I don't understand what is meant by "A category should include practically every aspect of every article and subcategory within it. Where that seems unworkable, a redefinition of categories may be desirable and should be discussed on the "Talk" pages of the categories concerned." Could you give an example (good or bad)? --CocoaZen 03:09, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Two categories that share some content but have some separate content (eg "Europe" and "Russia") should not be categories one of another. There is a real risk of creating loops, if each is made a subcategory of the other, or in the more likely situation where three overlapping categories (eg the above two and "Black Sea countries") are linked in a loop because the linkers don't realise they are creating a loop. If our software ever gets smart enough to display category trees, that sort of thing could crash the server. Europe > Black Sea countries > Russia > Europe > Black Sea countries > Russia > Europe > Black Sea countries > Russia > Europe > Black Sea countries > Russia > Europe > Black Sea countries > Russia > ....
- There's also a risk of having something in a "grandchild" category to something it has nothing to do with: Russia > Europe > Iceland; Europe > Russia > Vladivostok.
- By all means, however, show links to such overlapping categories on each category page. And a new category that is a subcategory of each (eg "Russia-in-Europe") may be worth creating.
- Robin Patterson 01:21, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)