Template talk:Donald Trump series/Archive 2

Donald Trump sexual misconduct affair
The article on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct affair doesn't belong under the election. The affair started, and was publicly well known, years before the election even started, dating back to the 1980s, notably including his first wife accusing him of sexual assault. There is also no evidence at all to suggest that the affair has somehow "ended". One could argue that it is, to some extent, overshadowed by the numerous other crimes and scandals in the last few months, related to collusion with Russia, obstruction of justice, war on the free press, racist/far-right extremist policies targeting Muslims and other minorities, ties to the neo-Nazi Breibart publication, promotion of climate change denial, general chaos and incompetence in the WH, etc. etc., but it hasn't ended, and it belongs more naturally under Trump's personal life (and specifically legal affairs) in this template, than under the election. --Tataral (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those allegations came to light in the last few weeks of the presidential campaign, and they vanished just after the election, so yes they are intimately related to Trump's campaign, in the all-American tradition of digging dirt on every candidate for public office. There is some renewed talk about those stories this week because of the Weinstein scandal, but that doesn't change the facts: only one of these women ever filed a complaint against Trump; that was in 1997 about a 1992 incident, and she was happily doing Trump's makeup on a rally in 2015. Actually, another "Jane Doe" sued anonymously but backed away when people started requesting more than innuendo from her lawyers. The only lasting legacy of this episode will surely be adding a new expression to the English lexicon: "grab'em by the pussy". Ain't politics fun? — JFG talk 22:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Summits
In the section about international trips, I removed the recently-added Three Seas Initiative summit, saying "No notable activity at the Three Seas Initiative summit; US is not a member, Trump was just a guest", which restored with comment "Trump was also just a guest in the Riyadh summit, but it is still listed. And it was very notable." Well, Trump was not "just a guest" in Riyadh: the whole summit was dedicated to relations between the US Middle-Eastern and African countries, and it revolved largely around Trump. He gave a landmark speech to 50+ heads of state, whereas the remarks he gave in Warsaw were not connected to the Three Seas Initiative at all. For those reasons, I don't think this summit should be mentioned. Further opinions welcome. — JFG talk 23:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The three seas summit was also headquartered in Poland, where he spoke to 30 heads of states, or somewhere around there too. That is on top of the other speach he gave in Poland, which wasn't part of 3seas. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I must have missed his speech to 30 heads of state; how can that be when the Three Seas Initiative has only 12 members? Aren't you referring to the 2017 G20 Hamburg summit which took place the next day? — JFG talk 02:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So I guess it was 12 heads of states, notice how I wrote 'somewhere around there'. I brought that up because you brought up that he spoke to many heads of state at the Riyah summit, but didn't mention it about the 3 seas. It's still very notable and important. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Three Seas Initiative is certainly a notable and important event; my angle is rather that Trump's role in there was anecdotal at best. Do you have any sources talking about his remarks at this summit specifically? The only article cited in Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3 points to a dead page in The Economic Times, an Indian newspaper. Surely if that speech was remotely as notable as his other interventions, we would have seen numerous reports in European and US press. The Three Seas article itself only mentions Trump in the context of his planned attendance ; there is nothing about his actual presence or what he said. Unless significant coverage exists, this remains UNDUE for the Trump sidebar, which is meant to be a curated collection of the most significant articles about Trump among hundreds. — JFG talk 04:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my memory it was on the whitehouse's youtube channel and he tweeted a lot about it. It was also pretty interesting because his wife- Melina, the first lady's country was represented in the summit. Just googling the event comes up with a lot of news sources like the times , reuters  ,   , a state department tweet . I think he also made a pretty big announcement about supplying oil in the regions. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links; most are transcripts or other primary sources, we need secondary sources reporting on the event to show significance. Trump's remarks at Three Seas are a minor speech with regard to his presidency so far. He made an outdoor speech in Warsaw that attracted some significant coverage but that one was totally unrelated to the Three Seas Initiative. Trump's name is barely mentioned in the Three Seas article. For all those reasons I would still remove this event from the sidebar (we have 800 articles about Trump, must be selective). His wife's name is spelled Melania btw. — JFG talk 17:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes thank you for that, it is *Melania. Here are some secondary sources reporting it too, which I was actually able to find many just by simply googling it. This one is more international   and imagine all the one's that are written in other languages by all the countries in the regions, then we have our traditional msm of course , I feel overall this is a very noteworthy add-on. Let's see what other editors think. AlaskanNativeRU (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment -- the linked article, Three Seas Initiative, has this to say about Trump's role: "The initiative's second summit was held 6–7 July 2017 in Warsaw. US President Donald Trump attended the summit." The inclusion of this article is undue in this template, and I suggest it be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Which other sections should be hidden?
There has been some recent back-and-forth reshuffling sections and hiding or showing their contents by default. The Trump Organization section has always been hidden, and there is an ongoing discussion to suppress it entirely. The Books section was hidden when it grew rather large because all of Trump's books were included. The Russia section was hidden per RfC outcome. The election section was hidden because its contents are now less timely than the rest. Which of the remaining "visible" sections should be hidden and why? — JFG talk 23:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not hide anything else: keep "Presidency", "Appointments", "Policy positions", "International trips" and "Business and personal" as they are. — JFG talk 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hide international trips. Neutralitytalk 04:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to hiding/grouping the "international trips" section? If not, I'll make this change in 5 days' time. Neutralitytalk 23:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support hiding international trips. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Picture consensus
We have long-standing consensus to use a different picture here than on the main Trump bio. In my opinion, the recent release of an official White House portrait does not invalidate this consensus, so that I have reverted to the Skidmore portrait for now. What do my fellow editors think: should we keep the long-standing picture or switch to the White House portrait? — JFG talk 23:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think we need to update the image whether it be the official presidential portrait or a 2017 HQ photo of him. I'm not a fan of the current image. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest   06:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I might favor using the image that was atop the main BLP until last week. It shows him as president, whereas the pic we’re using here now is older.  But I think we need a gallery of options here.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

