Talk:List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days ![]() |
![]() | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 January 2025. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Q1: Why are some executive orders listed as TBD?
A1: Until the Federal Register assigns a number to an executive order the number is unknown. Q2: Why are some executive orders in this list using the title and not the same Executive Order XXXXX title as other articles about executive orders?
A2: If an article is created about an executive order before the Federal Register assigns it a number, using the title of the executive order is a temporary solution until they can be renamed with the correctly formatted article name. The Federal Register assigns numbers Monday through Friday, and typically assigns them within a few days. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Citations for Executive Orders
[edit]I am wondering if there are/should be rules about ensuring that all references for executive orders should be linked directly to the EO instead of an article about it? Taggor (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think we should try to copy what they did in List of executive orders in the first presidency of Donald Trump. Looks like they use two citations per executive order: one to the office of the press secretary, and one to the office of the federal register. We don't necessarily need to do this right away if all those links aren't available yet, but I think it'd be good to work towards this format. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good call there, I was going to also do a separate quick discussion about just keeping them neutral voice. I am noticing on the other one that there is no "synopsis" up top though. I'm guessing we'll clean that up once this page gets a little more focused in the coming weeks. Taggor (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- That might be a weakness of the other article. I think a prose summary and narrative of the important executive orders, and of themes of various executive orders, would be good for both articles. Maybe someday :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I like these to be cold and fact driven so sides can't be claimed. A synopsis is good though.
- I'm more talking about the section we have here called Plans which might be unnecessary and isn't cited very well. Taggor (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like it for the moment, since it gives a good summary of the important stuff in yesterday's executive orders. However I think it'll quickly get out of date as more executive orders are signed. I suspect it'll need to be converted to one paragraph soon, and then a second paragraph added summarizing the non-day-one EOs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes. the Plans paragraph should be a temporary measure, once more are issued we can remove it and go along the lines of the first presidencies page. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 16:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like it for the moment, since it gives a good summary of the important stuff in yesterday's executive orders. However I think it'll quickly get out of date as more executive orders are signed. I suspect it'll need to be converted to one paragraph soon, and then a second paragraph added summarizing the non-day-one EOs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Selecting executive orders for synopsis leads to opinionated cherry-picking.
- It's up to the reader to determine the importance rating of certain executive orders over others, given that results of the orders are not (yet) quantifiable. 31.201.108.155 (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- We're an encyclopedia and our editors are pretty good at summarizing. We can use WP:SECONDARY sources to get the WP:WEIGHT right. Whatever secondary sources talk about the most is what is the most important and should receive coverage in a summary. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
- That might be a weakness of the other article. I think a prose summary and narrative of the important executive orders, and of themes of various executive orders, would be good for both articles. Maybe someday :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good call there, I was going to also do a separate quick discussion about just keeping them neutral voice. I am noticing on the other one that there is no "synopsis" up top though. I'm guessing we'll clean that up once this page gets a little more focused in the coming weeks. Taggor (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I wondered the same, considering all the reliable sources (Newsweek, NPR, etc) that list many more EOs than the official WhiteHouse.gov page. Why should we not include those as well? — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 22:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- based on the first presidency, we should wait on either a whitehouse.gov and/or federal register publication before adding to the list.
- right now, the EOs and their numbers are from whitehouse.gov. i'll add the FR citation as soon as its available pauliesnug (message / contribs) 23:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Are the absolute numbers correct?
[edit]Are the absolute numbers for each executive order correct? I don't think the citations in the table have an official EO number. Might be good to double check the EO numbers somewhere. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- these are going to be the EO numbers upon publishing in the Federal Register, as they are sequential following the last EO.
- so yes, these are correct. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 16:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- If we forget or misorder an executive order, a whole bunch of the absolute numbers after it will be wrong though. Perhaps we should leave the "absolute number" blank until everything is published in the Federal Register? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- i believe that at whitehouse.gov they're announced sequentially, so there doesn't seem to be much room for error outside of basic counting/ordering mistakes (which should ideally be double-checked in the first place anyways). - avxktty (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- If we forget or misorder an executive order, a whole bunch of the absolute numbers after it will be wrong though. Perhaps we should leave the "absolute number" blank until everything is published in the Federal Register? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Err, what? How can we conclude they are "correct"? As far as I can tell, they have been made up, and there are no guarantees that the order on the White House website is the same as the order they will appear in the Federal Register, nor is it clear that that there have not been edits, alterations, an emendations on the White House website. We do not know what the ordering will be in the FR, this seems like an extremely bad idea. I would say there is room for massive error. Indeed, error seems to me more likely than not. jhawkinson (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- unfortunately, jhawk is correct. whitehouse.gov (Biden presidency) vs. List of executive orders by Joe Biden#2021. not sure what to do, although hopefully the federal register should be officially publishing them soon, at least. - avxktty (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- for the newest orders, i've put the {{coming soon}} template as a temporary measure. not sure if that's best, but it's better than making up numbers. not sure what to do for the other ones, as they've been linked to wikisource articles that have been created already. - avxktty (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- scratch that, the articles are the full name, not the supposed EO. name, so i've just replaced the text for all of them with XXXXX while preserving the hyperlink. - avxktty (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, avx. To me it seems like there are only two clear choices: (1) remove all of our "absolute" numbers; and (2) possibly add our own numbers (starting from 1), making it clear they are unofficial/temporary/assigned by Wikipedia for our own purposes. I don't think there a lot of justification for (2), but at least it's not likely to be wrong in the same kinds of ways. jhawkinson (talk) 22:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i've added:
Relative numbers come from the order which they were published on whitehouse.gov, and may be subject to change once these are officially published in the Federal Register.
