Thread:Tupka217/@comment-10786238-20140427002515/@comment-220364-20140428024049

Hatebunny wrote: I think the salient point you always miss is that from a reader's perspective, the way that categories are navigated is "google search -> article -> category -> second article" not "site-search -> top-category -> sub category - > sub sub category -> article"

Nope. I get that. And I was working under the first information flow. My comment was that the reader won't get tripped up with a on the category page with a miss-match between labeling, "Characters", and the inclusion of non-character articles. The only reference the category would have to imply "Characters" is currently at the bottom of the category page, where I would not expect casual readers to go to hunt for articles.
 * Start with article A
 * Pick from the category list at its foot or the link in the powers
 * Read the top of page (optional) and pick article B and or more

I'm also assuming that a read would look at the categories at the bottom of a character page and make the assumption that the related to the character as a whole. From that point it makes little difference if the character is in "Wings" or "Winged Characters", they read as "This character is grouped with others with wings."

The issue at this point is less to do with readers and with the way the back end works. We've got two all but identical categories that editors are adding by different methods. And I do have a fairly good grasp of how minor a change to the templates it is to nix one of the categories.