RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Category:Donald Trump

Category:Donald Trump | Result: Keep. But use this category wisely and sparingly.

Category:Donald Trump (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. An entire category for what, people he's spoken with or that support him? What exactly is the point of categorising everything tangentially related to one person? —Kazitor 01:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   Why do we need this? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 01:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   @GrammarCommie Please indent, and cross the whole thing out. Nerd (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

2. This is another example of the RationalWiki taxonomy run amok. The justification for creating this was "we have a lot of articles on Trumpf, so let's create a new category." It was a good idea when it was created, seems rather "meh" now. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
3. We don't need a category for any and every mention of Trump. Ten years from now, no one will give a shit about Trump.—Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 05:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   @CheeseburgerFace Please indent, and cross the whole thing out. Nerd (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   As someone who reads history as a hobby, I'm not entirely sure about that. Even if he turns out to be largely insignificant, collective amnesia is ill-advised. Nerd (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   When something is forgotten, it happens again. That's why WWII memorials have "Lest we Forget" written on them in big letters. — Dysk (contribs) 16:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   Ten years!? It'll probably take 40-50 years before we can get a good grasp of a president's legacy. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 17:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   That he would be forgotten in 10 years is wishful thinking. "…neither temporal nor geographic distance improves one’s perception of the president’s multitudinous and outrageous misdeeds."—Jennifer Rubin[1] Bongolian (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep

1. Keep: it's not for people he's only spoken to. It's for people/institutions corrupted by him, already corrupt and sucking up to his corruption, or otherwise part of the cabal of autocracy. I think it's particularly useful as the Mueller investigation progresses. If there's someone in the category who's just tangentially connected to Trump, I'd be all for removing them from the category. Bongolian (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
2. We have at least two more years of Trump's presidency left, a series of rapidly expanding FBI investigations, and a Trump page which seems to be having chunks sliced off into their own articles. In other words, the number of Trump articles will likely increase, making this category necessary for simple convenience. I won't get upset if it's deleted, but I do think it'll be a mistake. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
3. I support a clean up. Trump administration individuals (like Ajit Pai) can be in a subcategory of people who has ever been in his administration. Scrub Trump supporters (like National Rifle Association, Roy Moore, Kanye West, Fox News, Focus on the Family) and tangentially related articles (Don't feed the Troll, Elizabeth Warren, Tabloid, Kakistocracy). Keep elements directly related to Trump such as Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, Great Wall of America, Trump's War: His Battle for America, Trump-Russia connection, the funspace stuff, Pissgate and the articles that otherwise mention his name like Rhetoric of Donald Trump. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   @LeftyGreenMario I would support that motion. Shall we put it to a vote? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   1. Sure. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   2. That's fine. Bongolian (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   3. Unsurprisingly, I support this motion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   4. Wholeheartedly support. Spud (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   5. As do I. Nerd (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   6. This doesn't need a vote. Obviously it should be trimmed. —Kazitor 22:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
   7. A cleanup would be a great solution. Perhaps add some text to the top of the category page that describes what one should use as criteria for including in an article. Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

4. I thought of proposing something similar to what @LeftyGreenMario just did. Only topics or people with direct links to the Kremlin Trump should belong to that category. Nerd (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
5. Per LGM's suggestion. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Yes! Keep the category. Just don't overuse or abuse it. Spud (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
7. —Hamburguesa con queso con un cara  (talk • stalk) 19:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge/redirect

1. Rename to Category:President Fart per well known British usage. — Dysk (contribs) 20:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Goat

1. However, I do think someone needs to do some spring cleaning. There are a lot of pages in that category that seem to have only the slightest connection to Trump. I think a smaller, more focused category for Trump articles would be more useful than the bloated mess we have now. I think it would also be more useful than nothing. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 02:24, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   My concern is that if you were to reduce it to the relevant articles, there wouldn't be enough left to justify the category. —Kazitor 02:30, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

   Minimum element amount per category is recommended to be three. I believe even after scrubbing, we'll have enough to salvage. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 02:32, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

2. I cleaned up the category and created a new category Category:Trump administration. If you want to discuss about category definitions and any more refinement, go ahead. I don't know if people involved in the Russia thing should be part of the category or not. I left Roy Cohn in there because he seems influential on Trump's past, being Trump's attorney and introducing Trump to mafia figures. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   @LeftyGreenMario I don't think that's the best renaming unless we add another category. The reason is that it excludes people involved in the Trump transition team/Trump campaigning who have been or are likely to be ensnared by the Trump-Russia investigation (e.g., Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen & Roger Stone). Bongolian (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   @Bongolian I thought that was exactly the sort of cruft that we were removing. —Kazitor 22:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   @Kazitor Doesn't it include people in the Trump-Russia connection, as stated above by @LeftyGreenMario? Surely Manafort (indicted) + Richard Gates III (guilty plea) should at least be there. Stone + Rohabacker + Michael Cohen are at least getting close to being there. Bongolian (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   I don't follow this stuff enough to know; it's dull. —Kazitor 22:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   I don't follow it that well either. I don't know how to neatly name a category that includes administration officials and campaigners. Maybe we can lump the collusion people into the Trump category and expand the category a little. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

   Yes, let's put the non-administration Trump-Russsia people back into the main Trump category. That should satisfy most people I think. Bongolian (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)