Template talk:Donald Trump series/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Signature

I don't think we need the signature in this template. As it is now, the signature appears twice at the main Donald Trump BLP. Moreover, I don't think it's usual for a "series" template to contain a signature.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

All series templates for American politicians include the signature, if available.   Spartan7W §   21:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

New image

The 2011 image is centered on the face and is far preferable to the pompous, constipated looking image from last year that has now been restored. Please User:Anythingyouwant, why is the 2015 image more appropriate? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

See [1] vs. the current. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that newer images are generally better because they more accurately show what the subject currently looks like. Also, to me, the 2011 image looks pompous and smug, much more so than the stable image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Why does it have to be current? This isn't a news story. Also, Trump does not normally wear a bow tie so the 2015 image is not proper. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

An image in a series box should look like what it is meant to illustrate, and a recent image typically looks more like Donald Trump than an older image. We should also strive for variety; if an article on a person shows its subject without a bow tie, then another image with a bow tie adds variety.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So then why not find a photo of him with a top hat or a clown nose? That certainly adds variety. Why do you insist on an image in which Trump appears constipated and wearing an uncharacteristic (and pompous) bow tie? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I doubt there exists a recent photo of him with a top hat or a clown nose. Anyway, you may find his appearance constipated in the current image, but I find his appearance pompous and smug in the old photo you propose.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is worse constipated w/ an uncharacteristic choice of clothing or pompous and smug? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No one backed up your "constipated" argument at Talk:Donald Trump, Saturn; so you try again here? IHTS (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed someone added a really goofy image so I added a neutral one.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Gosh, maybe you s/ have simply reverted then. IHTS (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Unnecessary uniformity

If you look at Template:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 you'll see that the image of Hillary Clinton is different from the top image at Hillary Clinton, and instead is the same as the image at Hillary Clinton in the series box below the infobox. That's all fine, because it would be stupid to use the same image of her everywhere. The same goes for Trump, and it currently looks silly to have the first two images at Donald Trump be identical.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. It was better (bowtie pic) before someone changed it. IHTS (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

New bowtie image

Longstanding image (A)

New version (B)

I prefer image A for two reasons. First, the skin color in image A is more natural, instead of too bright as in image B. Second, there is more of a contrast in image A between the background and the suit, whereas they're virtually indistinguishable in image B.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I see no differences in contrast.   Spartan7W §   16:22, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You updated the image at 16:22 so of course my opinion needs to be revised too. I still think the suit and the background are more distinguishable in image A. Furthermore, the head is bigger in image A, which is good for such a tiny template image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I can work on the left (right to camera) shoulder where it blurs more. As for the head, when the image has a more upright crop as opposed to the square-bias of the previous one, you actually get more real estate area of picture for the same size specification so thats a moot point. The upright crop is more common in these series boxes and looks better stylistically, IMHO.   Spartan7W §   16:29, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Can the whole top of the template be centered? That would be an improvement no matter what image.--TMCk (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: What do you mean?   Spartan7W §   17:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

On the template page, the header (text and image) is aligned left instead of centered like the rest of it.--TMCk (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

So you want the image to be centered? The series box style is like this with left image and right text, it uses less space on the page, allows for coloration to identify party, office, etc. Additionally, a concern of mine is that placing a big centered image of the candidate is both redundant to an infobox (on the article page), and appears too promotional/propogandistic compared to the present scheme, which is more uniform between boxes.   Spartan7W §   17:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstood. I mean take the image and text as is and move them both together slightly to the right. Better understandable now?--TMCk (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Try mapping it out here: Template:Trump Series/sandbox and we can better envision it.   Spartan7W §   20:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea on how to work a template. Let's try this: Take the whole red part with the image and text in it as one single unit. Now take that unit and move it a bit to the right until both sides have equal spacing to the outer fine lined black frame. Hope that works.--TMCk (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

See the sandbox in edit mode.--TMCk (talk) 21:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I just saw that you actually just introduced this visual "mistake" in this edit today. Care to elaborate why?--TMCk (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

No change was made to the sandbox so I don't know about that. There is no 'visual mistake' here. The original series box style had two separate colored cells for portrait and title+name. The problem is with the emergence of mobile platforms the need of a new template form, sidebar, was needed to be used. The editor who did this made no effort to replicate the older style with the new template until I figured it out recently.   Spartan7W §   22:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Click on the link I provided above for you and follow the simple instructions. I don't think this is too much to ask for.--TMCk (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: Tho I am patient, I am actually waiting for a response.--TMCk (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@TracyMcClark: I have no idea what you're talking about. @Anythingyouwant: What is your opinion on the file I propose as updated? I've increased background contrast, cleaned up his suit, they seem almost identical aside from cropping now.   Spartan7W §   23:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I think they're just about equal in quality, except that the larger head would be preferable if readers would see a larger head. Overall, I admire your work, but all the same this has merits too.  :-) Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Text logo

The Trump_Text_Logo.svg file has some erroneously sourced false information in the filedesc. I've yet to find a source that supports the description call or author call. So the file itself is getting aggressively removed, per WP:BLPSOURCES and Wales posting to WikiEN-l, May 16, 2016. --Dervorguilla (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Trump_Text_Logo filedesc says:

Description call: "Used on Trump's personal website"
Author call: "Donald J. Trump"

I think Mr. Wales might categorize that as "unsourced pseudo-information":

There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively...

--Dervorguilla (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

What does this even mean?   Spartan7W §   13:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the rationale to remove makes no sense. The file description includes a URL that points directly to the Trump website where the image is used.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You're making a 'straw man' argument, Anythingyouwant. I'm not actually contending that the source call doesn't target the "Trump website where the image is used'. Rather, I'm making these three claims:

• The image is used on Trump's campaign website, not his personal (or business) website.

• The source parameter calls a URL that targets his campaign website, not his personal (or business) website.

• The author parameter called the unsourced random pseudoinformation that the logo was created by Trump (or by some artist hired by Trump), not his campaign.

In revision 198726040, Spartan7W silently alters the author call

'author=Donald J. Trump' -> 'author=Donald J. Trump for President'

while entering a blank edit summary. This edit suggests he did, at least in part, understand what my comment "means". --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC) 19:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so what? That's not grounds for removal. You gave no grounds for removal. You made a point that allowed for a more precise label. But its not false information or anything. A campaign represents the individual candidate so that fact 'for President' wasn't there is a minor technicality.   Spartan7W §   19:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

The logo is also on his plane.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

"But it's not false information..."

Yes it is, Spartan7W. The description call says the image is "used on Trump's personal website". The image is used on his campaign website, not his personal (or business) website.
And I'm not contending that the logo isn't "on his airplane", Anythingyouwant. I'm contending it's not on his personal or business website.
The information is contentious, wrong, and poorly sourced in that no source directly supports it. (To demonstrate you're not adding OR, you must be able to cite sources that directly support the material presented.)
The information is about a living person - in particular, about his personal logo.
So, it gets immediately removed per WP:GRAPEVINE --Dervorguilla (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

If it's on his plane, how is that not just as convincing as if it were on his personal website?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is conjecture, Anythingyouwant. And BLP:GRAPEVINE says to "remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research)."

Also, your argument is a non sequitur. Trump is using the plane for campaign purposes, not personal purposes (or so he's telling the IRS).

The material gets immediately removed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest relaxing while we discuss. There's nothing contentious about it so please give other editors some slack, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

WP: Contentious

What precisely is a "Contentious claim"?

Common English dictionaries use some variant of "controversial" or "likely to cause an argument". The problem is that everyone has a different view of what "controversial" means, even as they clearly argue about the claim! ...

One way of looking at it is, "We are having an argument, so the claim is ipso facto contentious." ... Editors should ... ask frankly whether they would have a problem with that edit being about their favourite person in the world.

--Dervorguilla (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is evidently contentious whether to include the logo, but including the logo is not a contentious claim about Trump AFAIK. To put it another way, the claim that this logo shouldn't be used here is contentious, but the claim that it's his logo is not contentious (it could conceivably be mistaken but it is not contentious). If every time editors disagree about something that something becomes "contentious" then it would be removeable by a tiny minority regardless of 3rr.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm challenging both claims, Anythingyouwant.

The misnamed "Trump_Text_Logo" is not Trump's logo, nor is it his corporate logo. Nor is it Trump for President's logo. It's nobody's logo but Benedikt Aron's. He created it, not Trump. And I can back that up with evidence.

Also, your argument about 3RR may be a non sequitur. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's totally up to you if you'd like to burn up the time and energy of other Wikipedia editors on technicalities and trivialities. This is obviously a logo closely associated wit Donald Trump and used by him, so there doesn't seem like anything significant to discuss here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

According to this article, he owns the plane, and it's his personal, private plane. I'll see if I can find a picture of it from before 2015 for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's the plane in 2014. Same logo.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This logo is his name. To begin with, its a logo which does not meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection, therefore I can manipulate it however I want, or anyone else wants. The name 'Trump' in that specific typeface is used in all his campaign materials, on his personal website www.donaldjtrump.com I don't see how thats not his personal website, it serves his campaign and the domain name is literally his name. The other website, www.trump.com is not a personal website, it represents the business organization of his family, from his father, to him, to his daughter Ivanka who is his successor, and one day maybe to son Barron or to her child, etc. Your argument isn't an argument. You're not making a point. Okay, you pointed out that the source of the file listed could have been more specific. So what? I fixed that. Now what's wrong? Its the logo on his personal campaign website, his name's domain name, its on his airplane (and has been since he bought the plane). Okay? I don't understand what the issue is.

As for including his name-logo in the series box, I mean he is a unique individual whose name is a valuable brand in its own right, and because this logo is not copyright protected, I see no reason why not to include it. We include seals of offices or flags for officeholders, and few businesspeople warrant a series box so the precedent doesn't exist either way, but because of his name as a brand and identity, I think it's reasonable.  Spartan7W §   01:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

"logo. A graphic representation … of a company name, etc., often uniquely designed for ready recognition."

It looks like our "Trump Text Logo" image represents the Donald J Trump for President logo, not Trump's personal logo (or The Trump Organization's logo). Also, the filedesc has some questionable information that appears to be erroneously sourced.

