Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Novels"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
Line 5: Line 5:
 
::::Deliciously convulted. Shall we go about moving fictional entries from Books to Novels, then? [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 17:46, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 
::::Deliciously convulted. Shall we go about moving fictional entries from Books to Novels, then? [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 17:46, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:::::Not my call, but I think the current scheme makes sense. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 17:50, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 
:::::Not my call, but I think the current scheme makes sense. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 17:50, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
 +
::::::How does having some fiction novels in one category and some in another with no overlap make sense? [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 18:03, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 22:03, April 29, 2008

This category seems to be redundant when compared to Category:Books. If there are no objections, I can go through and put everything from this category into the other one. IndianaJ 16:37, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

Not all books are novels. I think its a useful sub-category. Dadsnagem2 17:24, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
That's why I suggested moving the things from the Novels cat to the Books cat, and not vice versa. IndianaJ 17:26, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Novels is a sub-category of Fiction which is a sub-category of Books. Dadsnagem2 17:29, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Deliciously convulted. Shall we go about moving fictional entries from Books to Novels, then? IndianaJ 17:46, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
Not my call, but I think the current scheme makes sense. Dadsnagem2 17:50, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
How does having some fiction novels in one category and some in another with no overlap make sense? IndianaJ 18:03, 29 April 2008 (EDT)