Bryan Derksen wrote:
> K P wrote:
>
>
>> If you break down a family into genera, then you can wind up with something
>> from one of the big families, where you have 5 genera with 100 members each
>> and a couple of thousand genera or categories with only one member each,
>> again, you haven't done anything useful.
>>
>>
> I expect the way this would be done according to existing common
> practice on Wikipedia would be to create subcategories for those five
> genera with lots of members, and then the remaining thousand species
> that each belong to their own genera would remain under the root family
> category. People don't generally create categories that will only ever
> hold one or two articles, there's no point.
>
on 5/3/07 9:16 PM, Ray Saintonge at saintonge(a)telus.net wrote:
I'm sure we have many category specialists who are
not easily deterred
by the pointlessness of their efforts. :-)
:-)
Marc