Talk:Trump

Title

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

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

---

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

Well, it's not only the most common use. It is also the earliest use of the term when it was first used in tarot card games.Smiloid (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Doradus (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. I think I have noticed this anomaly before, but for some reason didn't do anything about it. Hans Adler 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

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

---

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

• Comment. I think I oppose this on the basis that the card terminology and the Donald are about equally common. That seems to be a sound basis for a disambiguation page instead of a preferential landing. Ocaasi (talk) 01:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A quick examination of the incoming links to the article shows otherwise. Most of them are for the plain meaning of the word. Can you find one that refers to the person? Is it even to reasonable to ask for "Trump" and expect to be directed to someone with that surname? Hans Adler 06:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In the case of The Donald, yes, although it's not as clear cut as some others. Powers ^T 12:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Sounds like Americo-centric recentism to me. Hans Adler 12:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
        • To the extent that we try to direct users to the article they're most likely trying to read, I think that's unavoidable. Powers ^T 00:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, but put Donald Trump directly in the hatnote on the card game article. Powers ^T 02:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The great majority of incoming links are intending "trump" in cards, only a few are intending Donald Trump or his company, and another few are intending other uses. Clearly Donald Trump is a popular topic and article, but I don't see a lot of indication that people are typing in just "Trump" looking for him.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Incoming links aren't a good way to measure the usage of a surname, because the surname alone isn't the article's title. The President is clearly the primary topic for "Obama", but very few articles link directly to that redirect, for obvious reasons. That said, I agree with your conclusion. Powers ^T 14:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk)
• Oppose because there are two separate articles about trump cards, so disambiguation is needed between them. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't make much sense of this comment. Are you referring to trump (card game) and Major Arcana? As far as I know the latter are only ever referred to as "trumps" in a card game context, i.e. when tarot cards are used for their original purpose, making them a special case of trump (card game). Hans Adler 08:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
    • That is correct. The "Major Arcana" are the permanent trump suit in games played with the tarot deck. This probably ought to be mentioned at the trump (cards) article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I think the following is good enough for the moment: "Trionfo was also the name of the original card game for which tarot cards were designed, and in it the tarot cards had the role of what are now called trumps; later card game rules were designed to use one of the ordinary suits as a replacement for the tarots when a tarot pack was not available." Of course we could clarify it as follows: "[...] and in it the tarot cards (known as major Arcana in occult Tarot [...]", but I am not sure that that's necessary. Hans Adler 14:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Move discussion in progress

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

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

People named Trump but not known as "Trump"

Among all the Trump family, Donald Trump is the only person known solely as "Trump". (For example, Ivanka is never called "Trump" -- usually "Ivanka" or "Ivanka Trump".)

Including the rest of the Trump clan is partial title matching, and covered by the link to Trump (surname), and thus shouldn't also be included individually here, so I'm removing them.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

...well, someone is removing them.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Yes, Trump should redirect to Donald Trump. You used to be able to see visits at the bottom of the page. I can't believe that was removed. Anyway, compare visits of Donald Trump to Trump card games and it will be obvious. Steve.schlegel (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Two different topics. The conversation here was whether Ivanka, Ivana, Barron, Eric, and other relatives should be listed explicitly on this page. None of them are commonly known as the unmodified word "Trump", so they should not be on this page. Donald Trump is quite often known as "Trump", so he should be explicitly listed here.

The question of whether the article name "Trump" should be a redirect to the "Donald Trump" page would be another, separate conversation.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Donald Trump

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

---

I second:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move 21 January 2017

