Category talk:Chess Pieces

Is this category really necessary? GreenDisaster 14:55, 30 March 2012 (EDT)


 * I agree, I think it should be deleted.

Delete Category:Chess Pieces
DELETE 10-0

This category seems pointless in my opinion. One, it's a small category, composed of only 13 articles. Two, it's a category comprising the characters that appear as pieces for a chess game that most of the articles give a single line to, if they even mention it. It seems too insignificant to have a category for it. Three, how many people actually use this category? It just doesn't seem that useful.

Proposer: Deadline: August 6, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Delete

 * 1) Per proposal.
 * 2) Not enough pages and this is a single game.
 * 3) Really minuscle category, don't need it.
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) Per what I said above.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) - Thirteen isn't horrible as far as size goes (originally, there were categories for every type of chess piece: now that was excessive), but when you look at the articles, it's the ugly ducking of the categories: it would be better to just not have it around.
 * 8) This category may as well be called "important characters in the Mario series". Per all
 * 9) Aughh!! Thirteen is the unlucky number! Begone, foul category! ...Per all.
 * 10) This is some kind of cruel joke here, right?

Comments
So instead of having a category for the chess pieces, we have a template. I'm not sure if that's better or worse. GreenDisaster (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2012 (EDT)
 * Worse (imho). If a category's unnecessary, a template is overkill. Not to mention how its design breaks the whole colour-coded nav template uniformity scheme we've been aiming for... - 20:21, 27 July 2012 (EDT)