But that is exactly what you're trying to use the article title for. Or what else do you mean by rational organisation?
Taxonomy. Titles are for the "species" or even "sub-species" level of information, to use a biological metaphor, whereas categories can be used for a wide variety of classification -- from the very broad to the very specific. Additionally, categories are a much fuzzier type of classification -- they can include information from widely different types of domains. What I'm arguing for is using some sort of way to clearly and instantly designate fictional content from non-fictional (one could imagine a less intrusive "fiction" template that would do the same thing, if designed well). I see these as being separate functions with separate effects. (Again, I'm not really making a major point of this; I think it would probably be an unpleasant precedent to actually start labeling all titles in a very literal fashion, and would loathe to clutter up non-fiction works with (non-fiction) in their title.)
Right, so of course we must move them into the article titles, rather than just simply modifying the Monobook skin so that they're at the top, like I've always advocated (and indeed achieved with my user CSS/JS).
Well, I disagree with this, for informational as well as aesthetic purposes, and think it in any event it is a separate discussion from the point I am trying to make. I think labeling something as fiction is of a higher level of importance than labeling all of the other various sets it could fall into, and the purpose of doing so would be quite different from the purpose of categories.
FF