Puppy wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
Articles should only belong to the most specific
of categories in
which they can belong. The goals of categorization are different
from the goals of flat interlinking.
Why? I'm not following your reasoning here. It seems to me a good point
has been made - if you want all suicides, then having to traverse all
subcats is tedious, to say the least.
Sure. But if you're trying to do other things, then not having
them subcategorized can be tedious.
It's a blind-men-and-the-elephant problem, I think. Categories
are many things to many people, and every time someone says
"categories should work *this* way and be used *this* way so I
can do *this* thing with them", someone else can always pop up
and say "No, they should work this other way so I can do this
other thing with them."
As Eugene van der Pijll pointed out in another branch of the
thread, we don't know whether category membership is supposed to
denote "is-a", "has-a" or "is-related-to" relationships.
(As he
also pointed out, and I'm not at all surprised to hear, this has
evidently been thrashed out several times before, too.)