Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Fayenatic london (talk | contribs) at 20:53, 27 October 2020 (→Category:Old Latin New Testament manuscripts: close as Category:Vetus Latina New Testament manuscripts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< July 31 August 2 >

August 1

[edit]

Establishments in Sikkim

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. No consensus to merge. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apart from these small categories, there is no hierarchy for establishments by state or territory within India. "Years in Sikkim" categories were already merged, see 2016 July 19. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: If not merged, the 2004 & 2010 Sikkim categories and the Bihar categories will require parents to be set up.
  • Disclosure: As listed at the top of Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, there were 8 other small categories for Bihar with no parent hierarchy, which were set up by Accoloot (talk · contribs); I simply merged and redirected these to India. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial oppose. Sikkim became a state of India only 1975. Before that it was an independent state, and conventionally we do have establishment-by-year cats for independent states. So keep all Sikim caetgories up to 1975.
As the rest, see e.g. Category:1970s establishments in India: the by-year subcats average about 100 pages. See Category:2000s estabhlishments in India: the average size is closer to 200.
So I think we should probably keep the other categories too. They will be needed soon enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nom -- India is such an enormous country that it is wholly appropriate to have categories split by state. The India categories are already quite large. I would thus prefer an additional merge target of Category:1970s establishments in Bihar, etc. This also avoids the difficulty that Sikkim was a princely state under the Raj, then an Indian protectorate under Indian Suzerainty until 1975 and only then an Indian state. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Market research companies by country

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep No consensus to rename. bibliomaniac15 02:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is an article for Market research and one for Marketing research. Just as Phys Ed is not Physics, so the two are not alike. All of this was once correct, until the TOP Level was renamed. This CFR seeks to restore the correct grouping. (USA,Canda,UK,etc are all named Marketing) C2C Pi314m (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. A small market research company doesn't take assignments for what is clearly marketing research. Likewise, an NBC or Coke would not hire a small marketing research company to do basic market research, but they would hire a EuroMonitor-sized outfit; the latter does both. Pi314m (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Category:Market research companies of Canada Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact name.

Category:Market research companies of Australia? Category was moved to Marketing research companies of Australia in 2009.

Houston, we have a problem, and kidnapping the old top-level Marketing (companies by country) is not the solution. Pi314m (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy Research in Australia's description says "an Australian market researching company;" fellow Aussie IRIS Research has "IRIS Research conducts both market and social research". They were "abducted" in 2009 from Market to Marketing

(This is the reverse direction of companies by country). I accept that the 2009 action can't be fixed here, but do we leave two wrongs in place, or at least fix the proposed restore (by country was correct before) Pi314m (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Taxa named by Evan Quah Seng Huat

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Taxa named by Evan Quah. (non-admin closure) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories both refer to the same individual, Evan Quah of Universiti Sains Malaysia [1] (see Malaysian names#Chinese names for an explanation of why the surname is in the middle in "Evan Quah Seng Huat"). Either they should both be merged to a new Category:Taxa named by Evan Quah, or one of them should be merged to the other. If an article were ever created about him, it would probably be at Evan Quah rather than his full name per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE, c.f. Evan Quah’s banded bent-toed gecko. Thanks, 59.149.124.29 (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sumerian epic heroes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 17#Category:Sumerian epic heroes