- as i feel it's appropriate to clarify that we don't know the order they were signed for sure, either. do correct me if i'm wrong though, i'm new here. - avxktty (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, this is a better idea. but whatever the first EO is, it will be 14145, as the last one biden signed in the federal register was 14144 pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah. i'd assume "Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions" is likely EO.14145, but i think it's best to leave the absolute numbers as "XXXXX", as assuming them can be very dangerous and misleading information for little purpose other than for us to try to get it done faster than physically possible. - avxktty (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- WTF. the EO. that was just published as 14145 WASN'T EVEN ANNOUNCED ON WHITEHOUSE.GOV.......DAMMIT.... - avxktty (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah ok so we should definitely never guess the number, then. - avxktty (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- wait 14145 is literally another biden EO..this is a disaster on several pages now ugh... - avxktty (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- okay, fixed List of executive actions by Joe Biden and s:Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions , not sure if the number is being incorrectly used anywhere else. - avxktty (talk) 13:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- wait 14145 is literally another biden EO..this is a disaster on several pages now ugh... - avxktty (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah ok so we should definitely never guess the number, then. - avxktty (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- WTF. the EO. that was just published as 14145 WASN'T EVEN ANNOUNCED ON WHITEHOUSE.GOV.......DAMMIT.... - avxktty (talk) 13:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know about EOs, but when OFR publishes laws, they sometimes assign a number and page numbers and skip it before publishing it or fully codifying it. So it could well be that the first EO published might not be EO 14145. I suppose it may depend on the meaning of "first." "First signed," "first published on whitehouse.gov," "first published in the Federal Register," and "first delivered to OFR" may all be different. Although of course they could easily be the same as well. Not that this matters. jhawkinson (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i'd assume the process includes sending the papers to the Federal Register in the order that they were signed, but i digress, really. - avxktty (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- We should wait until the Federal Register publishes the numbers. Our guesses based on the order they were signed could turn out to be incorrect, especially for EO's signed on the same day. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- i'd assume the process includes sending the papers to the Federal Register in the order that they were signed, but i digress, really. - avxktty (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah. i'd assume "Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions" is likely EO.14145, but i think it's best to leave the absolute numbers as "XXXXX", as assuming them can be very dangerous and misleading information for little purpose other than for us to try to get it done faster than physically possible. - avxktty (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, this is a better idea. but whatever the first EO is, it will be 14145, as the last one biden signed in the federal register was 14144 pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- for the newest orders, i've put the {{coming soon}} template as a temporary measure. not sure if that's best, but it's better than making up numbers. not sure what to do for the other ones, as they've been linked to wikisource articles that have been created already. - avxktty (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- unfortunately, jhawk is correct. whitehouse.gov (Biden presidency) vs. List of executive orders by Joe Biden#2021. not sure what to do, although hopefully the federal register should be officially publishing them soon, at least. - avxktty (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Inconsistency in executive order title hyperlinks
[edit]I noticed that the hyperlinks in the titles of executive orders 14146 and 14170 link to separate articles on WikiSource, which is inconsistent with all of the other order titles in the table. It is also inconsistent with the article on the executive orders of his first term, which never does this, and typically only links to a separate Wikpedia article on the order if it exists. - avxktty (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- actually, seems that the links should be in the executive order number for consistency, i guess. i'll do that now. - avxktty (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Redirect to first term
[edit]When I search "Executive orders of Donald Trump" it redirects me to the list of executive orders in his first term, I was wondering if a disambiguation page would be good here. Chorchapu (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- shouldnt be necessary, on the first term page there is a see also at the top for second term 2600:1017:B8B5:35F1:C938:ADCD:6598:E117 (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd be in favor of turning https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Executive_orders_of_Donald_Trump&redirect=no into a disambiguation page. The first term page is no longer the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. They are going to turn into equally important topics. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Chorchapu (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- thanks! i was also unsure about this, too. - avxktty (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
First term vs. Second term EO Wikisource inconsistency
[edit]the naming of Wikisource executive order pages linked here are inconsistent with the naming of orders of his first term. i believe that these pages should be moved to retain naming consistency.
