The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:moot. Speedy-deleted by @Bbb23 per WP:G5 (Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category fails WP:CATDEF. Most of these actors have had long and varied careers and these films just comprise a small part of their filmographies. Take Daniel Radcliffe or Sean Connery for instance: they are famous (and always will be best known) for Harry Potter and James Bond, but those parts don't define their careers i.e. they would still be notable by Wikipedia standards if they had done everything else except those parts. Very few actors have careers defined by a single part (William Roache would be an example of an actor whose career is defined by a single part) and having such categories is reductionist and mistakes fame for career-defining. Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further, the category name is meaningless to most who are not followers of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). If kept, it should be renamed. General IzationTalk 17:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even Speedy delete as this is a creation of a sock of CensoredScribe (talk·contribs). I'm off to file the SPI from here. MarnetteD|Talk 18:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention that this could use Salting as well. MarnetteD|Talk 18:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update. This cat has been deleted so this can be closed. MarnetteD|Talk 19:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: What exactly is supposed to be in this category? I have no idea how I would decide which should be included and what shouldn't be. Either we need some sort of guideline on what exactly this category means, or we need to bring out the deletehammer. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See main article Nothing. It is an important topic in philosophy. Dimadick (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if deletion is the best solution. However the category does require a lot of purging, since most of the current content is not about the concept "nothing". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge until there's... erm... only nothing left. (per Marcocapelle) Grutness...wha? 00:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So make sure there's nothing left by keeping nothing :-) A typical wiki solution for a wiki problem! Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question to purgers - How would anyone know what to purge or what to keep? This is why I ask what's supposed to be here. I would suggest putting a short inclusion guideline at the top of the category page, similar to Category:Nonexistent people. However, I have no idea what that inclusion guideline should say. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why we would need special instructions here, besides I doubt if instructions are being read anyway. The articles in the category should be about the concept "nothing", period. The article Abhava belongs here, for example, but Black doesn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need special instructions because I am perfectly willing to clean up the category myself, but I have no idea how to do it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not at all sufficient, because I have no idea what would define an article as nothing. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem, we do not need to define what "nothing" is, that's what the article is for. We just have to establish whether the article is about "nothing". Empty set is a set that contains nothing (see section Philosophical issues) and Ex nihilo is (creation) out of nothing so these are obviously articles about "nothing". While false accusation and humorless are not about "nothing", they are just about something that is lacking a particular property, so these articles should be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, would a rename by helpful? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only by making it more clear that the category refers to the state of nothingness (as a philosophical construct), not (necessarily) to the absence of anything (as, well, nothing). General IzationTalk 18:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of most of the included entries — the lack of something (e.g. "unemployment" as the lack of a job, "homelessness" as the lack of a home, "nudity" as the lack of clothing, etc.) is not inherently the same thing as nothingness, especially given that those are all things that can become unlacked as circumstances change — but I have yet to see anybody propose a clear and objective inclusion criterion that could be applied to sort out what would belong here from what wouldn't. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
I did wonder if there were other articles which could be added to the set to make by-decade categories viable, so I used Petscan to check. After excluding a few people categories, I found 135 pages ... but nearly all of them are there via Category:20th-century establishments in Northern Ireland/Category:20th-century disestablishments in Northern Ireland, so they are mostly ongoing things which shouldn't usually be a decades category. So I excluded the establishments & establishments, and Petscan left me with only 36 pages, all people.
Ok with me, except that "1910s in Ireland" should be "1910s in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland".GreyShark (dibra) 18:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean that you treat the joint kingdom of UK and Ireland as distinct categories, despite their union during 1910s? This is anachronistic and this is a typical WP:OSE.GreyShark (dibra) 16:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Most of these exist only to hold a cross-country competition. It is normal to split UK by its 4 home nations, which before 1921 includes Ireland and after 1921 Northern Ireland. We similarly split 50 states and various territories etc of USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator as overcategorization....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:04, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. ℯxplicit 05:27, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding WP:FOOTY consensus on player category naming conventions, 'players' should be used rather than 'footballers'. The article FC Bayern Munich is about the football club (not the wider sports club), leaving no ambiguity. This would then also match the naming conventions used by the other 242 subcategories of Category:Footballers in Germany by club. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: I urge you to consult a dictionary on the definition of "ambiguity". Also note that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is all about how to handle ambiguity, so a PRIMARYTOPIC is by definition ambiguous. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for a problem that isn't actually there... GiantSnowman 13:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: By your logic, if we redefine words to abolish their meaning, as you have done with "ambiguity", then we could abolish all the world's problems in a flash. Except, of course that in the real world the problems would still exist ... we'd just have lost the words to describe them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'FC Bayern Munich players' means somebody who has played for FC Bayern Munich - that is the football team. Where is the ambiguity there? WP:C2D exists for a reason y'know... GiantSnowman 14:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. You are making heavy going of this, so let me spell it out v simply.
