Talk:Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)/Archive 1

Make Donald Drumpf Again
Make Donald Drumpf Again and MakeDonaldDrumpfAgain redirect here. If the phrases are used in the article, we should consider adding bold text to the lead, similar to Tobacco (Last Week Tonight) and Jeff the Diseased Lung/"JeffWeCan". --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Donald J Drumpf
This is a character that is only notable due to the show. As it is in-universe, the articles should probably be merged. epicgenius (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppose: This character, while originally created in a TV show, has taken on a life of its own. Just like the Tinman has his own article separate from the article about the Wizard of Oz this parody character deserves it's own article as this character has taken on a life of it's own. This parody character, may I remind you, is more "popular" than either Rubio or Cruz... actual living people running for the presidency of the United States. --Potguru (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:INUNIVERSE; he is not notable outside of this context. Jeff the Diseased Lung may have a life of his own, too, but he does not has his own article despite this. This parody character, may I remind you, exists solely within this episode, and not only does he never actually appear in the segment (he is only alluded to), but there are simply not enough references outside of this segment to make the character notable. epicgenius (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am going to merge these articles anyway, because the Drumpf article is basically a copy of what this article says, almost word-for-word(maybe except for the lead, which is paraphrased). Even the sources are pilfered from here. epicgenius (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Single article for both: The show's importance hinges a lot on the character. The character was created by the show.  The two concepts are so closely linked, and there isn't a great deal to be written about either, so they should be merged.  p  b  p  15:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Please contribute to Articles for deletion/Donald J Drumpf. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now (on this page) until the discussion at Articles for deletion/Donald J Drumpf is concluded. There is discussion about a potential merge occurring there. It's dysfunctional to have two very similar discussions occurring simultaneously. North America1000 19:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The content at Donald J Drumpf needs to be merged/redirected to this article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Wait Let's let the discussion at the other article play out. It has more editors contributing to the discussion anyway. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
I propose that the specific episode article Donald_Trump_(Last_Week_Tonight) be merged into Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver. I believe that the content in the Donald_Trump_(Last_Week_Tonight) article can easily be explained in the context of Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver, and the Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Donald_Trump_(Last_Week_Tonight) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Further, while extremely funny, the single episode of the show is not noteworthy on it's own; though I contend the parody character created by the episode is worthy of it's own article. --Potguru (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Keep this article and merge/redirect Donald J Drumpf content here. Let's follow the precedent set by the "Tobacco" episode. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose Why? Because you're not happy that the AfD on the article you created isn't looking like a "keep"? TV episodes can be notable (just check Wikipedia to see how many) and the breadth and scope of this episode is too much for the main article of this TV show. This proposal his hypocritical. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – at least until the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Donald J Drumpf is concluded. There is some discussion there about content being merged from Donald J Drumpf into this article, which would further expand this article. People who have !voted there may not return to the discussion or view this page to learn about this new merge proposal. North America1000 19:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If you want to redirect an episode, merge it to here. But this subject is, apparently, notable enough for its own article. If Drumpf is an actual article (which it shouldn't – it is better off being a redirect), then this should be an article too. epicgenius (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Drumpf episode article is fine as-is. Plenty of TV shows have a separate page for each episode. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Keep the two articles separate. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I want to close this, how do I close this... just say CLOSED, The OPPOSE's Have it! Are we done with this merge request now? thanks! --Potguru (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: File:John Oliver with "Drumpf" trademark paperwork.jpg
This image will be deleted from Commons, but perhaps it can be uploaded at ENWP under fair use? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * where can I upload my work where it can be used and will not be removed for specious claims of copyright fraud? What is ENWP?  (still new) thanks! --Potguru (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, ENWP = English Wikipedia. The screenshot can be uploaded here at English Wikipedia under fair use. See File:DaysGoneBye.jpg for an example of a screenshot hosted locally. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Marking this section as resolved. The image was deleted at Commons and a version has been uploaded locally under fair use. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it takes a real skill to get an image past the haters around here... --Potguru (talk) 03:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed new page
