Template talk:Container category

Option for more rigorous depopulation
The template text presently reads "a limited number of". In many cases I would exchange that with "no". Perhaps a parameter switch would make this possible within this template. I was actually contemplating creating Template:Parent category2 for this purpose alone, however, that will hopefully prove unnecessary. __meco 06:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Request edit by an expert
Can somebody please fix this template? There is an option for setting it to "mild" so that "only" is changed "mainly" but it doesn't work. Also, "only subcategories and possibly a limited number of directly related pages" does not make sense. If it contains only subcategories, it can't also contain something else. Perhaps the "and possibly..." bit should be moved into the "mild" option? Or perhaps the mild option should be default and an "only" option should replace it which makes the text read "Due to the scope of this category, it should contain only subcategories."?  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  11:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, this makes very little sense. I've made the change, as well as removing the word "possibly" altogether. – RobinHood70 talk 23:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The majority of categories with this template transcluded have one or two articles in them, usually an eponymous article. I think the mild option should be default, with the "only" option being the specified option.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  07:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's probably not a bad idea, although it means that all the non-mild pages would theoretically need to be re-examined to see whether they should follow the new default or be marked as strong. Oh and thanks for the grammar correction - that's a rule I'd never come across before (or perhaps had forgotten). – RobinHood70 talk 07:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The template seems to be used for two types of categories: topic categories with a lot of related articles ("mild") and "Something by something" categories ("strong"). However, the words "Due to the scope of" do not seem to fit well with the strong categories. They should not contain articles because they're categories for other categories rather than because of their size. Maybe the wording could be altered or perhaps we just need a new template.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  08:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy of the default message to Template:Category diffuse
Template:Category diffuse is basically the same as the default message of this template. Eventually, I'm going to go through every page in Category:Container categories and replace this template with Category diffuse or Wikipedia category where appropriate. After that is complete, I will make the strong parameter the default message.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  14:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've created Category:Weak container categories to contain container categories needing conversion.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  16:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've also created Category:Strong container categories. I have removed the "weak" default message and will do the same for Wikipedia category. Once the clean-up is complete, the new categories can be deleted.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  17:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

But why can Wikipedia category not be with the weak message? --DixonD (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Because Category diffuse is not necessary on most pages. It's fairly obvious that pages should be in appropriate subcategories rather than the parent category. Category diffuse can be applied to categories that are likely to get large amounts of miscategorisation but that's not that many. Category diffuse could be merged into Wikipedia category but I think the "category diffuse" message would be more obvious as a separate message box.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the main reason I disliked the weak message was that it gave two different definitions to "container category". It's easier to keep Category:Container categories for categories with only subcategories and Category:Categories requiring diffusion for others.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For example, categories about countries - are they container categories or not? For instance, Category:Angola marked as container category but it is clear that it should contain main article Angola. Weak message would be more appropriate while Category diffuse shouldn't be used in this case. --DixonD (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need a message box. We don't need to label every category with something. Just labelling those that should only contain subcategories and those that often get miscategorised seems sufficient.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't Category diffuse be used in that case? It seems appropriate to me.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  15:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In my understanding Category diffuse is used as temporary message box to show that many pages are not properly categorized in some category. And after that is done, Category diffuse should be removed and Container category with weak message could be put instead. That is how I understand using of those templates:) --DixonD (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Very large is the temporary message box, which may be replaced by Category diffuse if necessary.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  03:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Makesmaller and move to the right
Given the message in this template and that editors are a very small subset of the total WP readership I feel that this template should be less obtrusive. I would like to see it in a similar style to the interwiki boxes such as commonscat (although I would like to see an even lower visibility than that!). I have asked the same of Category diffuse at Template talk:Category diffuse. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wording too strong, where is the weak wording version?
This template says "should contain only subcategories". I need the template that says it should contain "mostly sub-categories with a few exceptions" or something to that effect like I believe it used to. Where is that template? Jason Quinn (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Belatedly – it's Category diffuse. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Tracking category
Is there any way we could introduce a tracking category that would highlight container categories which contain articles (e.g. Category:Non-empty container categories? This would help with clean up activities and clearly delineate the purpose of this template (should have no articles) vs. Catdiffuse (all articles should be moved to subcategories where possible).

I get the feeling that this distinction has not been made clear so the container one is used more widely than required. A quick look at Category:Container categories shows this to be obvious – Category:Airports in Africa is not a true container as logically it should always include the article List of the busiest airports in Africa. In comparison, Category:Airports in Alaska by borough is a true container, just like its parent Category:Buildings and structures in Alaska by borough, because no suitable article could feasibly be present in them.

Also, does anyone think we require a third template between the container and diffuse? In other words, ones that should contain no articles with the exception of eponymous articles and similar lists? SFB 10:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Combining diffusing and non-diffusing boxes
FYI see Template_talk:Category_diffuse. Ottawahitech (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)please ping me