Category talk:Groups of people

naming
Interesteing category. Are there any thoughts on possibly renaming to Category:Articles containing multiple people, or something similar? To limit confusion of what the category is used for, before actually visiting it. Some editors will just see if a category exists before using it, and never actually look whats in it. I am not sure if there was any previous discussion on this, before it was created. Wanted to make an informal comment instead of Cfr. <> Who ? &iquest; ? 05:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem if you want to rename it. Personally I prefer shorter category names and one might want to avoid "article" in the category name. If you look at the description or are already in the article itself, the current title may be fairly clear.
 * Some of the articles could probably go into more specific categories (twins, pairs, brothers, etc.). All of these are a bit of a problem for the year of birth/death categories. -- User:Docu
 * I actually prefer shorter names myself, just trying to think of any possible problems for the future. I think you described it quite well in the category itself. More of a question than a suggestion, either way, I think it was a good category to have.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  05:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether this is a sensible category or not can be assessed by scanning the list of articles it appears to bring together in this fashion. --Wetman 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

{R from people}
How should template R from people be used in contrast to R from person?

Consider : Does John paul george ringo belong here? That makes sense to me. Most or all of the others seem to be.

--P64 (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)