Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
I just noticed that we have History as a category. How is that any different from most Non-Fiction? Unless it's written about right now, it's history.
Take the book Steve Jobs. It's about the past. So it's History. They are almost the same.
|
Looks like different levels of specialisation to me.
A biography is specialised form of history (or at least this is what I think you are arguing), but not all history is a biography. So history would give a much wider scope for nomination than biography would.
Likewise, non-fiction sits above history as a top-level generalisation. Not all non-fiction is a history, nor is it necessarily a biography. So you would have again, a wider scope.
The people nominating and seconding biography are obviously looking for a very specific type of non-fiction, whereas those supporting non-fiction are not necessarily happy with biographies specifically and would like a broader range of subjects to choose from.
Do we have some existing rule that precludes different levels of specialisation being used for categories? Eg. could we not have Fantasy and Steampunk competing against each other?