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

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

• Strong Support As per WP:PTOPIC, no evidence they are looking for something other than Donald Trump, if they are looking for the First Lady, for example, they will just search "Melania Trump", that's why Obama does not point to a disambiguation page or redirect to Michelle Obama, for that matter. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. One of the most blatantly obvious primary topics ever. Note: the proposal should say "to allow Trump to redirect to Donald Trump". --В²C ☎ 23:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Anyone could be looking for Trump (card games) or HMS Trump (P333) - Both notable subjects, Obama is irrelevant here because he was was always referred to as OBama, Donald on the other hand is always referred to as "Donald Trump". –Davey2010^Talk 23:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Based on recent pageview statistics (elaborated above) I would say Donald is the intended target of 99% of "Trump"'s views. If they are looking for HMS Trump they would specifically search for the ship with its full title. Clearly Donald is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as Barack is also the primary topic of Obama. Also relating to just below, Bush is a disambig page because there were two president Bushes and people could also be searching for a bush (the plant), Clinton because it could equally refer to Bill, Hillary, or something else, etc. Eisenhower, Obama, Nixon, Reagan all redirect to the presidential article because they are fairly distinct and uncommon surnames, while Bush, Clinton, Ford, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman are shared by a large number of people. MB298 (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose again nothing has changed, see Clinton Carter Kennedy Bush Thatcher all surname or dab pages....and still no evidence of Donald Trump being called "Trump" in serious sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Reagan, Eisenhower, Obama, Churchill, Merkel, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Nixon. Calidum 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• No evidence? You did not check, these sources, for example, all call him "Trump". And the list goes on and on, so he is referred to as "Trump". Neither president is always referred to by either their full name or surname. Consider Obama, Fukui is a notable topic, whose name is unrelated to that of the president. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Champion: your evidence is weak to the point of ridiculous. It is normal in the English speaking world to have a surname in a heading, the full name in the opening paragraph, and then use the surname again. If you can find an article that omits "Donald" you might have a case, but otherwise the sources you offer just demonstrate that he is known as "Donald Trump". StAnselm (talk) 11:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I can't believe I have to do this, no offense, but I suppose you don't even bother to check before making such comments, there are indeed articles that mention Trump only by surname, omitting "Donald", if that does not convince you, just type Trump -Donald into Google News. So he is known as "Trump" just like Barack Obama is known as "Obama. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

But none of the references that User:Champion provided have just "Trump" at the first in-article mention of his name. They have, respectively, "President Trump", "Mr Trump", "President Donald Trump", and "President Donald Trump". StAnselm (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@StAnselm: Not exactly true, none of the articles I linked above in the second set have a single mention of "Donald" anywhere in them, press Ctrl+F if in doubt, the NBC one did not even mention "President Trump" or "Mr. Trump". - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to your first set, of course. StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@StAnselm: That is what I figured, also this article does not mention any of the terms you quoted above. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

• Support Trump to Donald, not Trump disambiguation. This doesn't mean you like or hate Donald. Obama was redirected to Barack in 2008. Only a few people were looking for Obama village, Japan. Samswik (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samswik: You have placed your comment in the wrong place and made two separate comments, I have moved it. In future, new comments should always be placed at the bottom of discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The other meaning of Obama hardly compare to the long-established terms used long before Donald was ever thought of. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Highly refers to the current US president, Donald Trump. If evidence is unnecessary, then use common sense instead. --George Ho (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll switch to neutral due to President Trump as too recently referred and long-standing reference to card deck. --George Ho (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