These are the main portraits of Trump that I found on Wikimedia Commons:

Which one do you prefer?

Personally, I prefer B, but if we want use a different portrait for this template, I will vote C. -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC) B is arguably the best choice, best picture quality of all of them. I also suggest this matter be closed and a decision made if no one has an objection. 2A02:2F0B:B0FF:FFFF:0:0:BC19:5099 (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer B, with C as my second option. The others are just poor quality or are not facing the camera directly. Corky Buzz by the Hornet's Nest   18:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * B, by a country mile.- MrX 18:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose B to keep a contrast with the main Trump bio. If we do want a more recent picture than A, I'd pick F, otherwise status quo is fine. — JFG talk 16:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support B The other former presidents Carter and onwards have the official portrait. For consistency, I think it should be changed. Billybob2002 (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Racial views
I would like to get thoughts about where best to place the link to Racial views. Currently it's under Presidency, but it may make more sense to put it under Policy positions or Business and personal. What do others think?- MrX 13:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * under business and personal; it's his personal statements that are being discussed in the article, unrelated to presidency or policy positions. (That's how I did in Template:Donald_Trump too) Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree for the "Business and personal" section. — JFG talk 08:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hiding the "Business and personal" section
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. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 15:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Hiding sections, but allowing default expansion on certain pages
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? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/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 - gives (under the expanded 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! - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/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: International trips, Presidential election, or 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? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/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? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 03:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

2000 presidential campaign
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. ✅ (until WP:BRD happens I guess). - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Sovietmessiah (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
 * Agree to this change? — JFG talk 18:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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". ? — 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)

✅ — 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)

Articles related to impeachment efforts and Ukraine controversy
With this edit I attempted to bring some order and brevity to the string of articles currently covering the House impeachment inquiry and the Ukraine/Biden controversy which triggered it. reverted with an invitation to discuss.


