Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 164

Archive 160

←

Archive 162

Archive 163

Archive 164

Archive 165

Archive 166

→

Archive 170

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

"He was the first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." Should be changed to first President with no government experience." Biden didn't serve in the military. Obama didn't serve in the military. John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Grover Cleveland, Taft, Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, FDR, and Clinton are more that never served in the military.

The people that served as president with no prior election process are:Taylor, Grant, Hoover, Eisenhower and Trump. You put this as 2 things combined. But I don't read on Obama or Biden's page that they're people elected president while serving in an election process but never serving in the military.

Your language makes these things false on this page. And then if you look at Hoover, he was never in government experience or military. What is your constitution on what you clarify as government experience? Is it a pointed position or an elected position? Does law enforcement count as a government experience? What constitutes government experience in your decisions? Southworthaj (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It says he did not have either and is the first president to have neither. But for clarity change it to "military and government experience."? Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No, because Obama and Biden didn't have "military AND government experience", just government, Eisenhower and Grant didn't have "military AND government experience", just military. I don't think there's a clearer way to write it other than Trump had no prior military or government experience. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, Herbert Hoover was Secretary of Commerce, which is government experience though not an elected office, which is not the criteria stated. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The point is that every president had one or the other. There is no need to provide any further clarification in the text, as it is plain as day for the average reader to grasp what is being said. Zaathras (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"Do you want a burger or fries?" "Yes."

If it needs to be changed, use neither. Cessaune [talk] 16:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree it's at least ambiguous as written, if not misleading. Use "neither/nor" and remove the unnecessary "prior". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"without prior military or government experience" — he was only without government experience, fwiw, until noon, January 20, 2017. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the sentence should be changed. It should specify that we are only referring to Trump's first term. "Upon being sworn in for his first term, he became the first U.S. president with no prior military or government experience." TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

That's an even sillier distinction to make, as Trump is only a one-term president. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right. Emphasis on the word 'is.' TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

The emphasis is on "first". There may be other U.S. presidents without prior military or government experience in the future, but he'll always have the distinction of having been the first one — no specifying necessary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but I was thinking more along the lines of how U.S. custom is to count the number of presidents by successive terms served, which is why Cleveland gets counted as 22 and 24. So if Trump wins another term, which appears likely, he'd be 47. Technically, he'd be a different president as far as succession goes. He's already got the government experience in a potential second term. But obviously, this is purely an hypothetical, at least until January 20, 2025. TheCelebrinator (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The current write up suffices. Best not to try & fix something, that's not broken. GoodDay (talk) 07:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Noting the related "body language": Trump also became the only president who neither served in the military nor held any government office prior to becoming president. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I just fixed that. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 18:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the use of neither/nor, which some are saying is unnecessary in the lead. If it's the best wording in one place, it should be the best in the other. We use the same English language throughout the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the simpler language in the lead, don't really see how "first president with no prior military or government experience" can be misunderstood" (prefer "without prior ..." but meh). We need neither "either/or" nor "neither/nor". Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Add topics in page summary on top

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As president in foreign policy, he... - He renegotiated NAFTA into USMCA - He generally isolated allies and became friendlier with enemies (eg. Putin, Kim) - He ordered a strike on Qasim in Iran which caused a major diplomatic crisis and almost WW3

Also thoughts on changing his pfp to mugshot? Represents his current state with his legal troubles. 137.122.64.205 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

NO. Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I`ve said it all along...if it were you or me it would already be in Anonymous8206 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Transclude lead of presidency article?

I second the legitimate questions from Slatersteven: "Could we not move much of the stuff about his presidency into his presidency article? Why do we need so much detail, when we have an article for it?"

Bingo! The Presidency section should be no longer than the lead at that article. In fact, our section should use that lead by transclusion. Doing it that way means that when the lead there is updated, the mention here will always be up-to-date. Can we just agree to do that and end more repetitions of this tiresome and usually fruitless discussion? People constantly commit a deadly sin by adding stuff to that section here that is not first added there. Using transclusion and a hidden note will end that practice. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that such a remedy -- like the several we've previously tried -- is going to quell the onging intermittent requests to shorten the page. SPECIFICO talk 20:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

It would certainly help and make this article MUCH smaller. What's the code for transcluding a lead? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure we have any experience with such transclusion that would make us confident that it would net help. If we're to consider that, I think we'd best proceed to discuss that option separately. SPECIFICO talk 23:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, this is now it's own section. Look at the article during the test to see what it looked like. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump's presidency is an important part of the topic and therefore needs more detail than would be in the lead for an article about his presidency. TFD (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with TFD on this, and I note that some of his actions as president are inseparable from his personal interests and instincts. SPECIFICO talk 00:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and exactly those things can be kept, but all the other detail does not belong in this article. We need to follow summary style. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Testing of transclusion of the lead showed a size reduction of −223,910‎ bytes. Look at the article in that diff to see what it looks like. (I have already reverted the test.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought the point was to limit the prosesize, not the bytesize. Cessaune [talk] 01:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

They are pretty closely related. One cannot reduce one without reducing the other. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Difficult tight rope to walk. If we cut down his 'presidency' section? we're cutting down the events of his administration. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The "tightrope" is a matter of staying on-topic and following summary style. This is totally standard practice and encouraged by our guidelines for exactly this type of situation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The real "tightrope" is that there are no citations, appropriately so, per WP:LEADCITE, in the source article's lead and there need to be citations in the body, and transcluding a lead to the body, using the excerpt template, or any other transclusion-producing markup doesn't circumvent that. —Alalch E. 02:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You may not realize this, but there was a consensus here to completely eliminate all refs from the lead in this article, as they are in the body. The transcluded lead also has no refs, so the editors there apparently had a consensus to do the same in that article. (I suspect the editors are pretty much the same for both articles.) Refs are still in the body there. I wouldn't be surprised if it was possible to transclude the refs section from that article. (On second thought, that would probably only work if they were using list defined references.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

