User talk:Solomonfromfinland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Solomonfromfinland, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RockMagnetist (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:People with tetra-amelia syndrome[edit]

Hi. Amputees are people whose limbs have been removed, as opposed to the people in this category who never had limbs in the first place. While checking the category page I noticed another change that is needed, so I will remove those categories at the same time. --Mirokado (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the term "amputee" is usually meant to include congenital ones, people who were born missing limb(s).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Harry Potter actors category[edit]

Hello, you may not have realised that there is a long-standing convention that actors are not categorised by any series that they have appeared in. There was a large discussion of this five years ago and that discussion forms part of the guideline at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by performance. I think we have three ways of proceeding here: (1) add {{db-self}} to Category:Harry Potter actors and undo all your changes to the articles (boring); (2) I can set a bot to do the work for you if you like; (3) if you think that you want to overturn the guidance, then we would have a discussion at WP:CFD but you're unlikely to be successful given the category system we have here! BencherliteTalk 23:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but could we make an exception in the case of HP actors? on the grounds that (a) the Harry Potter series is unusually influential, both on screen and on paper; (b) Many HP actors are known as HP actors, more than anything else; (c) it seems blatantly wrong not to have Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, or Emma Watson in any HP-related categories. Could said three articles, and perhaps some others on HP actors, be placed in Category:Harry Potter in the real world?
I am working on a separate article on Ginny Weasley (the fictional character herself, not Bonnie Wright). Does everyone approve? I explain in Category talk:Harry Potter characters why this is necessary.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Harry Potter actors[edit]

Category:Harry Potter actors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

List of obligatory nude recreation sites[edit]

Hello Solomon, Thank you for adding this list on to the "Nude Beaches" category. Also, since you are from Finland, do you agree that most public Finnish saunas are both obligatory nude and mixed gender? If there are any other venues in Finland such as resorts, please let me know so I can add them.

DNBR (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd say they're obligatory nude, but they are certainly customarily nude.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Vulcan fringe[edit]

Why are you adding Category:Astronomical controversies to the article Vulcan (hypothetical planet)? The planet does not exist and there is no scientific controversy. -- Kheider (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Before it was proven not to exist, there was a big contoversy.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Can you please stop categorizing things until you stop messing it up. you are adding clearly inappropriate categories to articles. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Category:Astronomical controversies lists historic controversies. It lists for example Galileo_affair. It turned out earth was not the center of the universe but the controversy was real at the time. Solomonfromfinland is right and Kheider is wrong.
Adding something to Category:Astronomical controversies makes it seem like a current controversy and looks fringe. Maybe you should make a category called "Category:Former Astronomical controversies" so you do not mislead readers. -- Kheider (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
adding Category:Unsolved problems in physics to cold fusion is also perfectly uncontroversial. IRWolfie- is wrong.
Please continue adding categories to articles, you are doing fine. :-) (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I am not advocating some crazy idea that Vulcan, or any large object interior to Mercury, really exists; however, the unexplained extra perihelion precession of Mercury, and the lack of any observed object that would explain it, was so perplexing for so many years that I felt Category:Astronomical controversies was justified.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Trench foot[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, 'Tropical immersion foot', has been proposed for a merge with 'Immersion foot syndromes'. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Anon423 (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Solomonfromfinland. You have new messages at Talk:Coffin ship.
Message added 11:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

benzband (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Effects of global warming on human health, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mortality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Category:Borderline life[edit]

Category:Borderline life, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Graham Colm (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Any other categories with similar scope that Category:Borderline life could be merged with? Btw, I am not a such puppet of anyone. I just like creating new categories and populating them, whenever there are multiple pages related to the same topic. However, I don't believe in sock puppeting because I think it's dishonest.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
That was my mistake, I'm very sorry. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
In general, is it appropriate to create a new category for almost any subject for which there are multiple (preferably at least 4) relevant articles? I understand that some categories are inappropriate; see Wikipedia:Overcategorization.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clostridium novyi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zeta toxin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

"Unranked" or "order" cetacea[edit]

