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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I'm not sure then I understand what the issue is. The header is taken from Redirect category, the categorization is done here. Is the categorization your issue? If so, then I'll have to disagree with you. These aren't tracking nor are they maintenance categories. These are also mostly 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)

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)
 * I also noticed today that the main= parameter is not working, e.g. at Category:Mario episode redirects to lists. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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  L ondon 20:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  L ondon 07:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  L ondon 11:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * WP:C2D, part of it is exactly for situations like this. Gonnym (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The redirect template now resolves category redirects, e.g. . (I confused myself and updated that set of redirect pages unnecessarily.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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 the module should be changed from "yes" to "no". The Redirect category template normally makes its categories hidden, and the module should not override that.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 12:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * your opinion is respected, however it's not the consensus of the community. Readers who are savvy enough to get to redirects are also editors who easily become savvy enough to set their preferences to see hidden categories. Please see the guideline and you'll find that the consensus of the community is that all redirect categories are maintenance categories and should be hidden from general readership. Only when a reader decides to become a Wikipedian, an editor, only then should they be privy to maintenance needs and categories, of which there are many.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 10:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Um, I know you must be aware of the general catting guideline, WP:CAT, which says that when administrative a.k.a. maintenance categories appear directly on articles (subject pages) rather than talk pages, they should be made into hidden categories, so that they are not displayed to readers. And that guideline goes on to describe ways to make such categories hidden from view unless editors set their preferences to see them. These redirect categories are, like all redirect categories, maintenance tools, administrative tools that help editors build and maintain an encyclopedia. They should never be seen by general readers, even if they land on a redirect, intentionally or unintentionally. Editors on the other hand, those users who have registered so they can help to improve Wikipedia, will find it easy (and a lot easier than I did, I might add) to find and set their preferences to view hidden cats. It's all part of learning to edit Wikipedia. I agree that these cats should be available to users who are editors, and they are readily available when an editor's preferences are set to view them.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 20:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If these were user-facing articles, I'd agree with you, but for a user to 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)
 * 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!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 14:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

reread the TfD page and was reminded that TfD is for merges and deletions, so I've decided to start an RfC to generate discussion about whether or not this template and its module should hide redirect categories. Thank you for your continued input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for comments about hiding redirect categories

 * Please see extended discussion below.

Should this template and its module hide their categories on redirect pages?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Support indicates agreement that these redirect categories should be hidden.
 * Oppose indicates disagreement that these redirect categories should be hidden.