Please consider abandoning this page in favor of a better named page here -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_J._Drumpf_(Last_Week_Tonight) (read it's talk page before editing) thanks --Potguru (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I redirected the article to this one. We do not need another article. We can have a move discussion here, but please do not start a duplicate article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your suggestion but you agree that the name is better and I agree the LAst Week Tonight is needed... so surely you agree this page "Donald Trump (Last Week Tonight)" is incorrectly named based on convention, right? AND I already did all the work to merge the two. --Potguru (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blanked and redirected to avoid any war editing or conflict. ALL the information in the page has been preserved in the new page and much more added from the other article on the same subject.  Thanks for helping us edit it to make it better. --Potguru (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Pages are not abandoned, but can be moved. However, I seriously do not recommend moving this page without discussion first on this talk page about the matter. A bold move while the article is being edited by several editors and without any discussion about the matter is very likely to be perceived as disruptive. North America1000 17:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Blanking and redirecting is perfectly appropriate when an article is poorly named, such as this. But I wanted to be sure to include all the information from both contentious articles in the final merged artciel.  You agree my merged page is an improvement over the two initial single pages, right?  --Potguru (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the last part of your comment directly above. No. This is in part because you haven't provided qualification why your proposed name is an improvement, other than stating that it's a "better named" page, and in part because the discussion at Articles for deletion/Donald J Drumpf could end up being closed as a merge to this article. North America1000 18:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Other than what Northamerica1000 has said, blanking and redirecting is only appropriate when it's a completely different article which already exists (or perhaps in rare instances where the article doesn't exist yet but it's still a completely different article). It's not appropriate to do WP:Cut and paste moves. The appropriate way to handle changes of article names is via page moves. Otherwise you create a mess of the edit history which either requires an admin to fix or requires we keep two pages. If you are unable to move a page because of move protection or because the page you want to move it to already exists with some minor edit history, you still should not do a cut and paste move, instead ask for an admin to do the move for you. Remember both licences we use require attribution so we always need to keep the edit history if the content is preserved and as far as possible, that edit history should be in the article where the content is in. In a few cases, this isn't really possible, e.g. when people inadvertedly create two pages which are edited concurrently because they didn't know the other article existed and both have useful content. If you find this has happened, you should settle on one of them and turn the other one into a redirect ASAP. If you can't agree on which one to use, either chose the oldest or the least contentious. Do not continue to edit both articles. Also as hinted at before, if a page is created but it's later decided we don't need a standalone article on the subject bit there is content which is worthwhile merging into a different article. However editors should never do anything to intentionally create such problems. P.S. If the article subject is related but you feel is sufficiently different and notable to warrant a seperate article then you can keep editing the other article if you really want bearing in mind the possibility the article will be delete or merged in the future of consensus is against you. P.P.S. Just to be clear, if you want to merge two article, you should chose one as the base and merge the content from the other article. You should not create a third article and add the content from the other two in to it. You should choose the "base" article which best fits the direction of the merged article, and not worry too much about the title as that's trivial to fix. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Sufficient rationale has not been provided here to qualify why this would be a better page title, and discussion is already occurring regarding the Donald J Drumpf article at AfD, which includes commentary about a potential merge. Since a deletion discussion about the Donald J Drumpf article is open, its content should not be merged to the proposed new title or any other title. North America1000 18:48, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Archiving this discussion given the closer of other recent, related discussions. Feel free to start a new section if another discussion is appropriate. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Content of show
Was there anything in the broadcast other than the Trump segment which ended with the Drumpf segment? I didn't see the HBO version, just the youtube rebroadcast. As described that's all there was in the broadcast. Just want to clarify that I haven't missed anything. This is why I'm confused https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Last_Week_Tonight_with_John_Oliver_episodes#Season_3_.282016.29, it shows two other segments?? Please advise. --Potguru (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually his episodes address multiple current events, with one (such as the Trump segment) being an extended segment with much greater in-depth coverage and commentary. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Bustle and Us Weekly
Regarding this diff. We don't want to include in this Wikipedia article two sources that are specifically about the Wikipedia article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It is necessary to put such articles on the talk page in that section on "This Wikipedia article was mentioned by...", rather than add them to the page. They are low-quality titles and serve no informative purpose. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Screen capture?