 * Prior version
 * Impeachment
 * Efforts to impeach
 * Impeachment inquiry
 * Trump–Ukraine controversy
 * Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman
 * Proposed version
 * Efforts to impeach
 * House inquiry
 * Ukraine controversy
 * Parnas and Fruman

First, we don't need to repeat "Trump" in the anchor text for linked articles: this is the sidebar about Donald Trump, and by definition all articles are about him. This is why I shortened "Trump–Ukraine controversy" to just "Ukraine controversy", just as we have "Classified information disclosure" for "Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information", or "Golf" for "Donald Trump and golf". Second, we do not need a separate "Impeachment" entry that leads nowhere, flatly followed by "Efforts to impeach" and "Impeachment inquiry"; the impeachment inquiry fits logically as part of various efforts to impeach the President. When that line is made a subtopic, we don't need to repeat "impeachment" there, but we can specify that it's an inquiry by the United States House of Representatives, in short a "House inquiry". Finally, Parnas and Fruman are a subtopic of the Ukraine controversy, and we don't need their first names, just like we omit first names for the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh entries. — JFG talk 23:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously I disagree with this approach. I firmly believe that nav boxes should have links that are as close as possible to the target article title. If any are to be shortened, they should be done in a non-controversial way. If an article title contains Trumps full name, I think we can usually leave that off, since the title of the nav box is "Donald Trump series". Changing Impeachment query to House Query is unacceptably confusing and non-NPOV. The same applies to "Trump–Ukraine controversy"→"Ukraine controversy". Each of these changes only shortens the links by a few characters. I'm also not fond of placing the impeachment inquiry under efforts to impeach. I don't really care what we do with "Parnas and Fruman", and question whether that link should even be in this nav box. - MrX 🖋 19:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with JFG here and reverted to that version. When I was looking through the navbox on Trump's BLP, it was very confusing to see "Impeachment" written there with no links. Having that in there is putting the cart before the horse. Mr Ernie (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You must have been looking at the wrong nav box because there was no ""Impeachment" written there with no links". The links were as follows: "Impeachment inquiry", "Trump–Ukraine controversy", "Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman". Now we have "House inquiry" which is inaccurate, misleading, and violates MOS:EGG. Then we have Ukraine controversy, but there is no "Ukraine controversy"; it's actually Trump's controversy (or scandal) involving Ukraine. These links are deceptive and I'm left wondering if that's not the intent. - MrX 🖋 09:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , look at the status before I reverted - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Donald_Trump_series&oldid=921279951. It's written directly there Polls Protests Impeachment Efforts to Impeach. Each of those but Impeachment was linked to another page. There is no impeachment of Donald Trump yet so we shouldn't have that section in his nav box. I'm having trouble understanding how you can't see Impeachment with no links, because you are the one that put it like that - diff. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I see. You object to *Impeachment. I agree, that doesn't belong, but the other links should not have been changed back to JFG mystery links.- MrX 🖋 21:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposal=preposterous - Save a word or two and our users would have no idea what's linked. "Ukraine controversy"? Really? It's about Ukraine? Or you could channel Bolton, "Giuliani/Trump drug deal".  SPECIFICO talk 13:50, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Just drop Lev and Igor - not directly Trump, it’s a 3-day old article two degrees of separation from him or impeachment. (They’re associates of an associate.).  It would be good to have four or three items here - making it shorter in number of items would be good as the template is already deserving its own ‘too long’ tag.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Impeachment inquiry and Trump–Ukraine controversy as accurate links, omit Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman as tangential.  starship .paint  (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, House inquiry is too eggy if taken in isolation; we're not linking to an article about House inquiries in general. But it isn't in isolation; rather it is subordinate to Efforts to impeach. If we can't use that subordination feature to establish context that is inherited by the subordinate, what good is it? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump as being a legitimate subtopic of Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, the later of which is a loose collection of half-hearted efforts to discredit Trump which plays into the conspiracy theory that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump even before he was elected. It diminishes the graveness of the current impeachment effort. The idea that we have to substitute "House" for "Impeachment" to save precious space (?!) is ludicrous. Since we removed Lev and Igor, that is no longer a concern anyway. - MrX 🖋 18:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry MrX, it's ludicrous to separate the recent impeachment inquiry from all other efforts to impeach Trump. Certainly I agree that this one is serious, but so were accusations of treason over Russia, obstruction of justice, child separation cruelty, foreign emoluments clause, and probably other stuff that I forgot. Less serious, and actually defeated in a House vote, were efforts to impeach him over "associating the majesty and dignity of the presidency with causes rooted in white supremacy, bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, white nationalism, or neo-Nazism". Whichever level of seriousness, an impeachment inquiry is by definition an effort to impeach, so it belongs as a subtopic. I'm fine with the other changes, although I still believe that repeating "Trump" is unnecessary, I won't die on that hill. — JFG talk 00:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your view about whether one topic is a subtopic of another is noted, but I would like to hear from others as well.- MrX 🖋 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, your assertion that early efforts to impeach Trump are a "conspiracy theory" is patently false: our own article on such efforts states in the lead section: Immediately after his inauguration, The Independent and The Washington Post each reported on efforts already underway to impeach Trump I don't believe that the WaPo spins unsubstantiated "conspiracy theories" around. See also Protests against Donald Trump. — JFG talk 00:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not what I wrote . I wrote that it  plays into the conspiracy theory that Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump even before he was elected.- MrX 🖋 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ludicrous, meet risible. It's risible to think that anyone could claim in good faith that the current impeachment inquiry is equivalent to the various pink-hat-marches, yellow blimp demonstrations, and empty calls to "impeach Trump". MrX seems to have a well-informed and balanced view of the issues in this matter.  SPECIFICO talk 18:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And yes, please show Lev and Igor the inside of a trash can. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have removed our friends Lev and Igor. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe your friends.
 * If there is a trial in the US Senate, would we just call it "trial", or "Senate trial", or "impeachment trial"?  X1\ (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. — JFG talk 00:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That would be part of the impeachment process, so I'd file it under the "Efforts to impeach" group as "Senate trial" or just "trial" (in which case the impeachment inquiry would become just "inquiry"). — JFG talk 00:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I intend to restore Lev and Igor as highly relevant to this series and the impeachment inquiry. They are directly related to the Trump-Ukraine fiasco. This does not belong in the trash can nor are they irrelevant. These two as a team, are directly connected to Guiliani, directly connected to the ouster of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, which Trump wanted to happen, as well as making political donations with money funneled from a foreign government or foreign governments. ---18:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC) ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the money was used to influence Sessions, who wrote a letter to Pompeo, advocating the ouster of Yovanovitch. ---Steve Quinn(talk) 18:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sessions was Chariman of the influential House Rules Committee at the time. So Parnas and Frugman did manage to weild some influence.---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Trump-Ukraine controversy or scandal is at the center of the impeachment inquiry. Parnas and Frugman are one of the catalysts behind that. Trying to understate the importance the Trump-Ukraine fiasco by stating Parnas and Frugman are only part of that is inaccurate.
 * Moving on - I don't care if Trump-Ukraine controversy is shortened to "Ukraine controversy" on this template, but "House inquiry" is inaccurate and EGGy. "Impeachment inquiry" is accurate enough for this template's purposes. Also, shorten to Parnas and Frugman rather than full names for this template. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The idea of having an unlinked subtitle "Impeachment" is meant to be merely a title serving as an organizing principle for relevant topics which fall underneath: "Efforts to impeach", "Impeachment inquiry", "Trump–Ukraine controversy", "Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman". It appears that a certain editor is offended by this.
 * However, this follows the organization of other topics under the titles "Trips", "Summits" and "Shutdowns" - as shown here . The "Impeachment" title is meant to be as innocuous as those. Also, removing "Impeachment" as an item to help organize the template is not going to suppress the fact that this portion of the template is all about the conversation of impeachment - which has been prevalent  in the media for a little while. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, I was the one who wrote in that unlinked subtitle because the template seemed confusing without it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, I am caught up on the salient points of this discussion. And an aside, hopefully this link helps to clarify Parnas and Fruman's relevance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to putting Lev & Igor back in, and I would like to see a section titled "Impeachment" to organize the four articles. Something like this:


 * - MrX 🖋 21:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this version of the template is really good. Thanks for doing this. I support using this version.---Steve Quinn (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Very nice. It has the linked terms our users will be expecting and will use to access further information. This greatly supports the trimming of excess detail -- wrestling, recognition, and real estate from the biography article.  SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that MrX's version looks good. Neutralitytalk 23:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't support the way Impeachment is structured. Trump hasn't been impeached and it is improper to write it that way, which could imply he's been impeached. Use Bill Clinton's as a guide - he was impeached and the navbox handles it appropriately. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There's no implication of "Impeachment" with that title. All it means is the topic is "Impeachment", not that he has been impeached. Check out the media - when discussing this or covering this, the topic is "Impeachment". With that title the public knows what we are talking about. And this seems to be a completely different set of circumstances when comparing to Bill Clinton. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I am guessing that Bill Clinton's template is the way it is, because Clinton's impeachment could be a minor blip on the radar, when considering the whole body of events and accomplishments that are chronicled in his biography and his eight years as President. Whereas right now, during this period, the impeachment conversation looms large and is in our face. Five or ten years from now that may or may not be so. Steve Quinn (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with . I'll add that using Bill Clinton's bio as an prototype for Donald Trump's bio is not advisable for many reasons. 'Impeachment' is suitable as a section heading for the sidebar, especially given that that is the likely and logical outcome of the current inquiry. If I've missed a source that suggests otherwise, (anyone) please point me to it.- MrX 🖋 18:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: this recently-implemented structure makes sense to me: . However, I don't think that Parnas/Furman should be included. At this point, they are just some of the individuals that the impeachment inquiry wants to talk to. Sondland etc. are much more central to the inquiry (not that we should include him either). PS: there's no "Biden/Ukraine controversy", so the name of the section raises BLP concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * About the subsection title - I totally missed that. I wonder if someone changed it during the discussion? Oh well. In any case, I altered the title be BLP compliant. I left out you know who in the title because I don't want to cause a stir. It's just a talk page discussion afterall. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversies involving Russia timeline
I believe that we should remove the following links and consolidate them into one new link (Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia) per Presidency timeline: Also, Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is linked twice in this section. --Wow (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Timeline of post-election transition following Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
 * Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2017)
 * Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (July–December 2017)
 * Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (January–June 2018)
 * Timeline of investigations into Trump and Russia (2019–2020)


