Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects

	Archives
Archive 1 • Archive 2

proposal or guideline?

Things have been very quiet here. Is this ready to become a "guideline"? --☑ SamuelWantman 07:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Support – Suits me -- I'd be glad to get it off my watchlist!

I've applied some 'polish' to the first section, essentially to add more whitespace around the examples to make them easier to follow. Feel free to adjust further, or revert if wrong.

I'd be quite happy with it as it is, providing there's no issue with the fact that the two sections are obviously written by different authors!

EdJogg 09:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have an awkward feeling about the "alternate name" clause, which I believe would lead to disputes. >Radiant< 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In my albeit limited experience, alternate names have helped end disputes instead of leading to them. Do you have any examples you can cite? Can you explain your "awkward feelings"? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm thinking of fiction, mostly. Is it helpful to have both "Anakin Skywalker" and "Darth Vader" in a category for Star Wars characters? Is not doing so to be considered a spoiler? I seem to recall a heated discussion about an issue like that. Perhaps we need to make an exception for people or characters with multiple names; I can't see much of a benefit in listing a real person under both his actual name and his nickname. Doing so would make a category of people seem to contain more people than it actually does.
• Aside from that, perhaps the "bridge" example isn't too good, considering "vertical lift" is an oxymoron. Perhaps there's a more suitable example? >Radiant< 09:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader? I had no idea! Seriously, perhaps a better example is an author known by two different pen-names, both equally well known. Instead of arguing which goes in the category, we'd just put both. Is this a problem? Vertical lift may be an oxymoron, but it is what engineers call the bridges, perhaps to distinguish them from draw-bridges. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• (Aware that I'm veering wildly off topic...!) I think you mean tautology, not oxymoron – a 'horizontal lift' would be an oxymoron. (To be fair, I only spotted this when I went to check 'oxymoron'... :o) ) But 'vertical lift bridge' is neither, since we are describing a (lift-) bridge where the deck is lifted vertically (as opposed to pivoting about one end).</offtopic>

Agreed that 'lift bridge' and 'vertical lift bridge' is not a good example due to the similarity of the names, but it is at least clear what it represents. In their character category, Anakin/Darth should (probably) both be included since people unfamiliar with the films may not associate the names directly (as I didn't initially), but I don't think this is a good example either. And I haven't thought of any more examples yet, sorry. Incidentally, is it necessary to delay launching this as a guideline until we have 'good' examples? EdJogg 13:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

How about an author like Nora Roberts who wrote under several pseudonyms (J.D. Robb, Sarah Hardesty, Jill March). If an author writes in different genres each with a different pseudonym, some categories should use the real name (people from Maryland), some the pseudonyms (American romantic fiction writers ), and some the pseudonyms and the real name (American novelists). -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. The decision whether to include the article and its redirects in the same category depends heavily on which category is being considered. The guiding principle should always be whether a reader, knowing they are in a particular category, will (a) recognise the redirect as a member of that category and (b) when clicking on the redirect will realise immediately that they have been redirected and why. This should also work the other way around as well. When reading the category tags at the bottom of an article, will the reader agree with what they see there? If not, the category tag may belong elsewhere, possibly on a redirect, and a more precise category is needed for the main article. Carcharoth 10:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Categorising on the basis of article title

I propose we include a recommendation to categorise redirects where a category is defined in terms of article title, rather than article subject. For example, the plant Acacia tetragonophylla is commonly known as "Curara", a name of Australian Aboriginal origin. For this reason, Acacia tetragonophylla is currently in Category:Australian Aboriginal words and phrases. In my opinion it would be far more appropriate to put the Curara redirect into that category. There are many other examples of such categories: Category:Eponymous places, the already-mentioned categories Category:Banksia taxa by common name and Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name,.... Hesperian 03:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I rephrase this as:

it is recommended that redirects be created and categorized if an article name does not fit the definition of a parent category. For example, rather than adding the article Acacia tetragonophylla to Category:Australian Aboriginal words and phrases, it is preferable to add the redirect Curara. "Curara" is the name which is of Australian Aboriginal origin.

--☑ SamuelWantman 07:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Something like this would be good. A lot of the confusion about categorising arises from people putting articles or redirects in categories that seem OK, but on later inspection it turns out that a more precise name for the category would avoid confusion. Sometimes though people will look for both names, and we shouldn't try and second-guess which name they look for when looking through a category. Again, this is why I suggested making it clearer what the redirect is pointing to. If you had "Acacia tetragonophylla" and "Curara" both in Category:Australian Aboriginal bushcraft, but the entry for "Curara" appeared as "Curara - see Acacia tetragonophylla", this would reduce the possibility of confusion. Now, of the two, only "Curara" should appear in Category:Australian Aboriginal words and phrases, but "Acacia tetragonophylla" could appear in Category:Scientific names of plants used in Australian Aboriginal bushcraft, as opposed to "Curara" appearing in Category:Australian Aboriginal plant names. That list of Australian Aboriginal names should probably be subdivided anyway, into plants, animals, etc. With the list being maintained in parallel to the category. Carcharoth 10:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example (war memorials)

