Category talk:Zone types

Redundant or not

I feel this category is redundant to Category:Locations or Category:Location types and should removed. --JonTheMon 19:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; we don't have a need for this, and I don't believe we use "zone" to describe these things anyway. I've re-tagged it for deletion. -- Brains12 \ talk 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would be better to incorporate what is missing in Location types, imo. - anja 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Anja, don't let the above statement mislead you, there is nothing missing. Backsword 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

well, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to argue with your feelings, given that it's not actually redundant. Backsword 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a better explanation of it's purpose, and how exactly it's different from the two mentioned above. Or how it fits differently into the category tree? -- Wyn 01:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Backsword, I'm sure Anja can think for herself. (By the way, if "there is nothing missing", then this category is redundant, considering Location types already has it -- as you said, "there is nothing missing".) -- Brains12 \ talk 14:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It's already differently in the tree (or was, rather). I'd think the rest is self evident for those that check the actualy categories; they don't have the same content. Backsword 01:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)