Is 'Australia, Chief Justices' sufficient a Category?

Question

I have taken the liberty of creating a Category called 'Australia, Chief Justices'.  There are some categories for Chief Justices of various jurisdictions, but no parent Category under which they all would be grouped.  My question is: Is it sufficient to have 'Australia, Chief Justices', which will house the chief justices from the Commonwealth as well as the six constituent States.  There are probably less than two dozen Aussie Chief Justices on WikiTree at present.  Most, if not all, Chief Justices would be Notables.  I'm happy to raise the seven sub-categories, but feel some will be unpopulated for the time being.

Comments

Hi Kenneth, thanks for asking the question. I think it needs a bit of a 'think through'. It's a good opportunity to look at what we have in the way of legal/law/judicial categories and work out how it might best all fit together. We can do some consulting, and others may also have feedback on this post.

---

My estimation was a 'bit' out. I've populated the Category with 32 profiles.

---

Thanks, Gillian. Am happy to do any 'leg'work' once any decision is made.

Answer 1

Thanks Ken, please don't create any state sub-categories, Australia, Chief Justices is sufficient at the moment. The Australia Project will have a look at what the best parent category or categories are for this and other legal-related Australian categories.

Comments

Thanks, Margaret. I'm fine with that. Happy to do any 'foot-slogging' once any decision is made.