Template talk:Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar

Broadening the scope of List of shootings by U.S. immigration agents in the second Trump administration

There is a discussion on whether this list page should be broadened to include shootings before Trump II, but since this page currently is included in the Trump II immigration infobox, other editors may want to weigh in on the ramifications. Einsof (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Principles used for organizing the sidebar

If you'd like a large-scale change to be made, feel free to make suggestions. This is articulating the logic behind that I consider the most controversial aspects of this template's layout.

• Private sector and technology seems broad at first, but CBP Home was developed by the US government without help from the private sector, whereas many tech companies like Clearview AI have helped make technology. So combining private sector and technology in one label is the most logical and concise in my view.
• Targeting of immigrants is organized by the type of action an immigrant was targeted in rather than the means of targeting (shooting, detention, deportation, etc), aside from Silverio Gonzalez because shooting is a very notable means of targeting. That way, people can see which immigrants were targeted for being activists, beign a farmworker, etc. I think that's more useful than organizing based on arrests/deportations because in many cases the two overlap.
• Shootings (Killings (Renee Good)) type organizing, rather than simply having a Shootings section, was something I decided upon because A) it's likely in the future there will be more shootings that don't kill in addition to the existing Portland shooting, so having a delimiter for these cases is handy, and B) because "Killings" provides important information to readers.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

RfC: To include or not to include nav links?

@Novem Linguae took down my inclusion of Operations Charlotte's Web and Catch of the Day because they lead to sections inside another article rather than directly to an article itself.

Are (A) these article sections WP:DUE for inclusion as individual hyperlinks within the template, or (B) should only full articles be referenced? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:15, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Alexandraaaacs1989, please consider editor time, RfCs take up a lot of community time, and this is very minor. You haven't even started a discussion with the reverter. RfCs are an avenue of last resort if you can't find a compromise/consensus (WP:RFCBEFORE), they shouldn't be your go-to Kowal2701 (talk) 21:47, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This is far too minor - and too premature - to require a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC. Just discuss in the normal way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, we can discuss normally. I just didn't think many people stopped by this talk page so I was trying to solicit attention. Sorry for prematurely starting the RfC. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

You can put a {{subst:Please see|Template talk:Immigration policy of the second Trump administration sidebar#RfC%3A To include or not to include nav links%3F}} on a related, busier talk page if you'd like. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I'll do just this. Thank you! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

To elaborate on my reasoning, adding multiple section wikilinks to navboxes/sidebars feels to me like it violates the spirit of WP:BIDI, which prescribes a 1:1 relationship between article links and navboxes/sidebars, not a many-to-one relationship. I am reading between the lines here and this is debatable, but that is my take on it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for explaining the policy basis of your reasoning. Personally I find this interpretation of WP:BIDI as overly strict and venturing into WP:WIKILAWYERING territory. Interested to hear what others think. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, really? Pft. I said the same over Template:Gaza genocide sidebar, in the multuple discussions, over multiple template reviews that were requested, where I spent a considerable time and effort guiding you in such endeavours may I add. Not to make this too personal, but hopefully you remember these discussions, as I can't be bothered to link them, and other editors also expressed a similar sentiment over section links if I recall correctly (or, as I probably put it, trivial links). As I said before the litmus test with sidebars is based on whether it'd be due as the main sidebar for the topic, not whether it'd fit into a section or not. I've culled section links on more than one of your templates before, while helping to refine the navigation, so I'm not seeing the rationale for an RfC here, or for the section links for that matter. BRDI otherwise being "overly strict" is an issue that you have with the WP community that promoted that guideline, not any single editor. Sorry for making this personal, but throwing baseless accusations towards another experienced and good faith editor is somewhat frustrating to see. Regards, from another GF editor. CNC (talk) 20:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry that I articulated myself poorly, I wasn't trying to accuse him of anything. I just was trying to get at implying I think his interpretation is more strict than mine, which he himself even admitted, saying the spirit of WP:BIDI, which prescribes a 1:1 relationship between article links and navboxes/sidebars, not a many-to-one relationship. I am reading between the lines here. I was going off of this point in order to say that he is reading between the lines and I am too, and we see different things between the lines, not that it's misbehavior on his part in any form. I mentioned Wikilawyering to basically say I think it's too strict of an interpretation of a more flexible policy, but I kept my comment brief because I have a habit of sometimes WP:BLUDGEONING by accident, which I'm trying to avoid. Clearly it sounded like an accusation of disruption or something along these lines, so I'm sorry it sounded this way and that is not what I intended.

