Template talk:R from member
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | Template:R from member is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. This template does not have a testcases subpage. You can create the testcases subpage here. |
Excellent
editI 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
Seven years later that remains true. Category:Redirects from members and its siblings in {R from people} ipso facto contain Redirects with possibilities. Those are possible biographies in my interpretation. See Category talk:Redirects from people for more of that, perhaps with debate to follow.
That one of the R from people subcats --Redirects from members, which now contains about 85% of all {R from people} pages-- greatly needs maintenance. Many redirects from impersonal things are there.
Printworthiness
editIf {{R from person}} redirects are marked as printworthy, these should too. @Paine Ellsworth: Any opinion? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Just so you know, I agree. The category is a subcat of Category:Redirects from people, so it fits. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 20:38, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Include "band" in documentation?
editI think it would make sense to include "band" in the documentation here, to make it easier to ctrl-f find it
Old:
|to=a general, related topic, such as the group name, organization, ensemble, or team of membership
New:
|to=a general, related topic, such as the group name, organization, ensemble, band, or team of membership