Category talk:Combat: Difference between revisions
From Cunnan
Jump to navigationJump to search
(response) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Those are good ideas, Cian. I'd go for the subdivisions - what do other people think? |
Those are good ideas, Cian. I'd go for the subdivisions - what do other people think? |
||
- [[User:Morgant|Morgant]] 01:27, 12 Aug 2005 (CDT) |
- [[User:Morgant|Morgant]] 01:27, 12 Aug 2005 (CDT) |
||
I agree. The [[:category:combat (SCA)]] format works best for me too. |
|||
- 09:09, 13 Aug 2005 (CDT) |
|||
Revision as of 01:09, 14 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.
- 09:09, 13 Aug 2005 (CDT)
