Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Combat"

From Cunnan
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Cian's concerns for this category)
 
(response)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
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)]]?
 
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)]]?
 
  - [[User:Cian|Cian Gillebhrath]] 01:15, 12 Aug 2005 (CDT)
 
  - [[User:Cian|Cian Gillebhrath]] 01:15, 12 Aug 2005 (CDT)
 +
 +
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)

Revision as of 17:27, 12 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)