DC&Marvel maniac

When to use categories

Truth be told, I could not find anything in Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? concerning the usage of the supporting and superhuman categories. I am willing to contact a moderator to settle this claim, as I do not believe redirects are allowed to have the character/superhuman ones. DC&Marvel maniac 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding categories on redirects, this is a redirect to a list entry. If the redirect does not have categories, the name does not appear in the categories, only the name of the list (assuming it is categorized accordingly). If Homer, Marge and Bart and Lisa were all redirects to List of Simpson's characters, I would still expect to find entries for Homer, Marge, etc. in Category:Simpson's. Gimmetrow 14:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sir, it does not indicate anywhere that those types of categories are susceptible to redirects. I'm not 100% sure though, I shall contact a moderator to solve the current qualm. DC&Marvel maniac 14:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "susceptible to redirects"? Redirects are certainly capable of having categories (ie, they are recognized by the mediawiki software), and such categorized redirects do appear in the categories under their own name. Gimmetrow 14:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather you are incorrect. I know they are recognized by such software, alas, it is not recommended by the foundation. I'm sure of it. I am having a hard time finding a mod. that can solve this problem. Perhaps you may know of one that is editing currently? DC&Marvel maniac 14:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

*Why* would this be allegedly "not recommended"? This is not a redirect from a spelling error, it is a list entry. The list entries can be categorized on their own. If you do not have a good explanation for removing the categories, I will restore them shortly. Gimmetrow 14:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, you will remain calm sir. I have explained it all above. If you can find a policy or guideline that supports this belief of yours, then I shall dispute it no longer. Until then, this is still argued. If you are worried enough about it, contact someone that specializes in this field, as you have been an established Wikipedian over a year longer than I. DC&Marvel maniac 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am calm. I just don't see how you've "explained it all", or exactly what you are disputing. That categories *may* be placed on redirects? Some editors routinely remove categories on all redirects because they (mistakenly) think redirects cannot or should never be categorized, but that is clearly wrong. See also Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Categories_on_redirects_needs_clarifying. Gimmetrow 15:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I had lefted an expressed thought at Piemanmoo's talk page in light of the subject. This still proves that no rule on Wikipedia suggests categorizing redirects that are targeted to their proper list entries is logically implied. The dispute goes on. DC&Marvel maniac 16:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you asserting that redirects should *never*, under any circumstances whatsoever, be categorized except by the templates listed in WP:REDIRECT? I'm not asserting that other categories are required, just that they *may* be placed, and you removed them. Gimmetrow 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No, 'fraid not. I'm sure there are other guidelines alike to that one, but none have I seen that suggest they *may* be categorized by superhuman and other fictional character-related categories. Simply, don't categorize them with those types, that is, until this is settled and made clear among users such as me, Someguy0830, Piemanmoo and others. DC&Marvel maniac 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it another way: if all redirects were categorized the way you are having them, all of those categories would be conveyed to overload, which may lead to such and such categories being marked for likely deletion. We wouldn't want that, nobody wants that. Why have redirects in that way you want in the first place? It is a slighty bad thought, I believe. DC&Marvel maniac 16:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

First, the specific categories involved here are not overloaded, and I don't see this as contributing anywhere near enough redirects to any category to be a factor. The issue seems to me fairly straightforward - categories work with redirects, and there is a very good reason to add them. There is simply no way someone browsing a category and looking for one name will know that it is *only* to be found as a section in another article of a different name. No further guideline is needed to authorize categorizing redirects to list entries. I still don't understand your issue. The only sense I can make of it is that you feel that redirects should never have categories, just the templates listed in WP:REDIRECT, and you say that's not your position. So what exactly are you saying? Please also see Wikipedia_talk:Redirect/Archive_2#Redirects_with_categories Gimmetrow 18:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Participate in the discussion in Wikipedia talk:Redirect to get something more solid done about this. The guideline is vague. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The linked discussion should make it evident that there is no problem with categorizing redirects. You seem to be opposing this. I agree this could be spelled out more clearly, as categories formerly did not work with redirects and some older editors may not yet be aware of the change. However, the issue here is specifically your edits on two article, which you have not justified by policy. I now ask you to undo your own edits. Gimmetrow 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this over now? May I humbly beg your permission to edit as before? Gimmetrow 17:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus works in many ways, and polls are not necessary. The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Categories_on_redirects_needs_clarifying is clear - redirects *may* have categories - and this reflects actual practice on wikipedia for at least 1.5 years. The curent text of WP:REDIRECT is from Someguy, so he acknowledges this. On what grounds do you claim 1) there is an ongoing dispute 2) that gives you veto power over my edits. Gimmetrow 18:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Look a little bit back at this edit by Someguy. This is the compromise position. Your only complaint here appears to be that there is no *directive* saying categories are *required* on redirects. Well, there also isn't be any directive saying categories *must* be removed. Guidelines do not *prescribe* activity, they describe what is in the bounds of practice, and this is within the practice and has been for at least 1.5 years. I've tried explaining and discussing this. On what basis do you continue to claim there is a dispute? Gimmetrow 20:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just content that the case was settled in neutrality in spite of its vagueness. "Do not fear me, comment to thee! I lie in wait for thy message be mate". That was a quote by my father. DC&Marvel maniac 19:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

And you don't respond because? DC&Marvel maniac 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not see this note as asking for a response. What am I supposed to say? Gimmetrow 19:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Female superheroes for discussion

~I'm anonymous

Umm...

What? --Piemanmoo 06:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ōgon Batto → Ogon Batto

I have reverted your cut & paste move, as you're not supposed to do it that way. You need to request such moves at WP:RM instead. However, please note that WP:MOS-JA guidelines allow for the character "Ō", so your move is likely to be contested.--Endroit 20:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: About Tomb of Dracula

What did you just say exactly? Redirects only need certain categories, not trivial ones. I can contact someone who can agree with me, if that's what you want. See Someguy0830. Lord Sesshomaru

You're not making much sense. There actually is a policy/guideline being made regarding this, see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. Simple. I wasn't told about it until Someguy0830 introduced me to it. Lord Sesshomaru

Redirects do not need 12 different trivial redirects. They, at most, need one or two 'useful ones. This does not include things like "made in 1971", "can toss a bus", "is part of x set of comics", and the like. It is for things like writer's name/pen name, alternate album names, and other cases where a reader might genuinely be confused by a different name. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you're still interested but discuss at the category discussion in regards to what you think. Lord Sesshomaru

Ōgon Batto again

I notified your move of that page to Ogon Batto (Gold Bat) and I have reverted that move by moving the article back to Ōgon Batto. Please note that article moves usually need consensus, and I suggest you to make a WP:RM request if you feel strongly that the article should be moved. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The page is in the Ō direction, Ōgon Bat. Let it be, I shall argue longer naut. DC&Marvel maniac 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Comics characters who can teleport has been nominated for deletion

Category:Marvel Comics characters who can teleport has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 29 December 2023 (UTC)