Well, PERFCAT does have a non-limiting parenthetical: "...(but are not limited to)..." in its sentence. And I think it applies here. I don't think you can find any meaningful distinction between "performer by performance" and "athlete by contest". I am not entirely sure that the other such categories you cite are really justifiable either, though if we do decide here that this criterion extends to athletes, I agree that some language to that effect should be added.Your obituary test might be a good argument for it being a defining category, except for the fact that on enough of those pages that we might as well assume it applies to all of them, you specifically wrote that the category is only for players who participated in any of their team's games in that Final Four, further limiting its potential reach. So merely being on a team that went to the Final Four isn't enough, you seem to have conceded, since (understandably) Perry Pinerider shouldn't get to call himself a "Final Four" player because he did little, if any, actual playing.
Which then introduces a more subjective criterion for the category: what, exactly, are we to deem "participating" in the games? Getting something measurable in the box score? So, then, a guy who gets in in the last minute of a garbage time game his team is losing decisively and then deliberately fouls someone so the stats show his presence on the court (I've heard this happens, even in the NBA) has "participated"? I can't wait for the talk-page debates on this sort of thing .
Looking at your obits, I also noticed two things about them: 1) they generally have some local reason to note the former player's passing and 2) they all note that the deceased was somehow a key part of that team reaching the Final Four. I would argue that it's not that they were on a Final Four team so much as that they helped that team get there that makes that Final Four appearance a defining characteristic.
Here's a challenge: if you can find obituaries of players on Final Four teams who mostly sat on the bench those seasons (and during the semifinal, and final if the team got that far), from well outside their local markets, players who never played organized basketball after college, and if there are as many of them for which this is true as it is for players who went on to pro careers afterwards, then you might have a point about it being a defining characteristic.
Even still, I could see two other OCAT sections these might fall foul of: WP:OVERLAPCAT (which does mention a sports example, i.e. MLB All-Star players) and WP:NARROWCAT. I admit that in this case the former is more constrained in its relevance because no player could possibly be in more than four of these (is anyone? I know some, especially Wooden-era UCLA stars like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, are in three), but I still think that could be enough to apply. As for NARROWCAT, 48 potential members tops is still a rather small fraction of the men who play college basketball every year. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A few comments since I am on way out the door for the day:
- I really don’t see the parallel with WP:PERFCAT. That guideline gives examples like “Actresses who have appeared veiled,” “Actors who have played Dr. Who,” “Actors by series” (such as MASH) and “Fictional characters played by Johnny Depp.” I am sorry, none of those are a clear parallel to sports. Again, if the category is meant to apply to sports, it should either be rewritten to include a broader set of examples that actually show sport vs. arts or write a guideline (using consensus) around “competition by competitor” pertaining to athletes. “But not limited to” is not a universal statement allowing reach into anything remotely similar. Rikster2 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To make a clearer PERFCAT analogy: imagine Category:Actors who have appeared in Best Picture-winning films. Or to make it more exact, Category:Actors who appeared in films nominated for Best Picture in 1985. As I type, I expect those to come out red. I don't see how one could distinguish them from these cats under discussion, or decline to apply the same logic, just because they concern sports rather than the performing arts (and at bottom, these are both public entertainments—yes, in one you keep score and award championships to the winners, but I don't see that as a difference significant enough to exempt sports categorically (ahem) from PERFCAT.
No, "but not limited to" is not limitless in its application, but it is in there because it has some application outside the stated examples; IMO it is broad enough to encompass sports as well as performance. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the problem, one has to really stretch to make PERFCAT fit an athlete vs. a fine arts figure. Why would the description specifically read "actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), comedians, dancers, models, orators, singers, etc." instead of " actors/actresses (including pornographic actors), athletes/coaches, politicians, businesspeople, educators, etc.?" Why are 100% of the examples fine arts ones? The guideline has been around for YEARS and sport articles are in the tens of thousands. You are basically making another WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument based on who the Arts wikiprojects have chosen to categorize. "Performance" is not "competition." They are two different things with different qualities. Rikster2 (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The categories have an objective standard for inclusion - despite your confusion, “appearing” in a game (the categories don’t say “participated,” as you wrote above) is clear. If a player checks into a game, they have played in it, regardless as to whether they generated any statistics - and they’d appear in a box score as such so it’s verifiable.
