Changes

==Random question(s) re:categories==

==Random question(s) re:categories==

What's up with cat:biographies? I used it sometimes when I was at a loss for where to put someone. Should every biography of a person ALSO be in cat:bio? Or, should every cat that contains descriptions of people simply be a sub-cat of cat:bio? So, for example, cat:physicists would be a sub-cat of cat:scientists, which would be a sub-cat of cat:biographies? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- see, what did I tell you?''

What's up with cat:biographies? I used it sometimes when I was at a loss for where to put someone. Should every biography of a person ALSO be in cat:bio? Or, should every cat that contains descriptions of people simply be a sub-cat of cat:bio? So, for example, cat:physicists would be a sub-cat of cat:scientists, which would be a sub-cat of cat:biographies? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT) ''<- see, what did I tell you?'

:There are are a lot of broad categories which need refining and I'm happy to help with this.  I think most people should be in cat:bio but bear in mind that they can be in multiple categories so Isaac Newton is a mathematician and a physicist (probably a few other things as well) but not just a scientist.  My contributions have been to put people in narrow categories wherever possible and then categorize that category as part of something much larger.  I think Sports People is a good example.  No-one should be in the root category, they should be at least one level down so Tiger Woods may be a Golfer but does he need to be an American Golfer? The number of golfers is probably quite small but soccer players might be quite large as it is an international sport so they should probably be subdivided. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 17:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)