| Revision as of 16:21, 24 June 2018 editGandydancer (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers28,205 edits →Melania jacket← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:37, 16 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Melania Trump/Archive 10) (bot |
| (649 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{2016 US Election AE}} |
|
|
|
| action1 = GAN |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |blp=yes |1= |
|
|
|
| action1date = 22:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=C |listas=Trump, Melania |a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low}} |
|
|
|
| action1oldid = 1235103911 |
|
{{WikiProject Donald Trump|class=C|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
| action1link = Talk:Melania Trump/GA1 |
|
{{WikiProject Fashion |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
| action1result = not listed |
|
{{WikiProject New York City|class=C|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
| action2 = GAN |
|
{{WikiProject Slovenia |class=C |importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
| action2date = 06:12, 22 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{WikiProject United States |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
|
|
| action2oldid = 1246897896 |
|
{{WikiProject Women |class=C}} |
|
|
|
| action2link = Talk:Melania Trump/GA2 |
|
{{WikiProject Catholicism|class=c|importance=low |
|
|
|
| action2result = listed |
|
| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> |
|
|
|
| topic = world history |
|
| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> |
|
|
|
| currentstatus = GA |
|
| b3 <!--Structure --> = yes |
|
|
|
}} |
|
| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|listas=Trump, Melania|1= |
|
| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |a&e-work-group=yes |a&e-priority=low |politician-work-group=y |politician-priority=low}} |
|
| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no>}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Catholicism |importance=low }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Fashion |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Slovenia |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|USPresidents-importance=high|USPresidents=yes |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=high |trump=yes |trump-importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women in Business |importance=Low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Friendly search suggestions}} |
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
| subject = article |
|
| subject = article |
| Line 31: |
Line 39: |
|
| accessdate = |
|
| accessdate = |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{split article |
|
|
| from = Melania Trump |
|
|
| from_oldid = 889803192 |
|
|
| to = Cultural depictions of Melania Trump |
|
|
| diff = 889911912 |
|
|
| date = March 28, 2019 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Split article |
|
|
| from = Melania Trump |
|
|
| from_oldid = 1212648228 |
|
|
| to = Public image of Melania Trump |
|
|
| diff = 1212658310 |
|
|
| date = March 8, 2024 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
|
{{Annual report|], ] and ]}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Feb 21 2016|Feb 28 2016|Jul 17 2016|Oct 9 2016|Oct 16 2016|Nov 6 2016|Nov 13 2016|Jan 15 2017|until|Jan 29 2017|Feb 23 2020|Aug 23 2020|Sep 27 2020|Nov 8 2020|Jul 14 2024|Nov 3 2024}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
| algo = old(60d) |
|
| archive = Talk:Melania Trump/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:Melania Trump/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 8 |
|
| counter = 10 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
| archiveheader = {{Tan}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{Tan}} |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{auto archiving notice |
|
|
|bot = lowercase sigmabot III |
|
|
|age = 30 |
|
|
|small= |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Lionsdude148|Important}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Be Best == |
|
== Advocacy for Women's Rights == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Melania Trump|answered=yes}} |
|
I've created a stub for ], if page watchers care to help expand. Thanks! ---] <sub>(])</sub> 19:12, 7 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
In her 2024 memoir, Melania, former First Lady Melania Trump articulates a clear pro-choice stance on abortion. She emphasizes that "a woman's fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes." Melania argues that decisions regarding pregnancy should be made by the woman herself, free from governmental intervention or pressure. She underscores the importance of individual freedom, stating, "Without a doubt, there is no room for compromise when it comes to this essential right that all women possess from birth." |
|
*In my opinion, until there is more to write about the campaign, it can easily and with context be covered here, far better than in a separate article. Atleast some material needs to be here and until it becomes undue here there's no need for a separate article(at-least one sentence needs to be here anyhow) ] (]) 19:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