When citations are removed from a lead, for that lead to be transcluded into the body of another article, the citations need to be brought back. —Alalch E. 02:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nearly impossible to do. An option would be to add a note to go to the article to find the refs in the body. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's impossible to do, it's impossible to transclude. See Wikipedia:Summary style#Technique: Each article on Wikipedia must be able to stand alone as a self-contained unit (exceptions noted herein). For example, every article must follow the verifiability policy, which requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable, published source in the form of an inline citation. This applies whether in a parent article or in a summary-style subarticle. See H:TRANSDRAWBACKS: Transcluded text may have no sources for statements that should be sourced where they appear, contain no-text cite errors or have different established reference styles. It's a drawback that must a be overcome. It is overcome by adding the citations. If the citations can't be added, the drawback can not be overcome. Further, the idea to effectively cite a Wikipedia article in another Wikipedia article via such a note is prohibited under WP:UGC; Wikipedia is user-generated content and it would also be self referencing.—Alalch E. 02:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It looks like a straight transclusion won't work in this case. If a lead had all its full citations contained in the lead, then it would work, but that is not the case here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Valjean, I am not aware of any such consensus. In fact, consensus item #58 states: Use inline citations in the lead for the more contentious and controversial statements. Editors should further discuss which sentences would benefit from having inline citations. Cessaune [talk] 03:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we recognized there are exceptions. Content that is constantly challenged needs to have inline citations. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:30, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Article tag "very long"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Well, here we go again: tag added here, reverted by me here, readded here with the editsum "if it's too long, it's too long". Now it's 45 bytes longer and saddled with a tag suggesting we consider splitting content into sub-articles, condensing it, or adding subheadings. As if the contents of the article weren't already condensed to summary-level per consensus #37, and we didn't already have a hundred or more sub-articles and almost a hundred subheadings. (How would adding subheadings reduce the readable prose?) This was the last lengthy discussion in August/September last year. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

• Remove tag. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove tag. Indeed. We are aware, and just stating the fact that this is one of the articles on the "long" end of the spectrum is just stating the "nature of the beast". There will always be a longest and shortest article, and this is one of the longest. The very guideline about this is being questioned and altered, so this serves no purpose. Changing the guideline may be the real solution as Wikipedia "IS NOT PAPER!!!" -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove tag The tag is designed to attract users with knives. We need users with forks and spoons as well. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove tag Is it a long article? Yes. Is it unnavigable? Not at all. Several sub-articles already exist and I'd like to know where they suggest others should be had. Also, it's not Wiki's fault he keeps doing stuff that should be added! Lindsey40186 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. As this has been a recurring issue, I think a consensus item should be added if there is a consensus to omit the tag. While consensus can change, at least we could limit new discussions to those that present new arguments or claim a significant change in the situation. (A change in the editor mix, alone, is a terrible reason to revisit a consensus, as it means consensus can swing back and forth with the wind.) And one would have to get prior consensus before adding the tag again (hence "prior":).
  Otherwise no opinion on the tag. I stand by my longstanding position that the article needs dramatic reduction in the areas post-2014. While this would address any size concerns, the main argument is about article and cross-article structure. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - This might be the first include/exclude 'too long tag' discussion, I've ever been to. Anyways, including the tag only makes the page longer. But yes, we do need an established consensus concerning such a tag. Particularly, as this BLP will likely get longer during this year. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
• Remove tag it is an anachronism that doesn't belong on any article, this isn't 1995 with aol and dialup. ValarianB (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion (III)

Could we not move much of the stuff about his presidency into his presidency article? Why do we need so much detail, when we have an article for it? Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean the presidency article with the "very long" tag at the top and 23,000 words of readable prose? Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: How about actually making some effort to fix the issue instead of moaning about those who add the tag? Everyone agrees it's too long, the guidelines at MOS:ARTICLELENGTH say so too, and the tag is entirely justified. Perhaps having it there will give the issue a sense of urgency apparently lacking in the most recent discussion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

What is the urgency? WP:HASTE: Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 13:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, like anything else on the project, it's not urgent and care can be taken. But then again, there's no urgency in removing the tag. You presumably don't like it because you think it ruins the article for readers, having that tag at the top. But then that could be said about any maintenance tag, and personally I think the length issue also ruins the article for readers, given that it's pretty much impossible to read the thing from start to finish as it stands or even to distil out the most pertinent points. From the last discussion that you link above, I see a definite will to do something but some clear and concrete proposals need to start being dussused. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Tag as a prod to get recalcitrant local editors to get a move on? It's an unhelpful tag. As for impossible to read the thing from start to finish as it stands or even to distil out the most pertinent points — we have a table of contents and 89 subheadings so people don't have to. We can't help it if Trump's life reads like the Story of Grandfather's Old Ram. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The prompt un-tagging is needed because we have learned in the past that such notices attract well-meaning but less-informed editors who cut things that are only restored after lengthy talk page discussions or who prioritize such cuts above NPOV content. WP is gloriously well-linked and indexed and it's not clear to me that "length" is even a meaningful term here. I doubt that our readers arrive here wishing to read from start to finish and then recoil from the "length" of a digitized, hyperlinked, page. That having been said, I'm interested to hear any suggestions you have for specific content reduction or other ways to improve the page. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Well somebody (with the know how) will soon need to create new Trump-related pages & move info to them. Because this BLP is only going to get longer, throughout the 2024 campaign. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Quoting from a long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article size: The important criteria for articles is that they have clear scope, are clearly organized, stay on topic, have a moderately clear narrative flow (esp. within sections), put the most important information nearer the top, are well illustrated especially near the top, link obviously to relevant nearby/overlapping topics, etc. What byte/word count an article has is nowhere near as important, and does not in my opinion meaningfully help readers except insofar as it focuses attention on one of these more important primary goals. To the extent that bikeshedding about byte counts distracts from those criteria, it is actively harmful. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 12:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Time to call a spade a spade and identify Trump as what he is: a Cult Leader

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The evidence for this descriptor is overwhelming. Here is just a small selection of the sources: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/13/20992370/trump-republican-party-cult-steven-hassan https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Cult-of-Trump/Steven-Hassan/9781982127343 https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/16/history-shows-trump-personality-cult-end-00024941https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/04/16/history-shows-trump-personality-cult-end-00024941 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/01/12/media-trump-cult/ https://www.aaiusa.org/library/focus-on-the-trump-cult https://news.yahoo.com/maga-slammed-cult-poll-reveals-164714685.html https://www.newsweek.com/republican-party-replaced-cult-donald-trump-christine-todd-whitman-warns-1849063 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4192325-the-cult-of-donald-trump/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2023/08/28/former-rep-joe-walsh-donald-trump-is-a-cult-leader-and-the-gop-is-a-cult/?sh=15f3063559e7 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4192325-the-cult-of-donald-trump/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/08/trumpism-maga-cult-republican-voters-indoctrination/675173/

Please update the article forthwith with this information. 67.82.74.5 (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide one source that is not an Opp-eed or book review that says he is a cult leader, just one? Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

When you remove the opinion articles, you have nothing. Until reliable sources start using the term, we cannot. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the IP has been blocked for one month. GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can I be given permission to edit?

