Difference between revisions of "Category talk:A cappella"
Nonsensical (talk | contribs) (New page: Should this go under the category of Performance clubs? I feel like if we're listing dance groups in the performance category, then it's consistent to list a cappella groups there too....) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Should this go under the category of [[Performance clubs]]? I feel like if we're listing dance groups in the performance category, then it's consistent to list a cappella groups there too. --[[User:Nonsensical|Nonsensical]] 23:10, 25 June 2007 (EDT) | + | Should this go under the category of [[:Category:Performance clubs|Performance clubs]]? I feel like if we're listing dance groups in the performance category, then it's consistent to list a cappella groups there too. --[[User:Nonsensical|Nonsensical]] 23:10, 25 June 2007 (EDT) |
| + | |||
| + | :If we file a cappella groups under performance groups, then we'd also have to file bands under performance groups. That structure might be more logical, but I think it would hide away a lot of groups. So I think the existing categories are fine. If anything, what we need is a simple "See also..." {{User:Reaganaut/sig}} 06:50, 26 June 2007 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 05:50, 26 June 2007
Should this go under the category of Performance clubs? I feel like if we're listing dance groups in the performance category, then it's consistent to list a cappella groups there too. --Nonsensical 23:10, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
- If we file a cappella groups under performance groups, then we'd also have to file bands under performance groups. That structure might be more logical, but I think it would hide away a lot of groups. So I think the existing categories are fine. If anything, what we need is a simple "See also..." − Reaganaut 06:50, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