 * Support. Before this template and its module were created by editor, all redirect categories were considered "maintenance categories". The long-term consensus of the Wikipedia community is that maintenance categories are to be hidden from general readers on the pages they sort, so until now all redirect categories have been hidden on redirect pages. There are several categories that are applied by this template for sorting redirects, and none of them are hidden on their redirect pages. This goes against the community consensus as I noted in the conversation above this RfC. And yet I have been unable to convince editor Gonnym to go along with the consensus. So the questions that need to be answered are 1) if all redirect categories have been hidden up to now, why shouldn't these categories be hidden? and 2) if they shouldn't be hidden, then why should all the other redirect categories stay hidden? Also 3) should some redirect categories be hidden and other redirect categories not hidden? I think all redirect categories are maintenance categories and so should be hidden from the view of general readers who chance upon redirects. At it's easy enough for editors to alter their preferences to show hidden categories if they intend to work on the entries in those categories.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 16:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I respect Paine Ellsworth, a lot of what he is claiming above is either wrong or lacks any evidence. His entire claim is based on his that there is community consensus to what he claims, yet everywhere he sent me looking didn't even remotely address it. So his entire claims falls apart right off the start. Second, he claims that these are maintenance categories, which is also incorrect. There is no maintenance whatsoever to be done with these categories. These categories are a place where fiction redirects from the same series can be found. This is very useful to other editors when they are searching for what links exists when they want to link to redirects (see MOS:REDIR for why linking to redirects is good) - this also answers his next 3 questions. Additionally he claims that maintenance categories are to be hidden from general readers, who exactly are the general readers that reach the redirect pages? Most readers as well as most editors don't double click to reach the actual redirect page which means that none of them actually even see these categories. Who does reach these categories? Editors who work on them or readers who intentionally wanted to reach them. These people might also want to easily find the parent category without having to resort to changing their preferences (or if they are IP editors which can't). Finally I'd like to ask, if almost all of our readers and editors don't see these pages except those who want to, what issue is Paine Ellsworth actually trying to fix, when this WP:AINTBROKE ? I've clearly shown him  this was needed and that it has reasoning behind it. This RfC really seems like a big WP:IDONTLIKEIT without any real purpose behind it. Gonnym (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry you seem to see so much in me and yet so little? Everything I've claimed is true and correct. There is plenty of evidence when one familiarizes with WP:CONSENSUS, where long-term "implied" consensus is explained. Further, the categories, all the categories, that are sorted by this template and module are indeed "maintenance categories" by definition. The maintenance performed might be just a bot looking for certain redirects to add categories to them, or editors looking to remove redirects that don't belong. There are tasks performed on maintenance categories with which editor Gonnym appears to be unfamiliar. And I think that's why they created this redirect and module that do not hide the categories on redirects. General readers can be curious enough to click on redirect links at the TOP of articles, which is how some readers become editors, and not hiding the categories because it would be so hard and difficult for editors to click a little box in their prefs to see hidden cats is just not a good reason to not hide the maintenance cats on redirects. Maybe it "ain't broke" like Gonnym says, and perhaps a discussion like this one will help decide that issue. There have been many times when I disagreed with community consensus, but I've always abided by it. I think we all should... or we should endeavor to change the consensus. We should not just blatantly go against it with weak, soft arguments. There should always be very good reason to break Wikipedia's rules! Again, sorry, I see no good reason at all to break with consensus. All redirect maintenance categories should remain hidden.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:22, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, you keep repeating over, and over again that there is consensus. Can you please link to the exact spot where what you say appears in writing? Also, keep in mind that you've done a lot of work on redirects so saying there is an "implied consensus" is basically saying you agree with yourself. Gonnym (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, removing a redirect from a category, be it by bot or by an editor does not make it a maintenance category. If it would, then what would you call all the other non-maintenance categories that get pages removed from them? Instead of pointing fingers can calling me "unfamiliar" with these categories, how about you go look at Category:Maintenance categories and see what maintenance categories actually are. The categories themselves are temporarily, the pages in them are only in them until they get fixed. None of what I just described applies here. These are much more closer to content categories. Gonnym (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirects are not by any means content pages, so you are showing how little you know with your comments. The type of maintenance category you describe is just one type of several types, and there are several redirect maintenance cats that are kept empty or to a minimum. So is one of the largest redirect cats,, not a maintenance cat just because it is so large? This is what I mean by weak and soft arguments. I think you'll have to do better. I have already pointed you to the pages you need to read to see that you are going against the present consensus. Either you refuse to read them or you read without understanding them. So please do go back and try to read with understanding so you can find the consensus of which I speak. And one more thing, yes I've been working with redirect catting, the rcat templates themselves, their documentations, their indexes and the Rcat shell template for more than ten years. But trust me on this, I'm not the only editor who works on redirects, truly. You again make no sense, because really, in a discussion like this, who wouldn't agree with themselves? The only question really is, "Do other editors agree with you, or with 'myself'?"  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 17:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, but if you'll keep talking in a condensing way I'll just stop replying to you. Category:Redirects from moves is not a maintenance category, it does not require any work, at all. In fact, it's a tracking category, as can be seen by the fact that it's listed in Category:Redirect tracking categories, which leads all the way up to Category:Wikipedia categories which has Category:Maintenance categories as a same level category. Notice how it is never placed in a maintenance category? Please go back and read up on categories as you seem to have lost some knowledge in those 10 years. Gonnym (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound condescending so please forgive me if I have strayed. The Redirects from page moves cat has been a maint. cat for as long as it has been in existence on Wikipedia. All you need do is actually visit the cat to find that out. As far as the rest of your own attempt to condescend goes, it's doubtful that I've forgotten what you apparently have yet to learn... if you would only do some reading. Even just a little reading would put you right there on the support side and your !vote would magically change. You know I'm right about this. Redirect cats are maint. cats, and they are usually tracking cats and always part of the Wikipedia maintenance effort. They are not an actual part of the encyclopedia, just like redirects themselves. That's why redirects are as hidden as possible, and that's why redirect cats are always, always and always hidden cats. I don't intend to respond again unless queried, I would rather wait and see if anyone else has something to say. Cheers!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 21:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to make sense of what types of categories we're discussing hiding or showing. Those like Category:Arrow (TV series) episode redirects to lists? Those like Category:Television character redirects to lists? Both? Neither? --BDD (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * the type of category is the administrative or "maintenance" category. A little further down that guideline page there is info about using templates to categorize, like we do with redirects, and info about hiding maintenance categories. The WP:RCAT guideline gives more specific info about the maintenance templates and categories used just for redirects. These guidelines leave no doubt that redirect categories have always been thought of as maintenance categories and should all be hidden categories.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wondering the same thing as BDD. Let's see a list of exemplars.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My guess is that this is about things like Category:Redirects from misspellings. I don't see a great reason these shouldn't be classed as hidden maint. cats., since readers who are not editors have no use for them.  But readers never encounter them unless they go to pains to not let a redirect page actually redirect, and want to look at it and its code (at which point they are transitioning from reader to editor).  So, I don't see an actual need to hide them, either.  We hide categories mostly when there's a chance readers will confuse them with content categories.  So, I'm kind of left in a "meh" middle ground about this proposal.  There seems to be no gain in hiding them, and no risk associated with not doing so, yet doing so won't break anything either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per Category:Fiction redirects, these and the other various subcats are maintenance categories, and so per WP:CAT these should be hidden in article space. That said, redirects are sort of maintenance pages...  I kinda agree with User:SMcCandlish on the meh-ness of this, but I'm going to lean towards current convention and practice and agree with the nom that these should be hidden. - jc37 18:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How is one category using an incorrect template relevant as a basis? Also, could you explain what sort of maintenance do you see with these specific redirects? Gonnym (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