I noticed that this page is protected, due to vandalism being common. But I pledge to you, that I will not vandalize the page. SmashingThreePlates (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

You can always ask us to make the edit. Or you can ask to have page protection reduced. But what you can't do is ask for it to be reduced just for you. Slatersteven (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

The true reason being there are a handful of people editing this article...and they will make sure it stays that way Anonymous8206 (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Nonsense. The only editors being excluded are unregistered users and registered users below 30 days and 500 edits. And the protection was put in place by an admin, not by a handful of people editing this article. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

This page is protected? GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

OP meant the article page, which is under extended confirmed protection and has been for years. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:30, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Which will never change Anonymous8206 (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Lead-to-body links?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It was brought up in the above discussion. If we were going to do such a thing, I would advocate for this or this, not this.^§ Cessaune [talk] 04:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Admire your initiative. Perhaps you mean initiated a trade war with China or initiated a trade war with China (for example)? As per my comments above, I'm not sure the elimination of the squiggly will make this much more palatable to the opposers we encountered the last time around. But count me in. I'd probably favor the blue to better identify it as clickable; and it wouldn't surprise me if that's recommended in WCAG or something. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

(It just occurred to me (I'm a little slow) that the squiggly is analogous in appearance to an inline citation, while your dotted underscore is more analogous in appearance to a wikilink. The behavior of this section linking would be nothing like that of a citation; so the dotted underscore is the obvious better choice from a design standpoint.) ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Only my take but I'd oppose because it's a half-measure. If you're already section-linking, you might as well just wikilink and not to mention, for only one part of the article? It sounds too convoluted. TheCelebrinator (talk) 12:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

you might as well just wikilink Yeah, except for that pesky reader steering issue, which is why Cessaune brought this up in the first place. S/he was looking for a solution that most editors could accept, which is what editors are supposed to do. for only one part of the article? I don't know what that means. We're talking about using this in place of most lead links (it won't work for president of the United States, for example). It sounds too convoluted. Not so much. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The only person to have brought up in this discussion the alleged "issue" of reader steering is you. You're also the only person to admit that you're unable to compromise on adding any more wikilinks, that you're a hard "no." So much for looking for a solution that everybody agrees to...

Now, as to the actual proposal, again, I've never seen it done elsewhere. If I have, it might have been once or twice, if ever. I don't think this article should stand out as the odd apple. It's basically a more-neutered wikilink. TheCelebrinator (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The only person to have brought up in this discussion the alleged "issue" of reader steering is you. Space4T is free to correct me, but I think reader steering is part of what he was getting at with: The lead is supposed to summarize the body: let's keep the links in the body. I'm just the guy who gave it a name for the sake of efficient communication. Anyway, both Cessaune and Space4T are at least tentatively on board with this per their comments here, and for Cessaune, per his/her initiative to start this here discussion. Why would they be tentatively on board if they don't sort of see my point about reader steering? The way I see it, you're currently the minority of 1 on this, not I. I've never seen it done elsewhere. If I have, it might have been once or twice, if ever. It's never been done. I thought we had established that. With five months and 1,116 edits, I wouldn't expect you to have seen it if it had been done. Have you been editing for years as an IP? I kinda doubt it, since you didn't know what to call a wikilink when you arrived at this article. (If you're talking about years of experience as a reader, just disregard those last few sentences.) It's basically a more-neutered wikilink. No idea what that means, either. Neutered?

Tell ya what, I've been patient with you for days, trying to help you along. I did it because you had a decent attitude and seemed to be attempting to participate constructively (and in the Christmas spirit). Most editors wouldn't have made such an effort with you. But it's looking more and more like you need more editing experience before you can contribute usefully to discussions like this one. You still don't seem to get the reader steering concept, but you're capable of criticizing me for being the only editor to use those words. So I'm resigning from that effort, and your Oppose in this discussion is noted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure. You do you, mon cher. I can tell your efforts to "educate" me have been most taxing on your mental health and general disposition, maybe that's why the responses kept getting more and more desperate and pretentious. Perhaps it's best for you to resign and move on. I'm sure I'll miss the scintillating conversation. TheCelebrinator (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There ya go, full combative snark mode. We've all seen it many times before. Rarely after a mere 1,116 edits, however. Sorry your feelings were hurt. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not hurt, merely amused by your gatekeeping efforts. I've been called much worse by much better people. But here I thought you were done trying to "educate" me. What's changed?

Actually, it doesn't matter. This is derailing the conversation. I'm always ready to argue and debate on merit, when you are. TheCelebrinator (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

uncivil much? We seem to have come a long way from "This isn't any hill to die on, obviously". I agree with Mandruss: when we put Wikilinks in the lead, we're telling readers to not bother reading the body of the article but to go to another page for more information. Take the Wikilink to Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, for example. Instead of referring the reader to the short overview in

the second paragraph in Donald_Trump#Economy

In December 2017, Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The bill had been passed by both Republican-controlled chambers of Congress without any Democratic votes. It reduced tax rates for businesses and individuals, with business tax cuts to be permanent and individual tax cuts set to expire after 2025, and eliminated the penalty associated with Affordable Care Act's individual mandate. The Trump administration claimed that the act would either increase tax revenues or pay for itself by prompting economic growth. Instead, revenues in 2018 were 7.6 percent lower than projected. References

which just may contain all the information readers are looking for, we direct them to a long article with a complex lead that will make many readers' eyes glaze over. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I've always treated fellow editors with great love and respect, but unfortunately, some abuse that right. Anyways, to answer your point, I don't think it's applicable. Most readers will actually read the article, not just the lead. Trump's article is actually the most read or one of the most read in all of Wikipedia, and it currently has a tremendous amount of wikilinks in the lead. The evidence that suggests otherwise appears to be circumstantial and speculative, but if there was any actual evidence of this having an adverse impact on readership, compared to having very few wikilinks in the lede, maybe I'd actually support a change. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Most readers will actually read the article, not just the lead—do you have a source for this? If not, do you at least have a rationale?

