Template talk:Donald Trump series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Donald Trump (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon Template:Donald Trump series is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a project dedicated to creating and improving content related to Donald Trump. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

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 (talkcontribs) 12:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Chronology also assists readers in finding articles. Face-smile.svg 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 [1][2][3][4][5][6]. 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). Neutralitytalk 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

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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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. Neutralitytalk 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)

Article series infobar omission

Moved from Talk:Donald Trump#Article series infobar omission: – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 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)

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:
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)

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)

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

Suggest removing

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… Face-smile.svgJFG 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. 2017 Special Counsel investigation 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 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)
  • 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. Neutralitytalk 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)
  • 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)

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). Neutralitytalk 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Donald_Trump_series&oldid=791951247"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Donald_Trump_series
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Template talk:Donald Trump series"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA