This template is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
A few weeks ago, Calliopejen1removed the picture from the sidebar, arguing "I think this is misleading because when this navbox is used in other protest articles, readers may believe that this is a photo of whatever protest the navbox is being used on." Recently, CFCFadded it back, saying "nonsense, restored image", and I reverted because I agree that it clutters the relevant articles and can be confusing to readers. Should we have an image or not? If we do, which one? — JFGtalk07:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of a different image, I'd like to revisit this discussion. Should the template have an image, and if so, which one? I'm not sure I prefer to see the current image across so many different articles. ---Another Believer(Talk)21:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A navbox covering a collection of articles under the topic Satires of Donald Trump might include a scatological image like that one, as an example of a satirical work targeting Trump. But this template is for protests, not satires. A representative image would be an image of a protest. But then we run into the problem that photos of typical protests all look about the same: a picture of a big crowd. You could stick a picture of a big crowd that happens to have been taken at one of these protests here, but what value does that really add?
If history were to judge that a certain specific image became iconic of Trump protests, in the same way that File:Birmingham campaign dogs.jpg became iconic of the civil rights moment, then it would belong in this template. At this point I don't think we have an image of that represents the Trump protests in general, but if someone knows of one, please discuss. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was searching for Commons for something even more generic, like just a generic anti-trump wordmark or sign, but I didn't find anything that seemed fitting. ---Another Believer(Talk)04:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Women's March 2017-01 (12).jpg is a strong contender. It scales well and is probably recognizable by at least a number of readers. One other reason not to rush ahead is that pretty much every article that uses this infobox stacks another infobox, with its own image or images, on top of Template:Protests against Trump sidebar. This starts to create layout problems, especially when the article has several sections each with its own associated images. This pushes subsequent images further and further down, moving them away from the text they support. But if the template were to have a switch to suppress the image when it's causing layout problems, then it's all good. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it should remain a separate template, but disagree that the footer format is better. The sidebar gave better access to all the protest articles. This significant change does not seem to have been discussed on the talk page. I'd revert to the sidebar format. @Sagecandor and Another Believer: comments? — JFGtalk16:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}