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.
Listify This information is useful for those who wish to see Indian actors' impact on American cinema (I would broaden it beyond the less definable "Hollywood"). However, an "expatriate actor" style categorisation is not useful as such actors will typically have appeared in only one or two roles in that countries cinema, while performing more in their nation of residence and elsewhere. A category which aids navigation between, say, an actor who had a bit part in an American movie and an actor who has done most of their work in America is not very useful. SFB18:59, 18 February 2015 (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 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.
Category:Paralympic track and field athletes of Canada
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.
Strong opposeWP:ENGVAR violation. The parent category is called Category:Canadian track and field athletes; The proposed category changes the scope of the category from track and field athletes to all Paralympians, no matter what sport. Clearly this is wrong, since the category is not for all Paralympians, it is only for track and field ones. And we already have a category for all Paralympians. The proposed category name fails Canadian English, and fails defining the scope of the category. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTECategory:Paralympic track and field athletes of the United States follows the same naming method, and the parent category is "athletes (track and field)" clearly showing that there is not a naming plan only using "athlete". Further, due to the ENGVAR issues, using only "athlete" is highly ambiguous, so all categories for non-English-speaking localities (such as Germany, Brazil, etc) should all carry "track and field" either as a parenthetical term (as found in the parent category), or straight out (as found in the US and Canada categories). Only English-speaking localities should use a bare "athlete" should their variant of English indicate that. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 11:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per others on ENGVAR. In North America "athlete" is synonymous with "sportsperson". It does not necessarily refer only to track and field athletes. Resolute15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can see why this was suggested, given that all but two of the sub-categories of Category:Paralympic athletes (track and field) by country begin with "Paralympic athletes of". However, those two happen to be for Canada and the United States. This appears to be a naming convention for those two countries:
Seven category names containing "track and field athletes"
Also, the parent category uses "athletes (track and field)" which is found in other categories not specific to any country and categories specific to countries other that Canada and the United States:
Eight category names containing "athletes (track and field)"
A reason for this can be seen in the definitions of athlete and athletics, which shows the justification for the WP:ENGVAR issue mentioned by others. Finally, a change that I would support is moving it to Category:Paralympic athletes (track and field) of Canada which would match the formatting of the parent category, but that should probably be a discussion about renaming all categories with "track and field athlete" to "athlete (track and field)". -- Zyxw (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per engvar. I would also agree with the above that track and field be added to all categories because it would make them less ambiguous and wouldn't be wrong in the countries that do only tend to use athlete as people would still understand what they mean. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as change introduces greater ambiguity for Canadians. There is an imperfect solution in action here in that "track and field athletes" isn't exactly the same meaning as the European-style "athlete" (for example, wheelchair racer Emily Young McQueen doesn't compete in track in field at all). However, there is no way to easily express this idea in North American English – people read "athlete (track and field)" as "track and field athlete" anyway, which is also much more idiomatic. The current word choice is the best of a flawed bunch. SFB18:59, 18 February 2015 (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:Merge. The original nomination on February 6th by SnowFire (as seen here) did not include a courtesy notification of the nomination until almost a week after the nomination had begun. The notice given was very vague and mentioned no details. So this is an attempt to do it right this time.
The rationale for moving it back to the original set up is as follows:
Recently a merger (see archived discussion on the Ice Age block talk page) took place for all sets belonging to a block, as well as other sets (e.g. Core sets) to be merged into articles due to lack of content/significance. The consensus was clear that many sets were too minor to have their own page (see: WP:CFORK or not enough references existed to cobble together enough notable content. The result is that today we have articles for blocks and singular articles acting as a conglomerate for similar sets (see: Magic Core sets).
Merging the category to list individual sets does no favors in navigating Wikipedia, since all the sets belong to articles based on blocks. Listing individual sets would be redundant, with many forwarded links.
The previously mentioned archived "discussion" (I use that term loosely, since only one person discussed anything - the nominator) declared that "these sets are sometimes organized into 'blocks'" (bold emphasis mine). In actuality, the majority of all sets to date have been in blocks. And going forward with the imminent dissolution of core sets by the parent company, all sets will belong to a block structure.
There are indeed some sets that don't fit into a block such as a handful of early sets (e.g. The Dark) but they are the exception, not the rule. Core sets themselves, while not belonging to a block have had their articles merged to one page. To list core sets separately when all the links would forward to the very same page would be excessive, unnecessary, redundant, and would accomplish very little. An existing page already exists listing all the nuanced sets can be found at the bottom of each Magic set/block related article.