As for tremendous, how do you define that? Obama, Biden, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan—they all have more links per word. Cessaune [talk] 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

We know that Trump's article is (one of) the most read articles in all of Wikipedia. We also know that the articles that the wikilinks redirect to don't come nearly as close in terms of viewership. But really, it's not up to me to prove this—I'm not the one seeking to deviate from convention. It's you—and I'm referring to all of you—who want to do that and use the reader steering argument, which presumably undercuts article viewership, as a reason to do so. It's up to you to prove it does.

It means "bigly." It's not really a comparison. It just means that the article features more than just the bare minimum amount of wikilinks—10 in one paragraph alone—which is what some editors here would like to see, ideally. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You can't use article views as a mechanism to prove that people read the article as opposed to just the lead, or a small excerpt of the article. Cessaune [talk] 18:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, do we know that readers do that? Are there any statistics on viewership that show that? Any sources or concrete examples that prove that reader viewership is adversely impacted by this? TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As of 2020, I would be willing to suggest that the most viewed part of an article is the lead. There's also meta:Research:Which parts of an article do readers read, which suggests the same thing. Cessaune [talk] 19:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a very interesting piece of information, thank you for sharing.

What I retain from this is that 50% of wikilinks clicked are found in the 'section' part of the article, versus 32% for the lead. That means that at least 50% of readers actually bother reading the article past the lead, could be as high as 68% if you count scrolling down.

That also means that if lead-wikilinking actually has any impact on article viewership, it's very limited as we now know that at least 50% of readers—a majority—actually read enough of the article to be able to use those wikilinks. And if you're assuming that a) reduced wikilinking in the lead has an effect on this (not proven) and that b) Trump's article features less wikilinks than other presidential articles (true), then it's even less important, imo. That's why I argue to keep it as it is. The margin of benefit is too low for such a substantial change. TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The fact that links are clicked in the body of the article more often can have many explanations. Is it because readers read the article and leave when they find the information they want? Is it because they scroll down to information that they are looking for, and click on the link to escape? You've made an assumption: clicks in the body mean people are reading the body. Maybe they do. Maybe not. And the data isn't clear enough to suggest either one.

And on mobile, 60% don't even read past the lead. On most mobile (non-tablet) views, the reader only looks at the article's introduction without opening further sections. In 2011, only 21% of Wikipedia users had ever read Wikipedia on a mobile device, according to a Wikimedia rep. Now it's up to about two-thirds according to this. If this is true, then section links in the lead could cause mobile readers to read more of the article.

If it fails, we revert. It's not that serious. But let's not shut down an idea based on theoreticals. This isn't a wiki-breaking change, and it really isn't that substantial, because, again, even if it sucks, we can just revert it. It costs pennies on the Wikimedia end and nothing on our end to implement this change.

And remember, they said the same things you're saying about generic old wikilinks. Cessaune [talk] 04:28, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Mobile isn't exactly the ideal place for in-depth reading. Compared to reading a physical book or on a PC, it's a very limiting experience. That's why, by default, sections are hidden on mobile. It's not just a technical bug. People there are casual readers, looking only for surface-level information. I don't see how section linking would 'compel' them to read more. We know that of the people who actually bother to 'learn more' (by clicking on wikilinks), they at least make it far enough to the body. What's with the old wikilinks? TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the same as wikilinking. It would be a form of linking that would take the reader directly to information that they are looking for within the article, so as not to bypass the information already in the article ("reader steering" readers to this article first). It would also presumably apply to the entire lead. Cessaune [talk] 15:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there any evidence this practice has been applied elsewhere? People would notice and say, "why is this article so different from the others?" I don't think it'd be a tenable change. I don't actually oppose the idea itself, I just don't think it ought to be applied without a overwhelming support first as it's a rather radical change, imo. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No question it's a rather radical change. I needn't remind you that history is replete with rather radical changes without which the world would be in an even sorrier state than it is. So that's not a reason for opposition. I prefer "rather bold change", but whatever floats your particular boat. People would notice and say, "why is this article so different from the others?" Yes, they would. Excerpted from the previous discussion:

But I think a lot of the pushback had to do with introducing something new and unfamiliar to readers, as if online users don't adapt to such changes all the time without skipping a beat. The human brain is designed to adapt to environmental change. Presumably, this article would be different from most or all others on the site for some time, maybe forever. Prioritizing that before everything else is precisely what stifles evolutionary improvements, producing stagnation.

So, while you're entitled to favor consistency over evolution in this case, you need to acknowledge that the very same reasoning applies to all other "radical change" at Wikipedia. So you're effectively saying that Wikipedia "reader infrastructure" is good enough as it stands today, and will still be good enough when we're all decomposing. Many of us disagree, including all supporters of this proposal. We are prepared to pay the inconsistency price for improvement in this one isolated area, and we believe the impact on readers can be overblown. We fully understand the trade-off, but we believe that this change helps readers more than it harms them. I just don't think it ought to be applied without a overwhelming support first You have already been advised multiple times that it's easily reverted. We don't need overwhelming support for something easily reverted. From a process standpoint, it's not a lot different from a WP:BOLD edit, which can be done by a single editor without prior consensus, provided it doesn't go against existing consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the world, you can't pass radical change without overwhelming support. In the U.S., for instance, any Constitutional amendment—radical change—requires support of Congress, the President and a large number of the States. That's a very high threshold. It's the same in any other country. This shouldn't be any different here. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, ok then. I didn't know Constitutional amendments are easily reverted. Never mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This is why it's silly to compare a past-time like wikiediting to the real-world. Is it really such a big "evolutionary change" to use section linking instead of wikilinks? It can all be undone at the touch of one hand. Try undoing millions of years of evolution.

My point is that in virtually all reputable systems, radical change requires widespread support or consensus. Whether it's in government or in an organization or here. There is no widespread consensus for this on this page, nevermind of all Wikipedia. Therefore, it's a DUD. TheCelebrinator (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@TheCelebrinator: First you say Wikipedia is a past-time, not comparable to the real world, then you say "radical change requires widespread support or consensus". Do you mean in the past-time world, or in the real world? Also, could you explain the significance of "millions of years of evolution" to this discussion? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

If it's silly to compare a past-time like wikiediting to the real-world, why are you doing exactly that? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

But I'm not the one who started doing this, you were the one who tried to compare this to the evolution of history and how "history is replete with rather radical changes without which the world would be in an even sorrier state than it is." You were the one who first spoke of "evolutionary change." I merely took that point to its logical conclusion. Why try to imply like I'm the one who came up with the comparison? TheCelebrinator (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

You both did it, but the difference is that it was you who said that it's "silly" to do so, not Mandruss. In the U.S., for instance, any Constitutional amendment—radical change—requires support of Congress, the President and a large number of the States. That's a very high threshold. It's the same in any other country. This shouldn't be any different here.

