Category talk:Chess: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Denis Cavanagh No edit summary |
imported>Robert W King No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:01, 7 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 11:01, 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. --Robert W King 10:01, 7 January 2008 (CST)