This seems like a bit of a rhetorical question, so this isn't a terribly formal or authoritative answer, but anyhow - a lot of chemical nomenclature is like lava flow. It solidified and people just worked around it.
The halogens are so named because they have a rich chemistry of ionic compounds (fluorine through iodine, anyhow). However, both the halogens and the group I metals can form a wide range of things that aren't salts. The noble gases can form compounds with elements of low birth. The rare earth elements aren't particularly rare. Oxygen ('acid-former') is not a necessary component of acids. Technetium ('artificial' + ium) is produced in nature in significant quantities.
In addition, a lot of chemistry defies our human efforts to succintly categorise things, so at some point chemists have tried their best to find pragmatic general descriptors that unite groups of elements or molecules on the basis of the properties or constitution. The divide between organic and inorganic chemistry and the resulting exceptions and edge cases in classification (such as mellitic anhydride) is a good example of this. The map is not the territory.