Category talk:Logical

Um ... things are getting into this category that don't really belong here and some things that do belong here are being left out. This is an important category because it helps first-time site visitors understand just what the heck is going on around here. --Nerd42 16:04, 24 Octodest 2007 (UTC)

Maybe. I know that in the early days of the wiki an awful lot of articles were being put in the Logical and Illogical categories. Problem was, the category system meant a lot less then - the two were interchangeable and pretty much amounted to the same thing (logical enough on an illogical wiki). I agree that perhaps the time has come for a cleanout but hey, don't forget the different levels of illogicality - completely unreadable, slightly insane, not insane at all, really. Sometimes you can't categorise this stuff. I'll make a start though. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 18:36, 24 Octodest 2007 (UTC)

I think there are two cases where this category should be used: 1. Relatively logical articles. 2. Extremely illogical ones, so as to keep them so through and throughout. I agree on generally sorting it out, though, as I think nonsensical categorization should be used with care so as to stick out like a twitchy thumb only where most effective. As our categorizing is somewhat "interesting" in places, it might also be a good idea to write something about what to expect of the more ambiguous ones. --The Divine Fluffalizer 23:02, 24 Octodest 2007 (UTC)

i think the Logical category should pretty much only be for policy pages and stuff that people need to understand in order to maintain disorder. or something liek that --Nerd42 15:56, 26 Octodest 2007 (UTC)