Category talk:Brandeis University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Categorization

Per Wikipedia:Categorization #1: "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles." People who go to Category:Louis Brandeis to find articles may be interested in reading about Brandeis University, so it makes sense to have this category as a child. While it is true that the "only" connection between the university and the man is that the university was named for him, that is a pretty important connection. I certainly don't see the problem in providing this category for ease in navigation, as it doesn't seem to hurt anything and is not approaching over-categorization, since there is only one other parent currently. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree; simply being a namesake isn't a strong relationship. George Washington Carver should not be grouped under Category:George Washington. If the namesakes are significant in someone's eyes, sure they can be categorized together, but I believe they should be segregated from the more relevant articles, and that goes for ships and airports as well as places and organizations like companies or universities. For example, it would make no sense to place Lincoln Financial or Lincoln Highway directly in Category:Abraham Lincoln; all that would do is falsely lead the casual reader to believe that Abraham Lincoln had something to do with them, when he was dead long before they were founded. Now extend that example to Category:Blessed Virgin Mary and you see how quickly categories could lose their value. -choster 04:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think this connection is a bit stronger than some of your examples about Lincoln and Washington, but I still get your point. My thoughts may have also been a bit clouded as Brandeis was a smaller category, but the scalability issue makes your point well founded. I will not object if you would like to change the categorization back and I thank you for having this discussion. Many other users would have just reverted the edit without doing so. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)