I recently found a section of a war article describing a war memorial. This was a classic case of categorising a section which may or may not become its own article. Hohenzollern Redoubt Memorial is the redirect, sending people to Hohenzollern Redoubt#Hohenzollern Redoubt Memorial. The redirect appears in Category:World War I memorials and cemeteries and Hohenzollern Redoubt appears in Category:Battles of the Western Front (World War I). Carcharoth 10:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a nice clear example to include. The two categories mentioned are clearly different. EdJogg 22:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Related question - would it be in order to add a location (coordinates template) to a redirect such as Hohenzollern Redoubt Memorial? (Eg as in Arts Tower - it just appears in the title bar.) This would also apply to the Zip code/postcode discussion below. -- roundhouse0 13:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It won't work on the redirect, as people won't see it there. Add it to the section, if that is possible. Just found it is not possible. Use another co-ord template (one that stays where it is and doesn't float up to the title bar). If that doesn't exist, ask for one! The idea would be that if the section ever grew to become its own article, it would carry the template with it (and the template would be changed to the title one). Carcharoth 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Try Template:Coor d instead. Carcharoth 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more from the point of view of Google Earth, which collects coords from Wikipedia, but at present only takes 1 coord per article (ie the title coord, or the one in the infobox, or perhaps the first one). So if Google Earth was told to scrutinise redirects it could then pick up Hohenzollern Redoubt Memorial. And indeed the zip code example below would become more attractive if it served 2 purposes; I expect there is a database somewhere of zip codes, a name, and a pair of coordinates, into which a creative bot could be plugged. -- roundhouse0 10:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So Google Earth collects the co-ord information from the redirect. How does that help Wikipedia readers? We want them to be able to click the co-ord and then be taken to a Google Earth image, or maybe offered the option of several map imaging services. Carcharoth 09:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In the specific example Hohenzollern Redoubt Memorial (I have spent some time on google and google earth trying to locate this, the article having been singularly uninformative geographically) I would place the coords (if I could find them - it is apparently on the Vermelles-Hulluch road - I have found a graveyard 50.485°N 2.789°E / 50.485; 2.789
) in both the redirect and the section; and Hohenzollern Redoubt itself (which is marked roughly on google earth but not by wikipedia) would have its own coords (it seems to be a couple of miles north of the memorial). In more general cases one could imagine a bot rooting out coords from within an article XXX and creating redirects (to the nearest section) placed in category XXX. Eg there is List of United Kingdom locations: Ma-Maq with many redlinks - I am not claiming to have thought this out completely. There is also an existing partial categorisation of UK post codes (see eg B postcode area) and one might imagine redirects (or indeed articles) for the sub-codes such as B1, B2, ... , suitably coordinated and sub-categorised. -- roundhouse0 13:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Zip Codes

Recently I created a redirect for 94117 the Zip Code for Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, California. Wikipedia has List of ZIP Codes in the United States but does not have the information for each Zip Code. I think this would make a fine set of categories of redirects. While this information is available elsewhere on the web, it is not connected to Wikipedia articles. I think this would be an interesting way to browse, and also a useful way to find Zip Code information. There would be categories like Category:ZIP codes starting with 9 which would have subcategories like Category:Alaska ZIP codes and Category:California ZIP codes, etc... These categories would have all the two number combinations, and each subcategory below that would hold up to 1000 redirects. --☑ SamuelWantman 07:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You will start running into disambiguation pages at some point. 10000 for example. So some will have to be 10000 (zip code) (OK, so it probably isn't a zip code), and there will be other cases as well. If the number of zip codes is finite, a sortable table might be a better way of presenting this data. Carcharoth 02:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that 10000 is in New York somewhere... Carcharoth 02:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think adding zip codes as redirects is a bad idea.

• For a start, you'd need to create 100,000 redirects. That could take quite a long time. (I've been on WP a year and only recently exceeded 5000 edits.)
• Secondly, how many users would expect to enter a number in the search box and be (re-)directed to a settlement in the US? (How many would actually want to?)
• Thirdly: "interesting way to browse"? Are you serious? 'Useful', maybe...

Your ideas for categorising the zip code redirects seems sound, but I agree with Carcharoth that a much better solution would be a set of list pages, although even that would be an enormous job (a WikiProject in its own right, I would say.)

Please don't let this idea divert attention from the need to decide whether this guideline can be formally accepted.

