Category talk:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar: Difference between revisions
(Talkheader) |
(→Proposal for Deletion of this Category: new section) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TH}} | {{TH}} | ||
== Proposal for Deletion of this Category == | |||
[[File:SVmap.png|360px|thumb|Sarkarverse Map]] | |||
This entire wiki is the Sarkarverse. Every article on it, other than project-related information, is connected with Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Hence I do not see any point in having a category that is essentially all-inclusive. I propose that this category be deleted. Imposing the appropriate Sarkarverse Map (there are eight) at the top of every article will be a more informative and more useful locator than a Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar category. In addition, this map, combined with carefully selected categories at the bottom of the article, effectively eliminates the need for a Template:Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar. We are using the MediaWiki software, but this encyclopedia need not - indeed must not - be a carbon copy of Wikipedia (in content or in style). We can do a lot better. Support or oppose? --[[User:Abhidevananda|Abhidevananda]] ([[User talk:Abhidevananda|talk]]) 17:48, 27 October 2013 (MDT) | |||
Revision as of 23:48, 27 October 2013
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar category. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||
Proposal for Deletion of this Category
This entire wiki is the Sarkarverse. Every article on it, other than project-related information, is connected with Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Hence I do not see any point in having a category that is essentially all-inclusive. I propose that this category be deleted. Imposing the appropriate Sarkarverse Map (there are eight) at the top of every article will be a more informative and more useful locator than a Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar category. In addition, this map, combined with carefully selected categories at the bottom of the article, effectively eliminates the need for a Template:Prabhat_Ranjan_Sarkar. We are using the MediaWiki software, but this encyclopedia need not - indeed must not - be a carbon copy of Wikipedia (in content or in style). We can do a lot better. Support or oppose? --Abhidevananda (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2013 (MDT)