Category:Indonesian landlords

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. bibliomaniac15 21:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From a casual glance, most of the articles in 'Indonesian landlords' are Landheeren of the pre-revolutionary period. I assumed the category referred solely to Landheeren, but I was informed that we ought to leave the category as broad as possible to include modern-day property tycoons or agricultural conglomerates. I believe, however, that a sub-category 'Landheeren' for under 'Indonesian landlords' might also be appropriate. Please let me know what you think.+Marie+Leung+ (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC) +Marie+Leung+ (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had moved the main article 'particuliere landerij', which I created, to 'particuliere landerijen' in the plural. I feel that i should have created the article in the plural in the first instance. Most of the academic literature I've looked at refer to these domains in the plural. Using the plural form aslo harmonises with the Vorstenlanden article, which is also in the plural and of comparabla legal status.+Marie+Leung+ (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle Buidhe I realise that in Dutch, 'landheer' simply means landlord. In the Dutch East Indies, though, a Landheer was the owner of a particuliere landerij, which had a much narrower legal meaning than large landownership. There were other large landlords in the Dutch East Indies who were not Landheeren; and these could go under the broader category 'Indonesian landlords'. There's a certain parallel to a Patroon in Dutch New Amsterdam, the colonial American meaning of which differed from its Dutch equivalent. +Marie+Leung+ (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle Buidhe Thanks, but a Landheer in the Dutch East Indies was legally the owner of a particuliere landerij, which gave the role a specific legal jurisdiction and certain governmental powers over the land that other large landlords didn't have. There were landlords in the Dutch East Indies who were not Landheeren, who could go under 'Indonesian landlords' if we retain that as a broader category. +Marie+Leung+ (talk) 11:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize the narrower legal meaning of Landheer, but as the articles in the category mostly do not use the term Landheer I can only suspect that Landheer is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle 2 of the articles in 'Indonesian landlords' specifically use the term 'Landheer', while 2 others (from the Khouw family) use 'particuliere landen', which means that the owner was a Landheer. I'm pretty sure the other 2 Khouws were also Landheeren. More importantly, 'Indonesian landlords' as a category includes mostly ethic Chinese Landheeren. There are many Wikipedia articles of important European Landheeren not yet categorised as such, including former Governors-General of the Dutch East Indies and many other persnalities. For instance, the Dutch East Indies writers Louis Couperus and E. du Perron came from this landowning class: Couperus's father was a Landheer and could be included in our new sub-category. 'Landheeren' could be a useful sub-category to 'Indonesian landlords'. +Marie+Leung+ (talk)
Peterkingiron I don't think it'd be appropriate to limit a hypothetical 'category for 'Landlords in the Dutch East Indies' to Landheeren. It would imply that there weren't other kinds of landlords in the Indies, which would be incorrect: there were plantation owners, landholding companies, feudal rulers and appanage leaseholders in the Vorstenlanden who could quality as 'Landlords in the Dutch East Indies' but were not Landheeren as such. It'd be as inaccurate as restricting a hypothetical 'Landlords in colonial America' to Patroons+Marie+Leung+ (talk) 11:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ultimate question is whether the concept of Landheeren is being distinguished from landlords in English-language sources - and if so, what English terminology is being used. As long as that is not clear, anything else than landlords will not work. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle the academic literature in English, Dutch and Indonesian definitely recognises the difference between a Landheer as the owner of a particuliere land and other kinds of landlords. The term 'landlord' would often be used, but only after qualifying in the beginning that it is used to refer to a Landheer. But, if you insist, I'm happy to leave this matter lie until perhaps we have more articles on colonial Indonesian Landheeren and other kinds of landowners. +Marie+Leung+ (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relisting, since the category was not properly tagged for CFD. It doesn't appear like there's a consensus at the moment either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Television programs by director

