Category talk:Combat

From Cunnan
Revision as of 18:23, 18 August 2005 by Morgant (talk | contribs) (combat (historical)?)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

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)