Talk:Stable Genius Act

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Expand and refocus this article[edit]

I came up with this idea at the discussion about targeting the redirect Very stable genius to this article. Several people there, including User:Herostratus and User:AngusWOOF, suggested we need an actual article devoted to "stable genius". I think they are right. I think this Stable Genius Act article should be renamed "Stable genius" and rewritten to include all the multiple ways in which this phrase has passed into the language; the act is only one and should be one section of the article. And we should leave out the infobox stuff; this was never treated as a legitimate bill, it was a joke. Back when this article was written, the bill was really the only significant reaction to his tweet. But he has kept saying it, and now there is a whole cottage industry on the subject, with numerous books and other spinoffs; IMO it deserves a full article. I will wait until the RfD is closed, but then I will start to work on such a refocus if folks here agree. User:Wakari07, would you be OK with this kind of refocus? Herostratus and Angus, would you help? -- MelanieN (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, rename to Stable genius would be okay. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, I don't agree, we need decorum. Rather develop that "cottage industry" in Mental health of Donald Trump. That's a subject in itself, separate from Category:United States proposed federal legislation. Wakari07 (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That can be discussed at the RFD for very stable genius or stable genius, should the latter term be created as a result. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also the situation with COVFEFE Act and Covfefe. It's good to keep separate things separated. A legislative act and a meme are different in substance, though both in the category of objective BLOB "things". Both mental stability and the psychological concept of genius are in the different category of subjective Mental health "ideas". The RFD you mention is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 29#Very_stable_genius and there is also a related discussion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 30#Mental health of Donald Trump. Wakari07 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stable genius should disambiguate to: 1. Stability, 2. Genius, 3. Anything else. Mental health will live on long after Trump has died. Wakari07 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've sectioned off some of the details and reactions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes MelanieN, I am in agreement with you, will help if I can. User:Wakari07, I don't understand about "decorum". We are encyclopedia not a finishing school. We are to provide information, lots of it, some of it rather messy. We cover lots of unsavory subjects, including necrophilia and bestiality and probably things much worse. Donald Trump is very important and will be centuries from now. There are hundreds of articles about stuff having to do with him. There should be hundreds more, I would think. Herostratus (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I mean, for me it would be appropriate that the article on the proposed act be formally separate from the meme that originated it, as any other article on a legislative act. Of course, I agree with more rather than less information in an encyclopedia. Wakari07 (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, hadn't yet seen the comment from Herostratus) Thanks for responding, Wakari07, you make some good points. But the suggestions you make as to better places for this information aren't helpful. "Covfefe" is a section in the article Donald Trump on social media, but "stable genius" is not primarily a social media thing; he mostly says it out loud rather than on Twitter, so it doesn't belong there. Mental health of Donald Trump does not exist any more, except as a redirect; per the original RfD it was supposed to be merged into the "Health" section of the Donald Trump article, but a discussion there was closed as not saying anything about mental health in the Trump article, so that is currently a redirect that goes nowhere. There is now a discussion which will probably point the redirect toward the Goldwater rule article, but that's not a satisfactory place for any actual discussion of his mental health, much less this subject. Consensus at the "Very stable genius" RfD is leaning toward retargeting it toward this article, which is why I have added more information about it here. I guess we could make a whole new article, "Stable genius", and leave this one alone as just about the act, with a mention at the new article. But I'd like to hear from more people on the idea of putting it all here. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reintroduced act, infobox update?[edit]

As this has been reintroduced as HR 3736, should there be two infoboxes or is there a template to handle multiple proposals? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing/outdated info[edit]

The infobox contains a "public law" citation although the bill never went anywhere and the citation does not lead to a valid page. There is also a section labeled "codification" including USC titles affected, I don't know where this came from but it's completely bewildering to me. This was a bill, it was never codified, it is not public law, and therefore it didn't affect anything. Someone tell me if either I'm confused or the author was. JackSitilides (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]