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not delete, and rename somehow. Beyond that, preferences are evenly divided; some editors prefer one hierarchy to two, which would use "programming", but others prefer "shows" and/or "episodes". In this situation it is up to the closer to make a choice, and consistency with other categories will carry weight. I am influenced by the siblings Category:Television shows by writer and Category:Television episodes by writer and therefore close as "option E" = option A + B, i.e. both Category:Television shows by director and Category:Television episodes by director, and rename the sub-cats according to their contents. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the list implemented. I realise that Category:Television episodes directed by Delbert Mann could have been split, but both would be small, so I have used "episodes". Ping me if you think I got any of the others wrong. I note that the "shows" categories contain mainly TV specials, plays and films, and that some "episodes" categories contain articles on seasons. I did not notice any articles here on "series". These observations and your own may highlight various ways in which the shows/episodes split is not entirely satisfactory, so this close is no bar to further discussions.
To save admin I will also rename these new creations by Trivialist per C2C as part of this close:
– Fayenatic London 09:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A: rename all to use "shows"
Option A: 38 subcats to be renamed: "Television programs" to "Television shows"
Option B: rename all to use "episodes"
Option B: 38 subcats to be renamed: "Television programs" to "Television episodes"
Option C: rename all to use "programming"
Option C: 38 subcats to be renamed: "Television programs" to "Television programming"
Option D: delete all
Option D: 38 subcats to be deleted
Nominator's rationale: this was originally a speedy nomination to rename these categories to use "shows" instead of "programs", per convention established at WP:CFD/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s. That's Option A.
"Shows" was opposed by @Gonnym, who helpfully pointed out that most of the content is articles on individual episodes of TV series, so that "episodes" would be a better title. That's Option B.
That prompted me to think that it would be better still to use a title which includes all types of TV programming: whole series, individual episodes, and one-off shows. The attribute that we are capturing here is the work of a given director, not the precise format ... so why restrict the scope to any one type of content? That's Option C, and my preference.
A further complication is added by CFD 2011 March 19, which deleted (along with its 22 subcats) Category:Television episodes by director. There was another, bigger set of subcats deleted at CFD 2011 March 11 The set of nominated categories, however they are named, is clearly a re-creation of that set. So this discussion needs to consider the possibility of deleting this whole set. That's Option D.
However, consensus can change, and I think that the 2011 decisions were mistaken. The CFD 2011 March 11 deletion was supported by only two editors, so it was a v wweak consensus ... and the editor who argued for deletion, @Lafe Smith, was blocked 10 days later as a sockpuppet (see their block log).
A more cogent case for deletion was at the CFD 2011 March 19, by @Bearcat, who swung that discussion towards delete by an argument which I summarised in my !vote to delete as being "that the auteur theory does not apply to directors of episodes of television series".
I supported that rationale then, but 9 years later I feel more cautious, for two reasons:
  1. The auteur theory is contested, but far from universally rejected. In hindsight, I think that the 2011 analysis was black-and-white thinking. Even if we reject the auteur theory wrt TV productions, and take the view that TV productions are a collaborative process, that logically leads to a view that the creative process behind a TV production multiple WP:DEFINING attributes, and that the director may be one such attribute. By deleting the director categories, we impede readers who want to explore the influence of the director. So unless we take the view that the director is always a trivial element of the process, we should keep the categories and let readers make up their own mind.
  2. The re-creations have had some durability, which suggests that the enthusiasm for deletion at the 2011 CFDs may not be widely shared. The current categories were mostly created in late 2018 (@Trivialist created[2] Category:Television programs by director in Sept 2018, and my sampling shows that Trivialist created many of the subcats in the following months) This doesn't seem to be type of category which editors rush to delete.
So my preference this time is to keep them, and rename to "programming" per Option C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of Television programs by director
[edit]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 02:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:40, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:William Didier-Pouget

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 14:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category which exists entirely to hold images of his paintings rather than articles about his paintings. "Gallery" categories are subcategorized as image categories rather than article categories, so I've shifted the parent category from Category:French landscape painters to Category:Images of paintings accordingly -- but there are no other articles to justify an eponymous category within articlespace, so the category should also be renamed in accordance with established practice for artist-related image categories (which is "Paintings by [Artist]", not just "[Artist]".) Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Curlews

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Numenius (bird). (non-admin closure) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories have the same scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rulers of Moscow

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 17#Category:Rulers of Moscow

