I'm struggling to understand what you're arguing about, RJ. If it's that anyone should be able to create any categories they like, named whatever they like, and nested in whatever parent categories they like, that seems obviously wrong.
I agree, as do I think everyone else in this thread, that publicly useful, but mostly idiosyncratic, categories are totally fine. But minimal standards of naming and hierarchy creation should be used, so that the idiosyncratic categories don't collide with existing projects, and don't throw up database errors. A collaborative family tree necessitates community standards around dates, names, and formatting issues. Like Steven said, if any of this interests you, it'd be great if you joined the categorization project.
Natalie did a great job of minimal interference, to sort out a couple errors.
And, to be honest, if this idiosyncratic Phillips project is about a single small branch, the category should be named clearly to reflect that specificity.