Difference between revisions of "Talk:Tory"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Why did the category "british politics" get deleted? '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 01:26, 28 January 2009 (EST) | Why did the category "british politics" get deleted? '''[[user:human|<font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"><big>ħ</big>uman</font>]]'''{{User:Human/sigtalk}} 01:26, 28 January 2009 (EST) | ||
+ | :Because it was unnecessary. | ||
+ | :I see no more reason for a "British politics" cat than I do a "German politics", "Zimbabwean politics", "Venezuelan politics", "Italian politics", "American politics", and "Russian politics" categories. RationalWiki is not a general encyclopedia, therefore there is no reason to pointlessly divide our political articles by country. Dividing up what is only a handful of articles in the first place is fruitless and rather unhelpful. {{User:Radioactive afikomen/sig}} 14:48, 28 January 2009 (EST) |
Revision as of 19:48, 28 January 2009
I thought Tory's were the American's fighting for the British in the Revolutionary war. I never heard it used in the civil war. ThunderkatzHo! 08:24, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
- You may well be right, It was just something I remembered from school. I think we tend to conflate both little difficulties across the ocean. Please amend as you wish Keephappy 08:52, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
- I just looked at Wikpedia, and appartently its both. I'll add the Revolutionary part and keep the civil part. ThunderkatzHo! 08:57, 26 July 2007 (CDT)
Why did the category "british politics" get deleted? ħuman 01:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)
- Because it was unnecessary.
- I see no more reason for a "British politics" cat than I do a "German politics", "Zimbabwean politics", "Venezuelan politics", "Italian politics", "American politics", and "Russian politics" categories. RationalWiki is not a general encyclopedia, therefore there is no reason to pointlessly divide our political articles by country. Dividing up what is only a handful of articles in the first place is fruitless and rather unhelpful. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 14:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)