Eclecticology wrote:
A category would have three elements: a code, a title, and a description. The codes would be brief and hierarchical; they would also be sufficient as broad search elements. The titles would function in a manner similar to the present article titles. They could appear after a code as a dumb descriptor for that code and linked directly only to the third element. Like most articles these descriptions would be fully editable, and if any edit wars were to arise out of the classification system this is where they would happen.
I don't understand the motivation for including the code at all. If it's to allow for hierarchical classification, then this can also be done by placing, say, "[[Category:Mathematics]]" in the text of [[Category:Topology]], just as you'd place, say, "[[Category:Topology]]" in the text of [[Hausdorff space]]. If it's to standardise the name of the category, then we can just use the name of the article on the subject: say, [[Category:Mathematics]], following [[Mathematics]], not [[Category:Maths]] or [[Category:Math]], much less [[Category:QA]]. Of course, we could always redirect the abbreviations to [[Category:Mathematics]].
I agree that the LC could well give us an initial set of categories to use. But we don't need their codes.
-- Toby