Salutations!, I've seen your post on Blue whale. Can you give a more elaborate explanation and also sources, because in that case, wouldn't it mean we should change the taxonomic data of everything which comes under cetacea? (Like dolphins or narwhals) and then we really need to report this to Wikiproject cetaceans too. Most sources which I've come across (example) made no mention of this. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:23, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Biological Science: A Custom Edition for Western Washington University by Scott Freeman, Pearson Books, Inc. (2011), page 477-479, carefully describes the DNA and fossil evidence that shows that the hippopotamuses are the sister group to hippopotamuses; that is, the hippos are the group of living organisms that are most closely related to whales, and vice versa. Next most closely related are ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats, deer, giraffes); then pigs and peccaries; then camels and allies. Therefore artiodactyls are not a monophyletic (or natural) group unless whales (incl. dolphins and porpoises) are included, and as I have explained on other talk pages, such as Collodictyon, the consensus among biologists is that only monophyletic groups can be valid taxa. Therefore Cetacea must be declared part of the order Artiodactyla, or Artiodactyla must be split into four orders. Aforementioned book was the textbook for Biology 204, a class I took at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington.
The claim that hippos are more closely related to whales than to other Artiodactyls, is supported by “World Book Encyclopedia”, 2001, article “Hippopotamus”.
Yes, the same changes should be made to the other Cetacea articles. I will report this to Wikiproject Cetaceans.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, please put forward this on the WikiProject Cetacea page, I don't know much about this, and let's see what the others have to say. Thanks, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

BlackLight Power[edit]

The category “Cold fusion” was removed from BlackLight Power because the company may not actually be promoting cold fusion but rather a somewhat similar idea, the hydrino, a hydrogen atom with the electron fallen to a lower orbit than quantum mechanics predicts is possible. Correct?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Do not add inappropriate categories to articles. Do not add categories which do not direct apply to an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I admit, I am very fond of adding categories. However, I rarely remove categories. Should I do so? Perhaps about as often as I add categories?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


If I edit a page, should I mention explicitly below, in the space offered, what I did? How about if I merely add categories?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I recommend you ALWAYS leave an edit summary, however brief it may be. Helps other editors quickly figure out what is going on. 7&6=thirteen () 14:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree. It improves accountability. How about edits to talk pages or my own user page? I never alter what others have posted on talk pages, as it is dishonest; however, I will edit my own contributions, after the fact. I do not believe in editing others' user pages, as I think it is, again, dishonest, and I feel the user page is the user's own intellectual property.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

This is kind of long form, but you may find it helpful. I recognize it extremely tardy, and I assure you that no insult is intended or implied. 7&6=thirteen () 15:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)


Hello, Solomonfromfinland! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! 7&6=thirteen () 14:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do

7&6=thirteen () 14:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:User page[edit]

Solomonfromfinland, You might consider putting something (anything) on your User Page. It will get the red out of the edit history, which is generally a good thing. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 15:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing else to add. If you need help or have a question, I'll try to help, or send you to someone who can. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen () 12:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

User page[edit]

On my user page, so far I have mostly give autobiography. Is that a good idea? I figured it would improve accountability by enabling peope to know some about me, so that they know what kind of beliefs and biases I hold. Or is it better to talk about my contributions to Wikipedia?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia processes[edit]


What is the standard procedure for requesting new articles? I have several in mind.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested articles. Graham87 14:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


How do I request that the name of an article be changed? There are the following that I recommend (mostly shortenings): Dihydrogen monoxide hoax → “Dihydrogen monoxide”; Portland, Oregon → “Portland”.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves. Graham87 14:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


I noticed that Category:User zh-1 has a “Contents” box, where you can get to different parts of the category quickly by clicking on letters A – Z; while Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series doesn’t. (My userpage is in both categories.) Obviously, large categories should have such a TOC. How do I create one for Category:Wikipedians interested in the Harry Potter series? I looked at the wikicode on Category:User zh-1, but couldn’t figure out how.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

See template {{TOC}}. For example use with multiple parameters visit the list of Narnia characters and inspect its code. --P64 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ginny Weasley concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ginny Weasley, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I edited it some.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

