Category talk:Labor disputes in the United States

message: There is no reason given as to why all labor disputes should be included in this category as well as the appropriate sub-category. Most disputes have been local in nature; a certain group of workers strikes against their company or in a specific location. If an article is about a nationwide strike, I can see including it in this category as well as the state-based category. However, per WP:DUPCAT, "the general rule [is] that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory."--User:Namiba 15:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The rest of MOS sentence quoted above reads ": there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory."  That is very clear.  There is nothing in the MOS that in any way discourages the use of 'all included' categories; the MOS just describes how to set them up.  And yes, there is good reason to have this category be an 'all included' category: there is otherwise no way for the reader at the US level to see ALL the labor disputes that have occurred in the US national economy.  Much easier for the reader than having to wade through 50 state sub-cats plus Washington, D.C.  This category has been marked as 'all included' for six years now with no objections and with many editors continuing to add articles to it.  As the purpose of any category is to aid navigation to articles, this being 'all included' serves that purpose. Hmains (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's compromise: if the strike is national in scope, it should be included in this national category and any state-based categories where it makes sense. However, if the strike is a primarily local or state affair, it should only be categorized in the state-based category. This conforms with the "general rule" described above as well as the standard across Wikipedia.--User:Namiba 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I agree with Namiba on this (or would apply stricter rules). "All included" unnecessarily complicates categorization. If you want a single list of all the articles that are in a category (including its subcategories) then use a tool such as PetScan. DexDor (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The MOS as currently written allows for and does not restrict use of 'all included'.  The 'general rule' sentence is then followed by the text of exceptions to it.  'All included' exists for thousands of categories.  What I think I see here is a denial of the current MOS to meet some personal goals of a real/imagined prior use of categories.  In bad faith while this is being discussed here, I see that articles are still being removed from this category to meet these personal goals.  It is not that I need to see all the articles being in this or any other category; it is for the usefulness to WP readers, which is the purpose of categories--readers who would certainly not know anything about PetScan or something else not visibly available to the readers.  As editors, we should concentrate on helping readers, not ourselves.  Hmains (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

text: There does not seem to be any reason to attempt to place here all labor disputes already present in a subcategory (e.g. by state). Doing so would defy the purpose of Wikipedia categories. I do not see any rationale for making this category an exception to WP:SUBCAT. The editor in favor of this all included approach should perhaps be interested in creating a list instead, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. Place Clichy (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diffusing