Category talk:Battles

Category:Conflicts, shouldd we axe one or the other? Zerak talk 15:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd axe battles. Conflicts leaves us with a much broader scope. If needs be, we can create a sub-category for anything else that we think of. hash


 * Couldnt we add Category:Battles as a sub category of conflicts? All the current conflict articles are about wars, which could be put under their own subcat. Same with other conflicts such as coups if need be. Johnnyriot999 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Giving this a bump to see what the current admins think--Ijkay (talk) 16:53, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think battles should be a sub cat of conflicts... just my thought :) Darkwynters (talk) 19:06, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * There's definitely a distinction between single battles, such as Battle of the Cwm, and wars, such as Crown Wars. I do reckon they should stay separate. I'm not even sure that they're subcategories of one another. They're both subcategories of events, sure, but just because a number of battles might have happened during an overall conflict, does it necessarily mean that battles is a subcat of conflicts, or does it just mean we should list the conflict on the battles' articles? Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 23:42, October 5, 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool :) Darkwynters (talk) 02:41, October 6, 2012 (UTC)