Thread:930310JL/@comment-258494-20170105172636

Jimmy, the Tae Ito article doesn't appear to me to be an article that is in need of "major" improvement. All articles could use "improvement." Only the really bad ones should be tagged with "articles needing major improvement."

Categories are intended to be useful shortcuts for:

--gathering similar articles together

--making it easier to find similar articles in similar need

etc

It's NOT to try to come up with every conceivable, possible way to categorize something. You already know that, for example, we are in the process of migrating "verified" to "validated" and I said that we don't need to over-do it on hybrid nationality and case status categories. If an article already is tagged "validated", no need to add "verified" also, unless you can come up with a compelling definition. "Verified" and "validated" are not exactly the same, but "verified" by Wikipedia's definition is about sourcing. That's why we are moving the terminology to "validated"...to avoid confusion.

Are you adding categories with the objective that it would be best for the article and for the Gerontology Wiki to have that article category added? You are already over 750 article categories ahead of anyone else and many of your recent category additions don't appear to be in the best interests of the system. Please reconsider your editing practices in this matter.Ryoung122 (talk) 17:26, January 5, 2017 (UTC) 