Would it be a cardinal sin to have the same “Sub-Section” appear in more than one “Section” in my website?
“Why?” you ask.
Well, a lot of times there is overlap in content.
For example, I have a “Finance” section and a “Legal” section, but the sub-section of “Taxes” could - and does - apply to both.
(There are diverse concepts like “Calculating Taxes”, “Reducing Taxes”, and “Paying Taxes” that your accountant (i.e. Finance) cares about, but then there are things like “Tax Law”, “Tax Litigation” and “Tax Structure & Entities” that your attorney (i.e. Legal) cares about.)
I guess I could change the names slightly, but would it be horrible to have…
Finance > Taxes
Legal > Taxes
…for menu choices? :-/
Sincerely,
Debbie
You could change to a tagging system (Google calls them labels) instead of a section system.
Not sure if I know how that would work, but it would completely undo what I have already built.
Feel free to tell me more, though. I always like expanding my world-view! 
Sincerely,
Debbie
If you’ve used Gmail, then you probably already know how labels work. You could label an email as “Finance” or “Legal” or “Taxes” or any combination of those.
but it would completely undo what I have already built.
I agree. I’ve expressed this before, so I’ll try to make this the last time. Right now you seem to be stuck in scope creep. You’re not launching because you keep wanting to add just one more feature. And you’re trying to do so with a codebase that doesn’t adapt well to changing requirements. I suggest that you launch your site as is and start working on v3.
Sounds like an interesting idea for the future.
I agree. I’ve expressed this before, so I’ll try to make this the last time. Right now you seem to be stuck in scope creep. You’re not launching because you keep wanting to add just one more feature.
I don’t think that is the case when it comes to my Content.
Where I failed was to realize how much Content I have gathered over the last several years, and now I am trying to find a simple, yet complete way to organize and present it to the world. (Otherwise I don’t have a website, right?!)
And you’re trying to do so with a codebase that doesn’t adapt well to changing requirements.
Ouch.
It sounds like you see some glaring flaw in my website architecture, that I don’t?
(I’d say that any “inflexabilities” have to do more so with my lack of programming skills…) 
I suggest that you launch your site as is and start working on v3.
I am trying to wrap things up as quick as I can, but for this thread, I have several “Tax” articles that fall under both “Finance” and “Legal” and it seems better to have a “Tax” sub-section underneath each in my mind.
But who knows?! (:
Debbie
Look at it from a user viewpoint. I’d expect that there would be some people looking for the sub-section via one section and some via the other section so including it in both makes sense. Anything you can do to make it easier for your visitors to find what they are looking for is good. Only things that make it harder to find content are actually bad.
Ah, an encouraging word!
Well, one reason for this thread is because ironically I was bugging r937 this weekend about, “How do I make sure a Sub-Section cannot appear in more than one Section (in my database)?” (Hey, girls are allowed to change their minds!!) 
But as I am sifting through my articles and potential articles, I can see places where things do indeed spill over between two Sections. (And I have already coded some pretty nifty things into my website so that I can easily do cross-article hyperlinks that stay updated, and which allow me to have a given article appear in a couple places in my website to get the most coverage.)
Since I am a proponent of having one Article appear in more than one spot in a website, I guess you could argue that the same logic applies to “Sub-Sections” - as long as you don’t go crazy.
I would say that 90%+ of the Sub-Sections I am creating now are unique, but there are always exceptions, and “Taxes” is one that seems like it might sit nicely under both “Finance” and “Legal”.
Sincerely,
Debbie