** There's plenty of sourcing already, including criticism for multiple reasons. ---] <sub>(])</sub> 01:04, 8 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This position represents a significant and impactful statement in light of the controversies Melania Trump has faced over her years in public life, often viewed as aligned with more conservative, traditionally Republican stances. Melania's stance positions her as an advocate for women's rights, showcasing her belief in empowering women to make their own decisions and defending their individual liberty. This shift reflects her commitment to supporting personal freedom, which she highlights as an inherent right. |
|
== Health issues == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despite the criticism she has endured, this statement from her memoir affirms her perspective as more progressive and supportive of women's autonomy than many might have expected. It redefines her role not only as a former First Lady but as a voice for women's empowerment and an advocate for their fundamental rights. ] (]) 03:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Needs to add in a section on health issues- recent kidney surgery. |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> Also probably want a secondary source. ] (]) 05:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== First Lady New Tenure == |
|
And of course, wishing the First Lady a speedy recovery. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good morning or afternoon depending when you’re reading this, |
|
Need to add in a section on residency, as her official Twitter page lists her as living in New York City now -- see https://twitter.com/MELANIATRUMP 16:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Thanks for the suggestions, but I don't think so. The kidney surgery seems to have been a minor procedure, not interrupting her life to any significant extent, and we were given almost no information about it. As for her Twitter page, she hardly ever uses it - her last tweet was in January - so I'm not surprised she hasn't bothered to update her profile. --] (]) 16:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please I don’t think it’s right for Melania to be referred as First lady since 2025 yet, i mean anything might happen between now and then. |
|
== Reference for her political party == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think she should just be referred as the spouse to the President for now, until Biden leaves office. |
|
I can't find any public records confirming that she is registered as a member of the Republican Party. Can someone give a reference for that, or should we delete the parts mentioning that she's a Republican? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Interesting question. One would assume she is a Republican, since she is the First Lady in a Republican administration. And if pressed she would probably say "Republican". But the only thing I could find in a search was , which indicates that she has never publicly expressed a party preference. I notice, too, that our article contains nothing about her political views. Given this, I think "Republican" should be removed from her infobox, and I will do so. --] (]) 16:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: confirms her political affiliation, not sure if it is worth mentioning though. - ''']''' <sup>(]) (]) (]) </sup> 01:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::I found a video confirming that Melania has voted in the New York primary, which indicates that she has to be a registered Republican by then. https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/melania-trump-casts-her-vote/2016/04/19/8b952cd6-0675-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_video.html?utm_term=.bdc7f91707dc. I will undo the changes made by MelanieN then. Thanks so much for the discussions, I really appreciate it!--] (]) 00:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks! ] (]) 12:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
== "Disappearance" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Could we instead use in the interim the term 'First Lady-designate'? ] (]) 13:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
So should we add the elephant in the room? This lady has not been seen in public since her so-called "kidney transplant". The fact that "she" tweeted that she is fine and still remains to be unseen is very suspicious. - ] (]) 15:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not really an elephant in the room in my view. Let's wait and see what the sources say keeping in mind ]. --] (]) 18:23, 4 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not yet. This is obviously bizarre and possibly caused by a notable event, but it would be ] to speculate what that is in the article at this time. ] (], ]) 18:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am going to flesh out the passage discussing her procedure, and I will attempt to neutrally discuss the fact that the First Lady's public profile was notably decreased at that time. --] (]) 17:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 == |
|
== "Slovene version", "German version" == |
|
|
