Category talk:Chess: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Robert W King No edit summary |
imported>Denis Cavanagh No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I don't think its completely necessary to 'mobilize the troops' and begin a categorisation rush, but it would be nice to have a few knocking about. I don't think it does any harm. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 09:59, 7 January 2008 (CST) | I don't think its completely necessary to 'mobilize the troops' and begin a categorisation rush, but it would be nice to have a few knocking about. I don't think it does any harm. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 09:59, 7 January 2008 (CST) | ||
:Actually, I thought about it for a few minutes and I'm not really sure we should have article-level categories like this. It defeats the purpose of using subpage clusters. Really, he should be using the tab that's designed for this purpose instead of creating an all new category all together. See [[Vitamin_C/Related_Articles]] for example. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:01, 7 January 2008 (CST) | :Actually, I thought about it for a few minutes and I'm not really sure we should have article-level categories like this. It defeats the purpose of using subpage clusters. Really, he should be using the tab that's designed for this purpose instead of creating an all new category all together. See [[Vitamin_C/Related_Articles]] for example. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:01, 7 January 2008 (CST) | ||
:I suppose thats a good point. I think that we should start making some sort of policy about it though, so people know not to create categories. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 10:08, 7 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 11:08, 7 January 2008
I do not believe that we currently employ specific article-level categories in CZ. --Robert W King 09:01, 7 January 2008 (CST)
I don't think its a bad idea. After all he is 'being bold' :-) Denis Cavanagh 09:35, 7 January 2008 (CST)
- I'm frankly ambivalent, but if we're going to do it then there needs to be policy and guidelines set up. --Robert W King 09:54, 7 January 2008 (CST)
I don't think its completely necessary to 'mobilize the troops' and begin a categorisation rush, but it would be nice to have a few knocking about. I don't think it does any harm. Denis Cavanagh 09:59, 7 January 2008 (CST)
- Actually, I thought about it for a few minutes and I'm not really sure we should have article-level categories like this. It defeats the purpose of using subpage clusters. Really, he should be using the tab that's designed for this purpose instead of creating an all new category all together. See Vitamin_C/Related_Articles for example. --Robert W King 10:01, 7 January 2008 (CST)
- I suppose thats a good point. I think that we should start making some sort of policy about it though, so people know not to create categories. Denis Cavanagh 10:08, 7 January 2008 (CST)