Talk:Donald L. Trump

No Relationship with President Donald Trump

Donald L. Trump (Donald Lynn "Skip" Trump), which this article is about, is notable in his very own right.
Having a full chapter called "Relationship with President Donald Trump", taking up about ~40% of the entire article, just to meticulously describe details of not being related to Donald J. Trump, is WP:UNDUE.
The lack of relationship, and a few details to that aspect, is therefore appropriate in ending the article's lead.
-- DexterPointy (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The argument is sound, but the execution suggests otherwise. In its current form I have to agree with Mojo Hand that "it was better before". Specifically, the more pithy "He is not related to U.S. president Donald Trump" that used to be there seems far more appropriate for the lead; the current small "embedded footnote" seems especially out of place. The section that was removed was well referenced and clearly relevant - perhaps a better way to reduce it from 40% of the article would be to expand the other 60. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support The more pithy "He is not related to U.S. president Donald Trump" that used to be there, still is there. The section which was removed was well referenced and clearly relevant, and has mostly been kept, except now boiled down to only two lines of text. -- DexterPointy (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have to agree with Dorsetonian. The small "embedded footnote" is weird and not standard. Neutrality^talk 00:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

And, to be clear, the embedded footnote is not my only concern - I think that the recent editing is not constructive overall - information should not be randomly removed to the body to the lead. Neutrality^talk 15:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Changed As per concensus - the "weird" small font is now ordinary -- DexterPointy (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

IMO, your solution to the problem you were trying to fix (undue weight) was far worse: the lead - the most important part of the article - was overpowered by it. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. I appreciate the stated concern regarding undue weight. However, (and generally agreeing with Dorsetonian) the previous paragraph would be fine in a well developed article about this person - and there is no deadline. Moreover, the lead is only supposed to cover the main points of the article, so it's not really appropriate to have content only covered in the lead.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you create a copy into user or draft space, and edit that to show how you suggest the undue weight problem be resolved?
That would be a way for all of us here to collaborate there, leaving the article in mainspace free of intermediate unstable strange revisions during the work. -- DexterPointy (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - Continuing to roll back to the May.2018 version isn't really helping.
  If you're all so damned unhappy about the version which stood from 10.Jul.2018 to 17.Jul.2018, then why don't you come up with an actual constructive write-up to show how it would be better, instead of just saying that it was better before, or making statements for Santa Claus to pick up on. -- DexterPointy (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're frustrated, but this isn't really how Wikipedia works. You made a bold change that was disputed - the burden is on you to propose something else or build consensus for the language you prefer. See WP:BRD.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It'd be lovely if you read WP:BRD -- DexterPointy (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)