Category talk:Books

I created this category because I thought it would be useful to see all the "books" in one place. They are distinct and unusual objects. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The wiki isn't paper, so this is useful. Lord of all tyria 19:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? There are only about 8 books in the whole game, and a catagory for them themselves would be pointless? --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk ) (Contr. ) 19:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The wiki isn't paper, it won't run out suddenly. This allows someone to see all the books in the game easily, why shouldn't they be able to? Lord of all tyria 19:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also find it distinctly rude that you just chased down all the edits I just made putting things into this category and undid them. The decision that this is "unneeded" is entirely arbitrary atm and with the wiki loading so slow right now, it took me forever to add all that stuff. (response to edit conflict) There are many categories with only a few items. It doesn't mean things shouldn't be categorized. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, with the category now empty, no one can look at it and see all the things in it to decide if it makes sense or not. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The wiki may not be paper, but for every article it starts to strain more, so we should cut down on un-needed articles. Also, the catagory of books, 4 are related to each other, and the other two are related to each other. there are only six books, so why bother? and jedi, fair enough then, ill revert my edits on the pages, but we'll leave the page flagged. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk ) (Contr. ) 19:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to say that this will slow the wiki down, make your sig take up less space, and don't spam round people's talk pages. Your argument in that case is useless. Making a category for this makes information more accessible, even if there is only a small number of them. Lord of all tyria 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its beside the point, what im saying is that its pointless IMO. We'll just let the admins decide if it is or not. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk ) (Contr. ) 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Admins =/= Wiki gods. We have small categories for Monsters, why should we not have small categories for items?--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]igathrash  Talk^Cont 19:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The anguish gem cat is another example of small categories being useful. Lord of all tyria 19:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not pointless. If one person finds it useful, they probably aren't the only one. Categories are useful for browsing similar things. There are a lot of small categories and a lot of categories for seemingly useless things. But someone else finds them useful. So they get to exist. Even if you do find it pointless, its probably better to bring it up for discussion on the talk page rather than just flagging it, as its really a matter of opinion. &mdash;♥ Jedi ♥ Rogue ♥ 19:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh, if you say so. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] Warwick (Talk ) (<font face="vivaldi" size="3">Contr. ) 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)