Wikipedia talk:Categorizing redirects/Archive 1

message: The following initial points for discussion were copied from here. Please add more points and edit and expand/cut the proposed guideline as needed. Carcharoth 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial discussion

message: *Is this a good start at explaining and laying out some of the issues involved? Carcharoth 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Further discussion

message: I have been away from the internet for a couple of days, so I have not yet had a problem to comment.  However, I see a problem with categorizing redirects for astronomical objects that are listed in astronomical catalogs (for example, listing both Sombrero Galaxy and Messier 104 in :Category:Messier objects, a catalog that contains 110 objects).  The status quo is to list both objects and their redirects in the categories, but this will confuse people who use these categories as substitutes for lists, as the categories will suggest that the catalogs contain more objects than they really do contain.  
The alternative of not categorizing objects by their common name but only categorizing the redirects (e.g. listing Messier 104 but not Sombrero Galaxy in :Category:Messier objects) will make it more difficult to navigate from the main articles to the categories themselves (e.g. it would be difficult to navigate from Sombrero Galaxy to :Category:Messier objects), thus defeating the purpose of having the categories in the first place.
Hence, the only viable solution that I see is to not list redirects at all in categories for astronomical objects.  Unless someone can propose an alternate solution, I suggest that this proposed guideline should make exceptions for things like categories for astronomical objects.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not simply include an explanation on the category page that the category includes some intentional duplication? older ≠ wiser 11:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This simple approach is better than the status quo or Carcharoth's proposals, although I still imagine that the duplicate entries would cause confusion.  Dr. Submillimeter 07:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if there is any real likelihood that people may mistake a category for a comprehensive list -- most every category should have a "use at your own risk" disclaimer -- there is never any guarantee, and indeed a very high probability that at any given time a category will be either incomplete or contain inaccurate or superfluous items. older ≠ wiser 01:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Or have :Category:Messier objects with 110 members (common names and Messier numbers that are names - all articles), and :Category:Messier catalogue numbers with 110 members (only the Messier numbers, some being redirects, some being articles). At the moment :Category:Messier objects mixes numbers and names, and the overlap is not intuitively obvious. If you don't have a category for the numbers, then people will think that some articles are missing. Carcharoth 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two category approach seems messy.  This would solve the problem for objects known primarily by their common names (e.g. Sombrero Galaxy), but objects known primarily by their catalog designations (e.g. Messier 86) would effectively have two categories.  Dr. Submillimeter 07:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A sortable table does not solve any problems with the category.  Dr. Submillimeter 08:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What problems? I'm arguing against listing redirects in the category. --NE2 09:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I did not understand the context of your comment.  Dr. Submillimeter 10:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could an additional redirect Messier 104 (Sombrero Galaxy) not be created and categorised instead of Messier 104? -- roundhouse0 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with categorizing alternate names for astronomical objects 