example: "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" (EO. 14146) vs. "Executive Order 13765" - avxktty (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would support renaming them to their full names. Like the first one "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" is the correct way and the one just numbers should be renamed. No one is going to remember the EO number, but they will remember the title of it. So almost like per WP:COMMONNAME, the first-term ones should be renamed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah actually this is fair and probably makes more sense, i did just see that it appears that the executive orders issued by joe biden were moved to an article titled with their full name. - avxktty (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
"Pillar of Project 2025" column
[edit]should we really have this..? i agree with the sentiment, but to me this also just seems like a blatantly passive-aggressive violation of WP:NPOV. - avxktty (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- also, it definitely requires citations here either way. - avxktty (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I removed it. This idea that every Trump executive order comes from the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 and corresponds 1:1 to one of the P2025 pillars seems like WP:OR to me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- which edit added that? pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- link to the edit is present in my original comment - avxktty (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Clarification
[edit]I don't know which EO that "barred federal government involvement in criminal investigations of political adversaries" refers to. IMO there should be a reference or at least a link to the EO for each statement in the lead about the purpose of the EOs. Sjö (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- from my understanding, this is in reference EO.14147 ("Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government"), which the title does imply, but the contents of it don't really seem to actually do this. i believe it could be a misinterpretation..? - avxktty (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Inclusion of EO."Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity"
[edit]@Novem Linguae are you sure it isn't an executive order? as far as i can see it is written like every other executive order rather than a press release or a proclamation, and even calls itself one too. i'm pretty sure it's just a minor mistake on their end failing to tag it, there's no other indication that it isn't one. - avxktty (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- it does also like news outlets are treating this as one as well, including NBC news. - avxktty (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for linking to NBC. Hard to argue with a reliable source. I've put it back in. Let's keep an eye on the Federal Register to confirm its executive order number, once that gets released. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- thanks! yeah, i've been waiting for them too, lol. - avxktty (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for linking to NBC. Hard to argue with a reliable source. I've put it back in. Let's keep an eye on the Federal Register to confirm its executive order number, once that gets released. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how notable this is in terms of whether it should be corrected or not but I saw the date on this one get live updated from January 22 to 21. A snapshot from the Wayback Machine this morning has it listed as 22. This might be further indication of the incorrect tagging simply being administrative error. NinjaDuckie (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- interesting and weird. i'll go fix the date to match what they're saying now, then. - avxktty (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- okay, yeah it does seem they definitely made that mistake, the NBC article referencing it was last updated on January 21 (most likely some sort of timezone error but i disgress). - avxktty (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- interesting and weird. i'll go fix the date to match what they're saying now, then. - avxktty (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- it is formatted like an EO, not sure... pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- see the 4th reply in Talk:List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump#EO missing ?, they have also forgotten to categorize the newest "President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology" executive order as one on their site as well. it appears to be human error. - avxktty (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- unsurprising coming from the trump administration lol pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- 💀
- anyways i think as long as it's formatted like "[...] it is hereby ordered as follows [...] Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect [...]", we can safely assume it's an executive order. (i'm not a lawyer or anything though, ofc) - avxktty (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah, EOs have a specific order that is generally followed. not necessary, just tradition afaik. so we can safely assume that for now, at least until the federal register is published for trumps administration. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- With the exception of "Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity" [1], most whitehouse.gov executive orders appear to have a small tag below their title that says "Executive Order". For example, [2]. I think we should rely on that tag, except in cases where reliable sources can confirm that a non-tagged whitehouse.gov post is an executive order. And of course the Federal Register will eventually clarify everything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- as mentioned above, this mistake has been made again with the newest President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology executive order being uncategorized, this time being more clear, as those are always executive orders passed by each administration. - avxktty (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- With the exception of "Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity" [1], most whitehouse.gov executive orders appear to have a small tag below their title that says "Executive Order". For example, [2]. I think we should rely on that tag, except in cases where reliable sources can confirm that a non-tagged whitehouse.gov post is an executive order. And of course the Federal Register will eventually clarify everything. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah, EOs have a specific order that is generally followed. not necessary, just tradition afaik. so we can safely assume that for now, at least until the federal register is published for trumps administration. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- unsurprising coming from the trump administration lol pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- see the 4th reply in Talk:List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump#EO missing ?, they have also forgotten to categorize the newest "President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology" executive order as one on their site as well. it appears to be human error. - avxktty (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Created a page for the order. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 04:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- thanks! - avxktty (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Really long "Date signed" row
[edit]the row for "January 20, 2025" is a whopping 26 rows long. is formatting like this required by some standard we have here? if not, i'm a bit concerned about readability, as the date is only visible when scrolling to the center of the table. - avxktty (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- List of executive orders in the first presidency of Donald Trump also uses rowspans to merge identical date cells. Because of that, I think I'm in favor of doing that on this article as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- while that is true, it's also important to note that the highest rowspan at all there is a mere 5, and the date never goes off the screen. if we continue to experience flurries of executive orders (which i find potentially likely), i think there is a fair argument for some sort of differentiation here. - avxktty (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Trump 45 presidency article never had to contend with large numbers of rows with the same date, and presumably no editor ever thought about the implications for this article, nor did they feel they were setting a precedent; these were facts not in evidence. We should not feel compelled to be consistent with that article if it makes this article look bad (and it does make this article look bad). Indeed, if there were a strong desire for consistency on this point (I don't think there is!), then the proper step might be to go and remove the rowspans from that article, not to force them onto this one. jhawkinson (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Could we make the lead longer?
