`  ==Comment== [Moved this from my own talk page here, where it is pertinent.   ]  Just had a look at the rewrite. While I don't necessarily agree with everything you've done (I think the categories added a sense of order and progression), I think you've done a really good job.     Thanks for the message.  Re: the decision to omit the categories; they are one perspective on the works of the ``Personal Website`` of the subject and thus not really ``neutral point of view``; also, in terms of format, most articles about subjects who are writers list the works by titles in bibliographical format (titles, dates) and do not categorize them according to any single critical point of view.  Also, I added the references to the categories and qualifications about overlap etc. in the source citations.  The subsequent bibliography already lists works within most of the same categories in titles of collected plays.  As I had said in an earlier version that I revised later, the categories are basically those of Fugard's own collections and really do not represent any useful additional and verifiable information.  They are simply the categories already accessible in the linked External links and source citations and they are debatable.  Categorizing the works from that particular viewpoint is really not ``encyclopedic``; listing works and dates is.  If one wants critical discussions, one can go to the sources and ELs cited.  They are all accessible to any reader.  (I'll copy and move this exchange to the article talkpage so that others can read it there.)    `