Thread:LucidPigeons/@comment-366087-20160209194056/@comment-366087-20160210062257

Part of the problem with placing Cats-on-Cats, making Sub-Cats, comes from editors not understanding one simple thing: Putting a Cat on a Cat is not the same as putting a Cat on a Page.
 * Well, it *is*, but it *means* something different.

When a Category is placed on a page, the Page is placed into the Cat. We are saying "This Page is part of the Set this Category Defines".

When a Category is placed on a category, the opposite thing happens.
 * When placing CatA *onto* CatB, the entirety of CatA is added to CatB, and that *might* not be what is wanted.
 * Recently I removed a bunch of Cats from Category:Samurai Jack Villains. One of them was Category:Cartoon Villains. Certainly it was thought to be the correct thing to do because the reasoning is "Samurai Jack is a Cartoon". BUT what was actually being said was "ALL Cartoon Villains are Samurai Jack Villains", and in this case that is incorrect.

So what needs to happen is editors need to be educated to ask themselves "is EVERYTHING in this *new cat* ALSO part of the existing Cat?" If "NO", then don't add it to that Category.

ALSO, Not all Categories *need* to be or have sub-cats.
 * Other than filling the needs of Category:Site administration and Category:Site maintenance so that No page—including category pages—is without a Category, and that's up to the Admins to see to.