Difference between revisions of "Category talk:People"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m |
(what exactly makes a "People" page a non-stub?) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*The way I've been taking it is that the page with the name of the person should be the "encyclopedic" one, so to say, and the user page to be for whatever the owner of it wants. [[User:Trick trickster|Trick trickster]] 00:20, March 9, 2007 (EST) | *The way I've been taking it is that the page with the name of the person should be the "encyclopedic" one, so to say, and the user page to be for whatever the owner of it wants. [[User:Trick trickster|Trick trickster]] 00:20, March 9, 2007 (EST) | ||
**I agree. [[User:James|James]] 17:15, March 9, 2007 (EST) | **I agree. [[User:James|James]] 17:15, March 9, 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Looking over the pages in this category, I've noticed that the use of the "stubs" category isn't overly consistent. What is the standard off of which we want to consider a People page to be a non-stub? All information on time spent playing with the band filled in? [[User:Bickfa|Bickfa]] 16:57, September 24, 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:57, September 24, 2007
- This probably seems kind of picky, but shouldn't pages in the category "People" not start with the phrase "User:..." Bickfa 23:05, March 8, 2007 (EST)
- The way I've been taking it is that the page with the name of the person should be the "encyclopedic" one, so to say, and the user page to be for whatever the owner of it wants. Trick trickster 00:20, March 9, 2007 (EST)
- I agree. James 17:15, March 9, 2007 (EST)
- Looking over the pages in this category, I've noticed that the use of the "stubs" category isn't overly consistent. What is the standard off of which we want to consider a People page to be a non-stub? All information on time spent playing with the band filled in? Bickfa 16:57, September 24, 2007 (EDT)