Ray Saintonge wrote:
Bryan Derksen wrote:
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.
I'm sure we have many category specialists who are not easily deterred by the pointlessness of their efforts. :-)
True, but this does fortunately describe the most common practice. Usually a category will have sub-categories for anything "common enough to be worth it", and less common stuff will go in the parent category, as sort of a catch-all "other stuff that goes here". For example, there are lots of people from Dresden, so we have a [[Category:People from Dresden]] subcategory of [[Category:People from Saxony]]. But people from small towns in Saxony just go in the main People from Saxony category; there's no [[Category:People from Zörbig]] subcategory with [[Johann Jakob Reiske]] as the sole member.
-Mark