Template talk:Non-diffusing subcategory

Rewording

I'd like to propose a rewording of this template, which is currently linked to a few hundred pages ([1]).

Currently, it says all articles can be found in the parent. This isn't the case, however, where the parent also has diffusing subcategories.

For example, Category:American politicians has several diffusing sub-categories, such as by-state. It also has a few non-diffusing children, like Category:American women in politics. We should be able to mark Category:American women in politics as a non-diffusing category, even if the parent is empty. As such, I propose we reword as follows:

This is a distinguished subcategory of Category:X. It includes actors that can also be found in the parent category, or in diffusing subcategories of the parent.

I also think we should create a redirect for {{Non-diffusing subcategory}} to this template.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion seems good to me.

Do we plan that all categories will be tagged by at least one of the Category namespace templates — {{container category}} or {{distinguished subcategory}} among them?

The tool "What links here" formerly provided the option to select redirects only, iirc. Right? What happened? --P64 (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No - some/most categories are just regular old diffusing ones, in which case, no template is needed. A very few categories are non-diffusing, which is where this template comes in handy. Finally, container categories are numerous, but in some cases it's so obvious they are containers that we don't need to put the tag (there are I think 4k cats tagged as container, and I would estimate probably 30-40k that are actually container cats, or more...) - it's really just if people are confused or putting things into those cats that you should consider the container cat tag probably. Not sure about your what-links-here question, perhaps ask at village pump? OTOH, I bet there aren't more than 1000 true non-diffusing cats, but again, just a wild guesstimate. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Distinguished subcategory → Template:Non-diffusing subcategory – The common wording used on Wikipedia to describe categories that may be in both parent and child is "non-diffusing", not "distinguished", categories. This template should be updated to reflect this terminology and reflect the contents of the supporting guideline. SFB 15:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support; renaming the template makes sense to me. I don't understand why some of the examples given at the guideline page should be non-diffusing, but that's another matter. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Fayenatic london: I agree this is another area that needs explaining better. I would argue that non-diffusion should occur where the subject is not always the subcategory in all respects, but is always the parent more broadly. For example, Mike Scioscia is one of the Category:Manager of the Year Award winners, but that is not his job – it is not what he does; in all circumstances, he is more broadly the parent category: Category:Major League Baseball managers. The same goes for Category:Female heads of government and its parent Category:Heads of government. Another case is Category:Czech logicians – that is only one aspect of what people in Category:Czech philosophers do; the same people are also philosophers in a non-logician way. I will propose some changes when this is done (I'm getting involved in lots of discussions at the moment!). SFB 19:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support makes sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I understood that non-diffusing subcategories are those which are not diffused, i.e. where all members of its member-categories are categorised additionally. E.g. the Category:Bridges in New York City contains all Category:Bridges in Manhattan where Category:Bridges in New York City is the non-diffusing category and Category:Bridges in Manhattan is the distinguished category. The template for the former is Template:All included. I think moving this category to Template:Non-diffusing subcategory might confuse that relationship. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All included is different - all included basically means - every single one of my subcategories is non-diffusing. We also have cases where some subcategories ARE diffusing, while others are NOT - e.g. Category:American novelists has diffusing subcats of Category:20th-century American novelists and non-diffusing subcats of Category:American male novelists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could create something like {{Non-diffusing category}} for that purpose, showing the reverse relationship in the template text (which of the subcategory is the one that the non-diffusing relationship exists). But as Obiwankenobi says, I've rarely seen a parent category that is entirely non-diffusing for all its subcategories. SFB 06:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Intial discussion

Any reason why this template doesn't refer to "non-diffusing" categories rather than the uncommon "distinguished" phrasing? I propose we move the template to Template:Non-diffusing subcategory and reword the template accordingly.

sounds reasonable but I'd propose as an RM to get formal participation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Combining diffusing and non-diffusing boxes

FYI see Template_talk:Category_diffuse#Combining_diffusing_and_non-diffusing_boxes.3F. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Red links

The renaming of Category:Olympic athletes of Great Britain and similar categories to Category:Olympic athletes for Great Britain might have created a couple of redlinks in this template. All uses are probably not needed anymore since most Fooian sportspeople categories have been gendered since the template was added. Would it be possible to create Category:Wikipedia non-diffusing subcategories with red links as a tracking category to find and resolve the errors? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]