Template talk:Donald Trump series

Supreme court nominees

I don't think we should include Supreme Court nominees in this nav box. Such links might be appropriate for the presidency nav box, but this one is supposed to be for his entire life.- MrX 🖋 11:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

and the supreme court nomenees are a big thing in his life, they will last for decades Norschweden (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If confirmed, a Supreme court appointment is noteworthy, but really should be listed in a more appropriate template. Being nominated is not important in itself.- MrX 🖋 12:24, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

it is noteworthy in every case, and it should be listed i this template Norschweden (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Every article is noteworthy. Following your reasoning, we should link every article that is loosely associated with Trump. That would make for a very large nav box.- MrX 🖋 16:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of Kavanaugh's nomination. Picking a Supreme Court Justice is a notable act of any presidency, and one of the few for which the President has sole power, ergo it belongs in this navbox about the current President. From another angle, either Kavanaugh will be confirmed by Congress, and will earn his spot as an SC appointee, or he will be rejected, and that would make his nomination even more notable, so in both cases he keeps the spot here. — JFG ^talk 14:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Why not wait until he's confirmed? He might not be confirmed, or he could withdraw, or Trump could change his mind. Is there any precedent for adding nominees to nav boxes for other presidents?- MrX 🖋 16:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I gave a reason why: if he is not confirmed, or if there is another spectacular U-turn, that will make his nomination even more notable. The precedent question is WP:OSE territory. — JFG ^talk 16:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not compelling, and it's even a bit contrived. There is value in using other well-developed nav boxes as prototypes for this one. OSE is just an essay.- MrX 🖋 16:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not all essays are as strongly supported by the community as OSE, although of course it should not trump consensus. If we're going to invoke precedent, we don't list people dismissed by prior presidents, we don't list rumors of scandals linked to other presidents, we don't list sexual misconduct allegations against other presidents, etc. The Trump presidency and coverage thereof are truly exceptional, so that a sui generis navbox makes sense, and the unusual sections of the Trump sidebar have gained consensus. — JFG ^talk 16:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

We don't have to be constrained by previous work, but there's nothing "truly exceptional" about appointing a Supreme Court justice. So the question is, do we include supreme court appointments, especially at this stage, in other president's nav boxes? If the answer is no, then that is a strong indication of a best practice. Do you disagree?- MrX 🖋 19:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say that an SC nomination is an exceptional act; I said that the Trump presidency in general is exceptional, especially in the amount of attention it is gathering. That's what you get for electing a TV star. Back to topic, Trump's SC nominations have gathered a volume of coverage not seen since Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork; in that respect, they are notable. That is the same argument that makes Trump's dismissals notable, although in hindsight, only the Comey dismissal is truly significant, as its ramifications are still unfolding a year later. — JFG ^talk 13:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You must have been napping during Mr. Silver's confirmation. Lawdy! - MrX 🖋 15:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Gulp, that was awful, thanks for the reminder! — JFG ^talk 16:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Remove Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Links vs controversies

These are not controversies these are links about things that have controversy with Russia, a meeting or having associates linked are not controversies in themselves they are links which have controversy with Russia. I propose we rename the section "Russia controversies" to "Russia links" or "Russian" links. No comment in this proposal about hiding or showing the content. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Every single article in that section either involves significant controversy, or is a full-on controversy. If you think there is a better word to use than controversy, I'm all ears, but "links" ain't it.- MrX 🖋 19:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

All articles in this section document controversies; the section title is perfectly adequate. I suppose we could call it "Controversies about Russia" to clarify Emir's point. — JFG ^talk 15:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That sounds like an improvement to me. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@MrX: Agree to this change? — JFG ^talk 18:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are not "controversies about Russia", but they are "controversies involving Russia". Let's be clear: the controversies are about Trump. - MrX 🖋 18:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "Controversies involving Russia". @Emir of Wikipedia:? — JFG ^talk 19:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd be find with that too. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Resolved — JFG ^talk 22:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Racial controversies

Where are the links for his racial controversies? Senegambianamestudy (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

See Racial views of Donald Trump, linked in the bottom section of this sidebar. — JFG ^talk 07:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing investigations

The Mueller probe has nominally ended, but by my count, there are at least 39 ongoing investigations farmed out to other DoJ branches, other federal agencies, districts, states, and Congress. I'm not a template person. How should we handle news about these formerly Special Counsel prosecutions in a coherent way? EllenCT (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

May we add Report on the Investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential Election under Controversies involving Russia or the respecting section?

Since the special counsel's report is finally out, may we add it? Aviartm (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)