[edit]The Trump series thing on the right gives the header section a lot of empty space at the bottom. Kaotao (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- i believe there is also supposed to be a chart in addition, mirroring the first article. - avxktty (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The chart is disabled for performance reasons temporarily. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, but my point is that we shouldn't structure the article around a temporary technical issue (so, meaning we should just pretend that there's a chart there) - avxktty (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i mean since this is a WP:STANDALONE list, generally the lede should only be a few sentences explaining the list contents. if we want some sort of generalization of all the executive orders, we can put that in a section at the bottom i guess. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i really do think we should revert the lead. this is a standalone list pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i do agree in the long term (we should mirror the lead from the previous article), but, at least personally, i find it useful due to us currently not having full articles about many of these executive orders and their effects. - avxktty (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- mw:Extension:Graph was disabled for security reasons. WMF is working on a new extension mw:Extension:Chart to replace it. ETA unknown.
- I'd be in favor of keeping the lead. Lists are allowed to have some prose. You can check some featured lists for examples. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- i do agree in the long term (we should mirror the lead from the previous article), but, at least personally, i find it useful due to us currently not having full articles about many of these executive orders and their effects. - avxktty (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i really do think we should revert the lead. this is a standalone list pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd disagree with not "structure the article around a temporary technical issue" here. The blank space feels like a big problem and we should remedy it now, even if we have to change that remedy in the future. Especially because these executive orders are getting a lot of attention now in late January 2025, probably more attention than they will ever get from the lay public, so there are likely plenty of people who go to this article who will never do so in the future. (Also, there are people who would always go to the Federal Register's list of EOs as the definitive source, but that list is not available now). Many of those eyeballs may be confused by the large blank space, and some of them will doubtless abandon the article without scrolling down to see the list. Let's remove that confusing empty space (whether by filling it with text or some other mechanism) until such time as the technical issue is addressed. I mean, I'd be happy with a picture or big dot leader or even a huge arrow pointing down that said "SCROLL." Even though I don't think any of those are good solutions, I think they are better than the blank. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- fair point, i initially assumed "temporary technical issue" here meant it was like a short outage for a few days. - avxktty (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Actually prophetic; someone just AfD'd this article because they thought it was just the lead. Kaotao (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just now I made some edits that should reduce the whitespace and the problems associated with it. Hopefully it's an improvement :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- disagree with this change as it causes the series thing to go into the 2025 section space, and leaves a large amount of whitespace between the section title (and its current notice), and the EO table. - avxktty (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- perhaps the image could be moved underneath the lead..? not sure whether that would be acceptable or look good. - avxktty (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly about it. Feel free to modify or revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's an improvement but I'd say it takes the problem from a 9 to a 7 on my 1-10 scale of badness. If the AfD theory is correct, that is hilarious. Can we do better? jhawkinson (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Idea: We could delete the sidebar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Novem Linguae What if we moved it below the table? Kaotao (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- i don't think we should, since this is part of the trump series. anyways, i just made an adjustment right now to hopefully make it a bit better. - avxktty (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Avxktty Images in the whitespace is less indicative of there being more content than the header would be, IMO. Kaotao (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- yeah, but by moving the image from above the series template to below the lead, it reduces the overall amount of whitespace. - avxktty (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Avxktty Images in the whitespace is less indicative of there being more content than the header would be, IMO. Kaotao (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Idea: We could delete the sidebar. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- disagree with this change as it causes the series thing to go into the 2025 section space, and leaves a large amount of whitespace between the section title (and its current notice), and the EO table. - avxktty (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Just now I made some edits that should reduce the whitespace and the problems associated with it. Hopefully it's an improvement :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- i mean since this is a WP:STANDALONE list, generally the lede should only be a few sentences explaining the list contents. if we want some sort of generalization of all the executive orders, we can put that in a section at the bottom i guess. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- yes, but my point is that we shouldn't structure the article around a temporary technical issue (so, meaning we should just pretend that there's a chart there) - avxktty (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- The chart is disabled for performance reasons temporarily. pauliesnug (message / contribs) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Hyperlinks within EO names
[edit]@Darkskynet hey, i believe that ideally we are sticking to only linking directly to a page on more specifics of the executive order, rather than hyperlinking words in the (which are often misnomers or politically biased rather than accurate) titles (example: you linked "Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship" to Censorship in the United States, which doesn't appear to have anything to do with the actual contents of the order despite it sounding correct, due to the inherent politically biased nature of the order's title)
