Talk:Inkworks

Categorization
While this tool certainly does qualify as a miscellaneous editor, the reasoning given for the change is not kosher. Let us please avoid "if A is incorrectly categorized, then B must be as well" style of logic and instead start appropriately categorizing things. It seems like a defeatist or adversarial type of attitude where informational deterioration is considered inevitable and must therefore be embraced whole hog, instead of actively opposed. I do not believe an ACS decompiler in fact qualifies as an editor of any type and is a direct example of what should be categorized directly under or within a subcategory of Category:Tools, if we are in fact going to retain it. --Quasar (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2015 (CDT)


 * IME consistent categorization (even if later judged suboptimal) makes future improvements easier, because it means fewer places to hunt for affected pages. Until then, edits like  make it more possible (even if not idealized) to navigate to the article via categories.


 * That said, given recent activity around People and Historical, I'd say few contributors have a general interest in categories. :>   If we can discern what the consensus actually is regarding the current example, it should be possible to hammer out a more sensible structure.  (I actually agree with most of your statements there; in hindsight I would also dump the platform categories as overkill, since all but our earliest items are cross-platform or Windows only.)    Ryan W (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2015 (CDT)