EdJogg 08:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely recall that various ZIP code lists have gone through AfDs. The list Sam quotes above was the only survivor I think. There wasn't much stomach for massive lists like that. Too much like a phone directory. Carcharoth 09:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suspect the list would get deleted these days. Many useful lists are getting thrown out. I'd like to see Wikipedia become a more comprehensive source of information. I wasn't thinking that I'd add all the zip code redirects myself. I figured that people would notice the categories and say "Hey! my zip code is missing", and it wouldn't take long before most got populated. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it ought at least to be 94117 USA ... other countries might well have ZIP codes. Also the H-A article doesn't seem to mention 94117 so the re-direct is a little baffling. Here in the UK we have post-codes ... would a redirect such as MK89DP UK make sense to a non-UK person? (I've created it - it's the postcode for part of one side of a road in Great Holm. To be exact it should be MK8 9DP, but the last triple is always NXX where N is an integer between 0 and 9. The first bit can be 2, 3 or 4 chars. The British have a genius for cumbersome code.)
I would have thought a bot could do much of the work. (Look for ZIP codes in US articles, create re-direct if present.) The list could then link to the re-directs. -- roundhouse0 10:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Towards a guideline

What is still needed:

• Writing an introduction and updating Wikipedia:Redirect#Categories for redirect pages.
• There should also be something noted at Wikipedia:Categorisation.
• The wording of the "alternate name" bit needs thrashing out and better examples found. I think a distinction should be drawn between synonyms (eg. bulbar sheath vs Tenon's capsule) and true alternate name (eg. psydonyms and aliases).
•  Done - Archive the talk page
•  Done - Create shortcuts for main page and talk page
• Creating a longer list of examples, from the talk page archives and elsewhere, and linking to it from the main page.
• Advertise the proposed move from proposal to guideline. Where should it be advertised?

Plus anything else that is needed. Carcharoth 09:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC) (and updated at various times thereafter)

Well, it's now a guideline. Hopefully the best guidelines are just common sense and don't attract controversy. Let's see what happens. Carcharoth 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Two questions.

First: Is there anything in particular to say on the issue of specific people? I guess it can sort of go into the redirects to a section, but that's not always the case. I bring this up because I recently moved Nick Perry (a person not really notable outside one incident) to 1980 Pennsylvania Lottery scandal, and most of the old categories only applied to Mr. Perry. So I stuck them on the redirect. This would seem to be a reasonable usage of categorized redirects to me... but not exactly covered by this current page?

Secondly: Radiant suggested in the talk page archives that redirects to a list might be reasonable in a category. I happen to agree with this. Any comment on the issues in this CFD, in which this page was cited as not supporting my stance? It deals with whether categorized redirects to a list should be preserved, something I don't see this page as opposing. Since these are redirects to specific sections, I don't see the problem, and moreover see little harm in the general case of categories with lots of redirects. It may not be the most amazingly useful thing ever, but if a small category is going to exist anyway, then why not have an additional redirect list to sections? SnowFire 01:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

On the first point, we don't want too many categories on redirects. If Nick Perry doesn't have an article, he shouldn't really appear in the births and deaths categories. This feels like a tricky one to me. It feels like a case where there should be a special category for "names of people redirected to other articles". In many cases, the redirect might only be there to preserve edit history after a merge, in which case it should be labelled as such (unfortunately we only have an old Category:Redirects with old history that was created for redirects from CamelCase articles). Probably in this case, you want to create a template to populate Category:Redirects from merged biography articles, and then have them dealt with as a group with no other categories applied to such redirects. Carcharoth 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

On the second point, whether or not to have a group of list redirects appearing in an article category that readers browse is ultimately, in my view, an editorial decision. I agree with the view that it does no harm to have both the list and the category of redirects to the list. What I will say, though, is that the redirects should still be categorized somewhere, usually in some administrative category managed by a WikiProject. Otherwise it is easy to lose track of them, and anchored list redirects like this are very valuable for linking directly to an entry in a list. Have a look at Category:Middle-earth redirects and its subcategories to see how administrative categorising of redirects can be useful (if incredibly tedious at times). Carcharoth 20:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Potential problem

I've just looked into this and there are a mass number of trivial-related redirects categorized in Category:EastEnders characters. I've been reverted more than once today for attempting to de-categorize some of these per this guideline. Can somebody look into this? Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru 00:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The members of Wikiproject EastEnders want their redirects categorised this way. Is this a problem? — AnemoneProjectors (?) 10:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say there isn't a problem here. When you click on the redirects, you get taken to exactly what you would expect to see. The problem seems to be whether the redirects in question are "trivial", and here I'd say not. Minor characters in a list should be removed from the list if trivial. If they remain in the list, they are not trivial. In this case (and many others), redirects to sections of a list of minor characters is a good use of categorising of redirects. The issue tends to be not whether to categorise the redirects or not, but whether to: (a) lump the 'articles' and 'redirects to sections' together in the same category; or (b) to create a subcategory for the minor characters. If there are a lot of minor characters that overwhelm the articles about the main characters, then I'd say create a subcategory. You then have a choice of setting up: (a) a "main category", with the minor characters in a subcategory, with no overlap; (b) a parent category with all articles and redirects in it, with two subcategories for "main" and "minor" characters (using the same criteria used on the lists of characters), where the sum of the two subcategories equals the parent category. There are other possibilities, but those are the most logical ones.