The "Trump Text Logo" shows the font used by Donald J Trump for President (Franklin Gothic Black, expanded), not the font known to be used by Trump himself (Arial Black) or by The Trump Organization (Garamond).

Also, I've yet to find a source that directly supports the description call in the filedesc: "Used on Trump's airplane in 2016, in 2014, et cetera." The logo used on that airplane is in Arial Black, not Franklin Gothic Black; and the font spacing is normal, not expanded.

So the logo information in the Trump Series template is contentious and is poorly sourced in that no source is known to directly support it. (To demonstrate that you're not adding OR, you've got to be able to cite a source that directly supports the material presented.) And the questioned information is about a living person; iin particular, it's about the man's personal logo.

Per WP:BLPSOURCES, it ought to get removed. --Dervorguilla (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The typeface for the campaign logo is not Franklin Gothic Black, but I digress. Again, I reiterate my previous point: So what? You're no making a point that makes sense. Is www.donaldjtrump.com Mr. Trump's personal website? Is www.hillaryclinton.com Mrs. Clinton's personal website? Yes. Not only is Trump's domain name his actual name, but it is owned by him, paid for by him, and represents a campaign established to elect him. That's personal. www.trump.com is clearly a business website for the family business. You are not making a logical argument. So what if the typeface is different on his plane than the campaign? Logos and branding evolve over time, and the 2016 typeface is different than his 2000 typeface when he ran as a Reform candidate. It costs an obscene amount of money to repaint a 757 so I'm sure he'd change it if it wasn't so expensive and the differences so minor.

At any rate, the logo used here in the series box is not contentious by any means. It is sourced as derived from his campaign website. The website uses a gold gradient version on its header which isn't used anywhere else, but because the typeface logo is below the threshold of originality, we can easily manipulate color and have done no harm. Again I ask what the hell is wrong here that you are so inexplicably furious about. It's a logo with a slightly updated typeface for his campaign, so what? Like I said before, his name is, like Mr. Trump himself, a unique and valuable brand in itself, and his logo is his name with whatever typeface he chooses. Few people are brands by their own name: Michael Jordan, Oprah,. A logo need not be a coat of arms, seal, symbol, it can be text, and for Mr. Trump, because his name is unique and a brand itself, is his logo. Okay? Your dictionary definition doesn't mean anything. If a dictionary doesn't say an individual can't have their own logo, that doesn't mean they can't.   Spartan7W §   14:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You're asking me several questions here, Spartan7W.

"So what if the typeface is different on his plane than the campaign? Logos and branding evolve over time... It costs an obscene amount of money to repaint a 757 so I'm sure he'd change it if it wasn't so expensive and the differences so minor."

I don't agree with you regarding your claim about the subject's motive for not changing his airplane logo.

"Is www.donaldjtrump.com Mr. Trump's personal website? ... Yes. Not only is Trump's domain name his actual name, but it is owned by him, paid for by him, and represents a campaign established to elect him. That's personal..."

I don't agree with you regarding your claim about Trump's ownership of the donaldjtrump.com domain name.

"Again I ask what the hell is wrong here that you are so inexplicably furious about."

I categorically deny your claim that I have some undisclosed motive for attempting to distinguish Trump's logo from his campaign's and his organization's. --Dervorguilla (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Well if you deny it categorically then whatever you say must be true.   Spartan7W §   02:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The illustrated logo is a campaign logo, not a personal logo. It's used by Donald J. Trump for President Inc., not by Trump himself. The character spacing is expanded, not normal. The font is Franklin Gothic, not Arial Black. --Dervorguilla (talk) 05:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Your link to the campaign logo shows logos that aren't all identical to each other. Which is fine. There's no need for logos to be perfectly identical to each other.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I haven't actually been making the claim that there's a "need for logos to be perfectly identical to each other," Anythingyouwant.

I am making these claims:

1. The stenciling on Trump's airplane doesn't look at all like the stenciling on his helicopter.

2. Neither the vehicle stencilings nor the Donald J. Trump for President Inc. campaign logo look at all like the logos shown in the "Trump Collections" pages on Trump's business website.

3. The current Trump Series template may be blurring the distinction between the Trump for President Inc. campaign-merchandise logos and Trump's business-merchandise logos.

Per WP:LOGOS, reasonable diligence should be taken to ensure that the chosen logo is accurate. Meaning, above all else, that it is indeed one of the subject's own business logos. --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I am the uploader of the image. I would like to mention that I didn't create it. It was already uploaded by another user as a .png and I converted it to an .svg. I did not write the original descriptions and mearly copied it from the other user. I understand if people feel it was not properly sourced and am neutral to this decision. --Benedikt Aron (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2016 (CET)

List of Donald Trump news and television appearances

-> List of Donald Trump news and television appearances <- Where should this article be embedded? Anyone want to help? Twillisjr (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

See also: List of Cliff Richard television appearances

Poll: 2016 campaign details

Should we include details about the 2016 campaigns or keep only a summary link to the main campaign article? Please discuss. — JFG ^talk 13:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• Summary link only – Cleaner. — JFG ^talk 13:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Yes (assuming you mean keep the links to the other articles) - These are not details; they are navigational links. Each of these articles are highly notable and most are historically important. Also, they are logically part of a Trump series. Some sections like Trump's real estate holdings can be collapsed, but the purpose of a sidebar is to help readers find related articles.- MrX 13:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Redesign

I think this redesign is so much more readable and understandable. Also, his election is over, so a lot that's in the current template isn't very relevant anymore. Obama doesn't have "primaries" or "endorsements" sections in his template, that'd by quite silly. Any suggestions/changes are welcome!

A very succinct & user friendly redesign. As all other U.S. President sidebar navboxes use a blue background, I suggest that the background color of this one be changed to blue. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, is anybody here? We're trying to reach consensus, but if nobody wants to talk here, how is that supposed to work? Sandiego91 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not just a redesign; it's a culling of links. I would like to understand what the rationale was for removing some links and keeping others. Was it based on page views, or some other criteria?- MrX 23:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

If your USE goal for this article is Trump presidency articles, then it shouldn't be plastered on articles that are NOT specifically about his presidency. If you plan to plaster this on everything TRUMP, then remove all the photos. Since "footers" already exist for non-presidential articles, then probably should restrict the use of this template for presidential articles. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 14:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The template has evolved quite a bit since you posted this proposal, and it has been rather stable for a week (something quite remarkable in light of the usual volume of discussions on all Trump-related pages), so for the sake of stability I would leave it as is. I was earlier in favor of cutting the section about the campaign, but the event is too fresh to dismiss yet. On a technical note, we should not use smaller fonts in navboxes per WP:FONTSIZE, so the Trump Organization section and its collapsed subsections should be set back to normal size. — JFG ^talk 16:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Add Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election to Template

I suggest that we add Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election per this edit [2]. Russian support, with evidence from US intel, is a historically significant accusation that has significant evidence (as reported by WP:RSto support it. I would suggest that it is added back the template. Casprings (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Disagree, FBI already distanced itself from the baseless allegations, the article in questions is highly biased.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that's just not true.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is some direct involvement by Trump, I don't think the article should be added to the template.- MrX 16:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per MrX. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2016

The [[Trumpism|Ideology]] link redirects to Political positions of Donald Trump, which is already linked in the template. Can we remove this redundancy? 2605:8D80:420:1635:B403:7E71:BFA4:DE54 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done! DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC).

Background color

This template has evolved nicely over the past several weeks. I would however, like to restate a suggestion I made a month ago: As all other U.S. President sidebar navboxes use a blue background, I suggest that the background color of this one be changed to blue. Regards. Drdpw (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Interesting remark; why are they all blue? I think it would make more sense to use standard party colors for each president, so Clinton blue, Bush red, Obama blue, Trump red, etc. — JFG ^talk 02:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@JFG:, many of them were created or standardized by Spartan7W. I'd be interested in knowing his rationale for the dark blue background color choice as well. IMO, either the D.T. infobox background should be changed to   , to match the others, OR the others should be changed depending on whether the individual was a Democrat    or a Republican   . Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Drdpw: @JFG: The series box will turn to the standard presidential style of royal blue field with double gold border at noon on Inauguration Day. Until that point, Mr. Trump is not the President and is therefore not yet a head of state or head of government, thus not earning the double border. The style reflects the office, giving consistency between all the presidents as holders of this office, as heads of state, beyond partisan affiliation, and thus should only apply to those who have assumed that office. Keeping it the standard Republican red until he becomes president is logical. Since he is not President yet, the style of the presidential box is not yet appropriate. Same goes for Mike Pence's box until he is sworn in as VP.   Spartan7W §   05:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: Makes sense. Thanks for the explanations, and merry Christmas! — JFG ^talk 08:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest trimming outdated or superfluous links

Recently I was reverted after boldly removing the following links from this template:

1. Details on the 2016 election campaign: one link to the main campaign article is enough by now.
2. Trump University and sexual misconduct allegations: those were prominent issues during the campaign, not so much justified now (first case is settled and second didn't develop). Both topics are covered in the umbrella "Legal affairs" article.
3. Individual books: link to the bibliography is enough.

