Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

It is the Wikipedia consensus that the lead paragraph for a president is to say, "...who has been the [order] and current president of the United States since [year]." See Joe Biden's page before he left office. Thankyou, please do not edit war over this. TimeToFixThis (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Riposte97 (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean nonsense. If something has stayed the same for over 8 years I’d say that it is a how a consensus works. Trump’s first term and Biden's presidency that is how it was written. TimeToFixThis (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biden's article is irrelevant, as consensus is formed locally. Neither has reflected your preferred wording for 'over eight years'. The Trump wording is a day or so old. What's more, it is grammatically incorrect. Riposte97 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what a consensus means. If a current presidents wording has stayed the same from president to president with everyone in agreeance on how it is said - that is a consensus. "...who has been the 47th and current president of the United States since 2025." It is grammatically correct. TimeToFixThis (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space4Time3 appears to be reverting against Talk page consensus for trimming the COVID section of the Donald Trump article. There were three of us in agreement about the trimmed section which was added to the article yesterday, and Space4Time3 has declined to participate on the Talk page discussion to which he was pinged and has decided to revert against consensus here: [1]. Could you look at this? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to restore consensus for now. If he does it again I'll leave a message on his talk page re WP:OWN issues at that page. Cheers Riposte97 (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. After posting this comment, I'm surprised you let the forum peter out after 6 days. I just had the impression you had more to say than that. Now the forum is basically serving as prominent notice that editors aren't thinking about bias at that article. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 11:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I actually took to heart Kenneth's note that limiting size is the surest route to ensuring due weight is given (and importantly, undue weight not given). I've already implemented that into my editing practice, and hope others do! Any formal rule proposed in the Forum is liable to be difficult to implement. However, by radically cutting a lot of the chaff from the first presidency section and elsewhere, a large part of the problem will flow through the system. Riposte97 (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the forum notice on the talk page should be removed to address my point above? The forum page would still be accessible via its title or its shortcut. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, though I'd be interested to see whether having it there does some good when the next inevitable Trump scandal breaks. It might divert the usual flood of complaints. Riposte97 (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean divert the complaints to the forum page, that's not its purpose—per the instructions in the notice and its banner. Regardless, you assume that people actually look at anything on the talk page before complaining. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 23:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]