Template talk:R from member

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Excellent

I may be prejudiced, since I suggested it, but I think this is a potentially very useful tag, and I'm glad to see it implemented. For the description, I might suggest that "group, organization or ensemble" seems a little more clear and general purpose, at least to me. But I won't insist on it. Anyway, good show, thanks.  :) Xtifr _tälk 22:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course you're welcome to change it as you see fit. I wasn't sure whether I was being all-inclusive in that description or not, and have no preference for one wording over the other. BigNate37_(T) 08:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, on re-reading, I'm not so sure what I think. It may be just fine the way it is. I'll ponder for a while. cheers, Xtifr _tälk 10:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

...and, after reflection, I changed "band" to "ensemble", because that also covers non-musical troupes (e.g. Second City), but I left "team" in, because that's good. Xtifr _tälk 09:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Redirects with possibilities?

I think this category should, by definition, be included. Thoughts? --Closedmouth 06:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

...Mmm...maybe? I suspect it would be appropriate in most cases, but I'm not sure it would be appropriate in all cases, so I don't have a strong opinion either way at present. Xtifr _tälk 22:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is, indirectly (apologies for replying so late, I realize the dates on these comments ;). This template places pages into Category:Redirects from members, which is categorized in Category:Redirects from people, which is in Category:Redirects with possibilities. In my opinion, there's no sense polluting the category heirarchy by placing redirects in two heirarchical levels with a single redirect tag. BigNate37_(T) 18:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even notice that, thanks. --Closedmouth (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)