essentially, i believe List of executive orders in the first presidency of Donald Trump is how we ought to style these, to maintain accuracy and consistency. correct me if i'm wrong, though. - avxktty (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I made an attempt to only link articles that were related to each of the topics, but I have removed the link to Censorship in the United States that you mentioned. (link to edit)
- Regarding the Executive Orders, I’m curious about the plans for creating individual articles. I’ve noticed that some have articles, while others don’t, as seen on the first list page. The contents of the Executive Orders are also available on WikiSource: s:Author:Donald John Trump/Executive orders. It seems a bit redundant to have separate articles that essentially just repeat the content of the orders unless there’s something particularly noteworthy about a specific order.
- Thanks, Darkskynet (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- i'd argue for their necessity as they're basically rewritten out of being legalese, making them easier to read and understand quickly. as for the inconsistency of their existence, i believe this is more of WP:NOTFINISHED rather than the articles not being noteworthy enough
- basically, an easily readable summary of every one of these orders' contents deserves a place somewhere here on wikipedia in my view. - avxktty (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the wikilinks from the title column before I saw this talk page section. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a "summary" column to the table if we want to add an easily readable summary and/or wikilinks to concepts, similar to what we do in TV show episode list articles. However, that might make the table quite dense at higher zooms. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i'm not sure. most executive orders seem to be notable and have enough effects and reaction to deserve their own page, and this would also make the table like 10x longer and less readable. i'm not really sure whether WP:NOTE is an issue here, though. - avxktty (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the EO's that have their own page we could write in that column space something like "see example page for more details." or something similar to direct users towards those individual articles? Darkskynet (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i'd say this all depends on how complex and frequent the future executive orders turn out to be. it's difficult to plan an article like this out in advance. - avxktty (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- although, previous articles do carry weight here. should List of executive actions by Joe Biden and List of executive actions by Barack Obama be given this makeover as well, for example? - avxktty (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- On second thought, keeping table structure consistent across articles is probably the way to go. So I guess I'm disinclined to add a summary column now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- although, previous articles do carry weight here. should List of executive actions by Joe Biden and List of executive actions by Barack Obama be given this makeover as well, for example? - avxktty (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i'd say this all depends on how complex and frequent the future executive orders turn out to be. it's difficult to plan an article like this out in advance. - avxktty (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- For the EO's that have their own page we could write in that column space something like "see example page for more details." or something similar to direct users towards those individual articles? Darkskynet (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with your recommendation here - given the speed, volume, and impact of these EO, it would be highly useful to have summary or relevant links column for the table. It's unprecedented to have this many executive orders in one day for an American president, so I see no reason to be held back by previous practice for something this unusual when that summary column can be so useful to the reader. New situations spawn new standards. If relevant, others can give the same treatment to previous "List of executive actions..." articles. - Fuzheado | Talk 13:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- honestly. i think it might be best, at least for now, even if it makes it way too long and inconsistent with previous pages. it's likely many people will be reading over this for the next 4 years and having to go to each link to see what they do would be annoying.
- i think we should have both a summary and a link to a page that goes more in-depth about the response, effects, and provisions. - avxktty (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree with having a summary, and a page for each EO. Since some people will just want to know the basics of what the EO does, and once the list contains hundreds of items having a short summary will help users find the correct EO they may be looking to research. And if they want to deep dive more, there will be pages for each one or at least the link to the EO text on WikiSource. Darkskynet (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, how should we summarize the day 2+ orders? How selective should we be? Kaotao (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I also agree with having a summary, and a page for each EO. Since some people will just want to know the basics of what the EO does, and once the list contains hundreds of items having a short summary will help users find the correct EO they may be looking to research. And if they want to deep dive more, there will be pages for each one or at least the link to the EO text on WikiSource. Darkskynet (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i'm not sure. most executive orders seem to be notable and have enough effects and reaction to deserve their own page, and this would also make the table like 10x longer and less readable. i'm not really sure whether WP:NOTE is an issue here, though. - avxktty (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the wikilinks from the title column before I saw this talk page section. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a "summary" column to the table if we want to add an easily readable summary and/or wikilinks to concepts, similar to what we do in TV show episode list articles. However, that might make the table quite dense at higher zooms. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- basically, an easily readable summary of every one of these orders' contents deserves a place somewhere here on wikipedia in my view. - avxktty (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
"prevented government censorship of free speech"
[edit]i'm pretty sure this is not WP:NPOV at all. this statement implies that there was:
(a) some government censorship of free speech during joe biden's 2021-2025 presidency, and... (b) measures taken to prevent (a) by donald trump.
