The No True Scotsman fallacy is always discussing the alleged definition -- i.e. "true" -- Scotsman. That's the whole point.

I'm saying conservative and Republican effectively mean the same thing, and the only time they don't is when conservative policies have failed and they employ the No True Scotsman fallacy to claim that those Republicans, who ran as conservatives and were supported by conservatives, weren't really conservative.

As an electoral strategy, actually helping conservatives avoid accountability by claiming that the Republican Party isn't really conservative anymore would be disastrous to those seeking to kick Republicans out of power. It is premised on the extremely faulty belief that self-proclaimed conservatives give a single crap about so-called conservative values, which has been proven to be false for decades. It will only speed up their latest rebrand and allow the exact same conservatives with the exact same failed conservative policies to run as something new and different and better.

Trump is a conservative. He ran as a conservative, and he was and remains supported by conservatives. That wikipedia definition is cute, but it has no bearing on what the vast majority of self-described real-world conservatives believe. It's like claiming that Stalin wasn't really a communist because some tract says this what communists really believe.