Category talk:Towns and Villages in the Shire
I don't know if you are aware, but I am currently in the middle of reorganising the categories for Locations articles. The overall structure of it is located at User:KingAragorn/Sandbox2. I created that structure after long consideration and I came to the conclusion that we shouldn't have 'Cities of...', 'Swamps of...', 'Harbours of...' etc. I know it's a lot of work recategorising - I would have posted something sooner, but this has sprung up so fast. -- 21:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I can't say I agree, but I'm too tired to argue the point right now. I only wanted to break up Category:Shire so I'll restore Category:Cities, Towns and Villages (ditto for rivers). —Aulë the Smith (Tk·Cb) 21:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- hmm... They all interfered with my structure for Locations. :/ I don't see why we need so many (in fact any subcategories) for The Shire. --
- As a rule I think large categories should be split up, but that's a whole big policy thing I don't want to get into. Category:Shire contains/contained a lot of article that weren't geographical in nature (titles, etc.), does your reorganization of Locations give you ownership of ever category that overlaps with a location-based one? If so you probably 'own' every article we have. I went back and changed what I did so the two category schemes (yours under Locations, mine under Shire) would exist in parallel and not intersect, I don't know what more you want.