Would my fellow editors kindly comment on those 3 proposals? — JFG ^talk 22:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't see a good reason to remove any of the current links. They don't take up a lot of space and they serve a useful purpose: to help readers find closely related content. I would, support collapsing the last section listing Trump's books and entertainment ventures, which are not as important as some of the more current subjects.- MrX 02:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I did give a few reasons to remove them. There are dozens of other articles about Trump that could possibly "help readers find closely related content", but the purpose of a sidebar is to focus on the overarching elements, not to be an exhaustive list, therefore editorial judgment is required. Waiting for further comments. In the meantime I restored the template state prior to the recent addition of Trump University, which had been out of this sidebar for a long time. — JFG ^talk 23:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove articles because they contain material some users would rather wasn't there. That's suppression, not "editorial judgment". Trump University is one of the more prominent and controversial ventures undertaken by Trump. It was closed down recently in the wake of Trump having to settle lawsuits alleging fraud and misleading marketing practices, and is an important illustration of the way Trump operates. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Epipelagic regarding keeping Trump U in template. At the very least it belongs in "Other Ventures" (and I would argue that it belongs in the top level). It is much more significant than the 9 hotels and 9 golf courses that fit under the expansion of The Trump Organization. Vjmlhds made a disingenuous removal today, citing that there isn't space when they removed it from the top-level, when in fact it was in the "Other Ventures" subsection as of yesterday, where there's clearly space. jugander (t) 23:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I figured out a way to include Trump University, and still keep the template organized. My biggest issue was just throwing everything into a hodgepodge, which is why I felt Trump's active dealings (since they actually still exist) should get priority. I have since added a "Former" section to differentiate those items from the ones still in business. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Vjmlhds -- I'm OK with that organization for now, but don't agree that it's the right organization in the long term. The campaign is really also in "in the past" though it has a lot of prominence in the template, his involvement in the The Apprentice is almost entirely "in the past", and his entire business career is effectively "in the past" once he is in office, as long as he is in office. Under this logic, the whole Template loses it's purpose. But you raise an interesting point. Thoughts from others on the use of present/past to organize DJTs involvements? jugander (t) 01:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with listing some former ventures in a dedicated subsection. However I don't think it would be appropriate to list dozens of minor branding exercises there (Tour de Trump, Trump Steaks, etc.) The link to The Trump Organization main page with the "Miscellaneous" label ought to cover those. I agree to add Trump University to the template, as it was prominent enough to attract lots of independent coverage. By this logic, I shall now remove Trump Steaks. — JFG ^talk 02:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request

Please move the documentation/categorization/seealso to the documentation subpage Template:Donald Trump series/doc -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

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.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Becky Sayles, when you don't know how to handle an edit request which requires some specialized know-how, please let another editor take care of it instead of telling the OP that their request is unclear. Thanks, — JFG ^talk 02:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: My response to this request was not based on a lack of knowledge of template documentation. Rather it was intended to indicate to the OP that they should follow the instructions when making an edit request. If the OP knows enough to request creating of a doc subpage, then they certainly know enough to follow instructions. More specifically, failing to indicate the text they are requesting be moved puts the responding editor in the position to have to look for and possibly guess what is intended. Sometimes it's easy to see, and other times it's not. Using an appropriate response, in this case one that lets the OP know they have not followed the instructions, and encourages them to do so in the future. By following instructions in subsequent requests, the OP will allow responding editors to avoid the potentially time consuming task of looking for something not specified and worse yet, possibly performing an edit that results in additional otherwise-unnecessary edit requests to change once again. This is not merely order for order's sake. Lazily ignoring instructions that other editors have taken time and experience to write has actual consequences, and is disruptive, even on a seemingly small scale. I do appreciate the idea that in some situations, another editor should respond to an edit request. I do not believe an editor making a request of this nature is so inexperienced that form should be overlooked. Perhaps I am being too exacting.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Becky Sayles I understand your point of view, however I fail to see the value in repeating your "request unclear" message to the same poster on several related pages, including one where they later clarified in much detail. Yes, this person was knowledgeable enough to know what to do, but no they could not do it themselves because of the template protection, so the phrasing of their request sounds totally legitimate to me. If I were in their shoes, your dismissal would sound rude. Let's spread the wikilove! — JFG ^talk 14:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversies

I don't think it's a good idea to have a "controversies" section in this template. It's allowable, but inadvisable. See Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections_and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies:

“ [S]ections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism. Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. For example, if a politician received significant criticism about their public behavior, create a section entitled "Public behavior" and include all information – positive and negative – within that section. If a book was heavily criticized, create a section in the book's article called "Reception", and include positive and negative material in that section.

Articles on artists and works by artists often include material describing the opinions of critics, peers, and reviewers. Although the term "criticism" can, in that context, include both positive and negative assessment, the word "Criticism" should be avoided in section titles because it may convey a negative connotation to many readers. Alternative section titles which avoid a negative connotation include "Reception", "Reviews", "Responses", "Reactions", "Critiques", and "Assessments". In some situations the term "criticism" may be appropriate in an article or section title, for example, if there is a large body of critical material, and if independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material. Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". Instead, titles should simply name the event, for example, "2009 boycott" or "Hunting incident". The word "controversy" should not appear in the title except in the rare situations when it has become part of the commonly accepted name for the event, such as Creation–evolution controversy. Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled. Criticisms are specific appraisals or assessments, whereas controversies are protracted public disputes. Thus, sections such as "Criticisms and controversies" are generally inappropriate.

”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to have a 'Controversies' subheading, but including the article links under a miscellaneous catch-all section is beneficial. They should be listed alphabetically though.- MrX 17:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As of now, I think it's okay to include some of these wikilinks mixed in with non-controversy links, but some kind of headings might be useful, like events during transition, for example. But the links we include ought to be sufficiently major. There are just too many Wikipedia articles about Trump to include more than a small fraction of them in this template. See Category:Donald Trump. So, I would remove Donald Trump–Russia dossier because it's widely considered to be unproved (Bob Woodward calls it a "garbage document" and it can be accessed via the main Trump article if people think it's important enough to be mentioned there). I also object to including "sexual misconduct allegations" here in this template because (1) it's already covered in the main Trump article, (2) we already have an article about his "legal affairs" in this template which can include allegations that were made in court, (3) most of these allegations were in response to the "Billy Bush recording" so we don't need the overlap by including both in this template.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Those are all important and notable enough to merit inclusion on their own. That is unrelated to whether they are verified, which is entirely irrelevant. The degree of media-coverage is what matters, and its currently more than enough to merit inclusion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't see overlap between misconduct allegations, Billy Bush, and legal affairs? The Russia stuff has zero lasting significance unless it's someday shown to be slightly credible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that the degree of media-coverage is what matters. It certainly matters but we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, a tribunal or an advocacy platform. Editorial judgment with some distance from the immediacy of the news cycle and from political partisanship is vital to informing our readers properly. — JFG ^talk 22:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

If we want to come up with some objective criteria for what is included in this nav box, such as number of sources, page views, or otherwise, I'm all for it. I'm completely opposed to removing only critical topics, while we leave things like books that Trump didn't write, golf courses, winery, and endorsements.- MrX 17:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This is going to be hard enough without objecting to things that aren't included and no one is arguing to include.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm not following you. Each of the subjects I mentioned are listed in the template. Some are in collapsed sections though.- MrX 18:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Pic

I kind of like keeping the longstanding picture here. It provides some variety, instead of repeating the image that's now at the top of Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, at least for now.- MrX 02:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Support using a different picture than the one on Donald Trump's main page. I shall restore the previous one here (which was also different from the prior main page image, for the same reasons). — JFG ^talk 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose It should be the official portrait. If another portrait is released, it can be used as the main image while the original portrait can be used for this. Calibrador (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – Why should it be different? We use a cropped version of Obama's official portrait, and we used the same for photo for George W. Bush... Shouldn't we be consistent with the presidential templates? Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 03:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Rationale – Editors on the Donald Trump article (myself included) have agreed to use an official portrait; editors on this sidebar have agreed to use a different picture than the one illustrating the main article. That picture has changed a couple times but it was always different than the main article picture, so I'd say there is local consensus for this approach. If new editors want to push the official portrait here, the onus is on them to change this local consensus. Consistency between presidents' sidebars is not mandatory. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed items

(continuation of the previous discussion)

Can we just delete the collapsed stuff? What purpose does it serve?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess we could, but I'm pretty sure the editors who put it there might complain. I think JFG was involved with the collapsing and some recent changes. I think we either need to include everything directly Donald Trump related, or decide on some objective criteria for what is included. To this point, it's been fairly arbitrary and decided by whoever edits the template last.- MrX 18:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I just shuffled a few things, so that the presidency section is on top of the box. Business career is now in the bottom section with family, legal affairs and protests. Political positions are in the campaign section, because that article is primarily about political positions expressed during the campaign; presidential actions will be covered elsewhere in due time.

I also restored the link to sexual misconduct allegations instead of the Access Hollywood video alone, because the latter was the trigger for the former, and that title might be obscure to readers who haven't followed the campaign.

Generally, I think the contents are pretty representative of Trump's life as it stands now and the box is structured well-enough to be stable for a while. — JFG ^talk 22:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Can we delete the hidden "collapsed" material? I don't see what purpose it serves, other than to clutter things up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's hidden precisely to avoid cluttering. Some of it may be less relevant, sure, but it will be hard to define objective inclusion criteria. Removing the whole lot sounds a bit radical to me. — JFG ^talk 23:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:COLLAPSE, "A few infoboxes also use pre-collapsed sections for infrequently accessed (usually navigational) details. If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all." Including hidden minutiae will make it difficult to exclude anything Trump-related from the infobox.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the guideline says we should open a discussion, and we are discussing :) You suggested to remove all hidden sections, I said they do no harm, now we need input from more editors. — JFG ^talk 01:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the collapsed material is still relevant to coverage of Trump. After all, Trump has had a long and very public business career before his presidency, which is therefore pertinent material in providing a comprehensive and balanced coverage of him. I agree that the function of collapsing material is a trade-off that simplifies navigation without getting rid of material, but I'd hesitate on removing material simply because it's not as recent as other material. In fact, I came here to suggest restructuring some of the presidential campaign material into a collapsed section. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Trimming the template

Concerns have been raised about the length of the template. If we are to cut links from it, I would suggest that we remove the "Works about Trump" section from the bottom. This section, consisting of links to articles about all the books written about Trump, should probably go.

