Template talk:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Categorization problem

User:Gonnym, Category:EastEnders character redirects to lists says (correctly) "Do not include this category in content categories.", but it is in Category:EastEnders characters. I think the problem is somewhere in this module. Can you fix it? DexDor (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not something this template creates, but it comes from Template:Redirect category which this templates uses. If it should be changed, it should be brought up there and this will automatically update. --Gonnym (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Redirect category is fine - e.g. it's used at Category:7th Heaven character redirects to lists without causing incorrect categorization. Are you sure it's not something in your Lua code (which I'm struggling to understand)? DexDor (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure then I understand what the issue is. The header is taken from {{
R from printworthy}} redirects. The fact that they are redirects and not articles does not mean they aren't content, they (should, when done correctly) lead to their character sections. They are useful not only to editors, but to readers. --Gonnym (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Dab link problem

Could someone please fix Category:Doctors character redirects to lists (or this template) so the box on the category page links to Doctors (2000 TV series) instead of Doctors? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed today that the main= parameter is not working, e.g. at Category:Mario episode redirects to lists. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have nominated the Doctors cat above for renaming to Category:Doctors (2000 TV series) character redirects to lists, which should fix the problem as Gonnym implies. I withdraw my objection about the Mario category. – Fayenatic London 20:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The |main= parameter is meant for when the parent category is not named after the series, but some other valid name and it's not guaranteed to be the same as the parent article. For example, for Category:Back to the Future character redirects to lists the parent category is at Category:Back to the Future but the parent article is at Back to the Future (franchise). For both of the examples above, instead of introducing exceptions to code that makes it hard to maintain, the solution is just to fix the category names. Both are using bad titles. --Gonnym (talk) 23:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Category:Back to the Future character redirects to lists is not using this template. Please can you give an example where the "main" parameter is working? – Fayenatic London 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Colbys character redirects to lists is using this as the parent category is Category:Dynasty (franchise) characters as there is no Colby specific one, as does Category:Heroes Reborn (miniseries) episode redirects to lists. Regardless, if you rather have bad category names, just don't use the template on those pages. I see no valid reason to force a horrible change because you don't want to fix the actual issue. Gonnym (talk) 07:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I understand – "main" is not for "main article" (the usual meaning of "main" in the context of categories) but for "main parent category". May I suggest that the parameter should be renamed as "parent"? – Fayenatic London 11:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem changing to that. Maybe I'll make it a bit longer and a bit more clear by |parent_category=. I'll do it later this week. --Gonnym (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After much head-bashing and reverse-engineering, I failed to resolve a similar problem with Category:The Batman episode redirects to lists. The series is now The Batman (TV series), but it may not make sense to move the category as nothing else called "The Batman" has episodes. Certes (talk) 19:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:C2D, part of it is exactly for situations like this. Gonnym (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The redirect template now resolves category redirects, e.g. [1]. (I confused myself and updated that set of redirect pages unnecessarily.) – Fayenatic London 07:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden maintenance categories

This handler should make these categories hidden maintenance categories like all other redirect maintenance categories. I'm no Lua expert to be sure, but it appears that at the very least, line 116 of

ed. put'r there 12:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't agree with the premise that these are maintenance categories. I also find these very helpful for users to actually see on redirects as they let them easily find other episode redirects instead of guessing what others are available. --Gonnym (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To editor
ed. put'r there 10:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I've read that guideline but can't seem to find where it says that redirect categories should or must be hidden. --Gonnym (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I know you must be aware of the general catting guideline,
ed. put'r there 20:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
If these were user-facing articles, I'd agree with you, but for a user to see a redirect, they need to know what they are doing. This means they have the direct intention of delving into the redirect and all that it means. Hiding or obstructing the categories serves no purpose. Just to further this point, we also don't link to categories from article text, yet we do link to the main redirect category from every redirect template. --Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with me or not, the fact that this template does not hide maintenance categories goes against consensus. Guess I'll bring it up at TfD in the near future. Best to you!
ed. put'r there 14:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

To editor

ed. put'r there 16:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Request for comments about hiding redirect categories

Please see extended discussion below.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
In this RfC, editors consider whether to hide the categories on a class of redirect pages. Paine Ellsworth and Jc37 consider that there's an implied consensus (established by way of custom and practice rather than formal discussion) that these categories should be hidden, Gonnym disagrees, and nobody else understands the question, with the possible exception of SMcCandlish, who has wrestled to understand it and, after having grasped what it means, doesn't care. The only close available to me is "no consensus". By our rules, a "no consensus" outcome means that the status quo ante continues, so the practical outcome here is not to edit the template.—S Marshall T/C 16:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this template and its module hide their categories on redirect pages?

ed. put'r there 16:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Support indicates agreement that these redirect categories should be hidden.
  • Oppose indicates disagreement that these redirect categories should be hidden.