A minor detail to add: Storylines in Magic are usually based around block structures. A new block is basically a new story being told. A set by itself really has no distinction from a block, but only serves as an episodic part of the greater whole that is the block structure or to introduce complimentary game mechanics to the block structure.
While you can argue till the cows come home that every expansion is a Magic set and that is more important for listing purposes, Wikipedia, on the other hand, has its own goals and structure. Sets have been determined to be insignificant for Wikipedia's purposes. For Wikipedia, the block structure makes sense for organizing articles. Any category for organizing articles should be based on the current setup of the block article structure.
A compromise could be made by renaming the category to blocks/sets (instead of one or the other) to encompass those minor sets that don't fit into the existing block structure. But I would argue that such a proposal be limited to listing only those handful of sets that don't exist in a block structure and for those sets that have solitary wikiarticles. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen and undo merge: There wasn't even a consensus for the discussion to be closed. ONE person participated in the discussion. An article about a MtG block is clearly different than an article about a single set, and that should be delineated as such by differing categories. pbp19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are articles named after blocks. The majority of articles including sets are actually articles on blocks. The aforementioned Ice Age (Magic: The Gathering) article states right up front that it is a block. Your inclusion of the Magic set list is just one article that is a conglomerate of the sets. Listing it as the lone occupant in a categories list page would be... well it would be many things. The current merger that categorizes them as sets, is listing mostly block articles. If the articles were actually individualized as sets, the list would be almost 3 times as large. Right now the current category is pretty much a de facto category for blocks except for some minor exceptions. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody, nobody is proposing that the articles be split off as individual sets. The Ice Age article, however, is an article on sets. So what's the problem? SnowFire (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Wikipedia doesn't care about sets, it cares about articles. The majority of articles on Magic sets are confined to articles on blocks.Leitmotiv (talk) 23:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-argument on "articles" below, but "majority" implies we *shouldn't* undo the merge. Let's have completely accurate categorization, not sometimes-accurate categorization. SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a "Category:Magic: The Gathering sets and blocks", to cover the random sets which have no blocks associated with them, or lists of sets (such as the Core sets page). I might also suggest considering a synonym of sets/blocks and then using that to generically reference a "set" of items and not necessarily an MTG "set" (could also just do it with "set" which would effectively be an 'oppose'). Thoughts welcome. --Izno (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from original nominator of the merge. Leitmotiv has a lot of points here, so the tl;dr version: all of these articles are on Magic sets. This is 100%, uncontroversially true. The "block" articles are in fact articles that are on 2-4 sets taken together. It is perfectly accurate to call them sets. [1] , the most recent set for example, has "card-set-archive" in the URL, "set information", etc. So Khans of Tarkir is absolutely a set; it is a list of 3 sets. It would be like claiming that a pack of 3 wolves are not a wolf, they are a pack, or that Orville and Wilbur Wright shouldn't have human-related categories, because they aren't humans, they're a pair. This is silly; we shouldn't keep "List of X" and "X" articles separate. They're all Xs. They should all just have Category:X.
Some more specific responses:
I agree with the merge of the smaller sets into one combined article for all the sets in the block. It's also irrelevant to this discussion. So what?
I'm not 100% sure what Leitmotiv is referring to with "many forwarded links", but if he means "create a categorized redirect for every smaller set", that is crazy and nobody is proposing that. I'm not proposing force-splitting the merged list articles either! As should be obvious from my original nomination, which mentions the merged lists of core sets...
A merged list is absolutely better for navigating Wikipedia. Once again, there is no fundamental difference between sets and sets-that-are-also-part-of-blocks. Why should they be separated?
It is false that there are no Magic sets that not part of blocks, and it's not even true going forward! Magic 2015 came out ~7 months or so ago, and there's an upcoming set called "Magic Origins" in July 2015 that is not part of a block. And who knows whether the producer of Magic will necessarily categorize everything into blocks for all time forward? This policy was a recent change, and they've made other changes before. But who cares? Even if all upcoming sets really are categorized into blocks, they're still sets, and we'll still have to deal with the many, many stand-alone sets from the past. See List of Magic: The Gathering sets for some of them. Our category system shouldn't falsely categorize them as "blocks", because they aren't. They're just sets. Sets that are in merged lists perhaps that aren't block-lists, like Magic: The Gathering core sets, 1993–2007.
