Steve Bennett wrote:
> Anyway the previous comment about Felix the Cat
being itself a
> category reminded me how much I dislike categories. You never know
> whether category membership is taxonomic (the subject of this page
> *is* a fictional cat) or thematic (the subject of this page is
> *related* to fictional cats). Same goes for subcategories.
This is *the* fundamental problem with categories, and is why
they'll never (in their current form) be useful for anything
rigorous or systematic, are really only useful for dabbling and
browsing.
Carcharoth wrote:
Ideally, you would label categories as being of one
type or the other,
Hear, hear.
but people seem to object to that for some reason...
Oh, here we go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Category_types
Category types. Marked as failed, but someone could try and revive it again.
Huh. A quick skim of the talk page suggests a fair amount of
strong support, and a fair amount of what I would characterize as
weak objection, basically along the lines of "categories are fine
for dabbling and browsing, and I don't want to think about trying
to do anything more with them, or letting anyone else try to do
anything more with them." Too bad.