message: This is shaping up well. My personal suggestion would be that a redirect to a list article should not be in any category that is inappropriate for the list as a whole, because that would be confusing to readers. For instance, if there's a List of characters in some book, and one of those characters is a gorilla, then we shouldn't put that redirect in the Fictional gorillas category, because this would imply to a reader coming from the category that he's now on a page with fictional gorillas when in fact he's not. Thoughts please? >Radiant< 09:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can this be generalized by saying "no redirect should be categorized unless the target is either an article clearly about the same topic but by a different name, or a section heading for a section of an article that covers the topic even if other sections are not relevant.  A user should not have to search to find where the topic is mentioned in an article or list." --☑ SamuelWantman 09:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is also helpful, but doesn't really cover what I just said considering every character would be a section. >Radiant< 09:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not clear on what you're saying, Radiant. You are on a page with a fictional gorilla on it at that point, are you not? And the redirect should point you to the section about said fictional gorilla, which keeps the list from being overcategorized with fictional gorilla, fictional tiger, and whatever-else we've got in the fictional cats these days (it changes every few months, seems like). -- nae'blis 19:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess I'm not clear either.  If you end up at List of fictional animals in a section called ==Fictional gorillas== it would be ok if it were a list.  If you end up at the same article ant there were no section on gorillas it would not be OK.  If you end up at  List of characters in some book it would not be ok even if there were a section for gorillas because the topic is not the same.  Is this what we are talking about, or is there more to it. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's what I meant. For instance, from an animal category, I could end up on a "list of Discworld characters" page, all of which are human except for one mon ape. Or from a cat on alcoholism to a "list of The Simpsons" characters, only a handful of which are alcoholics. >Radiant< 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced. If we still had separate short articles on the topics covered in the list article (which we don't or won't because of mergist tendencies), they'd be categorized as monke apes and alcoholics, yes? The redirect should be going directly to the section on the subject that relates to the category placed on it, which for an average reader is not that confusing, in my opinion. -- nae'blis 15:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Radiant, I'm still not sure what you are advocating because you agreed with my comment which is not how I read yours.  If you had a redirect called Animal Discworld characters that redirected to List of Discworld characters it would be OK if you ended up at the section that is a sub-list called "Animals".  If you simply ended up at the top of the page it would not be OK.  Same thing for Alcoholic Simpson characters.  So wouldn't the wording I came up with above cover this? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Yes, except for the point that the "list of discworld characters" does not have an "animals" section, and neither does the "list of simpsons characters" have an "alcoholics" section, nor should they. So if Barney Gumble is a redirect, it shouldn't be in the alcohol cat, in my opinion. Does that help? >Radiant< 08:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Considering that this is all hypothetical -- IFF Barney Gumble were a redirect to List of characters in The Simpsons -- I would think it appropriate to have Barney Gumble in a category like :Category:Fictional alcoholics (although there are likely to be problems with any category using the word alcoholic--this is just hypothetical). older ≠ wiser 10:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not totally hypothetical.  There really IS a sub-list called "Animals" at List of Discworld characters.  So the concern, I gather from Radiant, is that this will lead to categorizing trivia.  But this is a problem if Barney Gumble is a Redirect, a stub, or a complete article.  As this is a wiki, I think we just have to let this develop on its own. Categorizing a redirect could add trivia to categories, it could also lead people to a section of an article that deserves a better treatment so they expand it to the point that it becomes a featured article. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I think at a minimum, the target of the redirect should clearly identify both the Redirect by name and provide a substantive rationale for the categorization. older ≠ wiser 01:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I've created this category as an experiment about how Linnaean classifications could be categorized using redirects.  As it is now, it is difficult to navigate up and down the classification tree because listings are sometimes burried deep within pages or are not alphabetical.  If there was a category taxonomy for this, it would be much easier to use.  
What is the best way to connect this hierarchy to the targets of the redirect (for example Lion)?  If this categorization was acceptable, it probably would make sense to add a classification on top of the articles, or integrated somehow into the taxo box.
Subcategories for the subspecies have not been created, but they are easy to imagine.  Stubs for the missing species have been created.  It was easy to do, and completed the category.  I considered making redirects out of the missing species to Pantera, since the missing species are mentioned there in the list.  However, this would not be in keeping with the discussion above (Radiant!'s concern).  It is harder to replace a redirect with a stub or article, than to add material to a stub.  So it seemed that having the stub would encourage the creation of an article.
I'm also wondering about a style guideline for these categories.  I've used double capitals to indicate that Panthera is a name of a Genus.  Other possibilities are "Genus: Panthera", "Genus - Panthera" and "Panthera (genus)".  We should probably discuss this as it relates to categorized redirects, and then the discussion about details can move to a Wikiproject if it is to be implemented more fully.
Another possibility is making categories containing complete listings of all species, genus, etc... For example :Category:Genus (index) or :Category:Species (index).  These might be useful (albeit large) categories.
Comments?  Suggestions? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experimenting with [[:Category:Genus Panthera]] 

message: Personally, I object to having fictional characters categorized.  If they don't warrant their own page, they shouldn't show up in the categories.  For example, Eulogio Pla is categorized under :Category:Fictional gay men, though clicking it redirects to Halfway Home (TV series), where there's a small paragraph about the character.  That totally clutters the category with non-articles. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You say, "That totally clutters the category with non-articles. ".  I don't quite understand this.  I can understand that we don't want to clutter a category with trivia, so that it makes it hard to find the articles, but certainly there are things worth finding that don't yet have an article.  We've set the bar at "needs to have a section of an article about the topic".  In most cases, this will make categories larger, but I don't see that as a problem.  Some redirects point to sections of articles that are longer than most stubs.  Having both the redirects and stubs in the category might help speed their development into articles. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 23:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can understand the desire to leave room for articles that could be created (like red-links in a list), categories tend to be filled with articles - in fact, Wikipedia:Categorization *only* deals with articles.  So does Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ.  I don't see a need to put non-articles in categories. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the original example, I think it's just common sense where you need to draw the line. There are thousands of fictional gay men, and obviously we can't reference every single one of them here. Oscar Martinez has his own article, and a bunch of other categories, so it's a no-brainer that he's notable enough to add here. But if you were adding it to someone who only appeared in one episode/comic page/wor hatever, it becomes less and less deserving of it's own category as it becomes less notable. Here is a simple rule of thumb I use: If someone was asked to list as many Fictional Whatevers's as they could, would they mention Character X? If you asked an average wikipedian to name a bunch of fictional gay people, they might not think up Eulogio Pla because he's not notable enough yet. This is even more apparent in underpoulated categories. There's not a whole lot of people listed under :Category:Fictional_circus_performers, but there have to be more than 3 of them in the entire history of fiction. People come to wikipedia for information. Let's give it to them, and they can decide for themselves which is important and which isn't.--Piemanmoo 04:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And in your quest to shove as many pointless categories into every redirect you can find, you fail to realize that not one of your examples is the least bit notable, nor do they allow for category navigation as the system is intended to be used. So what if x one-episode guy is gay? He's not notable, he's not important, and he doesn't need to be listed just so some trivial category can be bloated to a ridiculous level from two or three list articles. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on fictional characters 