You didn't answer the question that was asked. Cessaune [talk] 21:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, if he thinks it's an appropriate comparison, let him think that. I personally believe it's rather silly and pretentious to make it sound like you're the harbinger of radical change that will revolutionize history (by arguing on the Internet...), but at any rate, I stand by what I said in that you need widespread support to enact your proposed changes. Otherwise, it'd get reverted. You probably know that, too. Unfortunately, such support does not exist. TheCelebrinator (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

...make it sound like you're the harbinger of radical change that will revolutionize history—wut? How did you get this from what was said? Cessaune [talk] 23:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

you need widespread support to enact your proposed changes. Otherwise, it'd get reverted. Please don't presume to tell editors who have vastly more experience what they need to enact proposed changes. It makes you look foolish. Apparently, you don't understand how the process works. An editor at your experience level wouldn't necessarily be expected to. But you posted this comment 11 hours after my comment below, which outlined the process that the rest of us are already aware of. Apparently, you didn't bother to read it, failed to understand it, or chose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your uninformed narrative.

There are process and behavior rules, and violation of them can result in sanctions. AE does not care about the strength of a consensus, only that it's a documented consensus. I'm sure our consensus list includes consensuses at 55% Support, and they are just as inviolable as those at 80%. In my comment below, I suggested 60% for this one, raising the bar a little because this is a "radical change"; but that wouldn't be strictly necessary.

I don't expect you'll hear this any more than anything else, so I don't know why I'm writing it, adding more clutter to yours. I guess hope dies hard. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

If you're going to suggest making an entire article different from every other article on Wikipedia, you'll need a much stronger consensus than that. There's about 6 people who've participated thus far in this discussion. So should 4 people be enough to make this page the odd black sheep in the pen? It's not tenable—somebody would revert and you'd reopen this discussion again. It's not just about making changes to the article, it's about making it different from everything else on the Wiki. The threshold should probably be closer to 75% at least for that.

We had a similar proposal a year ago. We said no then. This will be no different now. TheCelebrinator (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

As I predicted. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Cessaune [talk] 19:07, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

More thoughts as to process, reflecting a shift in my thinking: This is no different from any other local consensus. If this passes, I would expect a new consensus item for it, which means we need a strong enough consensus to justify one. This should be "clear", but it needn't be "overwhelming" (I'd be happy with 60% Support, which is 1.5 Supports for every Oppose). In that case, it's not so easily reverted. No editor could swoop in and revert because it's different, and if one tried to and re-reverted we'd be at AE in short order. Consensus is consensus, regardless of the issue at hand. Their only recourse would be to try to reverse the consensus, and we'd cross that bridge when and if we came to it.

This is what prior consensus buys us. I don't recall whether we had anything like that the last time this was attempted, but it didn't get as far as the consensus list. You gotta formalize it. ―Mandruss ☎ 11:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

If any editor edits this section and is alarmed by the long and complicated coding for this, they should fear not. There would be a template, say, {{Lead to body link}}, with a redirect of, say, {{lblink}}. Editors would then code {{lblink|China|initiated a trade war with China}}. The template would take care of the actual code. I don't think there would be any need to 'subst' the template, so editors would never even see the actual code. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

To clarify. You're suggesting an in article wiki-link. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in article, and only in the lead. Very similar to a normal wikilink, but with two differences: 1. Target is a section heading within this article, not the top of a different article. 2. Some difference in the appearance of the link, so as to distinguish it from a normal wikilink. This difference is yet to be established, but two potential options are shown near the top of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I just wrote some code to automatically do this.

User:Cessaune/Templates/Lead to body link

It works, but you need to put User:Cessaune/Templates/Lead to body link instead of just Lead to body link or lblink until it is moved to template space. Cessaune [talk] 16:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

For example

{{User:Cessaune/Templates/Lead to body link|Talk:Donald Trump#Link China trade war in the lead|foobar}}

becomes foobar. Cessaune [talk] 16:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I was hoping we had a template-qualified editor around, and there you were right in front of me. But the first parameter needs to be section heading only, exclusive of page title. If we wanted to produce examples on this page of "real-life" lblinks, for purposes of better illustration, you could maybe add an optional "test=y" parameter or something. That would use "Donald Trump" instead of the current page title. If that makes any sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Like this?

{{User:Cessaune/Templates/Lead to body link|Link China trade war in the lead|foobar}}

becomes foobar? I don't actually know if that worked. Cessaune [talk] 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it worked. But you don't need FULLPAGENAME; just let it default to "current page", like #Donald Trump's rhetoric. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

foobar. Cessaune [talk] 17:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia uses dots for tooltips like with {{tooltip}}: Text with tooltip. Dashes look similar and will confuse readers who think they can see a tooltip by hovering the mouse. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links shows the options. If you want a guideline change then it can be suggested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking. Don't make one article different from all others with section links. It's too confusing. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Foobar and foobar are sufficiently different IMO. Cessaune [talk] 16:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Dotted tooltips can also be on links with {{abbr}} like TKO. Dots and dashes can be distinguished right next to each other but the scenario is readers who have previously seen dots in other articles. Many aren't going to notice the difference and even if they do, they are still likely to look for a tooltip when they don't know the meaning of dashes. It's odd if that meaning is unique to one of six million articles. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It's very rare that a word is both wikilinked and has a tooltip. They are ordinarily suppoed to cancel each other out. Cessaune [talk] 17:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I note that the first two entries in a page history are surrounded by boxes consisting of dotted lines. Better change that pronto, since editors (and some readers) will think it's a tooltip! Mustn't use dotted lines for two different purposes! </irony> ―Mandruss ☎ 16:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I wanted to see what the links would look like in a paragraph that also has a few links to BLPs (the lead to article body links don't work). How about making the dashes blue, instead of the letters? (Also, four years later, is Trump's love story with Kim Jong Un still lead-worthy?)

