Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 23: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 123:
::* The topic may be important, but the name of an installation is not defining for an article about an installation. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
:::* Yes it is, when the naming praxis in itself is controversial or of historical importance. Generally, I find it very peculiar that categories can be contentious and time being spent on discussing categories instead of improving articles. A category is just a means for a reader to reach the articles that are interesting. As already said, it’s not like one category is excluding other categories for the same article. Are there ulterior motives for wanting to remove this category? Political correctness perhaps? [[User:Creuzbourg|Creuzbourg]] ([[User talk:Creuzbourg|talk]]) 15:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
::::* The main motive is consistency of categorization; we don't generally categorize things by the origin of their name. [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_16#Category:Organisms_named_after_elements_in_the_Harry_Potter_franchise|Here's an example of an earlier CFD for similar categorization]] - do you think that was for (the same) "ulterior motives"? An article such as [[Fort Bragg]] contains thousands of facts; the origin of the name may be the fact that most interests you, but someone else might find another fact interesting. If we don't limit categorization then editors could get sucked into adding more and more category tags to articles ... <b>[[User:DexDor|DexDor]]</b><sup> [[User talk:DexDor|(talk)]]</sup> 05:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
==== Category:Robert Bloch ====
| |||