I don't follow Leitmotiv's philosophical concerns, or see why there's a conflict here. I support organizing many sets into block articles. That's great. Why is it inconsistent to categorize them as sets, correctly? I suppose we can "argue until the cows come home" on this, but I just don't see the concern.
To move forward, let me add that while I think it's silly, a merged "Magic: The Gathering blocks and sets" category would be slightly redundant but not horrible, if it's really felt as so insanely important to call out the "blocks" aspect. I would be very much opposed to falsely categorizing the "solitary" 26+ sets that aren't part of blocks as "blocks", and am not a fan of undoing the merge either, as that implies there's actually some substantive difference between the likes of "Magic 2015" and "Theros", when they're both Magic sets that are not any more substantively different than "Theros" and "Khans of Tarkir". SnowFire (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key thing here is that you are looking at this from the view of a player it seems. Sure a set, is a set, is a set you noted on your personal talk page, but for Wikipedia's purposes, the list that is present on the Categories page is a list of articles. And because the articles on Magic are mostly structured around the block system, it would make sense to categorize them as such. The redundant links arises because if you list every single set, they all forward to the same block. So in a 3 set block structure, all three sets within a block are all directing to the same page. That is the redundancy.
I feel like the whole need for SnowFire's original merge is to create another duplicate list of sets. We don't need that. We already have a page dedicated to listing every single set. Having another list is not what Wikipedia is about. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with the ideas behind your argument... but feel they support my point, not yours. Caring about "blocks" is something certain players might care about (usually a different plot / setting for blocks... sometimes...), but isn't overly germane in general, they're a collection of cards you can go buy in a pack. So I'd argue that you're the one taking the "view of a player." As for how Wikipedia does categorization, I basically disagree. Categories mirroring the article structure is usually a *good* thing, and it's not redundant at all. And Wikipedia doesn't really care about article structure at all; it is exceedingly common to include both single entities and lists in the same category. The topic of the articles is what's important, not the structure. (To pre-empt myself, yes, there are a few weird categories that *do* care about article structure, e.g. Category:Lists of lists, but they are the exception, not the rule. In general, something like Category:Works by William Shakespeare is more common, which includes both compilations, Wikipedia articles listing the same information, and specific plays.) SnowFire (talk) 23:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking the position that article structure should weigh heavily in what a list is all about so as to avoid redundancy. Wikipedia cares about blocks because sets aren't noteworthy enough such that each can have their own article. Why should we make a category on unnotable subject matter? Sets are heavily dependent on block structure and most articles on Magic revolve around blocks (its these references that allow the articles to stick on Wikipedia instead of being deleted). We don't need the extra clutter. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitmotiv: So what exactly is it you're proposing? Pbp seemed to favor undoing the merge and having the situation where we strictly separate Unglued vs. Urza's Legacy. But looking at your original nom again, it sounds like you are advocating actually just changing the name of the combined category to "blocks?" I've said it before, but let me stress again that this is flat inaccurate, even if all stand-alone sets are in merged lists. "Blocks" does not mean "has a Wikipedia article that covers multiple sets", it means "is in a block as designated by Wizards of the Coast." But perhaps I'm misunderstanding the proposal.
I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, so for PBP I am assuming he thinks your original proposal to merge should be undone for lack of consensus. You misunderstand the redundancy issue I've raised. The redundancy is not between the list and the categories. The redundancy is from all the entries that would be on the category page. For instance, if you have an entry to Return to Ravnica, Gatecrash, and Dragon's Maze they will all be pointing to the same article (the Return to Ravnica block page). That is the redundancy. It's a category page, listing sets, but don't link to set pages (for the most part) but mostly block pages. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know what pbp was advocating, I was asking what exactly you were advocating. Do you want to "undo the merge" or create a unified category named "blocks"?
I think at the very least, your original merge should be undone for lack of consensus. If that is accomplished by this proposal here, or just a general reversal based on the fact there was no consensus doesn't matter to me. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire:@Purplebackpack89:@Leitmotiv:@Oculi:@Izno: I know nothing about the subject, I was just curious why this discussion hasn't been closed yet. After reading a number of articles from the category, I noticed for some articles "block" is a defining characteristic and for others "set" is a defining characteristic. The most obvious solution is to split the category in two categories, one for blocks and one for sets. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2015 (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.
