Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/5/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
Guess I have to add in some sort of loop detection. Of course, "Port cities" shouldn't be in "Ports and harbours", "Edinburgh" shouldn't be in "Port cities", and "Arthur Conan Doyle" shouldn't be in "University of Edinburgh alumni" :).
Meanwhile, "Arthur Conan Doyle" shouldn't be a category, and if it is, it's a thematic one and should not be a subcategory of Alumni of any university.
I can understand the confusion Doyle/Sherlock holmes though. Logic dictates that it's Doyle (or "Works of Arthur Conan Doyle") that's the supercategory though.
Way back in the mists of history when categories were first implemented I created a couple of templates intended to be put onto the category pages to identify whether the category contained articles that were examples of the category's subject or articles that were just _about_ the category's subject. There seemed to be no interest in using them and I didn't think it important enough to raise a fuss about, so I figured I'd just sit back and watch how categorization actually got used rather than trying to impose my vision on it.
Perhaps it'd be useful to recreate similar templates now, though, if enough people think it's a problem? That way there'd be no major disruption to the category tree, but people who wanted to do fancy culling of subsets of articles could add just a little parsing intelligence to whatever program they're using to determine what types of categories they're dealing with.