'FC Bayern Munich players' means somebody who has played for FC Bayern Munich. We agree on that.
'FC Bayern Munich' also has a basketball team, so 'FC Bayern Munich players' could mean either a football player or a basketball player.
This quality of inexactness, or being open to more than one interpretation, is called ambiguity
You note that en.wp has chosen to use the page FC Bayern Munich to refer only to the football team. However that choice of an ambiguous name does not magically abolish the ambiguity; it simply reflects the assessment that the football team is the more common meaning of the ambiguous term.
In the real world, someone following basketball would be unlikely to express any surprise or concern at a basketball player for FC Bayern Munich being called an "FC Bayern Munich player". In a basketball context it is clear and unambiguous.
Similarly in the real world, someone following football would be unlikely to express any surprise or concern at a football player for FC Bayern Munich being called an "FC Bayern Munich player". In a football context it is clear and unambiguous.
However, en.wp is neither a football-only space nor a basketball-only space. The basketball and football categories share the same namespace. So "FC Bayern Munich player" is an ambiguous category name
See? Not so very complicated.
And WP:C2D says "If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply". This is ambiguous, so no C2D. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"FC Bayern Munich" (Fußball-Club – football club) refers only to the football team (never basketball, therefore no ambiguity). "FC Bayern Munich Basketball" refers to the basketball team. Therefore "FC Bayern Munich player" refers only to players of the football club, while "FC Bayern Munich Basketball player" would refer to players of the basketball team. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@S.A. Julio: that is what en.wp has chosen to name the articles. It does not reflect the plain English ambiguity of the terms.
I do wish you could step outside the en.wp box, and start looking at the ambiguity issue from a real-world perspective instead of focusing on the artefacts of en.wp naming policies. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does, actually. A quick news search reveals the basketball team referred to as "FC Bayern Munich Basketball" (or simply "FC Bayern Basketball"), or "Bayern-Basketballer". Never just "FC Bayern Munich", as this refers to the football club. Examples: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you can find such examples, but:
if you don't post the actual search link you used, all you are doing is presenting cherry-picked examples
No number of such examples alters the ambiguity
I am still disappointed that some editors seem unable or unwilling to understand the concept of ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a Google news search for FC Bayern Basketball. Not sure how it can be ambiguous when the football team and basketball section have different names. This is straightforward, "FC Bayern Munich" only refers to the football team, not just on Wikipedia. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oculi & BrownHairedGirl. Creates ambiguity with the basketball players. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GiantSnowman. No ambiguity here as far as I can see. Number57 10:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the fact that there are players of a different sport who also play for FC Bayern Munich causes no ambiguity whatsoever. Do you intend to rewrite the ambiguity article, or is this redefinition for internal use only? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose where two ambiguous categories can avoid ambiguity by using simple variants without a formal disambiguator it is clearly better to go down that route. There is a similar problem with Galataseri (probably misspelt) which engages in several sports; also Gaeolic Athletic Association clubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is really a matter of perspective, within the world of football Bayern München obviously refers to the football club, within the world of general sports journalism Bayern München without disambiguator also refers to the football club (because football is more popular than basketball), hence the links provided by User:S.A. Julio, but within the world of basketball Bayern München obviously refers to the basketball club, e.g. [11]. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I'd be interested to hear your views where there isn't another team with a Wikipedia article? GiantSnowman 07:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't matter in theory. In practice it probably will matter, because it will be less likely that a wp editor will notice the ambiguation in these cases. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oculi & BrownHairedGirl. Kingjeff (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
