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