Category:Christianity in Al-Andalus

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: reverse merge. bibliomaniac15 03:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, categories have identical scope, see Mozarabs. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query -- I know little of this, but wonder if you are not begging a question here: Mozarabs appears to refer to an Arabic-speaking Christian people, whereas a lot of the people categorised appear to have Latin (or at least Romance) names, not Arabic ones. Was the Mozarabic rite the only form of Christian worship in Al Andalus? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The term Mozarab is culturally loaded. It is a label that was introduced and employed pejoratively by Catholic bishops of the northern Christian kingdoms of Iberia against Arab-speaking Christians to designate them as collaborators or sympathizers (with Muslims). The term has been challenged by recent scholars, and many are refraining from using the word to describe Christians of al-Andalus. As far as the category is concerned, the use of "Christians of ..." is more readable than an obscure term like Mozarabs. Also, more consistent with naming used for other categories under parent Category:Christians in the medieval Islamic world Al-Andalusi (talk) 03:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Old Latin New Testament manuscripts

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per option B to Category:Vetus Latina New Testament manuscripts, with permission to create Category:Latin New Testament manuscripts if that looks useful. – Fayenatic London 20:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename anyway, because the current category name is confusing, the manuscripts are not in written in Old Latin but in Late Latin. Option A Category:Latin New Testament manuscripts, per WP:COMMONNAME, aligning with how it is being referred to in the articles, and similar to Category:Greek New Testament manuscripts and Category:Coptic New Testament manuscripts; option B Category:Vetus Latina New Testament manuscripts as a scientific term which is not used in the articles in this category. I prefer option A, while User:Veverve prefers option B, per speedy discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
@Marcocapelle: "Vetus Latina" is definetly more precise than "Old Latin". Those articles relate to manuscripts of the Vetus Latina, not any Latin manuscripts of old times. Veverve (talk) 20:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: "Vetus Latina" designates the translations made from the Septuagint and the New Testament into Latin, mainly before the 4th century; see its article. The Vulgate is the 4th-century translations in Latin of the Hebrew Old Testament, the New Testament, and of some books from the Septuagint; those translations were mainly done by Jerome. Therefore, it is needed to distinguish between the Vetus Latina (a specific set of translations), the Vulgate (another set of specific translations), and other Latin manuscripts, and this is one of the the purposes of my renaming proposal. Veverve (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I add that the category is currently called "Old Latin" because "Old Latin" translates "Vetus Latina". You can check for yourself: all the manuscripts within this category are Vetus Latina texts. Veverve (talk) 23:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: the confusion also stems from the fact "Vetus Latina" is the common name for those translations, whereas "Old Latin" is condusing. Moreover, there would be no point in putting all the Vetus Latin New Testament manuscript in a new, broader, less precise category. Veverve (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
why would you want to rename it to "Latin New Testament manuscripts" since the category is not about all manuscripts containing the New Testament in Latin, but only about the New Testament manusripts containing a Vetus Latina text? Therefore I choose Option B. Veverve (talk) 09:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Merge "Old Latin" or "vetus Latina" refers to MS from a tradition preceding the Vulgate (whose name derives from vulga - common. My view is that the Old and vetus categories should be merged, preferably to "vetus Latina". The result of the merge and vulgate MSS should be subcats of Latin NT MSS. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presuming it is meant to be merged to Category:Vetus Latina manuscripts, then this is quite a different direction of the discussion, because it would imply we would no longer specifically distinguish New Testament manuscripts. While I am not necessarily against that it would create an inconsistency, because we do have specific New Testament manuscripts subcategories in other languages categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:High school marching bands by country

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:School bands. (non-admin closure) —Mdaniels5757 (talk) 14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose merging Category:High school marching bands by country to Category:High school marching bands

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one page: Category:High school marching bands from the United States. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military aides by country

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 16:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one page: Category:Military aides to the president, which is already adequately categorised. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military aides to the president

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: parent categories and contents make it clear that the scope of this categories is aides to the POTUS, not just aides to any president. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_1&oldid=985767250"