Fourth paragraph with section links

As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's been done, Space4T. Cessaune [talk] 14:40, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

No so fast, pard. For one thing, you just destroyed context. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

First, those BLP links could be converted to lead-to-body links that do work. We have related body content in all of those cases, else they shouldn't be in the lead. They just need restructuring to avoid EGGs. I'd oppose removing the blue from the letters; you'd pretty much have to have perfect vision to see that the dots are blue. The above looks fine to me. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

It's easily reverted, so I thought I'd just go ahead and try it. Cessaune [talk] 14:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Please restore the context. Then you could possibly post an example without the blue, perhaps by cloning the template. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll just substitute the template. Cessaune [talk] 14:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Being able to show the versions with blue and black links would be better than opening a previous version in a second window. I have far from perfect vision — have you considered glasses, Mandruss? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't require good vision from our readers, even if glasses would improve it. See MOS:ACCESS. Lots of people can't afford glasses, or can't afford to keep their prescriptions updated. Or, like me, are too lazy to keep their prescriptions updated. Thankfully, Wikipedia strives to be friendly to all of us. MOS:SMALLTEXT, for example, prohibits text that I can read fairly well, so WP is catering to people with even worse vision than mine. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph with blue-and-black section links

As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization.

Cessaune [talk] 16:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact, a lot of those would need restructuring to avoid EGGs, like "COVID-19 pandemic". It won't be a matter of merely replacing each link with a lblink. But that's a different topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We would have fewer section links than the current Wikilinks but editors would have to give them more thought. E.g., He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act has three Wikilinks, but we would need only one section link to the Donald Trump#Economy section. On "He signed", since the section mentions both acts and the rescinding of the individual health insurance mandate? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't need to think about those things in this discussion unless the change might create unacceptable problems. I seriously doubt it would. Hence that's a different topic, and I shouldn't have brought it up here. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But, if there's any interest in sandboxing a full proof-of-concept article, I might participate. Don't have the energy to start it myself. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

After a sleep, I summoned the energy to start it at User:Mandruss/sandbox. Feel free to use the associated talk page. If no interest, that's fine. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

SANDBOX thataway -> User:Mandruss/sandbox. I like it, and no squigglies anyone can complain about. Dashed line turns into a full line when you hover the mouse over it, and the section title is shown bottom left in the window (Mac). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Still favor the blue letters per previous argument. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

What about foobar as opposed to foobar? Cessaune [talk] 17:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Fourth paragraph with blue-and-black section links, 2px

As president, Trump ordered a travel ban on citizens from several Muslim-majority countries, diverted military funding toward building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, and implemented a policy of family separations for migrants detained at the U.S. border. He weakened environmental protections, rolling back more than 100 environmental policies and regulations. He signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court. He reacted slowly to the COVID-19 pandemic, ignored or contradicted many recommendations from health officials, used political pressure to interfere with testing efforts, and spread misinformation about unproven treatments. Trump initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal. He met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un three times but made no progress on denuclearization.

Cessaune [talk] 17:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed @PrimeHunter:, it's best to be consistent. Let's show this 'link', to way it's done on other pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If no one can suggest a workable alternative, your point is not sufficient reason to abandon the idea. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The alternative is to do what works for 99.99% of other articles and not try to make one article so different from all the others. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of shutting it down simply because it's "different". In any case, it's just an idea. Who knows? Maybe it'll catch on. Maybe it won't. The consensus list idea works pretty well, and it's been applied to a few other pages. Cessaune [talk] 17:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You're right, but I don't think this idea would have been proposed without the original discussion on the trade war. I respect that you tried to seek some kind of compromise that'd satisfy everyone or most people, but right now, there's 3 people, including me, that would oppose section linking—a majority of people so far. Probably more with a poll. Whereas the consensus list would only apply to editing, section linking also concerns reader experience.

I actually think we had an idea proposed before that which was great—take out the link on the travel ban and replace with trade war. It unfortunately got caught up in the middle of this discussion, but as far as compromises go, I don't see how you can do better. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a solution to a recurring problem that is bigger than the above discussion. Cessaune [talk] 17:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, 3 to 2 is not nearly a large enough sample size. Cessaune [talk] 17:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't think you can adopt such a change without widespread support. I mean, a wikilink is just a wikilink. It doesn't really matter if a particular wikilink gets in or not. But making an article different from every other one? That's pretty important. I'd be surprised if in a week or so, it turns out it's like 8–3 or something for.

I stand by what I said re: not wanting to change this article and make it different from every other. I think this would be better proposed at the Wiki guidelines page. But the idea itself is OK and actually makes sense to some extent, just not as a one-time off, imo. TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If I take it to wp:Village pump (idea lab) first, it dies an idea, because that's how the idea lab usually goes. If we test it here, we might actually get some useful feedback. Worst case scenario? We revert it. Cessaune [talk] 17:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Eggsactly. Getting community approval for something like this never works. You Just Do It and it either catches on because editors can see the benefits in actual practice, or it gets shot down because...reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, better make sure it's not just a minority of two that decides to adopt it, eh? TheCelebrinator (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Nobody has remotely suggested such a thing. This discussion will probably be open for weeks. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:59, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if a particular wikilink gets in or not. This discussion is not about that. That was the previous discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links already offers an alternative to a normal wikilink. I guess "workable alternative" means something liked by editors of this particular article. Suppose editors of an article think that blue is a bad color on wikilinks and decide to make them orange instead. Would you say fine, if they can get consensus on the talk page then go for it. Orange can be distinguished from red, surely that won't confuse readers who know the meaning of a red link. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

See this.

This idea is not nearly as gamechanging as changing the link color to orange. I think that's obvious. Cessaune [talk] 17:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you show how the normal {{section link}} could be used in this scenario? We certainly don't want section names inline with lead content. No, workable means workable. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

We tried lead-to-body section linking with a superscript ampersand/section symbol here, e.g., the Paris Agreement on climate change,^§ (the section title is different than last year's, and I added the name page). The reaction: Removed eye distractiong [section linking] symbols from the opening of this BLP. Eye of the beholder — I find the blue links more distracting(I doubt another color like orange would be an improvement). And piped section links were reverted because "we don't want them to look like links to other pages" or s.th., although WP:ANCHOR doesn't say that. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

PrimeHunter is one of our most competent editors on technical issues, and he suggested we should use {{section link}} without expending the meager mental resources required to see that it couldn't possibly work for our purposes. Did he even really understand our purposes? Did his understanding begin and end at the heading of this thread? Then he moved on, but his opposition will presumably count in a consensus assessment. That's what kills bold but complicated proposals, and it's discouraging. Experience tells me we'll see a lot more of that before this is done. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: is correct. We decided months ago, to not have in-article links. PS - Why do we seem to have two separate (but related) discussions going on? GoodDay (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't mean for this to be a loaded question—what are the odds this will go through now when it didn't one year ago? TheCelebrinator (talk) 19:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken (even I get lost in the clutter, and I've been involved in this discussion since its inception), you've made similar comments several times. One's belief that a proposal will fail is not a valid reason to oppose it, or even a valid part of one's reason to oppose it. It has nothing to do with the proposal's merits. So maybe we could dispense with such comments? But here's the essential difference between this one and the last one. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually, there is a perfectly valid reason to oppose it—you're making this article different from every other one on Wikipedia. And there's no legitimacy to enact that change, which is yet another perfectly valid reason to say no. TheCelebrinator (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Where did I say there is no valid reason to oppose it? Do you think you're correcting me or something? And what is "legitimacy to enact" a change? Please explain the concept. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You're making a habit of needing to be corrected, unfortunately. But I'll explain what "legitimacy" is if you don't quite know what the concept is.