By the way, Samswik, can you strikethrough your double vote? I appreciate it. --George Ho (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per the clear consensus at Talk:Trump (card games)#Requested move 9 November 2016. StAnselm (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support Let's face it - 99% of the time someone searches "Trump" nowadays, they're looking for an article on the President. He's completely relevant to now and extremely well-known, more than ever since his rise during the election season. 86.152.144.17 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Trump won't be president forever. Other uses of Trump (such as the card game concept) existed when the Trump surname was Drumpf. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support The President of the United States is commonly referred to as the most powerful person on earth - or sometimes second to Putin. What's more likely? Someone looking for a card game, or someone looking for the ruler of the free world? Also, not to mention, presidents are known by their last name. If people hear Reagan, Lincoln, etc, they think of the president, not other uses... GeekInParadise (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Depends where you are. In England, when we hear Lincoln we think of the ancient city in Lincolnshire, which is why Lincoln doesn't redirect to Abraham Lincoln. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I would say that a world ruled by Donald Trump isn't free at all. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no primary topic, per the arguments at Talk:Trump (card games)#Requested move 9 November 2016. The cards are arguably just as famous as Donald Trump (ever heard of Top Trumps, for instance?), just as the occupation of being a thatcher is versus Margaret Thatcher. I personally believe it rather unethical to actively undermine an RM that closed only in November (a moratorium should be put in place, IMO). With respect to the disambiguation, I have added Trump to the very #top of it alongside Trump (card games). The 45th president is only a click away at the very top. For all those in support of this move, I strongly recommend you evaluate the opposing arguments at the last RM. They're quite compelling.--Nevé–selbert 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I for one, are not convinced by the opposing arguments put up at that previous discussion, the town of Obama, Fukui has been around for longer than Barack has, but Barack has had more historical significance as a senator prior to the election. Also, Donald Trump has been a household name since at least the 80s, and will only have more significance after 4-8 years because of the controversy surrounding his candidacy/presidency, John Henninger Reagan was around long before Ronald Reagan was even born, sure the card games have been around for longer, but it's hard to believe why people will just search "trump" as opposed to "trump card", etc. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Do remember that Trump is a brand name. Unlike Obama, the man has slapped his name over nearly every single building he has ever owned, some still even have his name after he relinquished ownership years upon years ago. A redirect to List of things named after Donald Trump would be more reasonable in my opinion than your proposal.--Nevé–selbert 11:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Unlike Obama, Trump is a dictionary word in the English language. Current dab page does the job, giving top billing to the President and the card games. Nothing should change, as established by prior consensus, and per Thatcher precedent. — JFG ^talk 01:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • ford is also a dictionary word, so why does Ford redirect to Ford Motor Company then, there is clear evidence that the company is the primary topic. Anyway this is rather a weak argument, consensus on the Thatcher discussion seemed to be heading in a different direction than this discussion, so we should rather evaluate each case on a case-by-case basis, anyway, it is in general a weak argument to cite previous discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. This is what the readers are looking for by a very large margin of 96.4%.[1] The 2nd most sought article, by a very wide margin, is The Trump Organization. The President of the United States also has equal or greater long-term significance than all other topics on this dab page. Let's not throw roadblocks in our readers' way.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: we have a recent consensus not to redirect here: Talk:Trump (card games)#Requested move 9 November 2016. Though, I should add, the present discussion has produced those numbers that the previous one was missing according to the closing admin. Pinging the closing admin: @BrownHairedGirl: – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. He is the primary topic now and will continue to be. Calidum 04:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. With the "Trump" page averaging thousands of hits per day, there is no question that readers aren't getting what they want with this setup. I initially supported a DAB page, but it's ultimately clear to me now ol' Donnie is the primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I continue to believe he is far and away the primary topic here.LM2000 (talk) 06:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was just discussed two months ago, and the result was to keep this as a disambiguation page. This request is a clear instance of recentism, and it would be better to re-evaluate when it's not simply inauguration weekend. kennethaw88 • talk 07:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The president is not the primary topic for Trump, any more than Theresa May is the primary topic for May or George Bush would be the primary topic for Bush even if only one of them had ever been president. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

"Trump" is not in the same league as "May" and "bush". Srnec (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

A POV statement if ever I heard one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Refusing to redirect this to the Donald Trump article is nothing but thinly veiled political bias on the part of those opposing. A cheap attempt to undermine the President by suggesting that perhaps users are searching for the stub of an article on Trump the card game, instead of Trump the President --74.102.227.219 (talk) 18:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• oppose per the clinton/bush examples. Obama counter example is not parallel, as the word/name Obama was previously much less notable. But people having been Trumping things for centuries, and will continue to do so for centuries more. It should perhaps be the first item on the disambig page tho. ResultingConstant (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per JFG. Trump is a dictionary word and the disambiguation page currently does its job in providing top billing for Donald Trump. κατάσταση 19:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per precedent for family names (Bush, Thatcher, Hoover, etc.) that are also used as dictionary words. jxm (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Maybe for now people typing "Trump" in the search box are looking for Donald Trump, but it will not always be that way. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