even if both of these are true, they both require heavily require WP:CITE. - avxktty (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- (link to most recent edit containing this at the time of writing, for context.) - avxktty (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I was not the one who originally wrote the text in a non-neutral way, but I think found at least a better way of writing it so it as least mentions that the s:Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship EO is basically only symbollic since its already a protection all Americans are protected from by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. (My changes here).
- Thanks, Darkskynet (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i'm not exactly sure if we should include it at all as the order seems to do nothing for anybody except virtue signal as far as i can understand. this is better though for now, though, thanks! - avxktty (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- An edit was made which erroneously suggests that this executive order unrestricted speech on privately owned communications channels. The executive order grants no new rights but under a plain reading of the text reaffirms existing rights under the first amendment of the constitution which prevents the government itself from restricting free speech of private citizens or private means of communications. It does not force privately owned means of communications to provide for unrestricted speech nor does it prevent said privately owned mediums from editorializing or shaping public discourse on their platforms. I have reworded it again to reaffirm that this EO does not give any new rights to anyone, its just a meant to reaffirm what is already in the constitution. I clarified further by using this "reaffirmed the existing constitutional right for protections of free speech as granted by the US constitution from interference by government" Darkskynet (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- not really a fan of their edit at all, it only uses slightly weaker wording for no reason. - avxktty (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cutting the size of a phrase by two thirds is a reason. Kaotao (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- rereading it, really the only weakness was the rewriting of the freedom of speech thing, actually, my bad. - avxktty (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- If the executive order is purely symbolic, we don't have to mention it at all in the lead. The lead can just be a summary of the important stuff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Cutting the size of a phrase by two thirds is a reason. Kaotao (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- not really a fan of their edit at all, it only uses slightly weaker wording for no reason. - avxktty (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- An edit was made which erroneously suggests that this executive order unrestricted speech on privately owned communications channels. The executive order grants no new rights but under a plain reading of the text reaffirms existing rights under the first amendment of the constitution which prevents the government itself from restricting free speech of private citizens or private means of communications. It does not force privately owned means of communications to provide for unrestricted speech nor does it prevent said privately owned mediums from editorializing or shaping public discourse on their platforms. I have reworded it again to reaffirm that this EO does not give any new rights to anyone, its just a meant to reaffirm what is already in the constitution. I clarified further by using this "reaffirmed the existing constitutional right for protections of free speech as granted by the US constitution from interference by government" Darkskynet (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i'm not exactly sure if we should include it at all as the order seems to do nothing for anybody except virtue signal as far as i can understand. this is better though for now, though, thanks! - avxktty (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
EO missing ?
[edit]Hello, i remindber DT saying he would produce +100 EO on "first day", does the list miss some of it or DT just lyed !? I can extrapolate "first day" to be first week but now the week is about to end and there is arround 1/4 of it... Thanks for your times. 142.169.16.254 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- he does exaggerate a lot, he did also imply that he'd be a dictator on day one, for example. anyways, these are all of them that have been signed and released at the moment! you can find them at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions. also, while this isn't >100 executive orders, it is the most executive orders put out by a U.S. president in a single day. - avxktty (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- DAMMIT, he just pumped out a few more within like the past hour...🫠🫠🫠
- well, i'll get on that!- avxktty (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've now added three of the new EO's from today to wikisource s:Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, s:Declassification of Records Concerning the Assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., s:Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology. I was using the XXXXX designation so there was at least links to the EO's text until we get the EO numbers. Darkskynet (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- i finished them on the table after you because there are actually 4 so it did a weird merge thing and doesn't show me in the edit log, not sure what that's about. anyways i added back the one you didn't see though. similar to "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity", "President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology" is strangely not labelled as an executive order. see President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, though. it is indeed an executive order. - avxktty (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah I also found that odd that one of them was not listed as a EO on the White House website, so I just didn't list it as I wasn't sure if it was a proclamation etc.