Legitimacy refers to the idea of popular support being needed to accept an authority as being valid. In other words, it's important for there to be some kind of democratic endorsement in order for an authority's rule to be accepted. When it comes to politics, legitimacy is expressed via elections in a democracy. So if a candidate wins the election, it means he's got the people behind him and thus he has the 'right' to rule. That's legitimacy, which is very important.

But it can also be applied to policies and whatnot. On Wikipedia, legitimacy is expressed via the idea that consensus is needed to enact a change. So if after a discussion, there is a consensus to enact a change, that's legitimacy. It means that there's enough editors that have "accepted" such a change or proposal. In this case, the proposed changes are related to section linking. At present time, there is no majority of editors that has come out in favour of section linking. That means there is no legitimacy behind the proposal and, as such, cannot be adopted. TheCelebrinator (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

TheCelebrinator, when you start saying things such as You're making a habit of needing to be corrected, unfortunately, things will inevitably start going south.

Your Oppose !vote and subsequent comments have been noted and will count in the final consensus tally. There's nothing more for you to do here. I recommend you disengage from this topic, unless you have something specific to say that 1) hasn't already been said and 2) will advance discussion in a meaningful way. Cessaune [talk] 18:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey, he asked me a question, and I answered it. I can't be faulted for that.

But you know what, I'll take your advice as I feel like the discussion has become rather sterile. I'll move on to more fulfilling and rewarding pursuits. Good evening. TheCelebrinator (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

So what's the latest? Am I understanding it correctly, that a 'new/never before seen' kinda of linkage is being proposed? GoodDay (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe the best answer is the sandboxing at User:Mandruss/sandbox. Yes, it's 'new/never before seen', like iPhone in 2007. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:30, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I peaked in at your sandbox & my suggestion is don't implement the 'new' idea. At the very least open a (yup I mentioned it) RFC on such a proposal, if you're planning on seeking adoption for it. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

See WP:RFCBEFORE. We don't just jump to RfC without trying the non-RfC route first. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend you suggest this 'new' idea for all biographies on Wikipedia. We shouldn't push to make one biography different from all the others, concerning linkage style. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As has been said previously, any editor is free to Oppose because they favor sitewide consistency over evolutionary improvements. But there is no rule about sitewide consistency, so their Oppose carries no more weight than one editor's opinion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:51, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll wait & see how this all plays out. Maybe you'll get a consensus for your proposal & maybe you won't. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that pearl of wisdom, Captain Obvious. :D ―Mandruss ☎ 16:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I just changed the template from this to this. Cessaune [talk] 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Once again, I changed the template from this to this. Cessaune [talk] 20:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Lead to body link now works, meaning that {{lead to body link|Link China trade war in the lead|foobar}} spits out

foobar. You can also use {{l2b}} or {{lblink}}. Cessaune [talk] 23:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Survey: Lead-to-body links

For proof-of-concept, see User:Mandruss/sandbox. Exact appearance of the lead-to-body links remains to be worked out.

• Strong support. For any given sub-topic in this article, readers should be encouraged to read its related body content before going to other articles having far more detail ("reader steering"). This level of detail will be enough for many readers.
  Opposition based on site-wide consistency stifles evolutionary improvements to the encyclopedia; there is no practical way to make such improvements site-wide all at once, so they must be allowed to begin at a single article. The reader impact can be overblown; the human brain is designed to adapt to environmental change, and online users routinely handle such changes without a problem. Some articles have infoboxes; others don't; not a big deal for readers. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

(Please don't re-locate my response) - Editors are free to support or oppose for any reason they wish. Let's not suggest that anyone is being or going to be short-sighted. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - IMHO, those underlines (a novel idea for in-article linkage) will be a distraction to (including me) readers. Indeed these attempts of novel linkages, has push me from being 'neutral' to 'opposing' more linkages in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I submit that you find the underscores distracting because they're new and different. That's a temporary, short-term problem, since they wouldn't be new and different for long. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Note below: My response was moved, without my consent. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Editors are free to support or oppose for any reason they wish. Let's not suggest that anyone is being or going to be short-sighted. GoodDay (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Why not? I didn't attempt to disqualify your !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't suggesting you were pointing to me & please don't move my posts. GoodDay (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  The first occurrence of your identical comment means nothing in that context, which is why I moved it. This is fully supported under WP:TPG; prior consent is not required. But have it your way, also per TPG. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose This is something that should be agreed at MOS, not locally. DeCausa (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  The best way to kill a bold proposal: take it to the community. We've all seen it happen countless times. Editors who frequent venues like MoS and Village Pump tend to make it their mission to ferret out reasons – often amazingly lame reasons – to preserve and protect the status quo, not to think outside the box and support innovation on its merits. (It's largely a matter of habit, I suspect, as most of the proposals they see are short on merits.) No thanks, unless this proposal fails and we have no other choice. In any case, I don't think it would be MoS as this is not a style issue. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't see this proposal as "bold" or "innovative" or "thinking out of the box". It's just one way of doing things. There are pros and cons. As with all "ways of doing [style] things" with "pros and cons" it's better to jump one way or other at MOS and at least get some consistency going. That's the point of the MOS - avoid a mish mash of styles because almost every editor thinks they've come up with a way of doing things which is "bold" and "innovative". DeCausa (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  We aren't trying to change just this article. If we were, that would create a mishmash of styles. We are trying to test whether or not this idea will solve a sitewide problem. Taking it to the broader community first will kill it, because that's what always happens. Testing it out here first... maybe we'll get some data. That data can then be taken to the broader community; the community responsds well to raw data. In any case, if it sucks, it sucks, and we can easily revert it.