And it should change when that is no longer the case, probably after his presidency, at the earliest. Lakeshake (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per jxm's comments.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support He's the president now, people are going to be searching for him more than some card game no one has ever heard of 70.91.215.53 (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Your ignorance ("some card game no one has ever heard of"?!) is not a good reason for this move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I am sorry but the president of the united states has long term more historical importance then a card game industry term. People are arguing with their hearts and not their heads. GuzzyG (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually, I think that's the people arguing for the move, not against it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I'd like a source on that one. The fact is the person who is elected President of the United States is considered the leader of the free world, so there's worldwide significance. Taught in universities world wide, academic significance. A person who specifically markets his properties and products worldwide as Trump, there's marketing significance. Can you provide proof for the claim a niche industry western term is more significant? GuzzyG (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Roman Spinner's overview of Wikipedia presidential name pages at Talk:Trump (card games)#Comments. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support—Donald Trump is clearly the primary topic. —MartinZ02 (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support. At this point in time, no other meaning is close by even a remote fraction. However one may feel about President Trump, the word "Trump" has become one of the world's most-frequently used terms due to its representation of the president's surname. A glance at Trump (surname) confirms that it is not a common name, such as Adams, Harrison, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter or Clinton, but rather in the same category as the four direct presidential links (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Obama). Even taking into account WP:RECENT and WP:CRYSTALBALL, right now and for decades to come, the use of the word "trump" for card games or any other reference has and will have a double meaning. The circumstances prescribe the move. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 00:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – this was discussed several months ago and nothing has changed. Donald J. Trump is not primary for Trump, neither is George W. Bush for Bush or Bill Clinton for Clinton. The current setup is fine the way it is, and we don't need to change the status quo. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 02:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Trump is certainly primary for <redacted>. Bush is arguably ambiguous (two presidents). So is Clinton (HRC as well as Bill). But there are no significant alternate uses to Trump in terms of page views. --В²C ☎ 02:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Allow 98% of Wikipedia searchers to see the complete lack of journalistic ethics and liberal bias present by suggesting they may have meant an obsolete card game instead of the POTUS. --69.121.9.111 (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • If I understand this correctly, this is a Support argument. --В²C ☎ 03:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I don't see this as either, I believe this was just a WP:POINT-y comment. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Cúchullain. It's what readers overwhelmingly want. What's more, presidents of the USA have long-term significance. Trump, who has been famous for decades, just instantly became primarily remembered for having been president and not for any of the other things he has done. If in the future euchre takes off again, we can revisit this. Srnec (talk) 03:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per above arguments. "Trump" is also a dictionary word, and once his term is over he is unlikely to be the primary topic.  ONR  (talk)  07:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Uh, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --В²C ☎ 20:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, WP:Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, how do you know he is unlikely to be the primary topic after his term ends. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. The conflict with the long-standing notability of the subject at Trump (card games) is enough for this move to be misleading to readers. Best direct them to a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - per standard practice for dictionary word surnames, as used for other US presidents, e.g. Bush, Carter, Clinton, Lincoln, Hoover. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Nether Bush or Clinton redirect to the presidents, so there's a jurisprudence. Bertdrunk (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That is because there are two President Bushes and Hillary Clinton has received more coverage independent from her husband, so you can say that Hillary is the more prominent topic for Clinton from a recent perspective and there is no primary topic. There isn't a similar case here with Trump. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