Extended discussion

  • Comment: I wish I'd come across this before it was just closed. Like others, I'm struggling to fully understand the issue—it'd have been really helpful if some of the main parties here had concisely laid out the context of what this template is and provided examples of what categories we're considering. But to the extent I understand it, I concur with Paine Ellsworth that redirect categories are part of the back-end of the encyclopedia and should not be presented to readers. If you want precedent on this, it's something I brought up a few months ago at VPI. S Marshall, adding in my !vote, the tally here among those of us who have expressed an opinion is now three to one, which may affect your reading of consensus. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that we are talking about all-redirect categories, is one that sadly is being presented here which is not the case. This discussion is not about categories like Category:Avoided double redirects to be updated which is a maintenance category and requires work, nor is it for Category:Redirects from incorrect names or Category:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation which can be seen in the broader sense as maintenance categories. This discussion is about redirects for episode titles or character names. As I've already stated above:
    • We are talking about redirect pages and not articles.
    • These categories do not appear on articles, ever.
    • To reach these pages an editor needs to intentionally want to reach it.
    • There is no maintenance to be done here, ever.
    • Having this category visible helps editors easily reach this category - the exact people who intentionally reached this page.
    So this category is not a maintenance one and hiding of the category only hurts editors and readers searching for correct links to use. I've still to hear to whom hiding this category is helpful for. However, I can point to a few editors that have used the categories in finding what links are available to use in related pages. Gonnym (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - Please see Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia_administrative_categories - These are not categories of articles, therefore they are administrative categories. And as the redirects in question are in article space - they should be hidden per WP:CAT. - jc37 21:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now this is interesting. I've closed an RfC and people are adding post-closure comments that would, if taken into account, reverse the outcome. If we decide that they should be taken into account, then I can foresee that post-closure comments might become commonplace... Hmm. I'm minded to refer to the Administrator's Noticeboard for advice about how best to proceed. Would anyone object to that?—S Marshall T/C 21:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:3PO is rarely a bad thing : ) - jc37 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Yeah. I've asked for advice on the AN.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess a little wrench was thrown into the works. Still cannot see editor Gonnym's objection to these redirect categories as admin maint. categories. So they really should be hidden like all the rest of the redirect cats.
    ed. put'r there 07:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Since the discussion is "kinda" ongoing now, pinging the other two from the currently closed discussion above: User:SMcCandlish and User:BDD. - jc37 19:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ed. put'r there 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

  • If the RfC had resulted in consensus to not hide these categories, then they would remain unhidden.
  • If the RfC had resulted in consensus to hide these categories, then the template/module would be changed to hide the categories.
  • Since the RfC resulted in no consensus, then the long-term status quo is upheld and this template/module must be changed to hide the categories. That is the implicit consensus: to hide all administrative categories including these redirect categories.
    ed. put'r there 04:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

How to interpret closure?

To editor S Marshall: The parts of your closure that are definitely not in dispute are 1) The only close available to me is "no consensus", and 2) By our rules, a "no consensus" outcome means that the status quo ante continues. There is only the small part about whether or not this template should be edited that has yet to be firmly established. The important points are that the long-term status quo over more than the 12 years I've been a registered editor is that:

  • Redirect categories are administrative/maintenance categories and are always hidden categories

They have always been hidden except for the occasional vandalism that I've caught over the years and fixed. The vast majority of redirect categories are still hidden, and it's only the few redirect categories that are controlled by this template that are not hidden. The status quo, then, has always been to hide redirect categories, so it would seem that this template and its module, which do not presently hide their redirect categories, should be edited to hide them as the direct result of the RfC above and its outcome as closed by you. Clearly, your no-consensus outcome should uphold the long-term status quo and make this template/module combination hide their redirect categories. We are in agreement then that there was no consensus in the above RfC and that the status quo ante should continue. Since that is the case, then this template/module should be changed so as to hide their redirect categories, don't you agree?