Also, the best argument for categorising the redirects is that this allows the category to be an alphabetical index to the characters, allowing the lists to be ordered chronologically by appearance date. Carcharoth 16:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

All and all Carcharoth, what would you suggest for WP:WPEE? Lord Sesshomaru 16:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem? older ≠ wiser 17:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was against guideline at all costs to categorize trivial-related subjects. This one sort of makes sense to me now. Lord Sesshomaru 18:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that was the problem, hopefully sorted now. In case I was too verbose before, I'm saying that I think categorising the redirects is good in this case. But the guideline should have been clearer. I'll change it. Carcharoth 20:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify something: If we can categorise our redirects in the EastEnders characters category, can we categorise the redirects in other categories they'd be in if they were articles instead of redirects to list entries (e.g. Category:Fictional characters by occupation or Category:Fictional characters by nature)? I'm not too worried about it but would just like to know. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it would depend. If they are a really minor character, never likely to expand beyond a paragraph or two, then I wouldn't put too many categories on them. The best thing to do is look at the category you are thinking of adding them to, and think to yourself: "would I really expect to see this person here, or am I just trying too hard to put them somewhere"? If they are just a minor character in Eastenders, then that is probably about the only place they should be categorised. If they are really notable for being, say, a fictional orphan, then maybe put them there, but maybe not. WP:OVERCAT applies to redirects as much as any other thing being categorized. Carcharoth 23:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think the problem here is that people are trying to implement a list by using a category instead; this could lead to a slippery slope if people start using it more. I think the best idea is to restrict this to categories like "<foo show> characters", and not use it for "fictional characters by trait / profession / nation / etc". Otherwise the latter would become clogged to the point of unusability. >Radiant< 11:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Only use as a browsing alternative to a list (by definition, as we are categorising a redirect, the redirect must go to a article section or to a list - otherwise it is just its own article). How best to phrase that I wonder, and how best to get across the point that subcategories for redirects is sometimes best to avoid clogging. I would say a "category of list sections" should consist of: (a) the list; and (b) all the redirects pointing to sections in that list. This is an example of where categories and lists can work together. The category provides an alphabetical order and browsing point, while the list provides an annotated overview of the whole category. Carcharoth 12:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

New section - categorising list entries

The guideline wasn't clear on this before, so I've added a new section with examples of when people have categorized list entries. See my edit here. Some people have expressed concern before that minor characters maybe shouldn't be categorized this way, so please discuss here if you have any concerns. Thanks. Carcharoth 21:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this practice be deprecated.

The guideline suggests this technique be used so readers can see an alphabetic listing when the original article has information that is not presented in alphabetic order. Maybe in 2007 wikitables weren't sortable. But they are sortable now. Creating a category merely to present links in alphabetic order seems like a bad idea to me.

Using categories in this way overlooks their serious weaknnesses -- for instance categories provide no history -- one can't know which elements where once in a category, and have now been removed. Geo Swan (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A specific example that has arisen

There has been a bit of conflict revolving around the Super Smash Bros. fighters category. The issue is that, certain characters that would go in this article, like Ness and Falco Lombardi, don't have their own articles and merely redirect to their specific entries on the lists of their game's character page. User:Someguy0830 feels that this isn't an acceptable way to link to them, and seems to have felt an edit war is needed. Rather than continue this, I was hoping anyone else here could offer their opinion or advice on how this should be handled. My rational on it is further discussed on Category talk:Super Smash Bros. fighters. Thanks for taking the time. The T 02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Replied over there. Carcharoth 13:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Synergy between lists and redirects and categories

Copy of an earlier post at Wikipedia talk:Categorization.

Have a look at Category:Trends journals and Category:Current Opinion journals. Does this look like a good way to combine lists, categories and categorization of redirects in a synergy that allows people to see the existing structure of redirects with disrupting the list and still prompting people to expand the redirects into stubs if appropriate? Category:Trends journals directly categorizes the redirects, while Category:Current Opinion journals lists the redirects in the editable part of the category page. Which way do people here think is best? (In both cases, the redirects are still categorized in the "journal by topic" categories, so Trends in Molecular Medicine still appears in Category:Medical journals, regardless of whether it is listed at Category:Trends journals, or categorized there). Carcharoth 13:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Neither strikes me as useful. Using a category as a list of suggested or hypothetical articles-to-be-written is both impractical and ineffectual. >Radiant< 13:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (Reply copied from Wikipedia_talk:Categorization) Could you expand on that a bit more? Where are the guidelines for what a category introduction should say? Have people in the past tried what I've done there and the discussions said that this is not appropriate? If not, then new discussions are needed. Have a look at Category:Nature Reviews journals. The only difference between that and Category:Trends journals and Category:Current Opinion journals, is that the Nature Review journals have articles. Are we deleting categories now because the articles haven't been written yet? What we have in each case is a list article that might, eventually, produce separate articles for each of the journals. It would seem silly if I had to write stubs for each journal to 'justify' the existence of the category. Let's take another example. While browsing through the journal articles, I came across List of pharmaceutical sciences journals. If I created Category:Pharmaceutical sciences journals, and put List of pharmaceutical sciences journals in there, would the same argument apply? Does List of pharmaceutical sciences journals have to sit in Category:Pharmaceutical sciences until enough journal articles have been created to start to fill a category? What is the tipping point, one, two, three articles? Carcharoth 19:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That was my opinion, not a guideline. I think that yes, we should delete categories for articles that haven't been written yet, because there isn't any point to those, and there's no guarantee that the articles will get written. I guess I fail to see how it helps. >Radiant< 09:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
      • So if Category:Nature Reviews journals had only had one article in it, you would prefer to see it deleted and then recreated as more articles were written? Carcharoth 12:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, but note that is my opinion. I am unaware of consensus, precedent or guideline on that particular subject, so if it were to come up a lot, I would probably drop a handful of test cases on CFD to see what the community think. >Radiant< 13:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Of course, in some cases, the articles exist, but just haven't been added to the category yet. Not this category, obviously, but categories, like articles, don't come in existence fully-formed. Carcharoth 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Build a Glossary of Terms by categorizing numerous redirects that each link to a tag with an id attribute

