User talk:The T

Categories in redirects

It's not a discussion when you're the only poster. Categories don't need to be in redirects, especially when yhet're grouping things through a random relation. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd like you to offer to explain how they aren't related. The category should list all the playable Smash characters, not merely the ones who aren't mentioned in a subarticle. I'm not the first one to add the category or revert it. If you have some specific reason as to how they don't fit, list it. It's pointless to have a silly edit war. The T 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read. I did not say hey weren't related, I said they are related randomly. In other words, it's a completely unrelated item that is tying these characters together, just like Robot Chicken relates celebrities, religious figures, and the like through parodies. These characters aren't part of a main list article, hence they don't need a random category. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The celebrities in Robot Chicken are not owned by the company that writes or creates Robot Chicken. You're right, there is nothing tying them together, as most of these celebrities never appear together in the show. None of them have any relation to each other. The characters in Smash, on the other hand, are, with the exception of Snake, all owned by the same company, and are all consented to be within the game, which falls outside the definition of parody. As this is, your argument doesn't hold any water. None the less, if this is your argument for it, then it sounds like you feel the entire category should be abolished. As you say, your argument is not over whether or not they are or aren't a redirect. It's over whether or not "unrelated" characters belong in a category together. The T 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CAT-R: "Categorization of list entries – Some well-organized lists have redirects pointing at their subsections. In such cases, categorization of the redirects can be an alternative way of browsing entries in a long list. It can also provide an alphabetical listing for lists that are not organised alphabetically, for example, lists organised in a chronological order."

This is what the category is not. The category's only purpose is to list characters in a Nintendo game, something you could do in a single short list in each main article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Most redirects should not be categorized. Examples include misspellings, minor variations of article titles, obscure alternate titles, and abbreviations." This is the only example given of why a category should not be redirected. Once again, the Smash Bros. article does contain such a list that links to each character's article, and yet the category still exists independant of this conversation over the redirects. You're still continuing to dodge the subject. The T 04:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dodging the subject, you're just ignoring the obvious. Find an example that says "relate characters in any way possible" and then keep complaining. This isn't difficult to understand. The Smash category is no more relevant to those scattered characters than introduction dates, company of creation, and so on. There's no reason to include it, plain and simple. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]