So why are the "Enos" appearing as a sub-category in "Southern Victory Characters" but the "Galtiers" are not? ML4E 00:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Never mind, they do appear in the "second 200" page with the "G"s. ML4E 00:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The downside of a large category. TR 00:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You would think that the wiki would show all the sub-categories first and then the individual articles. ML4E 01:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought it did.
- Obviously not. ML4E 00:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, this is getting messy. Do we have to have the families as sub-cats of their stories' characters' category? Turtle Fan 10:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't have to, but since most are families story specific, it strikes me as logical. TR 16:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- It's also a good way to tie together in-laws who would have different last names. ML4E 00:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Leafs, I'm not saying we don't need family categories, I think we do. Throwing them in as subcats is my problem, seems messy but whatever. I also think we need to prune these categories, set a certain minimum number of Wickersham brothers and dozens of Wickersham uncles and Wickersham cousins. Turtle Fan 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think much pruning is necessary. Most of the categories have less than ten entries. TR 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- I mean, delete categories with two or three people in them, especially those with people barely related. We can keep track of Stuarts and Forrests and Bartletts in our heads just fine. On the other hand, for large families like the Drivers, Galtiers, Yeagers, Radcliff(e)s et cetera, I'd say the more extensive, the better. Turtle Fan 07:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose some of the smaller families can be pruned. Roosevelts aren't serving any purpose at the moment. TR 16:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)