Talk:Stephen Rhodes (racing driver)

Category order
Regarding this revision, what is wrong with alphabetical listing? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 00:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, IMHO at least, it's less useful to the reader - instead of following a logical progression (DOB-From-Career-Life) (which is, in this case, also consistent across almost the entirety of all other active drivers' pages), the categories are scattered; it looks much less encyclopedic. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think not having categories displayed alphabetically looks arbitrary and unorganized. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. It looks is less encyclopedic to see categories in total disorder, arbitrarily ordered. What do you think if the categories of World War II were ordered arbitrarily and without an especific order? WP:CAT does't have a rule about this, but says that "Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first"--to a normal reader (i.e. that that read the article while it was posted at the main page and didn't hear about Rhodes before) it is trivial to know Rhodes is a "living person", then a "NASCAR driver" and at the end a "LGBT sportpeople from the United States". You said it was ordered by importance, why it is important to me, as a reader, to know Rhodes is living? The category exists for legal reasons not for the readers per se. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  00:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "ordered arbitrarily and without an specific order" is an untrue statement; there is a very specific order that is followed. On Category:Living people - why is it not hidden, then? IMHO the 'most important' categories are in fact birth year, location from, and profession - which is why they are at the start of the list here; 'living people' is there because it's next to the birth year. If somebody wants to make it look unencyclopedic and amateurish (my opinion) by having them be very much arbitrarily ordered by making them alphabetical, I won't revert them (barring having forgotten this discussion some point in the distant future, but it won't be deliberate, anyway). - The Bushranger One ping only 03:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This is why I wish categories were sorted alphabetically automatically, because otherwise the order is inconsistent. -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But that would force them alphabetically, which is almost always not the best choice... - The Bushranger One ping only 04:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We have to agree to disagree. I believe alphabetically is always the best choice, apart from a single parent category (for example, "Category:Bill Clinton" should be the first category for the Bill Clinton article, with the rest followed alphabetically). -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, after all if we all were great minds who thought alike how dull things would be! - The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)