Category talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump
Internal
edit@SVTCobra: I don't think this should be an internal category - its not `Members of Donald Trump's Cabinet` because it isn't just about the individual member categories --DannyS712 (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmm .... [....] .... (dots indicate I am thinking about it) ... I think think this is the best way. I cannot think of any time in news when "Cabinet of Donald Trump" would have been in news as a unit with the one exception of his initial cabinet announcement (and I doubt they got treated as a group then). I do not see the cabinet ever appearing in news as a group, so I don't know what articles you were intending to apply it to. Everything about everybody involving Trump? There's almost always one cabinet member involved in a Trump story, so this category would just become redundant to Category:Donald Trump. But I guess we ought to @Pi zero: for thoughts. --SVTCobra 02:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- It seems internal to me; a collection of people, though the name would more conventionally have form "members of ...". Seems unlikely there would be three published articles to support it as a category for articles. --Pi zero (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable to me. Should we rename it while it is new? There's no particular consistency among the sisters. --SVTCobra 03:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- For renaming, we should think about what sort of pattern we'd like to set up for other similar categories in future.
Clarification re article categories. The concept, I gather, was that articles about membership in his cabinet would go in the category. This brings up one of our principles for designing article categories: choose them so their populating will be naturally driven by routine keyword linking. I don't see that happening here. I've seen categories falter from lack of consistent population: somebody would create the category, and that person would add articles to it for a while, but after that person became less active —or simply forgot about it— further articles would not be added to it, until years later I'd come across this category that could in principle have lots of articles in it but only those up to a certain date were ever added. {{w}} has been a game-changer for this sort of thing, but it only works if there's a keyword, or set of keywords, that get reliably linked and predictably occur in articles that ought to go in the category, and can be redirected to it. We still have some categories I worry about because they don't have strong keywords; nuclear proliferation and targeted killing come to mind. --Pi zero (talk) 03:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I am in agreement this would never succeed as an article category even with a 2020 victory for Trump. And with the rotating doors at the WH, I don't think it could be more than a collection of people, but one I wouldn't object to. So my comment was in line with you "Members of ..." idea. Members of what? "Cabinet" or "Administration"? As an American, I rarely hear "cabinet" mentioned in regards to my government (be it local or national) unless it is a piece of furniture.--SVTCobra 04:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- For renaming, we should think about what sort of pattern we'd like to set up for other similar categories in future.
- Seems reasonable to me. Should we rename it while it is new? There's no particular consistency among the sisters. --SVTCobra 03:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- It seems internal to me; a collection of people, though the name would more conventionally have form "members of ...". Seems unlikely there would be three published articles to support it as a category for articles. --Pi zero (talk) 03:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)