I would likely keep the rest, as these other links bear on his life, career (in business, politics, and entertainment), and public image. Neutrality^talk 01:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality and Spartan7W: Thanks for your work in trimming this navbox to reasonable proportions. Recently a link to new article Donald Trump email controversy was added. I removed it arguing WP:UNDUE weight and MrX reverted me, so let's discuss. The material in this article strikes me as WP:RECENTism about yet another "sensational" controversy. Per WP:NOTNEWS we should refrain from giving it much exposure until and unless it develops into a major issue to Donald Trump's life, whose events this navbox should reflect proportionally to their relevance. Opinions welcome. — JFG ^talk 01:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a simple navigational aid. WP:UNDUE pertains to our neutral POV policy. I don't understand how you think a simple link to an article can be anything but neutral. It's a link. As far as recentism is concerned, a large portion of this online encyclopedia is based on recent events, and that is generally regarded as good thing. If you believe that the article Donald Trump email controversy does not merit inclusion, then AfD is an avenue for you to pursue. But hiding a link so that an article does not get "exposure" is indeed contrary to our purpose of building a web based encyclopedia.- MrX 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The new article may or may not be worth keeping, I don't have a strong enough opinion on it yet. It certainly doesn't warrant an AfD while it is prominently marked under construction. Regardless of its survival potential, I argue that it does not belong in this short navbox. A biography navbox does not have to list all articles about its subject, hence editorial judgment is needed to select which articles are the most relevant and informative, with a priority on overview articles when the subject is covered in dozens of pages. Regarding due weight, we already have several "scandal" articles in this navbox — which is acceptable given Trump's personality and the heated political climate — adding yet another one that just emerged yesterday doesn't seem to add value for our readers. Look at another example of undue weight in this navbox: how is Trump fragrances mentioned when Trump Tower is not? — JFG ^talk 02:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the email controversy may be very important to our readers. Much more so than the WP:CRYSTAL article about Trump's hypothetical SCOTUS nominees. Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see Trump fragrances in the sidebar.- MrX 02:36, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Re:Trump fragrances, yeah I just removed it, and I'm going to add a few notable real estate properties, which were after all his main business until the campaign. — JFG ^talk 03:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done I filled in the Trump Organization section with 3 collapsible subsections "Real estate", "Golf courses" and "Other businesses". That's more representative of his activities than Trump Steaks and Trump Fragrances… — JFG ^talk 05:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A navigational template on Donald Trump needs to include all articles relating specifically to Donald Trump, and the removal of the email controversy article was clearly unjustified as long as such an article exists. If someone, for some reason, objects to that article, the correct course of action would be to nominate it for deletion, not obstruct a navigational aid. --Tataral (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Only important bits - I think Tataral is wrong there, the template should not include everything. WP:BLPCAT and WP:NAVBOX say at least some things should be excluded, and anyway it's just hard to read one that runs on for three or more screens so I favor trying to keep it to just the things important to the Biography. I think the comparative guide WP:CLN favors books to be something other than template, so if important enough to Bio it would be a list in the article, or if significant enough might have its own list article, and if none of those suit then it could be a category. Markbassett (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the email controversy link again, as the page is stale and several people on its talk page are labeling it an irrelevant red herring. I also restored the full title of "sexual misconduct allegations" which made no sense without the "sexual" adjective. — JFG ^talk 06:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we can stick to "only important bits". So why are important bits being removed? It looks like more like "only the bits representing a particular POV". Or maybe "only the bits that don't clash with my WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT". Restoring.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Ordering of sections

@MrX: I took the liberty of ordering things differently in the top section because I don't think alpha ordering makes much sense there. Instead I placed events in chronological order: election, reactions, transition, inauguration, presidency and appointments. I also started a separate section on political positions, which provides a good overview and will point to each relevant article as they are getting expanded and split by domain. Policy domains are alphabetical. — JFG ^talk 23:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I guess it's OK to chronologically order the first section. I removed the section links from the sidebox. I think we should wait until there are article for those positions or policies.- MrX 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine. Working on the split. — JFG ^talk 23:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

DeploraBall

Should be added. For the sake of balance. 93.224.104.92 (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Balance with what? Some people threw a party to celebrate Trump's election. Good on them. Not encyclopedic in the least (article is at AfD). — JFG ^talk 22:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Balance means that both sides and actions are represented -- i.e. people who join and oppose Trump and people who join and support Trump.

Looking at MSM you might think they are very, very few, but one or the other even voted for Trump. That's why this happened. 93.224.110.76 (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course, lots of people support Trump, that's why he's President now! That's not a reason to include an article about a merry celebration party at the same level as Foreign policy of Donald Trump… — JFG ^talk 12:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove 2000 campaign?

Frankly this 2000 aborted campaign for the Reform Party nomination was insignificant and should be removed from this template per WP:DUE by now. Comments? — JFG ^talk 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay by me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The article has 144 references, so WP:DUE doesn't apply. As I have indicated on this page at least twice before, I object to any arbitrary subjective criteria for removing individual articles or hiding entire groups of articles.- MrX 12:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, but we must apply some editorial judgment to this sidebar, lest it grows to hundreds of Trump-related articles. That's not the goal. We should keep only what is most significant and relevant. His aborted campaign for the 2000 Reform Party nomination isn't significant in Trump's life, even if we consider only his political life. — JFG ^talk 22:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is linked from the relevant section of his political career, so I would consider that sufficient given that it was a campaign that lasted about six weeks. I agree with JFG with regards to editorial judgement; if we deem this worthy of inclusion, a great deal of other articles would be included despite having relatively little impact in the longer term. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What about his 2020 campaign? I can't find a good spot to fit it. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 04:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON. I just pushed that article to AfD, but regardless it doesn't deserve to be in this summary sidebar. — JFG ^talk 23:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Change current photo to cropped version

Can we change the current, full-body Trump photo used in the template with the cropped version previously used as seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#/media/File:Donald_Trump_official_portrait_(cropped).jpg

The current portrait is too large for the small canvas the template can show, the cropped version would be better appealing to the eye and much more neater as done with President Obama's template. 70.44.154.16 (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - On my 15.6" laptop screen, the photo is about 7⁄8" (22 mm) tall and his head is about 5⁄16" (8 mm) tall. I see a man in a blue business suit, but I'm going on faith that the man is Donald Trump unless I click on the photo. I think the subject should be recognizable without the click - to the extent possible within technical limitations, at least - otherwise the photo is largely wasted space. The image should be moved to Commons. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Moot – There is longstanding local consensus to use a different picture than the official portrait for the Trump sidebar, and that one is well framed. I have reverted the recent change. — JFG ^talk 07:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

  My mistake, I was aware of neither the consensus nor the recent change. Struck my Support. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuits missing

The List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump, which mainly covers Trump's actions as president, is missing. I suggest to include it in the section Presidency, after Executive actions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Classified information incident

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.

---

Today, the article about Donald Trump revelation of classified information to Russia was added to this sidebar by PerfectlyIrrational. I removed it, saying "Undue weight for incident of the day; this template only includes broadly-significant, long-term stable articles", then MrX reverted back, saying "Misapplication of WP:DUE and completely made up criteria". In the spirit of WP:BRD I have removed this entry for the time being, and I am opening this discussion towards hopefully finding consensus soon. — JFG ^talk 13:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude – There are literally hundreds of articles about Donald Trump, his presidency and related events; a sidebar cannot include them all. The article in question documents a WP:RECENT event and is currently being debated at WP:AfD. Even if it is retained, I don't think it is a significant enough article to be included in the sidebar. It is indeed difficult to define hard-and-fast criteria for inclusion; editorial judgment is required on a case-by-case basis. Fortunately, there have been very few disputes about the sidebar contents so far. — JFG ^talk 13:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include - WP:RECENT is an essay, and rather inapplicable one considering we are an online encyclopedia. WP:DUE would be an argument for inclusion given the huge amount of coverage this has received. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to navigation templates. If we can include Trips, Family and all manner of minor tangential topics, then I see no reason why we shouldn't include an article about something that is historically unprecedented and directly related to the main subject.- MrX 13:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC).

It's a bit soon after barely 16 hours to determine that an event has historical significance. — JFG ^talk 14:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include Per WP:DUE. Loads of coverage. Likely of historical importance.Casprings (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include Per WP: Due. The incident has had major effects on American foreign policy, and has received substantial in the American press. I re-added it, due to the clear consensus that has emerged after more revelations. The event has substantially effected the world as well, and has led to possible attempt to impeachment. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, this event hasn't "substantially effected the world" (I suppose you mean "affected"). The world shrugs. — JFG ^talk 21:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The world shudders.. FTFY.- MrX 14:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include - while these evaluations are intrinsically subjective, I find this an order of magnitude more important than, say, marijuana policy, "Eponyms," or films — all of which already appear on this template. The scope and tenor of coverage shows this to be extremely significant. While the story continues to develop, the already-established facts demonstrate tremendous significance. Neutrality^talk 23:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I had earlier removed the marijuana policy entry, but some editors were adamant it should stay in. Eponyms and films could go indeed. — JFG ^talk 08:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude mainly because it easily falls within other stuff that's already in the template, such as "Foreign policy". I would likewise omit "Comey memos" from the template because it pretty much is a subset of "Dismissal of James Comey". The template is getting cluttered, and there have been lots of pror incidents like this that have faded away. For example, in 2014 White House mistakenly identifies CIA chief in Afghanistan, and in June 2016 U.S. offers to share Syria intelligence on terrorists with Russia. Plus the widely-respected National Security Advisor McMaster says what Trump did was "wholly appropriate". So we should wait and see if this remains a big thing, which I doubt it will. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I have added the prominent dismissal of Sally Yates before James Comey. Removed Comey memos which are indeed a sub-plot of Dismissal of James Comey. — JFG ^talk 09:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you're concerned about the template being cluttered, try removing other links. As I've said before, the default should be to include all but the most trivial information directly related to the primary subject. If someone wants to propose a criteria for culling this template, such as page views, then feel free to do so. Arbitrarily removing links that you personally don't like is not constructive.- MrX 14:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: The point is not that I don't like it, the point is that is a merely hours-old news story and we should wait to see if it develops into something significant. Comey memos is really just a subpage of Dismissal of James Comey, I don't think it needs inclusion at this stage; people looking for the Comey story will simply click on James Comey (which I just made more prominent). But I'm not gonna fight over this; things will be clearer in a week or two. — JFG ^talk 15:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Grouped Comey memos with Comey dismissal for now. — JFG ^talk 15:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

That's the flaw in your reasoning: You think we should omit nav links and wait to see if the subject becomes significant. It already is! If it later can be shown to be insignificant (for example, if the memos are shown not to have ever existed), then we can remove the link. That's how an online encyclopedia should work. I do agree that things will be clearer in a week or two.- MrX 15:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Include - per weight of global coverage putting this within an international context from multiple language sources in thousands of publications around the world. Sagecandor (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include - Adder of the post here. It should be added to the global significance of the incident, and it is also listed as a major event on Donald Trump's main Wikipedia page. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 23:19, 19 May 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 photo

Proposed photo.

