Category talk:Combat: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
(combat (historical)?) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
I agree. The [[:category:combat (SCA)]] format works best for me too. |
I agree. The [[:category:combat (SCA)]] format works best for me too. |
||
- 09:09, 13 Aug 2005 (CDT) |
- [[User: Conrad Leviston|Conrad]] 09:09, 13 Aug 2005 (CDT) |
||
The problem is then where to put what. [[Tournament]] can be [[:category:combat]] but [[Tournament style]]s might be best as [[:category:combat (SCA)]]. [[SCA sword]] is [[:category:weapons]] which is a subpart of [[:category:combat]] but should it also be a part of [[:category:combat (SCA)]]? This is the sort of issue I was having. Those examples are but the tip of the phalanx. I have no problems with cross-categorisation but this has to limited, rather than making almost every member of one category also appear in another category. |
|||
- [[User:Cian|Cian Gillebhrath]] 19:51, 14 Aug 2005 (CDT) |
|||
How about we have [[:category:combat (historical)]], and [[:category:combat (SCA)]]? |
|||
- [[User:Morgant|Morgant]] 02:23, 18 Aug 2005 (CDT) |
|||
Latest revision as of 18:23, 18 August 2005
This category has always given me concern, which is why I have never defined it or made many members for it. There are many possible members for it, but I wonder if it should have a number of subcategories or be really subdivided. For instance, members could be
But we already have categories for
Should we be careful to break up the members into further SCA-specific categories? Should there be a general category:combat and a category:combat (SCA)?
- Cian Gillebhrath 01:15, 12 Aug 2005 (CDT)
Those are good ideas, Cian. I'd go for the subdivisions - what do other people think?
- Morgant 01:27, 12 Aug 2005 (CDT)
I agree. The category:combat (SCA) format works best for me too.
- Conrad 09:09, 13 Aug 2005 (CDT)
The problem is then where to put what. Tournament can be category:combat but Tournament styles might be best as category:combat (SCA). SCA sword is category:weapons which is a subpart of category:combat but should it also be a part of category:combat (SCA)? This is the sort of issue I was having. Those examples are but the tip of the phalanx. I have no problems with cross-categorisation but this has to limited, rather than making almost every member of one category also appear in another category.
- Cian Gillebhrath 19:51, 14 Aug 2005 (CDT)
How about we have category:combat (historical), and category:combat (SCA)?
- Morgant 02:23, 18 Aug 2005 (CDT)
