When I suggested a system of codes to enter into coding boxes, I made
reference to a modified version of the Library of Congress
Classification system. This is not to suggest that it is any better
than anything else; it's just an established system that is a convenient
jumping off point. Starting from scratch would involve reinventing a
lot of basics. The LCC is a system based on one, two and sometimes
three letters, a number up to four digits long, a decimal point, and
decimalized alphanumerics of varying lengths. For practical purposes I
see no reason to go beyond three letters at the beginning, if at all.
The only conceivable exception for the future would be for a very big
subject area that is just crying for further subdivision. We would not
be using the system to put numbers on the spines of books to ensure that
the books are put on the right shelf in the library.
The classification system should allow nesting of categories. Under the
existing LCC "Q" represents sciences in general, "QA" represents
mathematics and no three letter codes are defined in the QAs. Without
prejudice, this would leave free to define "QAG" to represent geometry.
From the searcher's point of view, he could find his geometric subject
by searching either Q or QA or QAG, but the result from searching on Q
could be big and mostly useless to him. An article could be classified
in more than one category; one that deals with both calculus and
geometry could show both a QAG and a QAC category. Also, a person who
wants to be able to contribute through classifying articles should have
the option to choose only those items which are unextended when he's
looking for work.
Ib my previous post I mentioned code "AAA" for unclassified, but there
are also other codes that could serve Wikipedia's own special purposes.
Eclecticology