The article, Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election should be included in the template. The fact that US intelligence has assessed with high confidence that Russia attempted to elect Trump makes this article essential in to Trump future Presidency.Casprings (talk) 04:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It is clearly relevant for the other articles in this template, it's a High importance article for all related WikiProjects, and there are no space constraints. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – Undue weight. See my comments on Template talk:US 2016 presidential elections series#Addition. — JFG ^talk 09:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Weight is based on totality of secondary source discussion, which in this case, is in the thousands in many languages around the globe. Sagecandor (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Note I have started a request for comment on what the WP:WEIGHT of the information contained in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in articles and templates that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. The WP:RFC is located here.Casprings (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Added this. Been a while since above, article much more developed, hundreds of sources, incredibly notable. Sagecandor (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please move the documentation to the documentation subpage Template:Trump presidency/doc -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Done as shared documentation for all Trump-related navboxes. — JFG ^talk 03:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Should changes be made to eliminate redundancy between this template and Template:Trump protests? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of the protest entries were recently added and there is a large overlap between those articles. Using the sidebar in relevant articles should be enough, while this navbox should link only to the main protest articles, i.e. Protests against Donald Trump and 2017 Women's March. — JFG ^talk 14:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I just did some reshuffling, keeping the most relevant protest articles, not those which are purely duplicates. Hope it's fine. — JFG ^talk 14:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: In view of recent changes in both templates, do you think we should keep the protest articles only in their dedicated sidebar? That would seem more rational to me, with the presidency navbox keeping just a global link to Protests against Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 21:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Honestly? I'm not sure about the best solution here. Just seems redundant to have both template with the same links. I'd say eliminate the "Trump protests" sidebar and keep all links in the navbox (perhaps in a collapsed section, if needed), but perhaps there are benefits to having the sidebar. I'm not really sure when sidebar templates are preferred to navigation templates. In other words, this may be something to bring up at a venue where more people can participate in the discussion and help decide the best way to display these related articles. Perhaps WikiProject Donald Trump?---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Should Dismissals of Sally Yates and Daniel Ragsdale be included in the template? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and added but feel free to revert and/or discuss here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:48, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but I removed this, together with the dismissal of US attorneys. Both are minor events which have fed the media frenzy for a few days and will vanish from public consciousness well before the WP:10YT. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and a presidency navbox must focus on the significant articles, otherwise readers would be drowned. — JFG ^talk 08:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Then should the "Trump presidency" navbox be included in the articles? I thought only articles included in the template should display the template. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Correct, the navbox should be removed per WP:Bidirectional, although I personally don't mind some leniency there. At the end of the day, editors' judgment and consensus is the ultimate arbiter of what goes in and what goes out. — JFG ^talk 11:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I started a discussion on the article's talk page. Thanks for replying! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I propose adding LGBT protests against Donald Trump to the navbox. I tried adding the article, but my edit was reverted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

As discussed for other cases, only major events and well-developed articles should be included in this navbox; the new articles are neither. But to give you time, I won't AfD this one. — JFG ^talk 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Well, right now the article does not appear in the navbox or the sidebar, which doesn't seem right. The article is live, relevant, and should go in at least one of these templates, if not both. BTW, AfD is not necessary. There is definitely, definitely enough coverage to justify this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

As I explained at WP:LGBT Studies: Only if we include pro-Trump support from the LGBTQ community too! We are real human beings--not a dehumanized fundraising campaign for the Democrats.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: Thanks for sharing your thoughts here, but I'm not sure we should be holding up the inclusion one one link on the basis of another. I see this as two separate questions:

1. Should LGBT protests against Donald Trump be added to the navigation template?
2. Should Gays for Trump be added to the navigation template?

---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. I think we should either include both, or include neither, to avoid undue weight. Perhaps it would be wiser to wait until Gays for Trump has reached start or C level.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not clear at the moment whether either of these topics have enough discussion in reliable sources to warrant stand-alone articles. However, there is no reason to conclude that they must either both succeed or fail together. We achieve neutrality by objectively applying our guidelines and looking at sources, not by presuming that every topic needs to be assigned a counterpart on an arbitrary political spectrum.--Trystan (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Should this template include the article 2017 dismissal of U.S. attorneys? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes.Casprings (talk) 02:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I already inserted it yesterday. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Protests against Trump have a dedicated navbox {{Protests against Trump footer}}, which has been nominated for deletion citing redundancy with the "Protests" section of this presidency navbox. I have suggested to keep the separate protests navbox, and to trim the protests in this one to just a few most notable ones, plus a pointer to the full list. Opinions? — JFG ^talk 16:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Please add transphobia to Trump's policies.--73.137.178.251 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm asking to do just that. Given the attention this group got, this may be worth considering. Steinbach (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Add Timelines related to Donald Trump and Russian interference in United States elections. 5.43.67.185 (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)