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.

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


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 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 2017 Special Counsel investigation: 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. 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)
    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). Neutralitytalk 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."). Neutralitytalk 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 openedJFG talk 16:56, 3 August 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)
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)

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 GodricOn 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[1] and who later proposed to reduce the number of articles included in there,[2] 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)


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-- (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. Neutralitytalk 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 Traintalk 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)


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)

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.[3]JFG talk 17:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. 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
*Las Vegas
New York
Palm Beach (Mar-a-Lago)
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
Ferry Point
Pine Hill
Los Angeles
Miami "Doral"
Palm Beach

Other ventures |

Trump Home
Trump Productions
Trump Winery
Miss Universe
Trump Foundation
Trump Models
Trump University

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)

Which other sections should be hidden?

There has been some recent back-and-forth reshuffling sections and hiding or showing their contents by default. The Trump Organization section has always been hidden, and there is an ongoing discussion to suppress it entirely. The Books section was hidden when it grew rather large because all of Trump's books were included. The Russia section was hidden per RfC outcome. The election section was hidden because its contents are now less timely than the rest. Which of the remaining "visible" sections should be hidden and why? — JFG talk 23:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Do not hide anything else: keep "Presidency", "Appointments", "Policy positions", "International trips" and "Business and personal" as they are. — JFG talk 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Donald_Trump_series&oldid=801526760"
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