Template talk:Centrism US

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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.

Addition of Ronald Reagan

Would it be okay to add Ronald Reagan? He was a moderate conservative and was willing to make comprimises. 2001:56A:7956:9000:D87B:B7DE:AD87:F938 (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan was not a centrist. He was a conservative to the right of Ford. Reagan Democrats might make sense though. Catboy69 (talk) 03:56, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who is a centrist?

User:Catboy69, User:RideTheLightning99, I read your edit summaries, in which you argue that certain people are centrist, and politics are changing, etc., with interest. I would just like to remind you that the BLP applies across the board, as does the need for verification. I have gone through every single linked article to look for VERIFIED claims that this or that person is a centrist (according to whatever definition in whichever time period--that's not actually relevant). You can't just say someone is a centrist or that it's common knowledge: we go by reliable sources here, by secondary evidence. I don't know what "with evidence given in the edit summaries" is supposed to mean: evidence should be in the actual biographical article on the actual person. If you want to include a person in this template, go to the article and make sure it's in there properly, and you'll never have a problem. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of the names re-added since this comment. I have not been through every name yet, but it is likely many more can be removed. RideTheLightning99, I have raised the purpose of sidebars with you before, and specifically flagged you to WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, yet you are still adding non bi-directional links. Catboy69, please take a look at WP:SIDEBAR. Sidebars are visually intrusive and are not used for capturing everything that could plausibly be included under the title. That is what we would use categories and taxonomies for. The sidebar is specifically for highlighting a collated series of articles that are designed to take a reader through a subject. They are more useful when short and targeted, and when the articles focus on their content. If the sidebar does not belong on the target page, then the target does not belong in the sidebar. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list of politicians ballooned after I initially created the page. Other parts of it have been pared down over time as well. Catboy69 (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you reverted my edits. If you go over to the pages of the people I added to this template you will see that I added the template there as well, thus fulfilling WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Not only that but there is information indicating that they are centrist in ideology. It is almost as if you are personally committed to reverting all of my edits for no good reason other than to inconvenience me and the site. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't add it to all of them, because Biden, the one I checked, doesn't have the template and neither did you add and get reverted. As you have been persistently adding these without taking note of what I and others are saying, I did not check further (although I spent considerable time checking every one of the last tranche). I see now you added the template to the others, but you didn't take note of what I said, which is that the page must discuss the subject of the template before adding the template. Clinton (Hillary) does contain some text in which she is accused of and confirms she is a centrist. That one can go back in. I am surprised the others have not been reverted yet since they do not mention centrism at all. I'll revert them now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:28, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RideTheLightning99, you have again restored non BIDIRECTIONAL entries in this edit [1]. Please stop doing this. Your edsum says you did so because Clintonism is already included, but this again suggests you are not understanding something important about NAVBOXes. Once again, these are not exhaustive taxonomies. They are curated closely related articles, and if the linked article is not part of that curation, it should not be listed in the NAVBOX. If we thing Clintonism should be a curated article then it is clear that any reader will understand the relationship of this with Bill and Hillary Clinton from the lead of that article. It is unnecessary to add each of them into the NAVBOX, but it is also wrong, because those articles do not go into great detail about the centrism, so they are not key closely related articles.

This has been explained a lot. Please note that reverting information in, and especially doing so without discussion and against guidelines is edit warring. Please do not do that. I shall remove them again now. Per WP:ONUS, these should not be restored without a positive consensus for their inclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware that navboxes are not "exhaustive taxonomies", though if Clintonism is mentioned in the navbox, then the Clintons themselves should also be included, as the opening sentence of the Clintonism page mentions Bill and Hillary Clinton by name, which I believe is BIDIRECTIONAL. It does not make sense for this template to include Clintonism but not the Clintons themselves, for whom the very ideology is named. In my opinion, it seems as if you are reverting my and other users' edits just to assert your own personal authority as opposed to actually improving Wikipedia. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are well aware of the principle of bidirectionality too, although you choose to mistate it. The Clinton articles do not go into any significant detail about centrism. That information has instead been curated into the Clintonism page. A SIDEBAR therefore should link to the tightly related curated information. As per my answer below, there is no benefit and only loss in ignoring the guidelines and obscuring the curated information by adding links to pages that do not form part of the series. As to it seems as if you are reverting my and other users' edits just to assert your own personal authority as opposed to actually improving Wikipedia, go read WP:AGF. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clintons in the politicians section.

Recently there has been a dispute on whether or not to include Bill and Hillary Clinton in the politicians section. The editor opposed to it argues that they shouldn't be on there as they don't fulfill WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, which, in my opinion, is incorrect. The USA section in Centrism by country clearly identifies Bill Clinton as a centrist democrat, while Clintonism (which is still featured on this template despite the Clintons themselves not being featured) mentions Bill and Hillary Clinton in the very first sentence of the article. Their own pages mention centrism/moderatism as well. I believe this is more than enough reason why including the Clintons in the politicians section fulfills WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if they are on the category page Category:Centrism in the United States, I am not sure why they shouldn't be on the list if they are notable. If there is disagreement on whether they are centrist or not, that should be discussed on their talk pages (after the centrism category is added to their pages), not here imo Catboy69 (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The category is an exhaustive taxonomy, the NAVBOX is not. From WP:NAVBOX

Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles;

and goes on to say,

Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template or navbox, located at the bottom of the article, may be more appropriate.

That is to say, if you want a NAVBOX whose purpose is to hold a complete, or near complete taxonomony of related articles, you should be designing the navbox to sit at the foot of the page. Even there, the principle of bidirectionality exists, but a visually intrusive WP:SIDEBAR requires special attention.

What would be the utility to the reader of adding the two Clinton articles after Clintonism? The purpose of the SIDEBAR is to allow a reader to find related articles. As it stands, if the number of articles is indeed tightly controlled, they will find Clintonism, and the Clintonism article itself will clearly link them to Bill and Hilary Clinton - articles that will tell them about these people, but, as it happens, won't materially expand on the subject of Clintonism, as we have curated that information into an article on the political philosophy. If we add the two names to the template, all we add is template clutter. It is of no additional utility to the reader, and it actually distracts the reader from the curated information. Now they only have a 1 in three chance of clicking on the tightly integrated curated information article. You see the problem? In any case, if we are to abandon the principle of bidirectionality, that will need an RfC to change the guidelines and is not a discussion for here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just added the Clintons back, it seems that the we've reached a consensus that the Clintons are notable enough to be included. RideTheLightning99 (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not a consensus to ignore the policy and guidelines. And you have literally ignored everything I said and just re-asserted your edit. These are not WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]