I am a novice wikitext/wikimarkup user and so I am really looking for advice/guidance. Based on my research to date, I suspect that this particular example/application might be worthy of a dedicated section at this page.

The subject of categorizing redirects is already discussed adequately. In example 2 of that discussion it specifically addresses a redirect to an article subsection using a [[<page name>#<subsection name>]] style link anchor.

Today I was looking for inspiration and/or best known methods for efficiently producing a Glossary of Terms page by studying how some glossary pages are written here on wikipedia. I noted this page's use of the id attribute in the start tag of a span element to create a target anchor (among other things):

;<span id=keyword1 style="font-weight: bold">keyword1</span>
:explanation of keyword1

and this other page's more simplistic approach using the unadorned ; & : wikimarkup symbols to produce a classic Definition style list format but which does not create any target anchor:

;'''keyword2''' :explanation of keyword2.

I do have one question about the style attribute but I will leave that for a subsection at the very end.

Laziness being the mother of efficiency, this prompted me to think that the first or second time that the term "keyword1" shows up on a wiki page is usually where the meaning of that newly introduced term is explained. Therefore a lazy man's approach to an effective, alphabetically ordered Glossary of Terms might be to wrap the first (or most relevant) occurrence of "keyword1" at the wiki page named "parent article" in a <span id=keyword1>keyword1</span> type of HTML markup to create a target anchor to that specific line/sentence/paragraph of "parent article" that best explains the meaning of "keyword1".

Then the lazy editor creates a redirect named "keyword1" that is simply:

#REDIRECT [[parent article#keyword1]]
[[Category:Glossary of Terms]] 

Doing this for all keywords that are adequately defined in already existing wiki pages (and using the already suggested redirect to an article subsection for those trivial cases where a keyword is already used as the title of a suitable subsection) the end result should be that:

• the category page for "Glossary of Terms" lists all keywords in a consistent order. Each link is to a redirect that takes the reader to an article that explains the meaning of "keywordN".
• any other place where "keywordN" is used it can conveniently be wrapped in [[ and ]] to take advantage of the redirect named "keywordN" for ease of cross referencing.

One wiki page might be a page created using the classic Definition style list format with the specific purpose of listing and defining all those keywords that have been used at one or more wiki pages but which are never satisfactorily defined at any one of those pages. Such a wiki page could be named "Glossary" but since this classic Definition style list would not duplicate definitions of jargon/terms that are already adequately defined at various existing wiki pages, this make-up page might (more appropriately) be named "Other Jargon".

1. Is this a common practice?
2. Do you see any shortcomings with this approach?
3. Is there a better method to achieve the same (or similar) Glossary of Terms page?

Question about use of the style attribute

With reference to the two blocks of wikitext above. Could somebody please explain the virtue of the first example using the attribute style="font-weight: bold" to cause bold font as opposed to simply wrapping keyword1 in three single quote marks "'''" as was done in the second example.

As I said, I am a novice wikitext user so if any of my questions are best answered at some help article or tutorial then please respond with a URL for my further reading.

(Najevi (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC))

Problems

The method described does produce he desired result at the category page but an unexpected disappointment is that a wiki search does not result in a match for a redirect page whose name partially matches the search string. Only exact Page name matches and Word matches within page heading Titles or page body are found. (Najevi (talk) 00:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC))

Salting the earth?

If after a (controversial) move the redirect is categorized (or edited at all), the move can not be reverted by a regular user. This has been compared to Salting the earth [1]. -- Matthead  Discuß   09:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A clear example?

I think that putting Category:Fictional coyotes in Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner is wrong because, looking at the title, only one of the two is a coyote. (Also, only one of the two is a fictional bird, and you can't be a coyote and a bird at the same time.) However, putting the category in Wile E. Coyote, a redirect, has been reverted several times, pointing to this page as a rationale. So, either something's wrong with this guideline, or someone has misconstrued what it means. GregorB (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner is put in that category is to ensure people can get from the page to the category. But you are right that the correct display would be the redirect. We already have hidden categories. What is also needed is a way to edit the category tag to change what is displayed in the category. ie. Have Category:Fictional coyotes at the bottom of the article, but for Wile E. Coyote to show up in the category. For now, I think the best solution is to have either both article and redirect in the category, or just the article. I know it's not quite what this guideline says, but this is, after all, only a guideline. Carcharoth (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "dual solution" would be the best - but this is perhaps only a consequence of the fact that Wikipedia categorization is not a real ontology: putting page P into category C can mean either "P is an instance of C" ("Wile E. Coyote" is an instance of "Fictional coyotes") or "P is related to C" ("Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner" (the cartoon) is related to "Fictional coyotes"). Maybe this distinction will be possible some day, etc.