ed. put'r there 04:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

ed. put'r there 03:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Merely a suggestion, but it seems that the main issue here is lack of clarity across a few points. How about just starting a new RfC, with clearer points and presumed outcomes? It's not like there was a huge number of contributers to this discussion. Just ping everyone that there is a new discussion and see where the consensus lies at that point. - jc37 22:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, imho whenever there is a change to a situation that has been in effect for such a long time since redirect categorization began in the mid 2000s, it should not be seen as insignificant. It should be seen as a major change to the long-term status quo, which in this case is to hide admin redirect categories. It's a bit unsettling that there are good editors who don't seem to get that! There are some categories that are not article categories that should be hidden to the general readership. And the categories that are influenced by this template/module are some of those categories. They should be hidden like they've always been hidden. When readers become editors and register, it is an easy thing for them to modify their preferences to be able to see hidden categories. To not hide these redirect categories puts all category hiding in question, doesn't it? If we don't hide these redirect categories, then why should we hide any redirect categories? If we don't hide any redirect categories, then why should we hide any other admin/maintenance categories? You still haven't answered that. If it's important to hide admin categories, then it's important to hide redirect categories – all redirect categories!
ed. put'r there 18:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I still haven't answered a question? If you read up, you'll see that none of my questions have been answered by you. I won't repeat my full points but just a quick recap - I don't agree with basically everything you wrote - these are not admin categories; these are not maintenance categories; there is no guideline that deals with these specific categories; regular editors don't see the redirect pages under any normal circumstance. Regarding your question, I personally don't see any reason why a redirect page (which again, isn't viewed by readers under normal reading) should have hidden categories. I do see reasons why maintenance categories should be hidden on regular content. Gonnym (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One question Gonnym: Are these article categories? - jc37 20:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They are much more closer to article categories than they are to admin or maintenance categories. Since our guidelines on fiction characters/elements and television episodes state that not everything is notable for its own article, these redirects are created so they can be used in articles. Editors in related fields, such as TV and film, use these categories to find out what links are available and use these to link sections in articles. Take for example Category:Arrow (TV series) characters, this is a content category with 12 character pages in it, however Category:Arrow (TV series) character redirects to lists is directly related to this and holds all the other characters that don't have an article, but do have links (such links go for example to pages like List of supporting Arrow characters). Similar, Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe episodes has episode categories, but again, not all episodes were created equal so some are redirects which Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe episode redirects to lists has several sub-categories. Gonnym (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Templates and other types of coding are used in and around articles and contain content too. I'm not asking what you think these categories are "close to". Are these article categories. Yes or no? - jc37 21:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the attitude? I gave you my answer. If you want a binary answer, then, yes. These specific categories are content. Gonnym (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No attitude intended. I'm seeing people seeming to talk past each other.
So, if your assertion is true, and others disagree with your interpretation of policy, then that is a broader rfc topic. Whether these should be considered article cats.
But as of right now, policy does not currently support your assertion. "close to", is not "is".
I'll leave it to the closer to decide whether No consensus means retaining a bold edit which is currently contrary to policy. - jc37 21:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HIDDENCAT appears to be a guideline rather than a policy and I'm seeing good faith doubt about whether these categories are administration categories in any case. Absent consensus on that point, I don't see grounds to make the disputed edit to the template.—S Marshall T/C 22:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Then with that assessment, anyone who actually cares at this point (clearly not me, based upon my not really caring in the first place - I saw this at WP:CR and decided to add what was intended to be a helpful comment rather than close) can go start an rfc. Thanks S Marshall for closing - an all-too-often thankless task : ) - jc37 22:49, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you've done it again, and I don't know what else to say. My gosh! HIDDENCAT is a guideline, and while it's not a policy, it still represents a long-term community consensus to hide admin categories. If these categories are not admin categories then they must be article categories, because there are really only the two types, article and admin. These redirect categories are not by any means article categories; they are maintenance categories that should be hidden. Since to hide them is the long-term community consensus, then those are the grounds to make the edit to this template/module. If I can't get you to see that,
ed. put'r there 02:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I do see that. But it's not my personal understanding of how categories work that matters here: it's whether the community agrees to make a disputed edit.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - found this an interesting read in light of this discussion. - jc37 11:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this isn't ok. It's a close that hasn't brought closure, and that's not the right result. On my own motion I'm going to open a close review on the Administrator's Noticeboard to analyse whether I got this right.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what its worth, as I stated above, I completely disagree with the initial premise that these categories are admin or cleanup. No one here has presented any argument to show they are, while I've repeatedly shown why they aren't. Additionally, redirect categories which belong to article content and are not hidden are indeed supported by the guideline
WP:LISTRCAT, both of which are under the level two header of "Article categories". Gonnym (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
I honestly don't mean to prolong any animosity between us Gonnym, because you still might be right and I might be wrong. Those two links actually are about placing already known article categories on redirects, such as those found on Marianne (1996 song). On that redirect are seen three unhidden cats,
ed. put'r there 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Fiction-based_redirects_to_list_entries_category_handler&oldid=1129400373"