This template is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
FYI, I just did some reshuffling, keeping the most relevant protest articles, not those which are purely duplicates. Hope it's fine. — JFGtalk14:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. — JFGtalk08:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@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. — JFGtalk11:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. — JFGtalk21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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:
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)[reply]
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? — JFGtalk16:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]