Hi everybody, what do you think about changing the image of Trump with this one? I think that it is better, clearer, more recent and institutional photo. What do you think? -- Nick.mon (talk) 18:34, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This picture is recent and pretty good quality, but looks a bit "dictatorial" with the chin up and the frowning face. At first I supported the picture change, if only to refresh the sidebar, but I'm afraid we don't need extra drama and the previous picture has proven more consensual. — JFG ^talk 06:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, Neutrality, Casprings, PerfectlyIrrational, Corkythehornetfan, excuse me if I "call" you here, but you were the last users that edited this Template, so if you want, I would like to know your opinions regarding this discussion. Thank you so much -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks better to me. Casprings (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to change the image, I'd prefer a picture as president rather than a pre-presidential picture. Also, a picture facing the camera would be best, and this one would be facing away from article text which is a no-no. I also prefer what little modicum of stability we can get (i.e. if it ain't broke don't fix it). Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer the official president image just like in previous president template series. But if we use a different one, then I would prefer a picture where his face is facing the camera and is a good, high quality picture. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 17:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the official portrait too, but when I insert it in the Template some months ago someone undone me, saying that it was decided to use a different photo from the one used in Trump's article. However if you agree, we can use the (cropped) official one :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 20:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It really should not be the official portrait because then the main Trump article starts out by repeating the same picture. Some variety is better. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Then we need to go through the other previous presidents and change it because they use the official image in both the article and the template series. We need to be consistent when it comes to these templates, but others apparently don't think that is necessary. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 21:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Some do, some don't. No need to be consistent about it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about a suitable photo in this box raises the question: why does the recently created (and non-standard named) Template:Sidebar/US President demand a photo at all (and and the presidential seal)? What purpose do they serve? Similarly, why have his signature? The template, and this instance here for Trump especially, seems designed to maximise clutter; at the same time, the 5 hidden/collapsed sections are designed to exacerbate access problems. Using an ordinary Template:Sidebar, or making the US President fork more flexible, would avoid these problems. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Michael Bednarek: Photos, seals and signatures pre-date the meta-template. All US presidential sidebars were already formatted this way; I created Template:Sidebar/US President to simplify use and unify layout. Later I was asked to create Template:Sidebar/UK Prime Minister as well. We can surely discuss whether any elements of the sidebar should be modified or made optional, perhaps better suited on the template's talk page. — JFG ^talk 10:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

As noted above, the current photo (File:Donald Trump (29273256122) - Cropped.jpg) has proven consensual, is different from the official portrait in the infobox of Donald Trump, and is not looking the wrong way. I'd conclude that the current photo is fine. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Protests and rallies

The new section about protests and rallies exclusively covers protests and rallies against Trump. That violates WP:NPOV, so I reverted. The material has been restored,[3] with this edit summary: "You are free to add pro-Trump rallies. Berkeley, etc." It's not my responsibility to convert POV material into NPOV material, because the material should not have been POV to begin with. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree: the laundry list of protests is way too much information for a compact sidebar – the existing link to main article Protests against Donald Trump is enough. Reverted. — JFG ^talk 13:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I support removing all of the protests.- MrX 20:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The one link Protests against Donald Trump has the other links. Sagecandor (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Article series infobar omission

Moved from Talk:Donald Trump § Article series infobar omission

 – – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:52, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The article series infobar omits reference to his 2000 presidential campaign. If the reason is due to its lack of substance, I would argue otherwise given its Trump's first major political run. In contrast, Joe Biden's article series infobar references both of his bids for the presidency. If this has already been resolved, please ignore this. Frevangelion (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Frevangelion: Yes, this has been discussed earlier and deemed not significant enough for this summary sidebar. Biden was never elected President, so his bids were somehow the pinnacle of his electoral history prior to his selection as VP. Also, Trump's earlier bid was not on behalf of one of the major parties, and he bowed out early. Sorry for the late reply. — JFG ^talk 06:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Frevangelion:I agree with you, especially as the article Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2000 is incredibly well referenced and high quality, it should be included in this template as a link. Sagecandor (talk) 06:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Dedicated section for Russia controversy

I created a separate section grouping all the Russia controversy articles. Hope this helps, — JFG ^talk 14:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. Looks pretty good so far. Nice initiative. Sagecandor (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure that everything about the Russia controversy is closely related to Trump. In particular, if Russia hired social media trolls and did other things that were unhelpful to Hillary Clinton's candidacy because Putin didn't like her foreign policy positions, why would that belong in the Trump series template but not the Clinton series template? So I think we ought to be a bit more selective about what we put into this template. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: The currently-included items are rather limited and directly related to Trump. Taking your example, Trolls from Olgino is not included. What would you suggest removing and why? No opinion on the Clinton template, per WP:OTHERSTUFF; that should be discussed at her talk page. — JFG ^talk 05:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF says, "While these comparisons [to other articles] are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument...." Such comparisons are not forbidden. Anyway, I don't see that his "business projects" in Russia were particularly controversial. They seem very peripheral at best to the current controversy about supposed collusion during the 2016 campaign. Likewise the "disclosure of classified information" doesn't seem to have anything to do with the controversy about the 2016 election interference. The Steele dossier is opposition research that is adequately summarized by an entire section of the election interference article, so it doesn't need to be listed separately in the template. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Re business projects - disagree, since he has claimed that he has no such business projects. Steele Dossier is obviously pertinent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

This section is not meant to compile "everything controversial about Trump" (even though some editors might like this idea); rather it is meant to compile "everything notable enough about Trump's real or alleged relationships with Russia to have an article". Hope that makes sense. — JFG ^talk 13:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah and by this very logic, perhaps the section should not be named "Russia controversy" but "Russia-related topics"? — JFG ^talk 13:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, changing the heading would allow its contents to fall within the scope of the heading, but I don't see why everything Russia-related needs to be in that section. The template is not for every single Trump-related article on Wikipedia (e.g. Nasty woman). Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The section describes controversies, all of which are related to Russia. They are not general Russia-related topics. Let's not mislead and confuse readers trying to branch out in their understanding of the subject.- MrX 12:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: With this edit you sorted the Russia entries alphabetically. Wouldn't it make more sense to show them chronologically, like in the campaign and presidency sections? The proposed order would be: Timeline, Business projects, Election interference, Steele dossier, Comey memos, Classified information disclosure. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 05:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

JFG I don't think so, thus my edit. There does not seem to be much consistency between other U.S. Presidents series infoboxes.- MrX 11:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't comparing to other presidents' sidebars, but to other sections in this one. Not that it matters much, anyway. — JFG ^talk 13:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The goal of arranging them alphabetically was to assist the reader in finding the articles. What is the argument for chronological ordering? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrX (talk • contribs) 12:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Chronology also assists readers in finding articles. For example, it makes sense to know about Russian interference to get an understanding of the significance of Comey memos or the Lavrov meeting affair. — JFG ^talk 15:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

So our goal is the same; we just disagree how best to accomplish it. It's not a major issue for me, so if we can get one or two more editors to opine, I will go with the majority without objection.- MrX 16:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

With the timeline page now associated with the election interference (by Anythingyouwant), I would update my suggestion for a logical order that closely matches the actual unfolding of events: Business projects in Russia, Election interference (timeline), Steele dossier, Comey memos, Classified information disclosure. Plus it fits nicely on 4 lines. Agree to that? — JFG ^talk 10:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Folks, there's been too much back-and-forth on this section lately, let's discuss and find consensus please. Do we want a section on Russia or a section on controversies? Or a section on Russian controversies? Or no section at all perhaps, sending the important-enough topics back to other sections while minor ones stay out of the sidebar? — JFG ^talk 15:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

A section on Russia-related controversies definitely makes sense. There are quite a few of them, and seemingly no notable Trump cum Russia subject that is not controversial. It was your idea to create the sections so I assume that you agree with that.- MrX 16:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's why I called it "Russia controversies" initially, then realized it's not a neutral title, but I can live with it. — JFG ^talk 10:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a neutral title as far as I can tell and [4][5][6][7][8][9]. Several news sources also refer to it as scandal.- MrX 10:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Sure. As I said, I can live with that. Can you live with the chronological order as amended above? (my comment of 10:10, 29 May 2017) — JFG ^talk 13:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes JFG. I am fine with chronological order if you think it's better.- MrX 13:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks! — JFG ^talk 13:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

So far, all there is about Russian controversies is the attempted influence of the election. They are investigating ties to the Trump campaign but have not made a connection. The Trump campaign is a seperate entity from Trump himself. How are all these related to Trump the person? It sems premature. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that most of those entries are only tangentially related to Trump himself; however various articles kept being added to the sidebar in other sections, so I thought better to group them in a single place. If the whole affair ever deflates, the section can be removed entirely, but from experience removing anything now will lead to accusations of whitewashing. On the other hand, it's really unbalanced to award the same weight to Russia-related gossip as to actual foreign policy. Perhaps a good approach for now would be to make this section collapsed by default, like "The Trump Organization" and "Books"? — JFG ^talk 07:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Even if collapsed, one wikilink would show. Would that be Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? It seems the most noteworthy of the bunch. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We don't have an overview article about "Trump–Russia controversies", and accordingly the section title is not linked. The Russian interference article cannot act as an umbrella piece; some articles in the section are more closely related to Trump than the interference story, e.g. Donald Trump's disclosure of classified information to Russia and Business projects of Donald Trump in Russia which are direct Trump actions. I would leave the section title unlinked if collapsed. — JFG ^talk 08:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that clarification, I support the collapse proposal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