The article says "she transcribed the Slovene version of her last name 'Knavs' to the German version 'Knauss'". I'm afraid there's no such thing as a "German version" of her name, especially as she was born in Novo Mesto, a southern Slovenian town about as far as you can get from the nearest German-speaking country (Austria). It's just that the 'v' in 'Knavs' is pronounced in Slovene like an English 'w' or 'u' ('K-NOW-SS'), so she changed the spelling to make it easier for Americans to pronounce (since German names with syllables such as 'haus' and 'bauer' are common in the USA and people are used to pronouncing 'au' as 'ow'). Many immigrants to the USA have done the same. The phrase 'Germanized to Melania Knauss' in the opening paragraph is a more accurate description of the name change. The name 'Knavs' may itself be a Slovenian transcription of an original German/Austrian 'Knauss', but that isn't the point here. ] (]) 15:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Melania Trump|answered=yes}} |
|
== Melania jacket == |
|
|
|
The instances where “first lady” are in lower case should be corrected to “First Lady”. It is an official title, and should be presented as such. ] (]) 16:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{a note}}<!-- Template:ESp --> It's not an official title. ] (]) 18:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The full "First Lady of the United States" is generally considered a title and hence capitalised. The shorter "first lady" is a more difficult case, but per ] and judging by usage in sources, I think it should be determined on a case by case basis. In cases where it's used as a shorthand for the full FLOTUS title to refer to its holder, it should be capitalised. In cases where it's referring to ] in general, it should not. In ambiguous cases... dunno, flip a coin or something. Either way, I don't believe it's worthwhile combing the whole article (and potentially '''all''' articles of former first ladies if we were to standardise) to correct such a trivial thing. ] (]) 19:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That’s rather annoying, but I appreciate you going into more detail than M. Bitton did. I wanted to add that, if the community were to decide to make the standard version capitalised, then surely it would only take around an hour to change all instances of “first lady” throughout Misplaced Pages, just use the Find and Replace feature. Right? ] (]) 16:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, it would still be a relatively large operation, but editors are no stranger to these things (]; in comparison this would be small potatoes). The key issue is that a change on this scale requires a fairly high level of ] that would only be achievable through a discussion at an overarching WikiProject like ] or ] or even through a ]. ] (]) 17:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It’s not a job title, I’d even argue it’s a mode of address Thank you for your explanation , Liu. I think the joint effort would be better spent on an article about the position and title itself, and their use and evolution , and role creep. i myself have often wondered why the spouse of a president (i’m using the verb) should be called the First anything, especially in a democracy ] (]) 17:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 23:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Move Good article listing from 'History' to 'Social Sciences and Society'? == |
|
The reference to Melania's jacket has been removed without any rationale other than "nonsense". In light of the substantial and significant press coverage and public comment of this -- particularly to the extent it negates the previous narrative that Melania was in some way acting as a POTUS conscience urging him to cease and desist separations -- it's clear this cannot be dismissed as "nonsense". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am not sure if this is the correct platform to raise this question in, but I shall anyways. Currently, Melania Trump is listed in the 'History' Good Article Listing category and under the 'Historical miscellaneous' subsection. However, in the 'Social Sciences and Society' category and within the 'Politics and Government' category there is a more accurate subcategory present of 'Spouses of heads of state and heads of government'. Would this not be a more accurate listing for her to be placed in? ] (]) 23:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
This edit should be undone and the mention of the jacket restored. ]] 02:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== avoid first name basis? == |
|
:Definitely trivia and nonsense, just as {{U|MelanieN}} stated when she rightly reverted it. Just because media now focuses on nonsense in regard to the Trump's that doesn't mean we have to include it. This is still an encyclopedia. It should read like one. This kind of content keeps that from happening. Such nonsense falls under ]. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 03:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:The header is a lie. MelanieN did explain the removal. I removed "unexplained", SPECIFICO put it back in. Can't imagine why anyone would want to keep a header that's untrue. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 03:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::I changed to "Melania jacket" per ] bullet 4. There is no need for anything more than the minimum required to distinguish the topic from others, and to insist on more is the opposite of neutrality. ―] ] 14:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Unless anyone has a valid, policy-based explanation as to why this article should expunge mention of the widely-discussed jacket and its relationship to the also widely-covered RS discussion of her stance on these border events, it will be reinserted. Deflection to an edti-war over a header does not provide a valid rationale for removal and "nonsense" is not a reasoned basis for anything other than "nonsense". ]] 15:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It appears you are upset, SPECIFICO, but I can't figure out why. You put up a dishonest, inaccurate, deceitful header and it was rightly changed by not one, but two editors. As to the existence of the content in the article, I think the onus is actually on you to show why it belongs, per policy. That's what the discussion should be based on. Then, we can proceed toward consensus in a reasonable fashion - which is the correct way to approach the subject, wouldn't you agree? <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:35, 24 June 2018 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::::SPECIFICO: 1. Please don't edit war to make a heading non-neutral (the second time you've done that in my memory){{emdash}}violating both ] and ]{{emdash}}and then cry "deflection" over the edit war of your making. 2. Melanie's revert rationale was clearly a ] argument and experienced editors such as yourself shouldn't need the shortcut link to see the policy basis. She said far more than "nonsense", so please refrain from strawmanning to ]. ―] ] 15:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::One revert is not an edit war. Next false disparagement from you will be prosecuted. ]] 15:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Edit warring is never one-sided, thus you can't say there was an edit war while claiming you weren't a part of it. Don't forget to notify me. ―] ] 15:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
The content was and described as "trivia". When massive media attention is triggered, it ceases to be "trivia". That jacket choice was no "accident", and it garnered quite a bit of attention, and of an unfortunate type which was triggered by that choice. The media was ]. This article is rather insightful: |
|
|
* "The FLOTUS office saying they're confused about why the media is covering the jacket is gaslighting 101." |
|
|
This fits the gaslighting pattern we've been seeing from the White House. None of this happens by "accident". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that the article uses her first name "Melania" almost throughout the entire article like "Zampolli urged Melania to travel to the United States ...". Not sure what is the convention but perhaps it would be good to call her "Knavs" or "Knauss" until 2005 when she married Donald Trump. The article semi-reflects the name changes as it calls her "Melanija" in the Early Life section. I see how it's a bit of prosaic liberty in the sections dealing with the relationship with Donald Trump, where he is also referred to as "Donald" to avoid confusion but in many other areas, I think it would be better to call her "Trump", just as ], e.g. "Biden lent her support to USAID's FWD campaign, ..." or from ] article "Obama met with Queen Elizabeth II in ...". Not to harp too much on this, but .] (]) 14:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
Right now it's a subject of discussion on '']'', with ], with comments that it was a deliberate message, not an accident, and notable deviation from normal practice for Melania (which says a lot), used "like a ]", but with uncertainty as to whom it was directed. It's a very notable event, and it should be mentioned, with some of the commentary and opinions. A paragraph should do it. -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 15:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:Any talk here of gaslighting by the WH is pure speculation and OR. Further speculation and discussion of same will get it collapsed as a ] vio. Plus, it's purely a waste of time since it has no encyclopedic value and has no chance of becoming content-worthy. In other words, it's tabloid trash. '''<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span>''' ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 16:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:After having written a couple dozen first lady articles, I've found that this is the least confusing way to do it. If someone's far-more-famous spouse is frequently mentioned in the article, then it only throws the reader off to use the name that's more commonly associated with the spouse. ] (]) 16:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
*'''Strong oppose''' - and I highly recommend ]. WP should not follow the spin of clickbait media, and I agree with Melanie that this material is better left out. It is pure speculation based entirely on POV, and it doesn't matter how many biased sources are publishing the same spin. It's spin based on speculation, and ironically, the discussion here now based on what media has done may well be the reason she wore it. Media should be focusing on what is going on with the FBI, not what FLOTUS is wearing - before this one they focused on her high heels. Pah-lease, WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and as such we should be focusing on encyclopedic material such as what is happening within the FBI, for Pete's sake. It's huge and weighs heavily on so many things. was just stripped of his FBI clearances and escorted off the property, and later issued a subpoena. Where is the media frenzy about that? Instead, they're busy focusing on their own POV spin about a designer jacket worn by FLOTUS. Sad. <sup>]]]</sup> 16:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:* She sent a message, so it was HER clickbait. The media reported on it. We document it. That's our job. |