As for the other template discussions, I remember that other editors were opposed to using section links, but I thought this template's sparing usage only for large topics, in a section that's already short, fell below the threshold (just adding two extra operations, in a template that would otherwise make it difficult and unintuitive to find these other operations since they're in the "list of ICE raids" article, or whatever it is). If it wasn't a threshold but an absolute that there's consensus absolutely no section links must be used in any form in these templates, then I made a bad assumption about the previous discussion. Or if it's true that we can only include articles on it for which it would be the main sidebar, then the current version of this template should be revised, which I can do to be more faithful to the community consensus. This wasn't my memory, but if that was the case then I will take your word and rescind support for this RfC. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

If it wasn't a threshold but an absolute that there's consensus absolutely no section links must be used in any form in these templates, then I made a bad assumption about the previous discussion. If I remember correctly, the discussions were focused more on the template in question, rather than being a general discussion over templates. But I imagine my rationale was along the lines of "that's how templates are supposed to work", rather than anything topic specific. It might also have been implied by others, even if not explicitly stated.

To me a lot of the guidelines is for the benefit of consistency among templates, rather than being absolute as correct or incorrect (I don't agree with all of them either). My interpretation is otherwise one that attempts to reflect community usage, that of not (or rarely) including section links. It's not I'm 100% opposed, but more so that as it's not standard to do so, it's likely it requires consensus to include (because it will be removed by another editor, ie this situation). I feel like now we are here, there are two editors who opposed section links (on principle you could say), and two who support inclusion. From here it's probably best to wait and see if other editors weigh in to support your proposal, ie WP:CONBUILD.

I otherwise added List of immigration raids and arrests in the second Trump presidency as header link for operations (alternatively, this should be at the start as List (Operations X, Y, Z) if not ideal as header). If, like in this case, the alternative to linking an article is to link it's section multiple times (noting that it's also section linked as Arrests), then I am very strongly opposed. We are supposed to link articles over sections, not the other way around. This therefore isn't a case where material navigation would be lost by not including the section links; if anything it saves wasting reader time with links that most will be expecting to link to full, standalone articles. Instead they just get the same list, twice. That's annoying if you ask me, and one of the reasons I started removing section links when I see them (usually, for wasting my time and disrupting my experience as a reader). CNC (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm returning to Wikipedia after a hiatus, yes this is 100% reasonable. My main issue was with how it's difficult for readers to find operations on Wikipedia as there's no centralized location where they're stored. So I'll be careful going forward to disinclude section links from all forms of navigational tools, and to address the problem I mentioned, I'll work on a new Wikipedia page called Draft:List of immigration operations during the second Trump administration or something along these lines we could include in that section. List of immigration raids and arrests in the second Trump presidency could benefit in my eyes from being put into list format of all WP:NOTABLE operations (using excerpts to reduce redundancy), but I'll gauge second opinions before making any major changes. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Not sure wikilawyering is the best choice of words here. I'd argue that wikilawyering is different than gently presenting my opinion about the spirit of a rule on a talk page. cc Alalch E. who reverted recently. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

You are right. That was not meant to be an accusation, I'm sorry. What I was getting at was that you just have a stricter interpretation than mine of WP:BIDI, which is completely understandable and acceptable. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

you just have a stricter interpretation than mine of WP:BIDI Yeap, that sounds about right :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

List of non-bidi links removed - examine

• H-1B visa restrictions

• Remittance tax

• NSPM-7

• Laken Riley Act

• Sami Hamdi

• Amanda Ungaro

• Nurul Amin Shah Alam

• Guan Heng

• Kseniia Petrova

• Ian Roberts

• Attacks on journalists

• Mahmoud Khalil

• Mohsen Mahdawi

• Rümeysa Öztürk

• Trump response

• Donald Trump

• second cabinet

• Stephen Miller

• Customs and Border Protection

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2026 (UTC)