Was the screen capture deleted? Is there another image we could use to illustrate this article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Potguru torpedoed it rather than improve the NFCC rationale. It can probably still be salvaged from the article history. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps potguru is tired of the fact that everytime he does something on the (far superior) other page you "gentlemen" copy it, paraphrase it, and paste it here. You'll need to go make your own screen shot, I'm afraid.  And good luck getting it to stay up... so many haters around here know how to take images down so Good luck with that! --Potguru (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I just looked for it, and it has been deleted. A better NFCC rationale could have saved it, but so it goes. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Update: Marking as resolved since another screenshot has been added to the infobox. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Worth mentioning Wikipedia article?
Regarding this edit. Is it worth noting that a Wikipedia article was created about Drumpf? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, now that that redundancy has been deleted, I think we can mark this as ✅. epicgenius (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The current version of the article does not mention the creation of the Donald Drumpf article, or this article. Is that ok? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this is fine, since the Donald Drumpf article that was mostly a copy of this one will become a redirect to this one soon. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Really?
A page for a short TV segment???--Jack Upland (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, really! Why not? The segment received a lot of media coverage. This isn't much different than a television episode article. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * They're trying to use Wikipedia for political activism, just like they did with the Santorum article. Not saying I agree or disagree with any of these politics, but it's not appropriate for Wikiepdia and clearly done for political posturing. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Unlike a tv episode, this is available on YouTube where in a week it's had 21 million views and climbing. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Youtube views are not sufficient enough to meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements. VoltaireEditor2016 (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The segment has received a lot of media coverage and an AfD discussion re: the forked Wikipedia article (Donald Drumpf) resulted in a merge, not a deletion, so the community has already had a discussion re: this topic's notability. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There was also a deletion discussion about Donald J Trump, and it also resulted in a merge to this article. If multiple independent sources talk about a topic, then it is notable. You are right that only having a video with 20 million views is not enough to make an article, but that is not the case here. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"Name change timing dispute" section
How much of this information is actually appropriate for this article? Keep in mind, this article is about John Oliver's segment specifically. Seems this information may be more appropriate for the Donald Trump or Frederick Trump articles? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 18:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine. Some people believe that Oliver said Drumpf was a recent family name, of course he never did. However, those people can learn the truth of the Drumpf name that was caused by hearing about this episode. --Frmorrison (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too. It appears that Oliver actually brought the fact about the name-changing to light. epicgenius (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * He got it from a biography it appears, but he sure publicized it. Legacypac (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It was already being disputed at the Frederick Trump page.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Kind of a sequel
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Border Wall (HBO), March 20, 2016.

Should the episode be mentioned briefly in this article? epicgenius @ 15:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added some pertinent info to the article. epicgenius @ 23:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, one more thing: The YouTube description says "Donald Drumpf wants to build a wall on the U.S-Mexico border. Is his plan feasible?". Our old friend Drumpf makes another appearance, at least in mentions. epicgenius @ 23:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC) (talk) 23:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Content gaps?
Between the multiple versions of this article and its various discussion, is anyone aware of any specific content gaps for this article? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems like some details were deleted, like those about DeepDrumpf and Drumpfinator. However, the important details seem to have stuck, while the trivial details have not been included. epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Just wondering which ways the article needs to be improved before submitting a request for a copy edit or even nominating for Good article status. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on whether or not this article meets Good article criteria? If someone who has spent more time editing the article's content is interested in nominating the article for Good status, I'd be happy to keep an eye on the review and help out as needed, too. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: I submitted a request for this article to be reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors as a step towards Good article status. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now co-nominating for Good article status with User:epicgenius. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Fix subheading vandalism on mobile view
I don't know how to edit it but on mobile mode, the subheading underneath the title says "Sígueme en Instagram @lumo19ms". Can somebody remove that? Thanks

Banana King (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fixed this. It was vandalism on the related Wikidata item. That subheader on mobile is generated by the description field on Wikidata. clpo13(talk) 18:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Main Page appearance?
Do you think this article has any chance of appearing as Today's featured article on the Main Page? Today's featured article/requests/pending is related. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I posted this comment before realizing you added the article to the list. Please disregard, and thanks for the add. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)