- Thanks for adding it :) Darkskynet (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have to say that i was kind of expecting that but i was wondering if maybe he did something else than EO but didn't know what a EO was and added that up... I remindber the page removing somes EO for not being actual EO a few days back so... I said to myself maybe !? But thanks everyone, i cosider myself answered. 142.169.16.248 (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- i finished them on the table after you because there are actually 4 so it did a weird merge thing and doesn't show me in the edit log, not sure what that's about. anyways i added back the one you didn't see though. similar to "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit Based Opportunity", "President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology" is strangely not labelled as an executive order. see President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, though. it is indeed an executive order. - avxktty (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- I've now added three of the new EO's from today to wikisource s:Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence, s:Declassification of Records Concerning the Assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., s:Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology. I was using the XXXXX designation so there was at least links to the EO's text until we get the EO numbers. Darkskynet (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- well, i'll get on that!- avxktty (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- You sound a bit surprised that Trump made a misleading statement. You may be interested in reading False or misleading statements by Donald Trump. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nah, it's was just me being... How to say... "politically correct"... 142.169.16.248 (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Removal of "Signed executive orders" section
[edit]I've removed this (so now the EO. table is just under the "2025" section) due to it being a remnant of when we had a separate "Plans" section along with the (previously empty) executive order table. (it's also inconsistent with related articles to have this, ofc.) - avxktty (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- (i forgot to mention that in the edit summary so i figured i'd throw that here just in case of any confusion) - avxktty (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
EO article titles
[edit]Due to the above discussion on the EO numbers, I moved most of the individual EO articles to the formal title, both since the numbers may be incorrect and because the titles are more recognizable. (I skipped one that had move protection and another was blocked by an existing redirect.)
Most existing EOs articles seem to be named by number, but I believe in general that either the formal name or a descriptive title would be more aligned with policy since they are more recognizable. I want to open this up for discussion. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- All previous EO articles have them listed using the same title format, examples Executive Order 14006, Executive Order 14005, Executive Order 13581, Executive Order 13603. But since the Federal Register has yet to be updated for EO's since the 17 January 2025, we have no idea what the numbers for any of these are until they post them.
- I suggest we just use the title of the EO's for article names. After we know the actual EO numbers then move the pages to the corrected article titles after? I didn't realize that the numbers were wrong when i moved one of the pages previously. I moved Designation Of Ansar Allah as a Foreign Terrorist Organization to Executive Order 14172 when in hindsight was preemptive as we don't yet know if 14172 is the correct number, and people are going to start quoting these numbers online as if they are fact if we don't modify the page names until we know for sure. I'm open to suggestions before I start moving pages around, that are just going to need moved again once we know the numbers for the EO's.
- Cheers!, Darkskynet (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some of these wrong EO article titles are already getting linked to quite a lot, and they will all most likely end up linking to the wrong thing once the Federal Register gives them their correct numbers.
- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Executive+Order+14172&namespace=&limit=50
- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere?target=Executive+Order+14156&namespace=&limit=50
- This is going to be a mess of redirects once we know the correct numbers. Darkskynet (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- After looking into possibly having an admin move the page that has the redirect blocking it, I noticed that there is a week backlog at WP:RM. So it may be worth just waiting for a few days and see if the Federal Register assigns some numbers as they may act faster then we can get the page moved by the Admins. I went ahead an edited the pages that needed it to mention that the numbers are unknown. And I also edited this list and replaced the numbers of all except the first one with TBD. Darkskynet (talk) 08:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- In that case, you can ask the specific admin who imposed the block to reverse it for this purpose. It was probably put in place due to vandalism and not to prevent a move of this type. For the Ansar Allah EO, I posted a {{Db-move}} at the redirect to get it speedily deleted to enable the move.
- Also, "TBD" should be used rather than a bunch of X's because the former is more understandable, and the article lead sentences should just omit the EO number rather than having a super long explanation. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like the idea of moving the executive order articles to non-numbered titles, until federal register numbers are available. If you need an admin to do any pageswaps or delete anything in the way of the move, I am an admin and I can take a look. Just let me know which ones. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- We've got the first batch of numbers from the Federal Register. Can you please move:
- Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions → Executive Order 14148.
- Thanks, Darkskynet (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- I like the idea of moving the executive order articles to non-numbered titles, until federal register numbers are available. If you need an admin to do any pageswaps or delete anything in the way of the move, I am an admin and I can take a look. Just let me know which ones. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Absolute Numbers
[edit]Some of the numbers are included or mentioned/cited on some linked articles, so why aren't they updated in the table? X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- see Talk:List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump#Are the absolute numbers correct?