To cut a long story short: in the meantime, the only thing we could do is to broaden the guideline a bit to say that a redirect should be categorized if the target title is incompatible with the category. One more example: the redirect in dubio pro reo belongs to Category:Latin legal phrases, while its target, Presumption of innocence, doesn't. As you noted, this is not exactly what the guideline says: the closest example is perhaps 24 Heures (newspaper), but this is an "alternate name", while "Wile E. Coyote" and "in dubio pro reo" are not. GregorB (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean that Road Runner should be categorized as a fictional bird? It would be nice to specify such triviality in the guideline. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes. Also: Category:Fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds. Wile E. Coyote is not a member of this category, which drives the entire plot... :) GregorB (talk) 19:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add examples or draw finer distinctions in the guideline. Carcharoth (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What precisely should be written? I was thinking about copy-pasting what GregorB said above. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The bit about Latin phrases and the other examples? Looks good. Carcharoth (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand that bit. I was thinking about including this though: "... a redirect should be categorized if the target title is incompatible with the category.". How's that sound? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about changing the current bullet point #2 ("Alternate names for articles") into something slightly more general along these lines ("incompatible with the category"). This bullet point already says that "alternate names should not look out of place on a category page" - the "in dubio pro reo" example is in fact one such case, just like the "24 Heures". I'm considering doing it myself, but in fact if someone beats me to the punch I'd be grateful. GregorB (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

By all means, go for it. Also can you come up with something so that one doesn't go out of their way to overcategorize redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I had an idea about something that the current guideline does not mention. For example: names of people notable for only one event are normally redirected to the main article, but this redirect should contain only the category that is related to their notability (provided it's incompatible with the target title, of course). E.g. redirects of murder victims should be categorized under Category:Murder victims (or its subcategories), but not under e.g. Category:1988 births. It's still tricky: for example, we'll probably agree that this redirect is overcategorized, but which categories exactly should be removed? GregorB (talk) 09:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category"

I've expanded the guideline slightly by taking the existing bullet point ("Alternate names for articles") and splitting it in two. The wording is in fact identical to the preexisting one - it's just that these two cases are now described separately. I've also added Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner as an example - see full discussion in the previous talk page section.

Overall, I think this is more a clarification then an actual guideline change. Feel free to tweak, of course. GregorB (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure 'articles' was correct. It's the article whose title is incompatible, so one creates a redirect with a compatible title. Occuli (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

But articles don't have "targets" - redirects do. GregorB (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ganondorf

Seems like the categorization here needs to be looked through. If you ask me, the only categories which may actually be appropriate are Category:The Legend of Zelda series characters and Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

He is definitely a king.He's a king in every single game pretty much. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Ganondorf uses magic. This is in fact a major plot point in OoT and TWW.
2. I left out "emperor", because the mention I remember says Ganon while showing Ganondorf.
3. He's always a King.
4. Frankly, he's also a fictional deity.
5. He's a video game boss.
6. He's an SSBB fighter.

Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change

Please see the discussion at WT:Categorization#Sortkeys for geographic entities with names in multiple languages. (It seems that categories on "alternative name" redirects ought to be in addition to, not instead of, the same categories on the target page.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the presence or absence of redirects has no bearing on the defining characteristics of an article: so it should be 'in addition to'. Occuli (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Categorization of list entries

Category:Middle-earth horses is cited here as an example of Categorization of list entries (User:Carcharoth added it in June 2007). It has now been proposed for deletion at CFD Sept 21, which seems inappropriate while it is cited in the policy. Please join the discussion at CFD. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed table

I removed the large table of reasons for redirects and associated templates/categories - it used to be at WP:Redirect, I moved it here a few days ago (replacing it with a more compact list of reasons on the original page). But now I see the same information is already set out (more clearly) at WP:Template messages/Redirect pages, so I don't think we need the table, just a link to that page. (In any case, the table is largely out of date, since the messages that allegedly appear on preview seem not to any more.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjects and redirects?

Carcharoth's comment in Wikipedia_talk:Categorizing_redirects#Two_questions. above mentions using WPP as a means of categorizing redirects, by which I suppose is meant adding the WPP to the talk page with the class= or type=redirect or type=NA. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Assessment#Page_types for example does that. That might be useful to add to the Project page here. Incidentally, is there a page addressing WikiProject assessment generally, not specific to any single WPP? There is Category:Redirect-Class articles but it doesn't discuss the matter. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Having names of redirects not appear on the category page or appear with a different name?

