Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 23: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Creuzbourg (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 125:
::::* 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)
:::::: Three Maryland congressmen have introduced a resolution calling for the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue from Antietam National Battlefield because it "memorializes leaders of the pro-slavery, traitorous Confederate South". Can't you see that "named for Confederate soldiers" is a relevant category given the present political discourse? It’s not like the trivia from popular culture you are referring to. Furthermore, per WP:SHAREDNAME: ''a category for unrelated people who happen to be named "Jackson" is not useful. However, a category may be useful if the people, objects, or places are directly related—for example, a category grouping subarticles directly related to a specific Jackson family.'' It is my opinion, based on facts and logic, that "named for Confederate soldiers" in this case corresponds to "the Jackson family." In addition, I do not see overcategorization as an especially pertinent problem. I find it more disturbing that a stubborn attachment to general principles is overriding the specific circumstances of an individual case. [[User:Creuzbourg|Creuzbourg]] ([[User talk:Creuzbourg|talk]]) 11:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Creuzbourg}} Thank you, that is what my motivation was. To shine a little bit of a light on this issue. --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] ([[User talk:Rogerd|talk]]) 20:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
==== Category:Robert Bloch ====
| |||