Category talk:Calephs

Shouldn't all the Zakharan rulers be under the category of Caliphs? ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:34, April 15, 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Caleph" is just Alzhedo for "king" and "Caliph" is likewise Midani for "king". I don't see that we need a separate category from King for any of these rulers. ~ Lhynard (talk) 15:37, April 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is completely true for Midani: Arabian Adventures (and the real world) calls a caliph a "spiritual leader and temporal leader", which is only sometimes true for a king. Zakharan rulers are called by a plethora of different titles with (also in-universe) unclear ranking. Most Zakharan city-states are independent except for allegiance to Huzuz, so rulers with different titles have effectively the same rank. This begs the more general question about the usefulness of subdividing Category:Rulers, and if it is/should be by title (simple but of limited use), rank or function (both difficult to determine). Daranios (talk) 19:07, April 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply.


 * I think my vote would be to simply have a Category:Rulers category and nothing below that, except for maybe "Rulers of Foo".


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:56, April 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * Having only sub-categories like Category:Kings of Cormyr here sounds most useful to me, though many existing ones like Category:Zulkirs would already qualify as specific. What I would like to avoid in this case, however, would be categories that are likely to have only one member, as I can think of very many examples from Zakhara here. Daranios (talk) 20:15, April 15, 2016 (UTC)