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 [1] 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)