message: You probably didn't need to create an experimental example. I long ago categorised all articles on Banksia taxa into :Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name, and all common name redirects and disambiguation pages into :Category:Banksia taxa by common name. It works well. Hesperian 01:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful! Thanks so much for this. It's a great example, and I can chuck out the Panthera example. Carcharoth 14:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I thnk you will find pages and pages and pages of debate about this if you dig through the right archives... :-) My feeling is that it depends. Some taxonomies are simple, others are complicated. Some species have only one common name, some have many, and so on. Carcharoth 09:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PLANTS decided a little while ago that all plant taxon articles should be located at the scientific name. This is great for us because it imposes consistency. However the animal people don't have the luxury of declaring such a convention, because Wikipedia would look very foolish if it preferred the title "Canis familiaris lupus familiaris" over "dog". Hesperian 11:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Canis lupus familiaris, I believe. :-) Carcharoth 11:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Foolish" indeed :-) Hesperian 11:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Even among plants there are some exceptions to names, such as wheat and maize, where the common name is used. As a note, we at WP:FISH have decided on a naming policy for fish-related article. In any case, IMO it really doesn't matter too much what the article names are in terms of categorizing redirects; that seems to be getting at a different issue. If we include all redirects, the only affect is that redirects appear italicized in lists. If I'm missing something, chime in. Cheers. MiltonT 12:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:PLANTS convention is for the taxon to be at the scientific name, and any plant product to be at the common name. e.g. Zea mays is about the plant, and takes the taxobox; Maize is about the plant product. Ditto Triticum / wheat; Cocos nucifera / Coconut; etc. However many articles were created at the common name before the convention was put in place, and we have been in no rush to convert them all over. (But we're getting quite a way off topic here)Hesperian 13:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A real live example

message: What do people here think about Migrant Mother (:Category:Photographs) versus Florence Owens Thompson (:Category:Photographs (people))? The latter category was recently created by me to get all the "names after people" articles on iconic photographs into their own category. I personally feel that all the articles should be named after the name of the photograph, but sometimes the photographs are never named, but came to be 'associated' with the subject of the photograph. Carcharoth 22:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another example 

message: What this page needs (imho) is a few examples of when not to categorize redirects. >Radiant< 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, :Category:Redirects from misspellings and the other ones listed at Wikipedia:Redirect#Spellings.2C Misspellings.2C Tenses and Capitalizations are too obvious, really, or is that what you meant? I think you mean printworthy redirects that might be misleading. Have a look through :Category:Redirects from abbreviation, :Category:Redirects from alternative names, :Category:Redirects from historic names (only created recently), :Category:Redirects from scientific names, :Category:Redirects to scientific namesand :Category:Redirects from alternative languages and see what you can find. I think there will be examples and counter-examples in all those categories. Carcharoth 13:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: And people will know the book by one title or the other. Whoever goes to the category to see all the articles would think the book missing from WP.DGG 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterexample 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's a nice clear example to include. The two categories mentioned are clearly different. EdJogg 22:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Try Template:Coor d instead. Carcharoth 16:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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 ) 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)
thread_title:  Another example (war memorials) 

message: 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).
* - Archive the talk page
* - 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Towards a guideline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Two questions. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay. Replied over there. Carcharoth 13:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A specific example that has arisen 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Synergy between lists and redirects and categories 

message: 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):
;keyword1
: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 keyword1 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".
#Is this a common practice? 
#Do you see any shortcomings with this approach?
#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)
thread_title:  Build a '''Glossary of Terms''' by categorizing numerous redirects that each link to a tag with an ''id'' attribute 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question about use of the ''style'' attribute

message: 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)
thread_title: Problems

message: 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 . -- Matthead  Discuß   09:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salting the earth? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: But articles don't have "targets" - redirects do. GregorB (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Ganondorf]] 

message: Please see the discussion at WT:Categorization/Archive 10#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed change

message: :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)
thread_title:  Categorization of list entries 

message: 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)
thread_title: Removed table

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProjects and redirects? 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Categorizing redirected song titles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Category:Genus Panthera