That could be because there are several big Bushes (George H.W. and W) and Clintons (Hillary and Bill). Lakeshake (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Then Carter or Ford, or Washington to avoid presentism. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – the primary meaning of trump where I live is (and will continue to be) a fart, and this trumps any US president, however egregious. Oculi (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. We already had this debate at great length, at Talk:Trump_(card_games)#Requested_move_9_November_2016, after the election result, and nothing has materially changed since then. To reiterate - trump, the card game concept enjoys considerably greater long term significance than the current president of the US. Not necessarily enough to remain primary topic (which is what that previous RM decided), but certainly Donald is not the primary topic either.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding how you could be serious about this. Have you looked at the respective page view counts? Regardless of what significance you think the card game concept has long term, users of WP who vote by clicking have a different view. The Donald article gets TWO THOUSAND TIMES as many views. Not twice as many. Not 20 times as many. Not 200 times as many. But 2,000 times as many! In comparison, Paris gets only about 12 times as many views as Paris, Texas (film) does[2]. I'm sorry, but contending that Donald is not the primary topic for Trump is as ridiculous as his claim that he lost the popular vote because millions votes illegally. Let's not stoop to that level, okay? --В²C ☎ 17:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Support for change. (should not be interpreted as support or opposition to the man, himself). I entered "Trump" and got this page. I was going to complain but then I saw that there is already a complaint in the form of this poll. Maybe after a year or two after Trump leaves offices, this disambiguation page could be the Trump page but for now, it is just a pain to come here when someone enters "Trump". Lakeshake (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose – too much recentism. This too shall pass. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd love to know why a western, British niche industry card game term has more long term encyclopedic presence then a President. One is generally taught in academia worldwide and one is a game people in countries of the former British Empire play as a hobby. talk about a western bias. GuzzyG (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. I'm willing to bet 90-99% of the people who go to this page are looking for Donald Trump, as I was. This is ridiculous. 2606:A000:1228:16:E829:4FDF:FBD1:2AF (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Common words should always lead to disambiguation pages. NOTDIC is true, but is not something that all readers know. Page views and what most people want is out of scope, Wikipedia is not here to suit Google, and Google easily responds to what people want by sending them continually updated most likely sites. Google should not be sending searchers via a redirect title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • "Common words should always lead to disambiguation pages." I think I'll file that one under, "make up stuff as we go". --В²C ☎ 17:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Not at all. This is an approach that is usually carried. A generic concept (here, "trump" the verb, deriving from the widespread playing card term) should not easily be displaced by a specific and unrelated topic. Donald Trump is the big article. People searching on google will find that page immediately regardless of a "Trump" redirect. Any links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump from onsite or offsite, intending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump can only confuse matters. The driving motivation of the supporters seems to be to work to align with google rather than to use logical titling. If trump were to redirect to Donald_Trump, then that article would need another hatnote sentence. Hatnotes are a frustration to people wanting quick and easy access. Without the redirect, anyone putting "trump" into the wikipedia search box (a peculiar thing to do!) will be taken to a small page with a Donald_Trump at the top. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose: The disambiguation page includes a link to Donald Trump for people who were looking for that article. —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 06:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, dictionary word, used in card games for almost five hundred years, also happens to be the name of a person. Even Washington, Lincoln, Taft and Van Buren are disambiguation pages (Garfield isn't, but it isn't the president). If a common word leads to a disambiguation page, it is much easier to avoid wrong links, and the friendly people of WP:DPL can help to fix them. —Kusma (t·c) 13:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose (at least for now) as recentism. "Trump" has been a common verb in the English language for countless years, long before the President was born let alone became famous. This is different from names like "Eisenhower" and "Obama", which are distinctly names that have pretty much always been associated with Dwight Eisenhower and Barack Obama respectively ever since they rose to prominence. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose for several reasons:
  1. This is recentism, since if anyone was looking for Donald Trump and actually typed in "Trump", this page would have been redirected there years ago. The Donald isn't a recent phenomenon.
  2. Other uses of "Trump" are notable and may be searched for as well, including the dictionary definition.
  3. No one has any data about whether readers going to this article actually wanted to go to the "Donald Trump" page instead.
  4. We already had a discussion about this, and it was agreed to keep this page at this title.
  5. We have a hatnote on the article for Donald Trump, and vice versa.
  6. There are other ways to direct readers from Trump to Donald Trump, such as putting Donald's name at the top of the disambiguation page. epicgenius (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Nobody will ever have trouble finding the Wikipedia article on Donald Trump. So, the bigger concern is making sure that people wanting the unrelated trump topics, including the verb ("This trumps that", a meaning which may be mis-conflated for many), will not be sucked into bewildering circles, as they might with the current hat note at Donald Trump. And expanding the hatnote seriously detracts from that important article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many Americans, and probably just as many Wikipedians, think of the President as the primary topic of Trump, but this is not the view of most English speakers worldwide. Andrewa (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