- but to sum it up, we initially assumed that the executive orders were being published in sequential order from whitehouse.gov, so we started assuming we could just go off of the last published biden order at the time, 14144, and start from 14145. this was a problem because:
- (a) looking back, we realized that the biden administration didn't even publish their first few orders on whitehouse.gov in order
- (b) the last order from the biden administration was actually NOT 14144, it was the last number published in the federal register. this has caused the issue that EO.14145 may be referenced in several places currently as the "Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions" EO by Donald Trump, while in reality, it's the "Helping Left-Behind Communities Make a Comeback" EO by Joe Biden, which was published a few hours ago.
- TLDR: every single executive order number that we guessed is completely wrong because we started guessing at the wrong offset. these should be purged ASAP, we should only use the numbers published by the Federal Register, available at federalregister.gov. - avxktty (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Making the Wikisource links more explicit
[edit]It's a bit unintuitive for links to the full text to be under their IDs. Maybe we could do something like "Name (Full text:)"? Kaotao (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- clarify please? i'm not sure i understand what you mean. - avxktty (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Avxktty Right now, the links to the Wikisource pages for executive orders are under their listed absolute numbers. Kaotao (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- you mean on this page? it's formatted like "TBD"/[[s:Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions|TBD]] here, though - avxktty (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I meant it's unintuitive for readers that the absolute numbers would link to the full text. Kaotao (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- you mean we should move the links somewhere else? afaik it was done like this on every other EO list. - avxktty (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- i guess it isn't super clear at first that the EO. number links to the actual document, though. idk. - avxktty (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was proposing putting the links in parentheses after the titles, but maybe we could just clarify that the EO numbers link to Wikisource instead. Kaotao (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- If we change this one all the other lists will also need changed. I see no advantage to making this many changes to make such a small visual change. Darkskynet (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I renamed the "Ref" column to "Full text", since the references contain the full executive orders. Poor Wikisource. Kaotao (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- i guess it isn't super clear at first that the EO. number links to the actual document, though. idk. - avxktty (talk) 14:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- you mean we should move the links somewhere else? afaik it was done like this on every other EO list. - avxktty (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I meant it's unintuitive for readers that the absolute numbers would link to the full text. Kaotao (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- you mean on this page? it's formatted like "TBD"/[[s:Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions|TBD]] here, though - avxktty (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Avxktty Right now, the links to the Wikisource pages for executive orders are under their listed absolute numbers. Kaotao (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
it appears that many of the articles on executive orders are violating WP:NOR, specifically subsection WP:PSTS's policy #2, #4, and #5 (i am pretty sure we reword and go in-depth way too much to be protected by #1 and #3). we are heavily rewording what the WP:PRIMARY source says, which should be backed up by several WP:SECONDARY sources.
see "Putting America First In International Environmental Agreements#Provisions" for an example. - avxktty (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- for an example of how we ought to improve, see how they wrote "Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government", this one appears to be relatively wonderfully done and sourced for the most part. - avxktty (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
EO article title discussion
[edit]I've started a discussion on article titles for U.S. executive orders at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (government and legislation)#U.S. executive order titles. All are invited to comment. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 06:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- oh, thanks! - avxktty (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Friday EO numbers
[edit]There have been updates to the federal registrar here and here , giving a bunch of EO's their numbers. However they're not officially publishing then untill Monday (3rd Feb) so I was hesitant to update the article instantly. LunaHasArrived (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Court actions
[edit]Should there be a column to note the various court actions for some of the EOs? I know it’s not like the article about first term EOs, but it seems quite notable. — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 19:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- For the EOs that have articles, the articles might be a better place to list court cases related to the EOs. Columns are usually best when every cell can be filled in, and I don't think every EO is going to have a court case. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Good points — TadgStirkland401 (TadgTalk) 22:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Piped links
[edit]@Novem Linguae I noticed that you have reverted my edit in which I corrected the capitalization of the names of some executive orders and adjusted some links. In the edit summary of your revert, you referenced WP:NOTBROKEN, which states that changing to a piped link is beneficial only in a few cases.
Could you clarify how the use of piped links benefits the article? Is there a consensus favoring piped links over redirects? I think that it is pointless to use piped links that only introduce unnecessary invisible text to the source code of the article. Xoontor (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Xoontor. Looks like I reverted too many edits. I should have just reverted this one which was changing non-piped wikilinks to redirects, to piped wikilinks bypassing redirects. That was the edit that ran afoul of WP:NOTBROKEN.
- A spot check of the Federal Register citations does appear to prefer not capitalizing the articles and prepositions of these EOs, so that part looks OK too.
- Please accept my apologies, and feel free to reinstate your edits. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
- List-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- List-Class United States articles
- Mid-importance United States articles
- List-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- List-Class United States Government articles
- Unknown-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- List-Class United States Presidents articles
- High-importance United States Presidents articles
- List-Class Donald Trump articles
- Top-importance Donald Trump articles
- Donald Trump task force articles
- Wikipedia articles that use American English