How can anyone say that the Russia controversy are only tangentially related to the subject, when it is being covered continuously in the news? I'm gobsmacked by the attempt to hide these links from readers, while I have repeatedly asked on this page that we come up with objective criteria for determining what is linked and what is not, only to hear crickets in response. Shall we look at page views, number of available sources, number of edits, or some other criteria?- MrX 17:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Are we already hiding other stuff in the template, and is such hiding appropriate? I think a set of good criteria for collapsing stuff is whether it all falls under one subject and if --- without collapsing --- the reader would be gobsmacked by a large number of article titles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You should be able to answer that yourself by looking at the template. Hiding the Russia controversy material is not justifiable based on any reasonable criteria that I'm aware of.- MrX 20:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't answer as to whether you think the current hiding is appropriate, or why. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are just too many entries in this section, with now 6 lines of articles, as much as policy positions and international trips combined; this is why I suggested to collapse the section by default, just like his real estate projects are too numerous to be displayed in full. Yet I understand that Russian spy stories are more popular than Trump's actual life and presidency. History will tell whether they were as significant. — JFG ^talk 20:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Collapsing is not censorship: people who want to read about Russia stories will click "Show", just like people who want to read about The Trump Organization will click "Show". A sidebar must remain compact enough to make sense, and Trump's is already the longest of any U.S. President, living or dead. — JFG ^talk 20:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of links because there has been a tremendous amount of prominent coverage of Trump. I have yet to see an evidence- or policy-based argument for limiting the contents of the nav box. There is no harm to listing all 104 links, but if we are going to trim them back to, let's say, 50 we need to start from an objective basis and not simply delete articles that reflect unfavorably on the subject. WP:NPOV requires it.- MrX 20:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

MrX, this comment of yours mentions nothing about hiding or showing, which is the question at issue I thought. Do you think the current hiding is appropriate, and if so why? Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Right: nobody has suggested removing any entries, just making the sidebar more compact. I would collapse the 2016 campaign section too. — JFG ^talk 21:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of appropriateness as it is one of utility. Hiding sections makes them far less likely to be used by readers unfamiliar with our template structure. If a subject is not important enough to show, then it probably should not be in the infobox at all. One examples is 'Trump organization' under which are numerous articles of considerably less interest to readers than the Russia controversy articles.- MrX 21:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose proposals to collapse or hide the Russia controversy items by default. These items are encyclopedically significant (they deal with items of historic importance), and are (significantly) of major interest to the reader. See, e.g., BBC June 7, 2017 ("Throughout the confusion of Donald Trump's campaign and the chaotic events of his early days in the White House, one controversy has clung to the Trump train like glue: Russia"); NPR Apr. 25, 2017 ("The Russia story has dominated the first 100 days of the Trump presidency"). And sorry, but the assertion that these items are only "tangentially related to" Trump is laughable. So, too, is the idea that "Russia controversy" is POV or otherwise unsuitable label; this tag is used by many, many sources (even right-wing sources like the National Review). Neutrality^talk 21:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I absolutely oppose showing stuff like "Comey Memos" in the infobox. That and some of the other stuff is of considerably less interest, so we could show some Russia articles and not show others. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the opposite is true.- MrX 11:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Summary proposal

No doubt these are important topics, but in a sidebar we must look at the big picture. There are hundreds of articles dealing with Trump, his businesses, his campaign or his administration: the sidebar must give access to the most important themes, and let the reader discover sub-themes by themselves. With that in mind, I would suggest keeping the following in this section:

Russia controversies

• Business projects in Russia
• Election interference (timeline)
• Classified information disclosure
• Links of associates with Russian officials

That covers each distinct controversy theme with one link, and adds the timeline as a handy reference point. Removed entries are The Plot to Hack America (one of dozens of books about Trump, no need to highlight this particular one just because it happens to talk about the Russian election interference), Steele dossier (covered in the articles about Russian interference, business projects, and links with associates) and Comey memos (a subplot of Dismissal of James Comey, which is already linked above in the Presidency section). @Anythingyouwant, DHeyward, MrX, Neutrality, Sagecandor, and Volunteer Marek: What do you think? — JFG ^talk 02:54, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I just hope my writing creations don't get removed themselves from existence. Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Russia controversies fits here at all. It might be a subgroup of "Trump Campaign" Which in turn is a subgroup of either the 2016 Election rather than Trump. Russian interference was mostly anti-Hillary before Trump won and collusion was invented. When the Guccifer 2.0 released the mails that the DNC had fed Hillary questions in the primary debate with Bernie, it had nothing to do with Trump. Similarly, there was no indication the Russians cared anything about the Republican primary. We are in pretty deep synth territory by trying to make this a Trump biography article. We need to tread lightly and remain aware of exactly what is being said rather than wishful thinking. The reliable sources accurately say what is known (Russian attempted interference), what is being investigated (campaign contacts). Even Comey has been clear that there is nothing that Trump himself is being investigated. The most coherent narrative from the press is that Trump is frustrated that an ongoing investigation is hindering his ability as President to tackle foreign policy challenes regarding Russia. It's not our job to overwhelm all aspects of the person, the office and staff with the Russian article. We faced similar things when Hillary was running and there was a barage of health coverage. We can't bury BLP's with a mound of negative news items that lack proven connections. --DHeyward (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

To compare the Russia affair - which has dominated Trump's presidency, led to the appointment of a rare Special Counsel, and triggered multiple firings and resignations - to the bogus "Hillary health controversy" is nothing short of absurd. One is a hoax conspiracy theory; the other is a series of highly important political events. Neutrality^talk 04:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Invented or not, the Russian collusion stories have been prominent in media coverage ever since the election; they did not fade away as yet another campaign issue (whereas the sexual misconduct allegations somehow have died down). We cannot just wish those never-ending stories out of existence, that would be extremely POV. We must however provide a clear overview of the topic, and the breakdown of Russia-related themes into "business projects", "Russian interference", and "links of associates" accomplishes exactly that. @DHeyward: Short of removing this section entirely, would you support limiting it to my proposed list of entries? Regarding the section title, do you have an alternate proposal? — JFG ^talk 04:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Of course it's a current event while Hillary's health is no longer relevant. the other thing not relevant was all the pledges to "accept the results of the election" that news outrage of the day was when Trump wouldn't say he would. The perspective is about whose ox is being gored. The Russian investigation certainly does affect Trumps ability to govern. The question is whether it's biography material. Hillary's health coverage as well as email is related to her campaign. The shadow of impropriety and health scares affected her campaign and were election issues. We document them there in a neutral way. What we shouldn't be doing is extracting the perception of those items and including them as issues in their biographies. There were plenty of events around emails and health. They just aren't ripe for BLP allegations. The connection to Trump the person is no more connectable than the the mud thrown at Hillary. Both jettisoned people that were becoming distractions to the task at hand. Hillary's health and Trump's Russian ties have no solid evidence. The only thing different is that Hillary is much more effective at getting the media to jettison the issue when she jettisoned the people. A critical view of Trump can have the sinister position that he colluded with Russians or benevolent view he wanted to put the entire issue to rest so he could govern. The same viewpoints are available for Hillary. In fact, you could see her frustration last week over the "nothing burger" emails. If you are so far in one camp that you can't see the other side, political articles and biographies might be a challenge. Reliable sources have not taken positions on any of them because there is only firings and statements to report for both. Heck, lots of Bernie supporters thinks the DNC conspired with Hillary the same way Hillary supporters think Trump colluded wih Russians. They are all castles of sand at this point. --DHeyward (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what any of the above is suppose to mean. Are you sure you're on the right page? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the status quo, frankly. I would get rid of the The Plot to Hack America (too minor) but would retain all the rest. Neutrality^talk 04:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I can agree with this proposal by Neutrality, as well. Sagecandor (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Neutrality. JFG, you have not shown that the Russia controversy subjects are less important that the myriad other subjects linked in the navbox. DHeyward, I can't even follow your reasoning, most of which is conspiratorial and can be summarized as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No one has made a compelling case for trimming, hiding, or removing the Russia controversy links. Comey memos absolutely must remain as they are about Trump's direct efforts to impede a criminal investigation and erode the independence of the FBI. - MrX 11:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess "Trump's direct efforts to impede a criminal investigation and erode the independence of the FBI" have just been denied by Comey himself. Time to trim the fluff… — JFG ^talk 21:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

No they haven't.- MrX 22:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

That is completely wrong. Neutrality^talk 22:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of other subjects that can be trimmed, for example, the list of trips, all of which are rather routine. In fact we have a section on trips, and then another link for trips in the first section! Then we have the overlapping 'Appointments', 'judges', 'Justice Gorsuch', and 'Supreme Court. - MrX 11:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh no. I'm advocating removal of the conspiracy theories such as the conspiracy theory that Trump conspired with Russia. Russian interference, so far, is completely independent of Trump. It's a CT to imagine that Russian hacking is related to the person Donald Trump. --DHeyward (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You will be happy to know that there is no "conspiracy theory that Trump conspired with Russia" article in the navbox. The Russia interference is relevant, since Trumps's campaign was and his administration is entangled with it, and because Trump himself cited the investigation of it as one of his reasons for firing Comey.- MrX 20:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment by MrX, specifically, Trump's actions since then have only made the topics much more notable and noteworthy and significant. Sagecandor (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Template should use same photo as main bio article

Template should use main photo as main bio article.

Naturally that photo is most visible and therefore also most discussed from the main bio article.

Helps keep things uniform. Sagecandor (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been suggested multiple times and there was always consensus to use a different photo, for diversity. But let's see if consensus has changed… — JFG ^talk 05:12, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't the guy have a public domain official photo yet ??? Sagecandor (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately no: the official portrait was recently deleted for copyright reasons. — JFG ^talk 06:07, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Odd. So Trump will never have a public domain official portrait? Sagecandor (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Nobody knows that. Most editors hope that some freely-licensed official picture will eventually emerge. — JFG ^talk 06:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well most of the past photos shown are not great quality. Sagecandor (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Try photo with smile

Photo with smile

File:Condoleezza Rice and Donald Trump in the Oval Office, March 2017 (cropped smiley).jpg.

Change it if you don't like it.

Whatever, feel free to change it. Sagecandor (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Frankly, he looks creepy there. — JFG ^talk 23:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

lol when does he not look creepy?! Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 00:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Probably never if you've been brainwashed into believing the narrative that's been pushed on you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Books?