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., 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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, this template categorizes redirects into several related redirect categories. Since from the beginning redirect categories have been hidden (unless an editor alters their preferences to show the categories), this template should control its categories to be hidden and not visible to general readers. That's about as concise as I think I can make it.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 19:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 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,.
 * To reach these pages an editor needs to intentionally want to reach it.
 * There is no maintenance to be done here,.
 * 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 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)


 * Clarification - Please see Categorization - 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)


 * 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)
 * WP:3PO is rarely a bad thing : ) - jc37 21:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I've asked for advice on the AN.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 07:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * I'm sorry to say I still don't think I fully understand the question. Maintenance categories should generally be hidden, yes, though is there any question whether such-and-such a type of category is a maintenance category? There is something to Gonnym's point, though, that if non-editor readers aren't seeing these categories anyway (i.e., because they're on redirects), perhaps we have some leeway. --BDD (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, but then why hide any redirect category? I think the originators hid redirect categories because the mainspace redirects are available to general readers, who happen to click on a redirect, by way of the link to the redirect near the top of an article. And that is why redirect categorization has always been included under the umbrella terms "maintenance categories" and "administrative categories", which have traditionally all been hidden from all but those who are registered and who have checked the "unhide" box in their preferences.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All right, well, my Administrator's Noticeboard thread has certainly attracted a wide variety of advice. I wouldn't say there's a clear consensus on the AN, but I think the community is telling me that I can give weight to what Sdkb says above.  Rather than re-open a closed discussion, I'd prefer to evaluate this as a separate post-RfC chat in which editors reconsider.—S Marshall T/C 07:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand BDD's contribution as a flavour of "oppose", and on this basis I'm still not seeing consensus for the change.—S Marshall T/C 14:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's for the better? Gonnym's point about easier access for editors may even be flourished by a sort of welcome to general readers to actually become editors. I'm a general reader, I happen to click on a redirect and get to an article I want to read. I notice near the top that there is a link to that redirect, so I click on that. The categories that appear make me even more curious. I soon become Wikipedia's newest editor. So maybe this is a good thing?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 00:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

