to Department of Government Efficiency#Executive orders. Hatnotes and so on can be added where appropriate. Rusalkii (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
There are currently four executive orders from Donald Trump (#s 14158, 14210, 14219, 14222) pertaining to the Department of Government Efficiency. All four EOs have Department of Government Efficiency in their titles, but none have their own article, as there's a single Department of Government Efficiency article focused on its creation, effects, etc. (and several child articles already). Right now, {{no redirect|1 = Executive Order 14158 }}, {{no redirect|1 = Executive Order 14210 }}, {{no redirect|1 = Executive Order 14219 }}, and {{no redirect|1 = Executive Order 14222 }} all have List of executive orders in the second presidency of Donald Trump as their target. That article is mostly a table with the #s, names, signing dates, etc. of all of Trump's EOs in 2025, where the name of an EO in the table either links to the article for that EO (when an article devoted to that EO exists) or is unlinked text. I was told that the names of these four EOs in the table shouldn't link to the DOGE article, since the DOGE article is not devoted to any single one of the DOGE EOs. I think it would make sense to at least have all four redirects retargeted to the Department of Government Efficiency article Department of Government Efficiency § Executive orders. Apologies if I shouldn't have placed all four redirects in the same section; this is my first time posting at RFD, and it made most sense to me to place them together since it's the same issue for all four. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
:Retarget to Department_of_Government_Efficiency#DOGE_executive_orders. Morris80315436 (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
::Agreed that that section is a better retarget than the article as a whole. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
::agree. EOs should target to their most informative and relevant article. linking to a list of all other executive orders from 2025-2028 is not very helpful - avxktty (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- The current target has more information than the proposed target does. It would be good if the proposed target section has a hatnote to the list, so readers don't lose out on the information. Jay 💬 16:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- :I can add a "See also" to the proposed target, but I'm confused by your comment that the current target has more info than the proposed target. The only additional info that the current target has about these four EOs is the Federal Register citation/doc #s, which are easily determined from the Federal Register citation links in the DOGE article (and those links also include the full text of the EOs, just as the wikisource links do). The DOGE article discusses the first EO (14158) in more depth than the current target, though it would be good to add more details about the other EOs. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- ::And the "Date published". At the current target, the details are readily available as table columns, and sortable. The DOGE article has more depth for 14158, but this is spread across sections, so refining to the "DOGE executive orders" section will limit that. Jay 💬 17:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
- I think that, unless there's too much information, putting all the information in one place is best for our readers. Bearian (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: Doesn't seem like much or anything has changed from the previous relist, and a "no consensus" close may not be the way to go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
- I was very surprised to be redirected from the list back to itself, when following the link to EO 14158. If there's no article on the order itself, then the proposed target is exactly what I'd expect, with a preference for a section over the article as a whole. To the extent that {{tq|the current target has more information than the proposed target}}, the most pertinent information can and should be replicated at the proposed target—I'd count the title and date of the order(s) and a Wikisource link as being most pertinent. And a "see also" hatnote or other link to the list takes care of the rest. -- Perey (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- :There's no article on any of these orders. I agree that the section Department of Government Efficiency § Executive orders is a better target (and perhaps I should edit my comment at the top to make that clear, even though I said this in a later reply). That section has all of what you proposed. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