N word[edit]

Sorry for attempting to create a category titled “Nigger”. I saw that there were many articles relevant to the hated N-word and its implications. I didn't realize that the category title would be blacklisted. I was intending to say on the category page something like, “The word “ni[]” and its uses and implications.” I am by no means a racist; I actually believe strongly in equality.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Category order[edit]

Hi Solomon, when adding a category to a page, please try to group it with other related categories and respect the prevailing order of categories in the article. For example at John Eden (athlete), you added Category:Amputee sportspeople below the living people category but it (like many other articles) always has the biographical categories at the very bottom of the page). I've moved it to be close to Category:Australian amputees. Graham87 14:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, main categories for a particular subject should be at the top of the category list, so Category:Smallpox vaccines should be the first one on the list at the Smallpox vaccine. Graham87 15:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. You did the right thing in both cases.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

World's largest municipalities by population[edit]

Hi, I see you have been active at the City Proper population page. I have made a post at [1] about merging/redirecting from the municipality page into city proper (per previous AfD), and it would be useful if you could post your thoughts there. Eldumpo (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Parent categories of Category:Peer review[edit]

There was quite a bit of discussion about the appropriate parent categories for Category:Peer review (although most of it was on Talk:Scientific_method#Is_peer_review_scientific_method.3F rather than the actual Category_talk page) that led up to the previous, limited set of parent categories. Could you review the existing discussion, and explain why you want to add Category:Scientific method, Category:Scientific skepticism and Category:Quality control as parent categories in light of it? (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Given the number of your contributions since, I will assume you don't want to explain further. Therefore, I'll revert back to the previous set of categories. Feel free to bring it up on the talk page if/when you disagree. Thanks for your other work, in any case. (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Solomonfromfinland. You have new messages at Philg88's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

City proper[edit]

Hei, Solomon: About time. Kiitos. In case you need a source for Guangzhou: . Beijing, Tianjin, Chongqing :

Best, BsBsBs (talk) 08:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't need sources for any of those cities, except maybe Chongqing, where, for List of cities proper by population, the source cited for the pop. fig. supposedly doesn't state said figure. (However, the latter of the two sources only gives municipal pops., not those of city propers.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 08:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
City proper = Area within the city limits of a "locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." Chongqing, Beijing, and Tianjin must all be treated like you treated Shanghai, where city proper=complete municipality. Chinese official censuses always differ a bit, 100,000 is considered a minor rounding error. What they do at that page (calculate the "core districts") is blatant OR, but I have long given up.BsBsBs (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No it is not OR, not if the census figures (or other estimates) give pops. for those districts, in which case a quick calculation can sum them. See Valid Routine Calculations and What SYNTH is not.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
In my view, deciding that Chinese cities are "too big," and in order to make them smaller, taking a set of "core districts" from source A, pulling populations of those from Source B, adding them up, and presenting them as a "City Proper" count, which they clearly not are, are a textbook violation of WP:OR. No routine calculation at all. But anyway, I have long rested my case. BsBsBs (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:American politicians with disabilities[edit]

Category:American politicians with disabilities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Renaming it “Category:American politicians with physical disabilities” is fine.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


  • Some talk pages have a series of FAQs. I have thought of editing FAQ boxes. Any guidelines about that? Or should such edits reflect consensus?
  • Is it recommendable to contribute to Noticeboards or Requests for Arbitration if it is not a Noticeboard/Arbitration case about me specifically and I am likely not to become a dedicated participant (that is, contributing regularly) in the discussion? (E.g. if my current contribution may be my only or almost only one, at least for awhile.)
  • There are three main cases where I make edits without giving an edit summary: (a) Null edits (usually to copy and paste Wikicode); (b) Talkpage contributions (who, what, and when is obvious for the edit); (c) Edits to my own Userpage. Is this reasonable?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign the questions the first time I posted them.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ginny Weasley[edit]

Hello Solomonfromfinland. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Ginny Weasley".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Ginny Weasley}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

