On 6/5/06, Anthony DiPierro <wikilegal(a)inbox.org> wrote: 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. Steve

On 6/5/06, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: This does sound like a good start, but will need some intelligence in its application. One of the problems is that good categorisation is somewhat challenging, and the "average person" won't necessarily make good use of these templates. In fact the same could probably be said for all semantic markup, of which this is an example. Do you have any examples? What would they look like? Perhaps: {{thematic category|name of subject}} --> This category should be applied to all articles which have a strong link with <name of subject> and {{taxonomic category|type of thing|thematic category}} --> This category should be applied to articles which are an example of a <type of thing>, and which do not belong to a subcategory. Articles which are just related to this topic should go in [[:Category:<Thematic category>]] instead. Anyone want to mock one up? Steve

On 6/6/06, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: Mmm...you may be right. In any case, the text on the category page should provide enough context to clarify. There may be cases where a category is forced to obey a particular naming scheme which isn't the most descriptive for what it is, but I can't think of any immediately. I'll try a couple of random examples: Members of this category should be specific examples of Districts of Berlin. Members of this category should be specific examples of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles Members of this category should be specific examples of Russian and Soviet polar explorers [an example where the text would be better as "Russian *or* Soviet polar explorers"?] Members of this category should be specific examples of Cities in Kentucky Members of this category should be specific examples of Pakistan movement activists Members of this category should be specific examples of Lists of state leaders by year [this article also had the presumably "thematic" category 730s - a counterexample to the plurals rule] Members of this category should be specific examples of United Kingdom court systems Members of this category should be specific examples of Members and associates of the US National Academy of Sciences [another and -> or] Members of this category should be specific examples of Rivers of Indonesia ["Rivers in Indonesia" would be more natural] Members of this category should be specific examples of Pejorative names for people. I guess in general it works, but some other ideas: Articles in this category should describe individual Articles in this category should be Only ___ should be in this category. Only articles about [specific | individual] ___ should be in this category. Also note there is a capitalisation issue to deal with... There is also a problem with "1923 births" type cats - these don't fit comfortably into any of these sentences. (incidentally, with this distinction between taxonomic and thematic, is it time to up the ante and say that every article should have at least one taxonomic category? by random article I come to "Chrysler Phaeton" which only has the thematic category "Chrysler" - whereas it really should have at least the taxonomic "Cars" or something) Members of this category or its subcategories should be about the topic of... Education in New York ...Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania ...Oslo T-bane ...Baseball ...Isle of Man I don't think it works - [[The Buchan School]] is not "about the topic of The Isle of Man". What is the relationship exactly? "should have a strong connection with"? I think we just decided in the long thread that that's a bad idea as follows: Cities in Washington is a taxonomic category Seattle is a thematic category Thematic categories should never be subcategories of taxonomic categories (although the reverse is ok) If your proposal is to allow for a graceful changeover, then I understand. Steve

On 6/6/06, Bryan Derksen &lt;bryan.derksen(a)shaw.ca&gt; wrote: That seems reasonable. Steve