Why are any books included in this template? It doesn't feel necessary to have this information on every page; while Trump is famous for many things, none of his books other than Trump: The Art of the Deal are particularly notable for any reason. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

All books credited to Trump are notable. Sagecandor (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This template is meant to highlight the most important articles about Trump. A full list of all his books is not necessary, we should only keep the ones that arguably had some impact. I would suggest keeping:

• The Art of the Deal, because it's a bestseller and it's been referred to extensively during the campaign
• Trump: Surviving at the Top and Why We Want You to Be Rich, because they were briefly bestsellers when released
• Crippled America, because that's his campaign manifesto, and his presidency can be assessed based on the positions expressed there
• The America We Deserve and Time to Get Tough, because they are his earlier political books

All other books did not have much of a documented impact, and can be safely omitted from this summary. The prominent "Books" link to the full bibliography is enough. — JFG ^talk 04:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

All books written by others and then subsequently after that credited to Trump are notable, as he is U.S. President at this time. Therefore, they may not have been notable before, but they all are notable now. They should all be included. Sagecandor (talk) 04:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

By definition, all Wikipedia articles document notable things, people or events, so yes all those books are notable. However, we have hundreds of notable articles related to Donald Trump and we need to exercise editorial judgment about which ones are significant enough in Trump's life to be included in this overview sidebar about him. — JFG ^talk 06:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The books are only shown in a collapsible state. So essentially they take up zero space on the template on default presentation to the reader. Sagecandor (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Taking zero space doesn't excuse their lack of significance. When a reader opens the Books section, s/he is better served by seeing Trump's important books rather than an indiscriminate collection of his ramblings. — JFG ^talk 06:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, they're all noteworthy as evidenced by reporting from hundreds of sources culling from all of his credited books for background on the individual. Sagecandor (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support removal of "Books" section; the template is veering towards indiscriminate and the books can go. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove signature?

The signature is not adding much to the template, apart from taking up space. Would there be objections to removing the signature image? K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a tradition of every presidential sidebar, and many biographical sidebars of other people as well. — JFG ^talk 23:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I would support removing both the signature image and the presidential seal image. (And would likely support doing that for other presidential sidebar templates as well). Neutrality^talk 01:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I would support removing at least the signature. I would also support removing the seal provided that it could be put in the appropriate infoboxes. - MrX 02:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I support maintaining presidential signatures on all such bars, for they add uniqueness, colour and interest. Moreover, the president's signature is placed on all bills and orders passed by the White House, and as such are documentary symbols of these leaders' respective political mandates. Cpaaoi (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Too many articles about Russia

I'd like to revisit the list of articles displayed under the "Russia controversies" section. Since we last discussed it, more articles have emerged, and some earlier topics lost importance. We have now 9 articles in that section, I would suggest keeping only the 5 most significant ones.

Suggest keeping

• Business projects in Russia
• Election interference (timeline)
• Links of associates with Russian officials
• Special Counsel investigation (2017–present)

Suggest removing

• Steele dossier: slanderous and unverified material
• Comey memos: an element of the saga covered in Dismissal of James Comey and Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, both already included in the sidebar. New article Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) also dedicates lots of space to the Comey story.
• Classified information disclosure: this story didn't develop further past its initial news cycle, and it's covered in a section of the Russian interference article
• Trump campaign–Russian meeting: although this has been a hot news topic in the last couple weeks, Donald Trump was not involved in this meeting. Besides, it's covered in a section of the "Links of associates with Russia" page

Discussion

Again, this sidebar is designed to focus on the most important articles about Donald Trump and his presidency; we must exercise editorial judgment to avoid bloat. Thank God nobody has inserted Donald Trump's handshakes yet… — JFG ^talk 21:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that the sidebar should only include the most important articles, how have you determined that four you want to retain are more important than four you want to remove?- MrX 21:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Importance relative to the sidebar is different from importance relative to other things. If a matter is covered in an article of the sidebar (especially if it's covered extensively), then it's much less important to include that matter separately in the sidebar. If we include the article about handshakes, for example, that would be a very strong argument against including the inevitable article about Handshake between Trump and Trudeau. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

That would also apply to campaigns, rallys, trips, transition, policies, buildings, books, and just about everything else linked in the nav bar. Let's not selectively apply it to the Russia controversies.02:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

According to WikiProject Donald Trump, there are 784 articles related to him; we must select only the most significant ones for this curated sidebar, the goal being to offer readers a representative overview of the subject matter available. Detail articles can be omitted when a broader article is listed. This curation work should indeed be applied to all sections, Russia should not be treated differently. Taking your examples:

• The campaign section has already been trimmed quite a bit after the election season subsumed; it fits on just 3 lines now.
• There is only one article about rallies
• We list only the umbrella article about protests, although dozens of individual articles exist
• We list only major international trips where Trump met a large number of world leaders
• Policies are described in a few umbrella articles by theme (economy, environment, foreign policy, etc.); dozens of articles on individual policies or executive orders are not mentioned at all. I think we should remove sub-topics such as the Paris withdrawal, the marijuana policy and the Saudi arms deal.
• Lots of buildings are listed but they are collapsed under The Trump Organization, therefore they do not occupy any screen space – however we could absolutely trim those lists
• Many books are listed, but again they are collapsed. In a previous thread, I suggested trimming the list to major books that reached bestseller status, but did not find consensus; that proposal still stands.

So yes, let's curate the Russia section in the same way we are curating the other sections. I'm actually quite happy that this sidebar has been relatively stable. — JFG ^talk 08:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

"Classified information disclosure" can go. Trump campaign-Russian meeting should stay. Steele dossier should stay, just based on sheer coverage and it keeping popping back up again and again. At the moment I'm ambivalent about Comey memos.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Why should we keep Trump campaign-Russian meeting when Trump Sr. wasn't involved? Steele dossier is largely covered in its own section at Links between Trump associates and Russian officials#Steele dossier; that makes it redundant for the sidebar. — JFG ^talk 22:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Because of the phrase "Trump campaign". I don't think you can separate that out from the man himself. Let me think about the Steele dossier a bit more. Maybe.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: The articles retained are broader in scope and include a good-enough coverage of the articles removed. Even if a reader decided to only look at the retained articles, s/he would still be well-informed about the topics of the removed articles. For example, the Russian interference page includes material about the Steele dossier, the Comey memos, and the classified information disclosure. Links between Trump associates and Russian officials covers the Steele dossier and the Trump Jr.–Veselnitskaya meeting. Special Counsel investigation (2017–present) covers the Comey memos and the Veselnitskaya meeting. Incidentally, a lot of material is duplicated between all those articles. The articles retained are the broadest and most complete: — JFG ^talk 22:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment -- I'm okay with the above suggestions: keep 4 & remove 4; this limits the template to the overview articles, not individual events. Reserving the right to change my opinion on the Trump campaign–Russian meeting. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see justification for removing any links from the nav bar and certainly not from the Russia controversies section, a subject which has defined Trump's presidency so far. We've been over this many times before: If are are to remove any links, then it should be based on objective criteria, for example what are our readers reading. We should always make it easy for readers to find these articles. This proposal seems like another attempt to hide negative content about Trump from our readers, which runs contrary to WP:NPOV.- MrX 23:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm mostly concerned about how bulky the template is -- I've seen it in articles and it seems to take up too much real estate. Please see below for my suggestion to remove the signature. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Giving extra real estate to critical content can also be construed as violating NPOV. This "Russia controversies" section now occupies more lines than the entire Presidency section! — JFG ^talk 23:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG, what extra real-estate? It's the right amount for the number of articles. One link per article. As I said before, let's agree on an exclusion criteria then determine which articles should not be linked. That's the equitable approach.- MrX 02:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The Russia section takes more screen space than the Presidency section, partly because it has many articles, partly because its article titles are longer (even though we shortened some of them for display). To your question, I have provided a clear rationale for inclusion and exclusion (keep broader articles, remove single events covered in multiple broad articles), and you have not yet responded on the merits. — JFG ^talk 05:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It's not my fault that Trump's legacy is wrapped up in Russia. The criteria you propose is very subjective. I have proposed criteria based on page views, which is both measurable and objecvtive.- MrX 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Puzzling comment… Six months into the presidency, there is no Trump "legacy" yet. There is admittedly a lot of media coverage of the Trump–Russia affair(s), and the navbox must represent this fairly, but still we can't and shouldn't list all articles. The criteria I offered look objective enough: when several articles overlap, keep the broader one; there is no subjective assessment in noticing that Comey memos is a sub-article of Dismissal of James Comey which is itself covered in Russian interference… and in Special Counsel investigation (2017–present): removing Comey memos from the sidebar does not hamper readers' ability to discover this story, as three listed articles cover it in a broader and more significant context. Your traffic criteria are interesting, but they reflect recentism / news interest, not necessarily what matters in the long run. Besides, placement of articles in the sidebar acts as "advertisement" which influences readership level in turn. — JFG ^talk 16:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely a Trump legacy already. It may change, but for now, his legacy is well-established by the daily news coverage and scholarly analysis of by far the most controversial presidency since Nixon, and probably even in the past 100 years.- MrX 14:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

• I oppose the removal of these links, at least for the time being. The Russia affair has dominated Trump's presidency continuously. Both the Comey memos and the Oval Office classified disclosure to Russia were extraordinary and unprecedented events, an assessment backed up by scholars and other authorities. Obviously, after the special counsel issues his report, we will need to reassess, but I see no reason to remove. I also take issue with the presupposition that this is "extra real estate to critical content" — this is appropriate weight given the high levels of importance/interest. :I also agree with MrX that reader interest (as shown by page views) should be an important factor in our decisionmaking.