INTERIM SUMMARY

Uncalled for. Consensus will be assessed by the closer. — JFG talk 07:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the Trump page to be redirected to Donald Trump page (SUPPORTS), 19 users mentioned that the vast majority (or 2000 times more or some other overwhelming term) intend to read Donald Trump. 2 users dispute this. 2 other users say this will not always be the case. For this point, overwhelming (or WP:SNOW) points to a Trump to Donald Trump redirect. 4 users mention "strong support" versus only 1 user "strong oppose". This might lean towards a redirecting Trump to Donald Trump but I put only a little weight into it because some people may not put "strong" even though they mean it. a few say he is a more notable topic. A few say the card game is more notable. I believe the truth is Donald Trump is more notable. a few mention the Obama page being redirected to Barack Obama. For the Trump page to stay a disambiguation page, a few say that Donald Trump will no longer be as notable. There is clear reason to disregard that now but to change it when that occurs, maybe in several years, at the earliest. 5 users claim that the card game is more notable. I believe these are "alternative facts" or "falsehoods". a few say Donald Trump is recentism. I think partly true but only in the sense of years, not days or weeks, such as news stories. Bush and Clinton are given as examples but there are multiple famous Bush and Clinton people. Trump means "fart" and that is most notable. I believe that is clearly a minority viewpoint. one user says Donald Trump is more notable so he should NOT be redirected to. (very odd logic) one user says that people looking for the Donald Trump article won't enter "Trump" but will use a different search term. Complicating matters is that Donald Trump is the most hated U.S. President in recent history. Even among people who voted for him, many do not like him. To redirect the article makes some people mad. WP:REDIRECT states "Redirects are used to help people arrive more quickly at the page they want to read". For this reason, a redirect should be the conclusion unless one can show that people want to read about farts or the card game more than Donald Trump when they enter "Trump". I believe there is complete or near complete consensus on that point. Lakeshake (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Hell no! There are 12 opposing votes! How does that come out to a consensus? Because you do not think the opinions of people who disagree with you are important? And how does WP:SNOW apply? See Wikipedia:Snowball clause#The snowball test and note the word "unanimous" is there! There is by no means a Snowball clause situation here. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC) I made no comments of a consensus or lack of consensus, merely summarizing the votes. There is little opposition to the fact that people are looking for Donald Trump. Those that oppose redirection to Donald Trump give other reasons for the most part. Lakeshake (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Snow only applies to the fact that people looking for Donald Trump will enter the word "Trump" often. Nobody disputes that except one voter. Please be clear. You think the 12 opposing !voters believe that more people searching for "Trump" are looking for the fart or the card game than for The Donald? --В²C ☎ 22:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC) No, only 2 voters believe that. That rest cite other reasons, like Donald Trump won't be so notable in a few years or that Clinton is not redirected to either President Clinton or Secretary of State Clinton. Lakeshake (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC) I can agree about the Clintons, but I can't agree Donald Trump will not be notable in a few years, any claims like this is purely crystal ball speculation, there is no basis in fact, if it does turn out to be the case, we can revisit it then. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC) ——— Sorry, my question above was intended for User:Richard-of-Earth. Anyway, Lakeshake's original sentence structure was not ideal, but I think what was meant is that there is "complete or near complete consensus" on the point that "people want to read about farts or the card game more than Donald Trump when they enter 'Trump'" is NOT the case. Champion, also recognizes that we have near consensus (all but two) on this point. Well, people mostly searching for one particular topic when entering a given term is what makes that topic the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for that term, by definition. That's the point. I don't understand how anyone can reasonably disagree with this without denying the very definition of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Or is their position that they recognize The Donald is the primary topic for "Trump", but just don't want Trump to redirect to the article about him anyway? --В²C ☎ 20:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC) I am disinclined to participate in these surveys for the very reason of what is going on here. People pretending consensus is reached when it is not and throwing around WP:SNOW where there is just rain. Particularly when participants are clearly inclined to long arguments, twisting other people's words, challenging individuals to defend their opinions or positions and generally intending to "win" the survey at any cost. I do not edit Wikipedia to be subjected to such disrespect. I apologize if over the years I have overly sensitive to it all. That aside, no I do not think Donald Trump sufficiently fulfills the requirements of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Trump" to warrant redirecting this page. It lacks the long-enduring requirement. Redirecting this page will subject everyone who is looking for something else to wait for that long article to load before clinking the link to come to this list and will require adding yet another hat note to the Donald Trump article that people will keep screwing with. Not redirecting means people looking for Donald Trump's article will be subjected a short article reminding them that trump means other things and the link they need at the top. So, I am still opposed to redirecting this page. That you do not think my opposition is important because you lack the imagination to see how anyone could disagree or simply do not care to give up your delusions of consensus, does not change that fact. (Please attempt to take my crotchety rant in good humor.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Page Views

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

Well, surely by watching those stats, the current dab setup hasn't prevented people from finding the Donald Trump article! — JFG ^talk 22:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Of course. But WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not address the problem of people being unable to find primary topic articles; it just allows them to arrive there with less clicking. --В²C ☎ 22:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Recentism?