On the talk page for User Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), I mentioned my plan to create a draft-equivalent article under my namespace, User:Solomonfromfinland/Ginny Weasley, and move the content of the deleted Draft into it, so that I can work on it at my own leisure. I made the undeletion request you suggested. What should I do next? Thank you.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Userfication, it (what I wanted to do) is called, I found out.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 07:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The Draft was Undeleted. However, should it be placed under the title User:Solomonfromfinland/Ginny Weasley or User:Solomonfromfinland/Draft:Ginny Weasley? I don’t want a redundant Draft and Userfied page. If I have a Userfied page, such as Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has many of, it can eventually be upgraded into a regular article, and is presumably safe from re-deletion by other Wikipedians, so that I can work on it at my leisure. See also Requests for undeletion#Draft:Ginny Weasley.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
I changed my mind. I’ll Userfy it under User:Solomonfromfinland/Ginny Weasley, per the practice of User Richard Arthur Norton. The redundancy between Draft and Userfied page is fine.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

animal metaphors[edit]

That's a great cat (no pun). Just added eating crow. -- GreenC 22:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Foie gras[edit]

I just created the new Category:Foie gras. This should by no means be taken as a condonement of the dish. I think foie gras represents about the most extreme form of animal cruelty there is. I think the California state government should refuse to obey the recent court ruling overturning the state's ban on serving foie (as opposed to merely prohibiting raising it); the state should just enforce the ban anyway.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Enrico Fermi[edit]

Category:Enrico Fermi, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. DexDor (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits on Category:Kristallnacht, Category:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Category:Attack on Pearl Harbor and Category:Operation Entebbe[edit]

I removed a category you added "Category:Wikipedia categories named after terrorist incidents" from all of the above. Kristallnacht was a pogrom against the Jews but it is not terrorism as it is not against the government (even if it is Nazi Germany). The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and attack on Pearl Harbour were strategic events of World War II. If they are considered terrorism, technically that means the invasion of Poland and the bombing of Berlin were terrorist attacks. However, they aren't. Operation Entebbe was related to terrorism but it is fighting terrorism. It is not a terrorist incident itself (except to maybe Idi Amin :P) so it is not the right category for it. Jackninja5 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Why category Pseudoscience is out![edit]

The person from the article is absolute crank, he is not a scientist.So, there is need of this category — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous editing. I pointed out that we do not normally put articles on real people directly in Category:Pseudoscience; ~ no other such articles are placed directly in said category, so that makes me think it's a convention. Also, your anonymous editing is unprofessional and reduces accountability.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Vis a vis the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism[edit]

I am in sympathy with your position; some of us do indeed care whether a statement is evaluative or factual in nature. I feel that there should be a low bar for reliable confirmation of a fact, a higher bar for a value judgment. (I would not say that mathematics is the queen of the sciences, merely because an exceptionally authoritative source (Carl Friedrich Gauss) said so; it would be reasonable to remain open to the possibility that people active in other areas might disagree with this claim, unless a quite substantial body of evidence proved its wide acceptance. Negative valuations should be treated with yet more care.

I am reluctant to post at the original discussion, however, because many of us have experienced "wolf pack" attacks from the skeptic crowd here when we engage with them. HGilbert (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Harry Potter characters pages[edit]

See my thoughts at Category talk:Harry Potter characters#Need more pages, incorporating many links that will be useful if the you are still interested in the issues, either specifically re English Wikipedia coverage of Harry Potter characters or generally re articles vs. redirects.

I hope you do not act on the second of your "Views about WikiStyle", User:Solomonfromfinland#Redirects, especially that you do not replace links to "D" by links to "A#B|C", or similarly when there is no target section B. Only when German Wikipedia editors link de:Sirius Black (the DE redirect Sirius Black, unpiped), for instance, knowledgeable users can navigate back from the target article that contains his section to the coverage of Sirius Black in other-language articles, or to a substantial category that includes Black, such as fictional people (German de:Kategorie:Fiktive Person, under B).
--for more about all that see the linked Category talk --P64 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. {{-r|Sirius Black}} provides a convenient link directly to our redirect Sirius Black. I don't know whether the German or any other has such a shortcut.
I replied also at #TOC far above. --P64 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)