignoring PT#2). I personally do believe in primary topics but I generally don't support them if it would result in more than 10% of readers landing on the wrong article. While this hasn't actually achieved consensus yet it might to (to a greater of lesser extent at WT:D). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that dominant suits in card games actually rival the president of the United States for long-term significance?? Red Slash 22:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
For plain "Trump" yes, if the president was called just "Trump" it would be clear that he would be primary, if the card game had a different name but was sometimes called "Trump" then Donald would also clearly be primary but there's a big difference between a subject actually called by a name and an abbreviation (which "Donald Trump">"Trump" is) similar to the fact that May doesn't redirect to Theresa or is even a DAB page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:39, 17 July 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.

Placement of things not referred to as just Trump

These entries have been moved into the main body of the disambiguation page (where WP:DAB suggests only things called Trump alone should be) from the section entitled "See also" (where they are conventially placed). This could slow disambiguation through clutter.

Is there a reason not to follow MOS:DABSEEALSO, MOS:DABENTRY and WP:DABNOT in this regard on this particular page, User:Froid? I may be missing it.

Llew Mawr (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I did, recently, create subsections of "See also", which is unconventional, but I felt it was being cluttered. Perhaps, that led to your changes...
Llew Mawr (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I see no need for unconventionally sub sectioning the See also, especially as the two templates are normally in the See also. I've seen longer See alsos. My reasoning to refrain from sub sectioning it (similar to EXT link sections) is to discourage build up of entries and subsections. Widefox; talk 11:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Froid: I'm coming back to this despite your lack of response as, since other editors have accepted your version to avoid constant reverts, you recently re-alphabetised a section of entries that aren't called "Trump" to the top of the page without explanation. Do you have a general problem with the guideline or are you ignoring all rules on this page for a specific reason (e.g.: you think this dab page should primarily be a list of things related to the current U.S. president).
Llew Mawr (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trump/Archive_1&oldid=1254157864"