Category talk:Plagiarism on Conservapedia

This category is a redirect to an article of the same title? Anyone want to offer a reason for keeping it? DogP 17:21, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

There's a fair number of articles in it. Shouldn't it be something like a category plus main article? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

It gives a category (though hard to access) for all the plagiarized aritcles. Though I admit this is a weird way to do it. I think we should make a template to put at the top of plagiarized articles that links back to the main article. Then, we can get rid of this. Or, make all the plagiarized articles subpages of the main article. Thunderkatz^Ho! 17:25, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

They are all already linked out of the main article, so I think the category can go. Although I see what the editor was trying to do, this isn't a good way to do it. 17:26, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Actually, this has me thoroughly confused, and I'm bored now, so someone else should sort this out. I'm off to play Risk for a bit. DogP 17:28, 17 March 2008 (EDT)