Category talk:Super Smash Bros. fighters

Redirects

Can a consensus be reached on whether it's worthwhile to have redirect pages listed within the category? I personally feel that, for the sake of completeness, the closest article available [eg, Dr. Mario (series) or the redirect page Falco Lombardi, which links to his entry on the Star Fox characters page] should be given the category to make the list in this category a complete list. However, the edits are reverted time and time again, so apparently other people feel differently. Anyone care to express their opinion on the matter? - The T 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from User talk

It's not a discussion when you're the only poster. Categories don't need to be in redirects, especially when yhet're grouping things through a random relation. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I'd like you to offer to explain how they aren't related. The category should list all the playable Smash characters, not merely the ones who aren't mentioned in a subarticle. I'm not the first one to add the category or revert it. If you have some specific reason as to how they don't fit, list it. It's pointless to have a silly edit war. The T 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Read. I did not say hey weren't related, I said they are related randomly. In other words, it's a completely unrelated item that is tying these characters together, just like Robot Chicken relates celebrities, religious figures, and the like through parodies. These characters aren't part of a main list article, hence they don't need a random category. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The celebrities in Robot Chicken are not owned by the company that writes or creates Robot Chicken. You're right, there is nothing tying them together, as most of these celebrities never appear together in the show. None of them have any relation to each other. The characters in Smash, on the other hand, are, with the exception of Snake, all owned by the same company, and are all consented to be within the game, which falls outside the definition of parody. As this is, your argument doesn't hold any water. None the less, if this is your argument for it, then it sounds like you feel the entire category should be abolished. As you say, your argument is not over whether or not they are or aren't a redirect. It's over whether or not "unrelated" characters belong in a category together. The T 04:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CAT-R: "Categorization of list entries – Some well-organized lists have redirects pointing at their subsections. In such cases, categorization of the redirects can be an alternative way of browsing entries in a long list. It can also provide an alphabetical listing for lists that are not organised alphabetically, for example, lists organised in a chronological order."

This is what the category is not. The category's only purpose is to list characters in a Nintendo game, something you could do in a single short list in each main article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Most redirects should not be categorized. Examples include misspellings, minor variations of article titles, obscure alternate titles, and abbreviations." This is the only example given of why a category should not be redirected. Once again, the Smash Bros. article does contain such a list that links to each character's article, and yet the category still exists independant of this conversation over the redirects. You're still continuing to dodge the subject. The T 04:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dodging the subject, you're just ignoring the obvious. Find an example that says "relate characters in any way possible" and then keep complaining. This isn't difficult to understand. The Smash category is no more relevant to those scattered characters than introduction dates, company of creation, and so on. There's no reason to include it, plain and simple. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, and what does that have to do with the redirects? The only thing you've commented on is the category's existence itself, not on whether or not the redirects belong in the category. Please stop reitterating the same unrelated point and discuss the issue at hand. The T 05:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you an example to support this. A person who owns Brawl decides randomly to look at the Kirby article. They then notice the Smash Bros. fighters category, and browse to it. This makes them decide to want to learn more about the character Ike. But what's this? Ike doesn't have his own article? Then according to your logic, this person won't find Ike in the category, despite finding other characters in this category. How is your decision to not include the character useful to anyone? The T 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

How does he know about Ike in the first place if Ike is not there. The category does not need to be there. The point of the guideline is to keep them to a minimum, not shove every single one in there possible. The fact remains that the guideline only supports there addition in a main list context, not a random grouping context. Instead of thinking up hypotheticals, try understanding this simple fact. Just because it applies doesn't mean it needs to be there. If it's not in "Electric Pokemon", then trying to provide a case for Smash Bros. is just plain stupid. I'll say again: trivial categories (i.e. random relations of characters through an unrelated piece of media) do not need to be in redirects. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you're still only talking about the merits of the category itself. If the category doesn't need to be here, then try to put it up for deletion again. The point is that, in the Smash Bros. games, all playable characters are equally important. While Ike may not be hugely important in the grand scheme of Fire Emblem, which is the reason he is part of a List subarticle, within Smash Bros. he is just as important as Mario. Both are potential playable characters. So I'm going to ask you one time to answer this question: Why should Mario be in this category and Ike not be? The T 05:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about the category. You think I am, which is making your comments all the more annoying to respond to. The category in relation to redirects is trivial. Understand this fact clearly, because you keep going off on tangents about why the category is important when I'm not the least bit concerned about it. Redirects are categorized when they have actual merit. That means legitimate alternate names, entries within a list article, and so forth. There is no list article with which to relate this, only a larger topic and a subtopic within that. All these redirects have no reason to be within the category, because there is no main list category to which they point, only separate, unrelated articles whose only connection is that they appeared in some game together, which in addition to that fact not being prominently featured in their entires, is a minor point in the actual articles as well. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Entries within a list article" are exactly what things like Ike and Falco are. Please answer the question: Why should Mario be in this category and Ike not be? The T 17:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mario is an article. Ike isn't. Redirects do not require categories. Also, Ike and Falco are not entries within a list article. They are entries within two separate, and unrelated, list articles. Big difference. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So essentially you're calling judgement over split hairs? Mario has his own article because he's important in his own right. Ike isn't important enough to have his own article, but within the context of Smash Bros., he is just as important as Mario. If you still disagree with this, I'll see how other Wikipedians feel. The T 02:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother, The T. Someguy won't listen to reason, and he'll just keep on changing anything he sees fit without regard to other editors. It's a shame that people have to act like that.--Piemanmoo 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing redirects

The best solution to the above dispute might be to create a subcategory of this category, and put the redirects in there. Is there a list of redirects for Super Smash Bros. fighters? Carcharoth 13:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That would seem kind of silly and counterproductive, though. The idea for the category would simply be a showing of all the characters in the game, for those who don't want to or choose not to browse the Super Smash Bros. (series) article directly. As someone viewing the Mario article might want to move to the Ness section of the List of EarthBound characters article, they would think it would be logical to go through this category. Adding a "Redirects" category would just muddle it further, I personally feel. The T 23:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ike

For some reason, Ike isn't on this list, and I am unable to add. Can someone else with that ability add him in? It doesn't make sense to have "List of Characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance" instead of Ike. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GEM036 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop vandalism

As of King Dedede being added to the roster, there are 35 articles in this category. If any are removed, please revert them. Thank you. The T 16:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And Olimar is 36. The T (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not vandalism, see discussion with no consensus. Inclusively, WP:CAT-RD tells us to not categorize redirects in this fasion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I've read on WP:CAT-RD, these categories are acceptable. Please point out where it states it doesn't. The T (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the very bottom of Wikipedia:CAT-R#When to categorize a redirect. We do not list characters by occupation. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In what sense is this an occupation? We're listing all playable characters part of this fictional world. What difference does it make that they happen to also be taken from other fictional worlds? This latter part is the entire reason the category should exist. The T (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Number of entries in this category

As of 2008, the number of playable characters from the Smash series is 42, plus the three pokemon, Squirtle, Ivysaur, and Charizard. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects in category?

Should the characters which are redirected be in this category? Join the discussion here. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)