, here is what I don't understand: You said, Since the "status quo" here is to hide all redirect templates, doesn't that mean that this template should indeed be edited to hide its redirect categories and comply with that status quo?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No consensus to change the template means we don't change the template... right? Am I missing something here?—S Marshall T/C 23:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. The RfC question was, "Should this template and its module hide their categories on redirect pages?" It was indicated that this template did not hide its redirect categories. I challenged its creator to hide those categories to no avail. So I opened the RfC. Hiding the maintenance/administrative categories has been the status quo, and this template challenges that status quo by not hiding its redirect templates' categories. It would seem that this template requires a clear consensus to change the status quo, which has not been garnered. No consensus in a discussion that asks if a template and its module should hide their categories on redirect pages would appear to require the template to be edited to conform to the status quo of hiding the categories, isn't that correct?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 03:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that what you describe was the status-quo for the specific categories (as I've already pointed out, not all redirect categories are the same, as in, maintenance, etc.). Additionally, this template has been used for more than 2 years exactly like this. None of the editors actually using it has ever asked for the categories to be hidden which implies an implicit consensus for it. Gonnym (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What I described as the status quo has been the status quo since long before I began to improve redirect categorization more than ten years ago. It's been the status quo since other editors first began to categorize redirects into administrative categories just like the categories controlled by this template. That's a lot longer than two years! This RfC has determined that there is no consensus to change the long-term status quo of hiding redirect categories. If this template/module is not changed to hide its categories, then we are not complying with the results of this RfC. Here is how we should see these results:
 * 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.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

How to interpret closure?
The parts of your closure that are definitely not in dispute are 1) and 2). 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: 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?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 04:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect categories are administrative/maintenance categories and are always hidden categories
 * I think that this RFC concerned an edit to a template and no consensus means no change to this template. But I am not completely sure on this and would like the community to confirm it in some venue where editors interested in categories are found. What's the right place?—S Marshall T/C 08:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You could try WT:CAT, I suppose. - jc37 17:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked there and it said to use Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories instead, so I did.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this RfC does concern an edit to this template; however, no consensus means the template is required to be edited if we are to "continue the status quo ante".  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This might be easier to see if examples are shown. To see hidden categories be sure to check the "Show hidden categories" box in your preferences at :
 * , a typical redirect sorted to hidden categories
 * , a redirect sorted to one unhidden category due to the influence of this template
 * should be a hidden category. I came across this problem last April and, as usual, thought it was just another case of vandalism. Sometimes vandals will unhide hidden categories. But instead of a vandal I found this template, which does not hide its admin categories. I tried to get the template's creator to comply with the status quo, but to no avail. So I opened this RfC. The question that was to be answered by the RfC is "Should redirect categories continue to be hidden categories?" That was answered by editors as "no consensus to change the status quo". It follows that this template/module combination should be made to hide its associated categories. At least that's the way I read it, so yes, any help with the interpretation would be very much appreciated!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 03:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I've asked for advice, and no response. Stumped.—S Marshall T/C 20:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly sure what's stumping you, . You seem to be at a loss about whether or not to edit this template? You have correctly determined that editor Gonnym was unable to garner a consensus to "not hide" these redirect categories in the RfC above. You correctly stated that no consensus means that the status quo ante continues, and the long-term status quo is to not hide article categories from the view of general readers and to hide administrative/maintenance categories from their view. Technically, you are even correct about not editing this template, because this template is powered by a module, and it is that module that needs to be edited to comply with the outcome of this RfC. I think it's line 116 in the module that needs to be altered to no. Since I am not Lua-wise, editor will hopefully confirm that this change will hide the administrative redirect categories and comply with the long-term status quo, and tell us what else if anything is needed to comply with the RfC's outcome.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 18:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see consensus to alter the module.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 21:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, in your closure you indicated that you didn't see consensus to alter the status quo, didn't you?  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 21:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

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)
 * That's a good idea, and we should put it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories to attract editors with a clearer understanding.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 23:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never seen such an endless re-opening of an RfC on such a so insignificant issue. Gonnym (talk) 06:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 the redirect pages under  normal circumstance. Regarding  question, I personally don't see  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)
 * One question Gonnym: Are these article categories? - jc37 20:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 22:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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,, then I really don't know what else to do except get to work and unhide all the other redirect categories that should be considered article categories rather than maintenance categories. Thank you very much for clarifying this!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 02:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 08:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * - found this an interesting read in light of this discussion. - jc37 11:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.—<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b> T/C 14:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 and are not hidden are indeed, both of which are under the level two header of "Article categories". Gonnym (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 . On that redirect are seen three unhidden cats,, and . The diff between those cats and the ones powered by this template is that those cats can also actually be used in articles, where categories influenced by this template cannot be used in articles. That's basically how to tell the difference. If a category can be used in an article without being hidden, then it is an article category. All other categories are one or another kind of admin category. Best to you and yours!  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;-  ed.  put'r there 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Fact-based?
What about TV series that are fact-based (such as documentaries) rather than fiction-based? I don't see an equivalent "Fact-based" template. --Jameboy (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)