It seems to be the case that redirects that are spelling and capitalization variations as well as abbreviations should not be categorized, in order not to clutter up the category for the reader browsing it. However, as noted this can result in such redirects getting "lost." Is there some way to categorize a redirect but have it be hidden? Or to specify that it should display in a certain way, so that if redirects X, Y, and Z to article Foo are told to all display as X, then X (3) would display in the category, indicating that there are three redirects that have been displayed by that name, preferably with the option to click to show those redirects.

By the same token, if the category is Foo, and there are articles and redirects in it with the names X (Foo), Y (Foo), Z (Foo), the category page would be less cluttered if the "_(Foo)" parts of the article names did not display, displaying only as X, Y, Z, since one already knows they are the relevant topics by those names for category Foo as opposed to the articles X (Otherfoo), Y (Otherfoo), Z (Otherfoo) which of course aren't in the category. It seems like software would have the potential capability of doing this, but there may not be a way of implementing that capability at present? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing redirected song titles

I have a question regarding the categorization of redirects of song titles to the album article for which the song appears. Should these redirects be categorized just as any song article would such as Category:1995 songs and Category:Foo songs for the artist Foo, even when the album article contains zero information about the song except as a track in the track listing. When I look through a category list, I expect to find some information about each item in the list. If it is appropriate, I would think a redirect could be created for every song on an album so the category for Foo songs contains an article or redirect for every song by that artist. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you could.. but it sounds like a very tedious job. I think it's more important to categorize only those songs which have articles, you could also place existing redirects into categories such as 'Category:1995 songs' but I wouldn't recommend creating a redirect for every single track on an album and categorizing it. That's just a waste of time. As anyone who types a specific song in the search bar or clicks on a song link from a category expects to find information about the actual song and would only be disappointed if all it did was redirect him to the album. -- œ^™ 16:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Genus Panthera

The guideline gives Category:Genus Panthera as an example of what should be done. Yet, that category (created in 2007) still describes itself as experimental and has no equivalent in the category structure. I stumbled upon this category because its parent categories were deleted. The only option now is to make it a subcategory of Category:Panthera which sort of defeats the purpose. Thoughts anyone? Pichpich (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters

In 2008 when many character articles were merged, there was some debate whether Category:Super Smash Bros. fighters should be left on the redirects.(The category had about 30 articles and 15 redirects.) While some argued that no redirects should have categories, others pointed to this guideline, and deciphered that it says this is allowed. So it stayed on the redirects for for over two years, with a few reverts, and now New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) has removed it from all the redirects with the "categories should not have redirects" rationale. I just want to know what exactly the guideline reccomends for this situation where most of the characters in the category have articles, and around a third are in character lists.
I think that this guidelines states that if the category is to be complete, then the category goes on the redirects, not the lists. I think the real question is whether or not the category needs to be completed. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I say IAR, and just keep all of them. I know Wikipedia isn't supposed to be the entire repository for all things, but this is Super Smash Bros. fighters. This needs to represent all of the characters in the series as reflected in the table on the series page. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? We don't even have categories for similar franchise fighters such as the Capcom Versus games. Like I've said, the categorization of these characters is tumultuous without ignoring this rule. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's the precedent I was [not] looking for. This category seems out of place to me for Wikipedia; I'd almost call it a trivial categorization, aside from the fact there is a clear reason it exists. --Izno (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't get the argument against categorizing the redirects. Let's forget about the guideline (it's ambiguous at best) and just ask what makes most sense for the reader. I couldn't care less about the Nintendo fauna but let's face it: the articles that are currently in the category are here to stay and should be categorized appropriately. The redirects are also here to stay: I don't think an RfD for King Dedede would last more than a few hours. Given that state of affairs, why should we leave out the redirects? To most readers interested in the topic, a category page that's missing King Dedede will be viewed as "those idiots forgot King Dedede" not "I see they were smart enough to include only characters which are otherwise considered sufficiently notable to have their own article". (The latter is made even more unlikely by the average age of readers interested in this category) I could perhaps see an argument against categorizing the redirects if we had a decent list article that the introductory sentence of the category could point to. This isn't the case. Pichpich (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Usefulness is not a good enough reason to do something. Giving categories to these redirects implies some sense that they are notable, when they simply are not. Where is the failing in the list of characters? Heck, the list is MORE useful, as it has more characters than the category. The fact of the matter is that we really ought to be discussing the deletion of the category if anything as completely redundant to the list. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Usefulness is the overarching principle behind the creation and maintenance of categories. A redirect appearing in the category does not magically confer it an aura of notability. To the casual reader, the entry is just there: he can click on it and he'll end up at some useful place. Pichpich (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy is not a rationale for deleting it. Some readers/editors like lists, while some like categories. Often, both are used. EX: List of Nintendo 3DS games. Is the category redundant to the list? No. They help different people for different reasons. I think the category should go back to what it has been for the past two years, and having the redirects listed, because it is an easy way to find information on all the characters. How would you go from Ganon to Ivysaur? There isn't a template on the page. Clicking the link to SSB, and then scrolling down to the characters section, and then clicking the link to the character list takes way too long. The category is an easy way to link all the characters, and their location on Wikipedia. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the issue is the category, and the preferable approach would have been to nominate it for deletion. Which can still be done, but must now include the history of events. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Categorising the Discussion page of an article

