On 6/5/06, Anthony DiPierro
<wikilegal(a)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.