The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Thanks, 1isall (talk | contribs) . . (he/him) 12:35, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump and religion → Religious views of Donald TrumpReligious views of Donald Trump – The current title is not in compliance with WP:AND, part of the titles policy. Further, it does not WP:PRECISEly capture the page topic. As per the first line of the lead, this page is about the religious views of Trump. We can bold that in the first sentence if we rename to this, and in addition to being precise it will be equally WP:CONCISE (four words). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, Trump's personal views only make up one section of the article, which also deals with his relationship with and use of religion. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 18:20, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The scope of the article is not limited to Trump's personal religious views, so the broader title is more appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a bit about Ivanka Trump that seems a bit off topic for either title, but what here cannot be included on an article in his religious views? Views lead to practice, so the "faith as political tool" section can certainly remain. I don't see what here requires us to ignore the WP:Article titles policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I disagree that it's a clear violation of WP:AND, which addresses "two or more closely related or complementary concepts." Trump and religion are neither closely related nor complementary; they are orthogonal. (And lest someone say that that makes it analogous to the "Islam and terrorism" example there, no, Islam has an adjective form, Islamic, whereas Donald Trump (the person) does not have an adjective form, nor is this article addressing a particular kind of religion in the way that Islamic terrorism addresses a particular kind of terrorism.) I agree with Glasspalace. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood WP:AND. In saying Trump and religion are neither closely related nor complementary that is exactly why it is a breach of the titles policy to conjoin the terms in the title. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Religious views of Donald Trump because I don't think it is accurate to the scope of the article in its current form, but I'm not really sure how we can improve from here. Donald Trump's relationship with religion? The way I see it, anything more precise is bound to be either awkward or reductive. I don't feel anything is particularly wrong with the current title in regards to readability, and I disagree that it does not WP:PRECISEly capture the page topic. I think this is just going to have to be an IAR situation due to a lack of a suitable alternative. Thanks, Glasspalace (talk • contribs) 10:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that I've misunderstood. WP:AND says "Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases: for example, Endianness covers the concepts 'big-endian' and 'little-endian'." In that example, big-endian and little-endian are closely related; thus it's possible to find a single term that encompasses both. In this case, you haven't proposed a title that encompasses both, because the article isn't limited to discussing Trump's religious views. Donald Trump's relationship with religion would be OK with me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood because that first paragraph is talking about how we deal with subjects where the two are closely related. Endianness is a concept in Computer Science related to bit representation in bytes. Little endian numbers are just the opposite ordering of big endian numbers, and so closely related that if the two must be dealt with as a single page. This case doesn't apply here (as you say). It is not an article about Donald Trump and, as an alternative, Religion. They are not closely related terms. Paragraph one does not apply. The relevant paragraph of WP:AND is paragraph 3. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"that first paragraph is talking about how we deal with subjects where the two are closely related." I know!! I haven't in any way misunderstood that. As for paragraph 3, please quote the part that you think the current title is inconsistent with. I explained above why it's not analogous to the "Islam and terrorism" example in paragraph 3. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by your Trump and religion are neither closely related nor complementary then. As for the third paragraph, the usage appears to encourage WP:OR by not staying on one topic (his religious views, which would be PRECISE and a single subject). And, of course, the article cannot be about Christian support of Donald Trump, since that would be a WP:POVFORK (or at least a WP:CFORK). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you for a quote, which you haven't provided. I don't know what "the usage" refers to; the referent is unclear, please clarify. Trump's relationship with religion is a single topic. It's routine for a WP article with a single topic to address several subsets of that one topic. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand the argument here - I don't think the policy states that any concepts/phrases/topics that are neither closely related nor complementary cannot be used in a title joined by the conjunction and. It states that Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased. These are strong suggestions to avoid usage in particular contexts, not broad prohibitions. Katzrockso (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per above this article is not limited to Trumps personal religious views so the current article title represents the article better than the proposed move target.GothicGolem29 (Talk) 10:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the reasoning already given by others that the article is not limited to Trump's personal views. Maxeto0910 (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Heavily changes scope of the article. This goes beyond something that should be discussed in a move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:07, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]