Template talk:Donald Trump series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please 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.
 
WikiProject Donald Trump (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconTemplate: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.
 

Hiding sections, but allowing default expansion on certain pages[edit]

Is there an equivalent to |state= that would allow one (or more?) of the collapsed sections to be expanded on specific pages? For example, it would make sense for each of the pages linked in those collapsed sections to display this template with their respective sections expanded. It might be a bit of work to implement, but I think it should be possible and preferable to the current template. Has anyone looked into this? - PaulT+/C 15:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

In theory this template should use {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} which'll already give that functionality. But anyhow - with no comment on the merits of doing so - {{Donald Trump series/sandbox|expanded = Russia controversies}} gives (under the expanded content):
Extended content
Others similarly work;only one can be passed into |expanded=, which seems reasonable as only the particular one needs expansion. Maybe something else, like the business section can be collapsed, only if expanding another section, as otherwise its a tad too long IMO Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Is it possible to generalize this to apply to each collapsed section? I wouldn't want this to only apply to the "Russia controversies" section since it could be construed as a POV about it in some way. (If this is what you've already done, my apologies. I haven't gotten a chance to look at the code.) Thanks for the option though! - PaulT+/C 16:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Indeed Others similarly work; was not being clear enough, sorry, it should work with the other collapsed sections too Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks! To be clear |expanded= can have the following values: |expanded=International trips, |expanded=Presidential election, or |expanded=Russia controversies to expand their respective sections. Also, I agree that I don't think this should be included in the template just yet. It is getting quite long and I'm in favor of collapsing the "Business and personal" section (see below). Perhaps both changes can be implemented at the same time? - PaulT+/C 17:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
I updated the sandbox to hide the last section also. Is it possible to have that last section default to expanded if there is no value in |expanded=? - PaulT+/C 03:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hiding the "Business and personal" section[edit]

This template is continuing to expand. I think it would make sense to collapse the "Business and personal" section. It is below 3 other sections that are currently collapsed. Rather than just make the change unilaterally, I wanted to bring it up here first. - PaulT+/C 15:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

2000 presidential campaign[edit]

Would it be appropriate to add a link to President Trump's 2000 presidential election campaign under the presidential campaign section? Sovietmessiah (talk) 22:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I think so.  Done (until WP:BRD happens I guess). - PaulT+/C 05:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Sovietmessiah (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Supreme court nominees[edit]

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[edit]

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)

 ResolvedJFG talk 22:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)