 * OK, I retract my objection with a couple of comments. I think the timeline articles should be re-combined into a single article and the minor events should be culled. That will never happen, so how about we move these links to template:Presidency of Donald Trump and keep the one index link in this navbox as suggested? - MrX 🖋 20:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. I was just coming over to see why there were so many links to timelines as well. PackMecEng (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Split template
This sidebar has become overrun with articles and information to the point that it only serves to confuse and complicate the subject. There are now three sections of the sidebar that are completely hidden. When they are uncollapsed, the sidebar is longer than the infobox itself. A split sidebar about the presidency of Trump, and nothing else, would solve this problem. Articles like Trump tariffs and Executive appointments by Donald Trump would be better served with a sidebar specific to the presidency. While articles like Donald Trump and golf and Donald Trump filmography would probably be better served with the standard Trump sidebar. TrailBlzr (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I might support this if we unhid the links that are currently hidden, because that approach is antithetical to making navigation easier. I would like to see a mock up first, and also a plan for which templates would be used on which articles. - MrX 🖋 13:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing option doesn't work
The option to collapse this template, using the code in the documentation of, does not appear to be functioning. See Media career of Donald Trump, where I tried it. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 04:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Veracity/Social Media to Presidency
I moved these two topics from "Business/Personal" to Presidency. The two articles in question are predominantly about his presidency, as indeed the topics are major aspects of his presidency. Bdushaw (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic item
Presently in the template the item "COVID-19 pandemic" links to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Would not the more appropriate link be to U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic being more closely aligned to Trump's presidency? There is also Trump administration communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Bdushaw (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I noted recent edits in the history concerning my comment here. I've proceeded to make the change in the link to this more appropriate link. Bdushaw (talk) 07:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020
I think you should add to the portal the Bahrain Israel agreement.. You mention so many irrelevant stuff about him it seems appropriate to add this accomplishment even though you don't support him. 84.109.179.138 (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It is already included as part of the Abraham Accords. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Autocollapse another section
This template is getting quite long now (in the y-axis) - on my screen, it extends on average 800px - well beyond what can fit on one screen at a given time, even with autocollapsing of the last 3 sections. I think it's time to consider autocollapsing even more of the categories - possibly the policies one, as it is one of the largest. 2607:9880:1A38:138:B932:79DB:E08C:9638 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion
Which links do you think should be kept that I removed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Signature change
In recent days you went back and forth between two versions of Trump's signature. What is the rationale for replacing the longstanding version with a "newer signature"? (which to me looks worse than the "old" one). In particular, Randy, why did you state you were "replacing what may not be a real signature"? Have I perhaps missed a discussion of this change on another page? — JFG talk 22:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I replaced the old one because:

1. The new one is more recent, see its source's date and compare it to the old one. 2. The old one might not even be his real signature (it has no verified source), whereas the new signature is traced directly from his website.

-- Politicsfan4 (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * here is a discussion about changing the signature on Trump's main page; the consensus was to update it, so I did the same for here. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. That recent discussion refers to another discussion from 2016 which was already comparing the same two "old and new" signature executions, and concluded to keep the "old" one because it was more readable. As this picture tends to appear on the previews of many articles due to being the first image there, I believe we should keep the more legible "old" version in the sidebar for now, and conduct an RfC to decide which one should be kept long-term. — JFG talk 00:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from the recent discussion, which gave the topic a good going-over and went with the present signature, this actually seems an easy choice. The first signature may have a good provenance because it comes from an autograph store, which ought to be pretty up on those things. But we don't know. The link to the source is dead. On the other hand, the present signature is an official signature from the Trump Chicago hotel. It also better represents Trump's signature when he's got his attention on it, which is familiar to many Americans who paid attention to Trump's bill signing ceremonies, which he usually ended by holding up the bill showing his prominent signature. His signatures on those bills were probably usually smooth with even lettering measured along the top and bottom. The autograph store signature with the dead link looks like it was from a "Mr. Trump, would you please sign my book" brief stop-and-chat. The lettering is all over the place, very uneven and choppy. It looks like a quick signature for someone asking, and not one at its normal professional level focus. Put a ruler, or a piece of paper, along the top and bottom to see the difference between the two signatures. So, because it has more provenance and is representative of professional level quality, I'd go with keeping it on the template and page, where it's been for awhile with no complaints, as you go ahead with an RfC if that's what you'd like to do. As for signatures, I just came across Hugh Grant's a couple weeks ago. Worth sharing. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your detailed comments. First version still looks more palatable to me, but that's not a hill I would die on. Hugh Grant, oh my! — JFG talk 02:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Post-presidency
Shouldn't this have a section on President Trump's post-presidency? I understand he's only been out of office for a few months now, but already there are articles on his post-presidential plans and ventures, such as his presidential library, his attempted social media site From the desk of Donald Trump and social media lawsuits. This isn't even going into his continued claims of fraud, or the so-called big lie which has continued into his post-presidential year. 148.252.128.103 (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of signature
The template is long as it is, and the signature adds quite a bit of extra length for little benefit to the reader. This leads to other content, such as images, to be pushed down quite far (on desktop). Additionally, the signature is hardly legible on dark mode.

Hence, I would propose the signature to be removed from the template. Hypnôs (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)