Last month, I posted a concern at the main Redirect guideline page here: [2]. Now upon consideration, I may have been too WP:BOLD in adding a third item to the guideline Wikipedia:Redirect#Categorizing redirect pages. The issue here is that the categories of the Talk:Tobey Black are for an article and not a class=Redirect page. I'll post a follow-up note at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect about my concerns and explicitly state that the change of the article to a redirect was an effective deletion of the article with no disscussion/notice. Isn't some sort of mention regarding discussion/talk pages needed in this guideline? Thank-you. Argolin (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from Unicode characters

A few questions have arisen at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Redirects from Unicode characters regarding just which pages should be in Category:Redirects from Unicode characters:

• Should only mainspace redirects be included, or should pages like WP:€ also be included in the category?
• Should "abstract characters" that are represented by more than one code point (i.e. a base character and one or more combining characters) be included or excluded? These are P̌, Β̞, D̰, D̬, D̥, D̤, J̌, R̝, N̈,  ̲, T̈, H̱, Λ̊, T̪, 0̸, ɪ̵, Ŋ̃,  ̲h, Ǝ́, X̱, Ю́, D̪, Y̨, Ą̊, Ǫ̈, Ą̈, Q̊, N̪, B̪, P̪, X̧, M̧, Y̧, O̧, Þ, Ʃ̧, Ʊ̧, M̄, N̄, R̄, S̺, U̴, and ɑ̃.

And since we're here,

• Should a bot actually do this?

Thanks. Anomie⚔ 17:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, should that Cat be subordinate to something more general, such as Category:Unprintworthy redirects? Looking further afield, Category:Redirects_from_titles_without_diacritics reflects considerable prior effort. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Unicode characters are probably unprintworthy redirects, I agree. I don't see how Category:Redirects from titles without diacritics is related here.

I think a bot should do this, because any proposed definition of "Unicode character" can be used by a bot to quickly and consistently categorize the redirects. Consistency is a big problem when all human editors interpret the purpose of the category differently. Gorobay (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cause of death cat on redir pointing to band

If a person is not notable enough for an independent article, but has a redir to the band he was a member of, is it appropriate to tag the redir with a cause of death category? I can't quite tell from the main page if this is a good or bad thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• The target of the redirect should ideally be to a specific section in the band article about the member, and there should be sourced info about cause of death. Occuli (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • On reading the band article more closely, it appears it was a solo project. I'm confused. Lucifer (rock band) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Hi. I'm commenting here as Joe Faust has asked me why the two redirects no longer appear in the hang gliding deaths category. User:Ahunt removed them, as s/he felt, probably rightly, that they were not allowed by WP:RCAT. Thing is, if Denys Irving is Lucifer (rock band), then I believe Wikipedia:Rcat#Redirects_whose_target_title_is_incompatible_with_the_category might be met, as I expect Irving was not hang-gliding as Lucifer on that fateful day, but as himself, and so should be in the hang gliding dead people category, one way or another. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realize this was up for debate, thanks for the note on my talk page. I removed the two cats because they were on redirect pages that redirected to a company and a band respectively. Neither the company nor the band was killed hang gliding. These really should not be on redirect pages as it looks like trying to pad out the category and make it look more significant than it is for numbers. It also runs afoul of Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects and was just misleading. These could be added back if actual biographies of these two people are written. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Shawn in Montreal - this is a text-book case where Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects does apply as Lucifer (rock band) is mostly about Denys Irving. The redirect should be categorised exactly as if it were the article Denys Irving (using the info in Lucifer (rock band)). (I am not however in favour of keeping Category:Deaths by hang gliding.) Occuli (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article is more than a little confusing. I'd be tempted to move the article to Lucifer (rock musician) since it seems that despite the uncertainty about who Lucifer was, it was always presented a solo project. And if the article is moved to that or a similar title, then I don't really see how this is any different than Lady Gaga or any other artist known primarily by their stage name. Pichpich (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Redirect templates contiguously on the same line?

Why should redirect templates "be placed contiguously on the same line as the #REDIRECT"? I only recently learned about this. Unfortunately, over the years I had added a large number of redirect templates improperly. I have never noticed an issue arising from it however. In any case, merely having them helps explain why the redirect should exist in the first place. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

That restriction was removed in January 2006 (in r12339); the documentation here should be updated (unless there is another reason besides the old technical restriction?). Before January 2006, all wikitext in a redirect page after the first newline would be completely ignored (including templates and category links). Anomie⚔ 16:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of another reason, so I updated that part of the text (Note 1). Other parts of the text seem unnecessary as well, e.g. setting the start of the sort to "{" or (most often) "}" ; I don't remember seeing that in my six years here. The {{PAGENAME}} stuff seems unnecessary too. Can we remove both those notes? – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It's good to know I wasn't adding errors and ended up getting the documentation improved. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)