Do people think there should be different categories for contemporary suspects, non-contemporary suspects, frivolous suggestions and so on? Chris 09:00, 23 November 2008 (EST)
Absolutely, good idea - especially considering the sheer number of proposed suspects, a categorization method will be sorely needed. And individual pages can have multiple categories, i.e. one can be a contemporary suspect and a police suspect at the same time. Off the top of my head, possible categories could include: Contemporary Suspects (1888-189?), Non-Contemporary Suspects, Police Suspects, maybe include categories for Geography (i.e. East-end Suspects, Greater London Suspects, UK Suspects, American Suspects, etc.), perhaps "type" of suspects (i.e. Medical Suspects, Insane Suspects, etc.). "Frivolous" as a category might cause a few problems if its used too liberally - i.e. some folks would consider Lewis Carroll a frivolous suspect, while some would not, while at the same time I doubt anyone would deny that Queen Victoria has been put forward as a genuinely "frivolous" suspect. --Spryder 13:42, 23 November 2008 (EST)
I agree, one mans Rome maybe anothers Luton.
Do we do this with Suspect/Witnesses? Hutchinson and Barnett for example. Labelled them as both? --Monty 03:01, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Yep, absolutely. There's plenty of witnesses who are also suspects, even some police officials who are also suspects, etc. We should categorize them as is appropriate. Thanks! --Spryder 08:34, 24 November 2008 (EST)