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