WiKirby talk:Category policy

Should we continue to allow placing pages to less-specific categories even if a specific category already exist?

Currently we de facto allow users to categorize pages into less-specific cats, like in Kirby (anime), where it's categorized into Category:Anime. The page is already categorized into Category:Kirby: Right Back at Ya! characters, which is a subcategory of Category:Anime. This categorization is called overcategorization in Wikimedia Commons, the wiki where I came from, so that could explain why I care so much about this categorization. I think placing the page into Category:Anime is redundant, and just clutters the main/meta (not to be confused with the other meta) categories. It makes diffusion less useful, because why search in Category:Kirby: Right Back at Ya! characters when you can find it in Category:Anime anyway?

I'd like to hear what you all think. pandakekok9 (poyo) 11:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree it would be better to be less redundant here. Another example I can think of is the music pages, where most will fall under both "Category:Music" and "Category:Music in (whatever game)". It's definitely the most ideal to keep them only to specific categories when they exist. StrawberryChan (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

It's also the same with category:Enemies and {{Infobox-Enemy}} and pretty much every infobox template, so anime categories won't be the only ones affected. Superbound (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, this is larger than I thought. It seems we will have to modify the infobox templates either to do specific categorizations or not categorize at all. We can modify {{Infobox-Enemy}} for example to not categorize automatically (since there are enemies that appear on more than two games) and be done manually instead, and the latter is already being done. pandakekok9 (poyo) 11:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

If we modify these templates then {{t|Infobox-FakeEnemy}} and {{t|Infobox-FakeGame}} will become obselte. I'm in favor of original proposed change btw. Superbound (talk) 11:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

As it stands, I agree that the categorization system here on the wiki needs some clean-up. I'm sure you guys can come up with something nifty. --Samwell (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose improvements, though if we remove some of these extra categories, I would say remove the smaller ones such as Category:Kirby: Right Back at Ya! characters instead of the top-tier categories such as Category:Anime since it is used on the front page along with several others to lead readers to all pages related to a certain branch of the Kirby series. I also honestly don't see too much of a problem with the current categorization system, but then again, it could use some work. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the concern, we could create something like a portal, which Wikipedia does. It'd be an alternative way of navigation to categories. pandakekok9 (poyo) 07:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we could make this work, then. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Bump. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 08:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I support just removing the automatically added less specific categories from templates (especially since that would allow use of the templates elsewhere). ---PinkYoshiFan 14:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Another bump. -- Jellytost♡ (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If we are going with replacing categories on the front page, instead of making separate "portals" for navigation, we can use already existing ones. To do that, however, few pages will need a fix up:

• Enemy should be unredirect, in similar fashion to Mid-Boss and Boss.
• Rewrite tags need to be taken of from Boss.
• Similarly for that stub tag on Kirby: Right Back at Ya!.
• And Sub-Game needs images.
• Characters, items, objects, places, music, games and real world don't have any page relating to it.
• Mid-Boss, Stage and Copy Ability are fine.

Anyway, that's assuming we are doing the portal system, because for me personally, the categories can stay. Any other ideas? Superbound (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at this whole discussion, and I do agree that we don't need to do overcategorization; that is already the case for game categories, such as Category:Kirby's Dream Land. As for portals, I do believe that, if we cut down the overcategorization, we should have them for their respective categories, my only worry is that they may get pretty long. For example, a potential Enemies page would need to list every enemy in the series, and that is a lot... But I personally would prefer to make it a page rather than leave it as a redirect. Finally, I think that continuing to link to the categories themselves in the main pages even if we change how we categorize articles should be fine, mainly considering that we already link for example Category:Stages, that doesn't list any individual stages but rather only has the sub-categories already. And we have for example Category:Real world, which we don't have a page equivalent for and I don't believe we need it either. So continuing to link to the categories would make it simpler, and we would just need to worry about changing categorization of certain kinds of articles, and we could have pages such as the Enemy one as a separate project, as it would be a very big one. - Gigi (talk • edits) 22:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I have similar thoughts. Personally, I think this discussion has already gained enough input, so unless someone opposes in week or so we can revamp the categories. Superbound (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody objected so I will start modifying infoboxes. Superbound (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)