- OK, I quoted incorrectly, but I'd argue that's a distinction without a difference, as your definition of "getting off the bench" means basically the same thing AFAIC. The salient point is that you limited the categories to players who do more than get dressed and sit on the bench (What about players who were injured? Certainly there are some examples, especially of players who later went on to successful NBA careers, who were on injured reserve while their teams made the Final Four. Do they get to be in these categories?) Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this an important point in determining whether or not these categories should exist? Hint, it isn't, you could define the category either way. The point is that criteria for inclusion needs to be clear, and it is for all of these categories. Rikster2 (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no standard that says a category must make a person notable. There IS a standard that categories should be “defining.” I’d be willing to bet that a non-notable person DOES mention appearing in a Final Four in their obit, but it doesn’t really matter as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for notable subjects. We have a category for “Yale University alumni,” but that certainly doesn’t mean that every Yale alum must be notable for the category to exist. So, no, I don’t need to go find obits for non-notable players to justify these categories existence.
- And I'll say it again: I am not convinced that being on a team that made the Final Four is a defining category (And there are a lot more Yale alumuni who could potentially be so categorized than there are former Final Four players).
To go back to what started this, if we were to consider Gavin Smith's notability as deriving strictly from his college basketball career, I think his still-standing scoring record at Hawaii far outweighs his minimal contribution to UCLA's championship teams the two years before that (In fact, a fellow editor said as much to me at a meetup at the time as I was justifying why I had created an article on him rather than his disappearance). Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone can be notable on several fronts. Smith likely first met WP:GNG as a high school All-American, actually, not as a college player and not as a film figure. He then became notable in both of those other arenas. Also, a category does not have to be THE ONLY defining thing in everyone in it's life. Mike Warren would have been notable as an All-American basketball player even if he'd never been heard of again. He would have been notable if he'd come out of obscurity to become a television actor. The category is defining for MANY. If there are a few exceptions where other things are "more defining" that doesn't mean the category is not a defining one overall. For example, Gavin Smith is in the UCLA Bruins men's basketball player category. Under your logic that should be removed because that isn't defining FOR HIM. That's bogus reasoning. The category is defining for the majority of people in it, and it applies to him. Rikster2 (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You aren’t actually correct on the obits. Without going back to look I know at least three are national sources or from different states than the college who the person person played for attended. One I know to be the case is Len Chappell, for whom I used a New York Times obit.
- While the Times is a national source, I think that its interest in running a lengthy obit on Chappell can be explained by this one sentence: "Len Chappell, an All-American at Wake Forest who became an N.B.A. All-Star forward with the Knicks", making his life and career local to New York. The Courier-Journal obit likewise is about a former player on one of ... Louisville's Final Four teams, and the one from Nebraska is about a guy from Iowa, just across the river from Omaha. Yes, two are from national sources, but if the Final Four was so defining in a player's life I'd expect all the obits of former Final Four players to have run in national sources. Daniel Case (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Chappell's Final Four appearance in the state of North Carolina is not necessary information in an obituary in a paper local to where he played professionally. It would not be in there if not defining to who he is. Once again, you are conflating "notability" with "defining." The question isn't if Chappell is notable (he is btw), it is if the Final Four appearance is defining. You maybe could make the case that the obit was only from the perspective of his local paper if I'd used the Winston-Salem Journal, where Wake Forest University is. To that readership, they may mostly know Chappell as a college player who led the school to a FF. That's not the case with the NY Times. Also, ESPN.com and MSN.com are national sources. For the Nebraska-Iowa thing, that player's notability comes solely from his college career (he was an All-American player at Iowa), so given that of course the Final Four appearances are defining. Rikster2 (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists when I write my argument, and explicitly said so. However, I was responding to your Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument that there were no similar categories for World Series or Super Bowl participants. I will also reiterate something you mentioned which is a key difference for a college-themed category vs. professional figures. A college athlete, as you said, can only possible play in a total of four Final Fours. Tom Brady is playing in his ninth Super Bowl on Sunday. Rikster2 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]