Category talk:Wolves - Revision history

NinjaCoachZ at 03:58, 17 July 2010

2010-07-17T03:58:56Z

2010-07-17T03:57:28Z

2010-07-17T03:52:32Z

2010-07-17T03:50:39Z

2010-07-17T03:49:47Z

New page: I don't think there are nearly enough wolves to justify this category's existence. --~~~~

New page

I don't think there are nearly enough wolves to justify this category's existence. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ|NinjaCoachZ]] 22:49, 16 July 2010 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:58, 17 July 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:
	::More than three. If we had around ten or more, I wouldn't mind, but frankly, all these categories that are coming up are starting to get increasingly absurd. We shouldn't have to categorize every little thing, and categorizing only three articles is pretty pointless. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ\|NinjaCoachZ]] 22:52, 16 July 2010 (CDT)		::More than three. If we had around ten or more, I wouldn't mind, but frankly, all these categories that are coming up are starting to get increasingly absurd. We shouldn't have to categorize every little thing, and categorizing only three articles is pretty pointless. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ\|NinjaCoachZ]] 22:52, 16 July 2010 (CDT)
	:::Then should it be integrated back in to the "Dog" category? -[[User:Yoshit\|Yoshit]] 22:57, 16 July 2010 (CDT)		:::Then should it be integrated back in to the "Dog" category? -[[User:Yoshit\|Yoshit]] 22:57, 16 July 2010 (CDT)
		+	::::Yes. Until we get a good number of wolves here, it'll have to go. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ\|NinjaCoachZ]] 22:58, 16 July 2010 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:57, 17 July 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:What would you suggest is a significant number, eh? -[[User:Yoshit\|Yoshit]] 22:50, 16 July 2010 (CDT)		:What would you suggest is a significant number, eh? -[[User:Yoshit\|Yoshit]] 22:50, 16 July 2010 (CDT)
	::More than three. If we had around ten or more, I wouldn't mind, but frankly, all these categories that are coming up are starting to get increasingly absurd. We shouldn't have to categorize every little thing, and categorizing only three articles is pretty pointless. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ\|NinjaCoachZ]] 22:52, 16 July 2010 (CDT)		::More than three. If we had around ten or more, I wouldn't mind, but frankly, all these categories that are coming up are starting to get increasingly absurd. We shouldn't have to categorize every little thing, and categorizing only three articles is pretty pointless. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ\|NinjaCoachZ]] 22:52, 16 July 2010 (CDT)
		+	:::Then should it be integrated back in to the "Dog" category? -[[User:Yoshit\|Yoshit]] 22:57, 16 July 2010 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:52, 17 July 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	:What would you suggest is a significant number, eh? -[[User:Yoshit\|Yoshit]] 22:50, 16 July 2010 (CDT)		:What would you suggest is a significant number, eh? -[[User:Yoshit\|Yoshit]] 22:50, 16 July 2010 (CDT)
		+	::More than three. If we had around ten or more, I wouldn't mind, but frankly, all these categories that are coming up are starting to get increasingly absurd. We shouldn't have to categorize every little thing, and categorizing only three articles is pretty pointless. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ\|NinjaCoachZ]] 22:52, 16 July 2010 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:50, 17 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I don't think there are nearly enough wolves to justify this category's existence. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ\|NinjaCoachZ]] 22:49, 16 July 2010 (CDT)		I don't think there are nearly enough wolves to justify this category's existence. --[[User:NinjaCoachZ\|NinjaCoachZ]] 22:49, 16 July 2010 (CDT)
		+
		+	:What would you suggest is a significant number, eh? -[[User:Yoshit\|Yoshit]] 22:50, 16 July 2010 (CDT)