|
|
:: ]: "Here's the thing: The jacket decisions made by the first lady aren't as big or as important a story as the crisis along the border. But that doesn't mean it's not a story. It is. She is the first lady of the United States. What she says, does and, yes, wears, matters. Disagree? Ask yourself whether the media would have (and should have) covered Michelle Obama wearing the exact same jacket. The answer is: ''Of course.''" -- ] (]) <u><small>'''''PingMe'''''</small></u> 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sorry BR - this is pure clickbait POV spin about an article of clothing, and whatever else media is trying to make of it to distract from important issues and what appears to be the caving-in of the entire Russian collusion argument that you have spent so much time trying to establish - the jacket story doesn't belong in this article, and what the biased media tries to make it seem doesn't belong, either. Again - POV spin and noncompliant with NPOV. Editors have that discretion and should exercise it for the sake of the project. <sup>]]]</sup> 16:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::She wore the jacket when she boarded the plane and was not wearing it when she got off. IMO she was not making a statement but rather doing a real dumb thing and you'd think that her staff would have told her that but they must be just as clueless as she is. Remember for example when Michelle Obama wore the $450 sneakers to an event about feeding poor people, which is, of course (I'd guess) not in her article (and if it is I'll eat humble pie). ] (]) 16:21, 24 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
In her 2024 memoir, Melania, former First Lady Melania Trump articulates a clear pro-choice stance on abortion. She emphasizes that "a woman's fundamental right of individual liberty, to her own life, grants her the authority to terminate her pregnancy if she wishes." Melania argues that decisions regarding pregnancy should be made by the woman herself, free from governmental intervention or pressure. She underscores the importance of individual freedom, stating, "Without a doubt, there is no room for compromise when it comes to this essential right that all women possess from birth."
This position represents a significant and impactful statement in light of the controversies Melania Trump has faced over her years in public life, often viewed as aligned with more conservative, traditionally Republican stances. Melania's stance positions her as an advocate for women's rights, showcasing her belief in empowering women to make their own decisions and defending their individual liberty. This shift reflects her commitment to supporting personal freedom, which she highlights as an inherent right.
Despite the criticism she has endured, this statement from her memoir affirms her perspective as more progressive and supportive of women's autonomy than many might have expected. It redefines her role not only as a former First Lady but as a voice for women's empowerment and an advocate for their fundamental rights. PrinceAyd (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Please I don’t think it’s right for Melania to be referred as First lady since 2025 yet, i mean anything might happen between now and then.
I think she should just be referred as the spouse to the President for now, until Biden leaves office.
The instances where “first lady” are in lower case should be corrected to “First Lady”. It is an official title, and should be presented as such. 90.240.200.64 (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is the correct platform to raise this question in, but I shall anyways. Currently, Melania Trump is listed in the 'History' Good Article Listing category and under the 'Historical miscellaneous' subsection. However, in the 'Social Sciences and Society' category and within the 'Politics and Government' category there is a more accurate subcategory present of 'Spouses of heads of state and heads of government'. Would this not be a more accurate listing for her to be placed in? 24.155.0.146 (talk) 23:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I noticed that the article uses her first name "Melania" almost throughout the entire article like "Zampolli urged Melania to travel to the United States ...". Not sure what is the convention but perhaps it would be good to call her "Knavs" or "Knauss" until 2005 when she married Donald Trump. The article semi-reflects the name changes as it calls her "Melanija" in the Early Life section. I see how it's a bit of prosaic liberty in the sections dealing with the relationship with Donald Trump, where he is also referred to as "Donald" to avoid confusion but in many other areas, I think it would be better to call her "Trump", just as Jill Biden, e.g. "Biden lent her support to USAID's FWD campaign, ..." or from Michelle Obamas article "Obama met with Queen Elizabeth II in ...". Not to harp too much on this, but influential women are more often called by their first name.Hiko (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also probably want a secondary source. Cannolis (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: It's not an official title. M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 