  What are the pros and cons in your opinion? Cessaune [talk] 19:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)'

• Oppose I don't think this is an improvement. I disagree with the proposition that "readers should be encouraged to read its related body content before going to other articles having far more detail ("reader steering")" - I would much rather read the lead of a subarticle, which has comparative detail to a section of the body on the same topic (but generally does a better job of explaining the background), and discover the existence of more information in a subarticle. Part of the greatness of Wikipedia is the number of articles on various topics, and how easy it is to get to an article with more information on the topic you are interested in. This proposal would go against that, requiring two clicks to get to a subarticle with the full information. Galobtter (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Good, then let's get rid of the article's body as unnecessary, saving an enormous amount of editor time. We should write the body to be read, in which case steering readers to it makes perfect sense, or we shouldn't write it. It makes very little sense to devote limited editor resources to both "reader modes" simultaneously. Space4T has previously described one of the sub-articles' leads as causing readers' eyes to "glaze over", and he was absolutely correct. Most likely, that's true for more sub-articles than not true. I would much rather read the lead of a subarticle With ten years and 43 Kedits, would you say you're a typical reader in that respect? If not, with due respect, what works for you isn't really relevant. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the links in the lead right now are not to subarticles either. Without any background info, 2016 United States presidential election is more useful than the section in this article, since it has more background and context which is needed for a reader unfamiliar with the topic - which is why they clicked on the link. That doesn't mean the sections in the article are useless - they are useful to be read in the context of one article (although some sections could just transclude the leads of subarticles tbh). And readers already have a ToC that steers them towards the body.

  what works for you isn't really relevant, sure but my viewpoint as a reader is the best I have. I'm not going to presumptuously assume what the "typical reader" would prefer without any evidence. Galobtter (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  Since we're writing the encyclopedia for readers, not ourselves, I don't think we have any choice but to try to use our life experience and layman's understanding of psychology/human factors to guesstimate what will work best for the typical user. I put in 30 years doing just that, with some success. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  This proposal would go against that, requiring two clicks to get to a subarticle with the full information. In an online world built around clicks and scrolls, one additional click is hardly significant, even if the reader wants "the full information". One click for each successive level of detail; makes sense to me. This is a good example of the "amazingly lame reasons" I referred to earlier. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not necessarily to opposed to such links in addition to regular links, in cases where there isn't a relevant other article to link to (e.g. linking to the early life section, since there is no early life of trump article). Galobtter (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

  You can still read the other article. It takes an extra click to get there, though. I personally don't think that that is a big deal. Cessaune [talk] 23:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reversion of archives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I plan on reinstating archives to the references in the article since they do not do any harm and protect against future linkrot. Customary note to the talk page per the editnotice. Cheers.--NØ 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Thanks for the warning. If you do that at this article, you will be promptly reverted (again) per current consensus item 25. We understand the link rot situation and opted not to use the archive parameters anyway. For the reasons, see the linked discussions at item 25. Please respect consensus. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mandruss: What's a withdraw-close, and can you do it then? This query is resolved and I am never touching this article again.--NØ 17:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whether Trump is a rapist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

By legal definition Trump is considered a rapist due to the ruling of the first Carroll trial, yet it's nowhere to be found within the article. A former U.S president legally defined as a rapist seems noteworthy. Chavando (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Not under New York law. “Across the country, states’ criminal and civil legal systems vary quite a bit in how they define rape and other charges of sexual violence.” In New York, he wasn’t held liable for rape, and hasn’t even been convicted of any sexual misbehavior (civil trials don’t result in convictions). Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly Anythingyouwant ! Thank you for stating the legal truth concerning Donald J. Trump's CIVIL N.Y. case. As you stated, DJT was not found guilty of ANY crime in NYC let alone rape !!! SupportsDonald59 (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

OP -- if you'll review the talk page archives, you can see prior discussion in which inclusion of "rape" in this article failed to gain consensus. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Russian collusion - found false

This wiki page states that the president was found in collusion with the Russians but this has be debunked and found false. 72.28.207.138 (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It does, where? Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether one believes the Russian collusion story or not, is irrelevant. It's old news. GoodDay (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Despite numerous accusations and investigations, the only evidence that surfaced was of a dossier his opponent Hillary Clinton had fabricated out of desperation when she couldn't find any real dirt on Trump to smear him with. 2601:402:401:9A40:A13B:4F60:F3C7:51AD (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 15:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We have the Mueller report, which detailed the "numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign" – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to the IP's claims of fabrication and the like. Cessaune [talk] 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I know you were, it was my polite attempt to demonstrate that no such RS exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Cessaune [talk] 01:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton had fabricated out of desperation when she couldn't find any real dirt on Trump to smear him with. This is a violation of WP:BLP, and also utter nonsense. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024 (2)

Under Trump’s Post Presidency->Civil Lawsuits->E. Jean Carroll section, at the end add that Trump lost the defamation case and was ordered to pay Carroll 83.3 million. 108.65.196.114 (talk) 05:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I updated the section with the jury verdict in the defamation case ordering Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages and Trump saying that he would appeal. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024 (3)

In May 2023, a New York jury in a federal lawsuit brought by journalist E. Jean Carroll found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and ordered him to pay her $5 million.[723] Trump asked the district court for a new trial or a reduction of the damage award, arguing that the jury had not found him liable for rape, and also, in a separate lawsuit, countersued Carroll for defamation. The judge for the two lawsuits ruled against Trump in July and August.[724][725] Trump appealed both decisions to an appeals court.[724][726] The trial in the defamation case began on January 15, 2024.[705] Jan 27th Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll who was awarded $83.3 million in rebuke to ex-President Trump for social media attacks amid her sexual assault claims.

 Done. I'm guessing that this was meant as a request to update the E. Jean Carrol's lawsuits subsection to the Civil lawsuits against Trump section. I added the Jan. 26 jury verdict in the defamation case which ordered Trump to pay Carroll $83.3 million in damages. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Oof — run-on sentence in need of a split. Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 14:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

Hi, I noticed a few grammatical errors in the article. Can I change them please? SilkDirksoak2ek3 03:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

That is not what edit request means. You cannot edit the article until you have 30 days and 500 edits. You currently have 383 days and 30 edits.

You can point out the errors here, and an editor may change them if they agree; there is no guarantee. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)