Category talk:Eponymous rules

See List of eponymous laws and Category:Adages. I'm guessing about 10% to 20% of the adages in the latter category are named after people; yet virtually none of those adages (which are mostly humorous?) are currently within this Category:Eponymous rules.

Also: very few of the laws in List of eponymous laws are in Category:Eponymous rules.

Also: List of eponymous laws is within Category:Adages, but not within Category:Eponymous rules.

If this category Category:Eponymous rules is supposed to be limited to serious/scientific laws, fine, but if so: that should be made clear in the category page. But note that this category includes humorous rule: Betteridge's law of headlines

Or if Category:Eponymous rules can/should include all laws/rules (even non-scientific ones) then the Eponymous rules/laws in Category:Adages should be moved into Category:Eponymous rules; and the Eponymous category should become a subcategory of Category:Adages.

Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

It seems like there are two approaches available:

1) Put all eponymous rules (serious, humorous, scientific, adages, etc) into a single category. Name of this category could be Category:Eponymous rules or Category:Eponymous laws and adages or Category:Eponymous rules, laws, and adages

2) Create two categories:

• Category for serious academic/scientific eponymous laws/rules
• Category for humorous & non-science scientific eponymous laws/rules/adages

and there would probably be a third "parent" category that includes both of these

I'm not sure which approach is best. (1) might be better because there are probably dozens of laws/rules that are borderline serious (e.g. Peter principle or Betteridge's law of headlines). On the other hand under approach (2) such "borderline" adages/laws could be put into both categories.

Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)