Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bundren v. Parriott"
From Conservapedia
(→Subcategory: reply) |
(→Subcategory: reply) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: I think we do want both, because "Circuit Cases" is much broader than "Tenth Circuit" and it is helpful to be able trace both categories easily and independently, without sub-nesting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 12 April 2008 (EDT) | : I think we do want both, because "Circuit Cases" is much broader than "Tenth Circuit" and it is helpful to be able trace both categories easily and independently, without sub-nesting.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:00, 12 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Ok, I wanted to check before I started making unnecessary changes. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:03, 12 April 2008 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 18:03, April 12, 2008
Subcategory
Andy, Do you really want this article to be in both categories: Circuit Cases and Tenth Circuit? Shouldn't it just be in the subcategory (Tenth Circuit)? If you agree, I can fix the categories on the other Circuit Cases articles. --Crocoite 13:37, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
- I think we do want both, because "Circuit Cases" is much broader than "Tenth Circuit" and it is helpful to be able trace both categories easily and independently, without sub-nesting.--Aschlafly 14:00, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
- Ok, I wanted to check before I started making unnecessary changes. --Crocoite 14:03, 12 April 2008 (EDT)