If we want to shrink the template, I suggest removing the following: the separate listing of each international trip (that would remove seven links, or eight if we also cut the link to the Saudi arms deal), plus the "list of campaign rallies" and the marijuana policy section. Neutrality^talk 01:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Like MrX, you oppose removing some of those articles on the basis that the Russia controversies are important, but that's not in dispute. The main argument to trim this list is that the subjects overlap and the broader articles include enough of the material from the narrow-scoped ones to make the latter redundant. — JFG ^talk 01:43, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• I support reducing to one Trump-Russia article, either Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections or a new overview-level article. (Dismissal of James Comey is listed separately.) Power~enwiki (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  That would violate WP:NPOV worse than what is proposed upthread.- MrX 02:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  I strongly disagree. We shouldn't have extra links just because you want this to seem more important. The only reason any of these are important is because "Trump something Russia something election". Which can be discussed in one article in the infobox. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  I never said I want to "make this seem more important". I believe I said "one link per article". I also said that we should use objective criteria and not simply remove links to unfavorable articles. - MrX 14:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  I neither know nor care which are "unfavorable"; though I suspect any article about Trump and Russia is "unfavorable" to Mr. Trump. None of that is a reason to visibly include nine articles regarding Trump-Russia on more than 100 articles that include this template. Most of those aren't about Russia at all. Power~enwiki (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agree with comments, above, by MrX and by Neutrality. I would support converting the whole template into a footer template, as the thing is obtrusive on many articles as a sidebar. Sagecandor (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose removal of any links. The "hide" function makes them all the same anyway. I like Sagecandor's suggestion of converting this to a footer template instead. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There already is a footer template, at Template:Donald Trump Power~enwiki (talk) 15:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I am opposed to hiding the Russia controversy links. The purpose of a nav box is to make it easy for readers to find closely related content.- MrX 15:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
      • There's no conceivable way that nine links regarding Trump-Russia are necessary in a header box. Power~enwiki (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
        • There's many conceivable ways that nine links regarding Trump-Russia are necessary in a navigation box.- MrX 14:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

This seems to have died out. Any other comments? Power~enwiki (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my proposal to keep the 5 major articles outlined above. If the dissenting editors still oppose, we should move to an RfC format to gather wider input. Pinging prior participants @Anythingyouwant, BullRangifer, K.e.coffman, MrX, Neutrality, Power~enwiki, Sagecandor, and Volunteer Marek: comments please. — JFG ^talk 11:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion above, and see no reason to repeat myself here. As multiple high-quality sources over a long timeframe reflect, the Russia affair has dominated Trump's presidency

• NPR (April 25, 2017): "The Russia story has dominated the first 100 days of the Trump presidency."
• CNN (July 11, 2017): "Amid health care push, White House can't shake Russia ... Russia controversies once again commanded the spotlight. ... The barrage of questions on Russia-related matters was nothing new to a White House that has been buried week-after-week by developments in the investigation into ties between Trump campaign associates and Russia, and scrutiny over Trump's relatively amiable posture toward Russia."
• Washington Post (July 14, 2017): "the federal and congressional probes that have dominated the early months of Trump’s presidency. Ever since the Justice Department appointed a special counsel for the Russia investigation in May, the administration has endured week after week of revelations about meetings that top officials did not disclose and previous statements that proved partial or misleading."
• Politico (August 3, 2017): "The Russia narrative has dominated Trump’s entire presidency, even engulfing some of his top aides and family members."

(I also have to say, I am somewhat bemused by calling the position of the majority of editors and the status quo to be a "dissenting" position). Neutrality^talk 14:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Neutrality's response.- MrX 14:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Neutrality: That was meant in the sense of dissenting with the proposal to trim this section to the top articles. Nobody is dissenting that Russian affairs are a big thing about Trump's presidency, I'm just saying we shouldn't include all redundant articles in a summary sidebar. — JFG ^talk 14:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

They certainly aren't redundant. If you do indeed think they are purely redundant, then start an AfD or a Requested Merge. They are overlapping, yes, but that is true of every article on the template, not merely the Russia articles. (Overlapping material is expected and indeed required; see WP:NAVBOX: "The articles [in a navigation box] should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent."). Neutrality^talk 14:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I too see no need to reduce the number, but I also think the "hidden" function should be restored here and be used on all such sidebars. If there is any part which is not "hidden", the Russia section is the one. We can't even use other articles as a model, because there is nothing "normal" about Trump and his administration. Otherwise I'm with Neutrality on this one. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not go for an RFC as suggested without dissent. Russiagate ought to be amply covered in the template, but that does not require any particular number of wikilinks. We ought to include enough wikilinks so that virtually all of the Trump-Russia articles are either in the infobox or amply discussed in the articles that are listed in the infobox. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

 RfC opened — JFG ^talk 16:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Selection and display of articles about Russia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

By a pure vote-count, Option C is accepted.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Which articles should be listed in the Trump sidebar's section about Russia controversies, and how should this section be displayed? — JFG ^talk 16:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

The Trump navigation sidebar cannot possibly include all 791 articles related to Donald Trump. Rather, its goal is to provide readers with an overview of the essential points, and allow them to dig deeper in topics of interest. The abundance of sub-articles about Trump makes it hard to compare his sidebar with those of previous U.S. Presidents. Given this context, the sidebar contents have been relatively stable and consensus was usually quickly reached on inclusion or exclusion of certain articles, and on their grouping by sections. However, no such consensus has been reached on the section dealing with Russia-related controversies, hence the calling of this RfC.

Recent discussions have revolved around proposals to trim the section, with editors split among two positions (keep essentials or keep all), and a compromise suggestion that was active for a few days (keep all but collapse section). As the editor who first created the "Russia controversies" section several months ago[10] and who later proposed to reduce the number of articles included in there,[11] I feel qualified to request further community input in order to reach consensus on what should be included, and how.

• Option A (see how it looks) – Status quo, leave the full list of 9 articles as is, occupying 7 lines of text.
• Option B (see how it looks) – Keep only the 5 broadest articles as proposed above, which would occupy 4 lines of text.
• Option C (see how it looks) – Keep all 9 articles, but collapse the section by default, reducing it to one expandable line, like the Trump Organization section. In that case, the 2016 campaign section should probably be collapsed as well for balance.

Several arguments for and against inclusion of detail articles such as Comey memos have been made in the two discussions above: #Dedicated section for Russia controversy and #Too many articles about Russia, so I will not repeat them and I would refer editors to those discussions for background on each of the three options on the table. New arguments can naturally be developed during the RfC process. — JFG ^talk 16:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please select Option A, B or C with a brief rationale. Longer comments should move to the #Discussion section below.

• Option C All the information, but in a way that is easy to read and navigate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C Consistent in style.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A per WP:DUE. Has dominated coverages is his term.Casprings (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option B -- allows easy access to key articles. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C More user friendly navigation--97.124.67.164 (talk) 07:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C is first choice, Option B is second choice. We don't need to advertise every Wikipedia article about the alleged Trump-Russia connection, as long as we properly facilitate navigation to those articles. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A (status quo) consistent with my views expressed above. Neutrality^talk 23:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option B - JFG is right there are just too many articles to show all, and 3 more since yesterday. First - guidelines support it at MOS:INFOBOX that the intent of an infobox is to summarize and that less info is more effective at doing that. Second - this infobox should be better defined by having a criteria for this part, and his 'selection of broadest articles' will do for that. Third - the precedent in recent Presidents Obama, Bush, and Clinton is a lot more terse at the infoboxes and basically stays one level higher thsn the detail shown here. For example, Bush and Clinton just have a link "International travels" that is part of a single line, not a 4-line section of individual trips, and for scandals they again show simply 'email controversy' and 'travelgate' as parts of a line, not a multi-line section. Fourth - functionally, the article should set a format that can continue to be used in the future. When time passes, more trips will have occurred and more Russia stories will have been done, and adding every item to the info box does not look like a good option. Cheers, Markbassett (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option B – The five retained articles offer broad coverage of all Trump-Russia issues, including on the subject matter of the detail articles no longer displayed. Option C as second choice. — JFG ^talk 15:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C It's the best of both worlds; looks and comprehensive coverage. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A looks fine and important.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C appears optimal.Axxxion (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C I like it. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 17:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option B. Several of these Russia articles are too much detail, and inclusion gives them too much weight. Collapsing the section is a clever idea but it gives it too little weight to the subject, given the tremendous attention it has received. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A. All of these topics seem high-profile, heavily-covered, and worth including. Option C would also be acceptable, but the template honestly isn't that huge right now, so I don't see the need for a collapse. --Aquillion (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C as per above; having this in its current full form is undue. Collapsing it seems less argumentative than trying to choose links to remove. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option A per my previous comments against arbitrarily collapsing some sections while leaving others uncollapsed. If we are to hide or remove any links, it should be based on the needs of our readers as evidenced by page views or some other objective criteria.- MrX 17:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C All information. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option B is the most future-proof solution, and it doesn't unduly occlude anything. Readers who want the most detail can click on the Russia controversies section header. A Train^talk 07:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option C Is a good solution that should satisfy those who are calling for an exhaustive list without it being unwieldy. Gumsaint (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Debate goes here. Please read previous section #Too many articles about Russia before commenting.

All of this is ignoring the real problem; there should not be 791 articles about Trump. Deciding how to organize this purposeless pleonasm is irrelevant, cutting the dung-heap down to an appropriate size is the real task.Anmccaff (talk) 04:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comey memos now redirects to Dismissal of James Comey and can probably be removed. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree but I think we should refrain from changing anything until the RfC is closed. — JFG ^talk 23:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

30 days elapsed; close requested.[12] — JFG ^talk 17:33, 2 September 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.

Proposal to remove the list of entities under Trump Organization

I'm proposing that the below listings be removed. Since this is a presidential template, I believe that including a full list of Trump-affiliated commercial entities is indiscriminate and non-neutral. The template cross-links all Trump presidency-related articles to his commercial venues; I don't believe its appropriate.

The proposal would keep "Trump Organization" link; if ppl are interested in learning more, they could follow the links from the Org article. I would appreciate feedback on this proposal.

I'm proposing that the following links be removed from the template:

New York properties

• Trump Tower
• 40 Wall Street
• Trump Parc
• Trump Park Avenue
• Trump SoHo
• Trump Village
• Trump World Tower
• Central Park Carousel
• Wollman Rink

Hotels

*Chicago

*Honolulu

*Las Vegas

New York

Palm Beach (Mar-a-Lago)

Washington

Baku

Panama

Vancouver

Name licensing

Trump Palace

Trump Place

Trump Plaza

Trump Tower

Former notable properties

GM Building

Grand Hyatt

Plaza Hotel

The Adelaide Hotel Toronto

Golf courses |

United States

Bedminster

Ferry Point

Pine Hill

Westchester

Los Angeles

Miami "Doral"

Palm Beach

Washington

Europe

Doonbeg

Turnberry

Other ventures |

Current

Trump Home

Trump Productions

Trump Winery

Former

Casinos

Miss Universe

Trump Foundation

Trump Models

Trump University

Miscellaneous

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Trump Organization entities

• Support full removal of details, keeping only one link to The Trump Organization and moving it into the "Business and personal background" section. — JFG ^talk 22:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Since there's been no objections, I've implemented the change. Additionally, I moved The Trump Org under "Business and personal", as suggested above. It seemed like a natural fit. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• @JLo-Watson: Regarding this revert, please see discussion above. Please let me know if you have concerns about this change. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)