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

No, recentism can refer to any period of time. For example sports people from the eighties, nineties and noughties tend to get more coverage than equivalent stars of, say, the twenties or thirties. And the presidents of the twentieth century get more coverage than those of the nineteenth. The principle if combating recentism aims to put everything in its proper long term encyclopedic context. Trump cards were around long before the Don was born, and will remain around long after he is dead and some other president is stealing the headlines. Long term significance is a specific consideration for primary topics Aimed at tackling this kind of recentism.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

"Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process"[4] - events longer than a few days or weeks in time are not "a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process". The historical significance consideration should not be conflated with Recentism. In any case, the two PT considerations should be balanced appropriately. How important is it historically than the other? How much more likely is it to be sought than the other? The idea that a card game concept is more important than a US president is pretty funny - one can argue that the card game is not even sufficiently encyclopedic to have an entry. I note that the Donald Trump article has existed since early 2004, while the card game concept was not created until mid 2006 - 2 1/2 years later. And that was long before he was a candidate, let alone an actual president. The historical significance of pre-presidential Trump might have arguably dissipated quite a bit in the future, but now that he has been elected, his historical significance cannot be questioned, and compared to the simple card game concept? Please. One more indicator of significance is the relative sizes of the two articles, and here again The Donald article easily wins (318,000 to 6,000 bytes - a factor of 53). By any reasonable measure we have a clear primary topic situation here, as clear as any other on WP. By every conceivable measure of historical significance -- page view counts (2000 to 1), article creation date (by 2 1/2 years), article size (50 times), page watchers (1700 to 79), etc., etc. -- the article about The Donald is shown to be more significant. The only historical significance factor in favor of the card game concept is that it existed before he did, but if that were a decisive factor then almost all of our primary topic articles would be different. --В²C ☎ 23:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Like Obama, Japan was around centuries before Barack Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakeshake (talk • contribs) 00:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Except Obama, Japan, didn't gain worldwide popularity until Barack ran for president. The word "Trump," on the other hand, was famous for many things long before Donald Trump was even born. epicgenius (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the relevance of "worldwide popularity" - what matters is notability on WP, and about when each of these topics became considered notable for inclusion on WP. The articles we're discussing and their creation dates:

• Obama, Fukui September 27, 2003 [5]
• Donald Trump January 8, 2004 [6]
• Barack Obama March 17, 2004 [7]
• Trump (card games) August 16, 2006 [8]
  • NOTE: The original article was about the card game named Trump, not the card game concept. The concept was not considered to be notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia until January 19, 2007[9], three years after the article on Donald Trump was created.

I'm not arguing that the city in Japan is more notable then the ex-president. I'm noting that it has existed longer and has been considered notable on WP longer, but these are not significant factors for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determination of "Obama". Nor should these similar factors regarding the card concept, which is relatively obscure and (more importantly) rarely visited compared to the article about the president, be considered significant in determining the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Trump" --В²C ☎ 21:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that the creation of an article at a given time means that it's necessarily more notable. On the other hand, more recent events do tend to have more coverage from news sources, since there's more readily accessible sources about them. epicgenius (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily, but it's a strong indication. Trump was not notable in 2004. Was the card game concept? Sure - it's not more nor less notable today than it was then, but the point is its notability is relatively low. The article was up for deletion consideration at one point. There is no question about the notability of Trump, and there never was. The relative notability is much, much higher for him. I think people just don't want to feed the narcissist. I get that. But we need to put such considerations aside when deciding primary topic. --В²C ☎ 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand. My argument isn't about not petting The Donald's ego. It's the fact that "trump" can refer to a whole lot of things, including the 45th US president, the card-game term, or the word meaning "to beat (someone or something) by saying or doing something better." In this case, I don't know if Donald Trump trumps mention of trump cards or trumping other people. epicgenius (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The dictionary definition is irrelevant here. See Nice. The card-game term is relevant, although I dispute that it is sufficiently notable. The number of times users here refer to "the card game" suggests that they do not know what it is, since it isn't a game, but a card. Although it is possible they are just being sloppy. Srnec (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I would be interested in seeing data for how many people link to Nice, the French city, when they mean "pleasant" or "subtle." I suspect not a lot, because "nice" is an adjective and doesn't need wikification in 99% of the cases, but "trump," on the other hand, is a noun and might be legitimately linked to several things. epicgenius (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

In other words, this RfC asks "Does Trump trump trumps?" — JFG ^talk 07:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

---

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

I recommend that there be continued discussion because the closing person is a child who is not an administrator. This minor lacks the life experience that an adult may have.

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