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)