Category talk:Taiwanese badminton players

RfC: double categorization

Whether players already in Category:Olympic badminton players of Taiwan (which is a subcategory of this category) should doubly be in this category. --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not a specific thing for Taiwanese badminton players. If one is looking through some olympic sportsmen categories (Category:Olympic competitors by sport) (for instance volleyball players, ice hockey players), everywhere the players are listed both in the olympic category and in the national category. And for me it seems, that a lot of people are satisfied with the current situation. Especially if there will be mixed into the categorization even more subcategories similar like the Category:Olympic competitors by sport (for instance competitors at Commonwealth games, World Championships, Asian Games...), the main country category will be more and more useless. So I am pro to keep this double categorization. --Florentyna (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: It also means, that this rfc is on the wrong place. It must be discussed at the Category:Olympic competitors by sport (or by country or generally at Category:Olympic competitors). It is not a specific Taiwanese or badminton problem. --Florentyna (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's not a specific Taiwanese or badminton problem, but right now that's what I think we need to start the discussion at. Without starting a discussion as to one category, I don't think we can ever reach consensus over a huge group of categories. --Nlu (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, that you will exclude all the other categories/people affected. To discuss this in a category, where very seldom will look somebody is not the right way to reach a global consense. One can (must) start it in one category, but not in this one. It must be a much "higher" one. --Florentyna (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree with Florentyna. Why not have them in those two categories? Don´t see an argument against it. Kante4 (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I usually do not do much with regards to categories so forgive me if I miss the point. I am in favor of having multiple categories as well. Athletes careers and National teams are multifaceted. There are going to be instances where a categories where the same person will be included in each category. For example each of the US Olympics Water Polo teams for each individual Olympics, plus a category for US Olympians at a given Olympics, plus a category for US gold medalists, silver medalists, and bronze medalists. I can think of at least three athletes who already fit into four different categories based solely on the above criteria. You could make the argument that Taiwanese badminton is not that established, but given how they have performed at major competitions recently I believe that is changing.--SargentIV (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

But the thing is, gold medalists are not a subset of silver medalists, &c. Here, all Taiwanese Olympic badminton players are also necessarily Taiwanese badminton players, which leads to a complete duplication. --Nlu (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I see what you are saying and I think that is a valid point. But as I mentioned above Taiwanese badminton is rapidly growing in depth and talent, many of these new players will undoubtedly deserve Wikipedia biographies yet will not make it to the Olympics. We should be prepared for that which is why I believe there should be separate categories.--SargentIV (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

No one (and certainly not I) is advocating the deletion of the category. What I am referring to is that having the players be in both categories make no logical sense and, again, promotes "category littering," if you will. When a person already belongs to a category B that is a subcategory of category A, it is not necessary for a person to also be directly in category A. Otherwise, most articles in Wikipedia will have people occupying a huge number of categories unnecessarily. See WP:SUBCAT for the general treatment. (I admit that the guidelines there indicate that occasionally there will be need for exceptions, but I do not believe that an exception is called for here.) --Nlu (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Because Olympics using a merit system, the players who have national background may not have a chance to Olympics, it is fine to have double categorization. If want to remove one of it, it will affect the the whole world (category). --Aleenf1 06:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Aleen, you wrote: "Because Olympics using a merit system, the players who have national background may not have a chance to Olympics, it is fine to have double categorization." The first part is true, but I fail to see how logically it creates any argument for truth of the second part. Yes, the Olympics is merit-based, and ...? Certainly part of that merit requires playing the game itself, so any Olympic player of any sport is going to be a player of the sport from the country that he/she represents. So why the double categorization? The entire point of the categorization scheme in Wikipedia is that when a subcategory consists of individuals who necessarily belong to a bigger category as well, moving the individuals in the subcategory and removing them from the supercategory reduces clutter and increases usability and readability. I fail to see how this is not the case here.

As far as changing it globally is concerned — if the double-categorization doesn't make sense, then it should be changed globally. That doesn't mean that it has to be done all at once. I've been removing many Chinese/Taiwanese athletes from the supercategories without objection for the last year or so; this is the first time I ran into opposition, actually, and that's why I requested a RfC. I still must say I do not see any persuasive argument for keeping the double categorization. It is not like that the tree is sufficiently complicated that anyone looking at the subcategory will be misled into believing that an Olympic athlete actually doesn't play the sport. There is a reason why WP:SUBCAT exists as a general guideline; while there can be exceptions, I don't see why there should be one here. --Nlu (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

(unident) Not having seen any further response to what I wrote on February 2, I am reverting. Again, please note the general rule in WP:CAT. I am not looking to wholesale change every article a huge category hierarchy, but let's organize these few articles pursuant to WP:SUBCAT, OK? Sorry if I'm ruffling feathers, but I think that this makes more sense. Further discussion, if there are counterpoints, are welcome. --Nlu (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

No. You are the only one pro, three are against. There is no reason to do this. --Florentyna (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

But "against" has to have proper rationale. I still see absolutely no rationale for going against the general rule in WP:CAT. The "making the category useless" rationale is counterintuitive; if anything, as explained on WP:CAT, the reverse is true. --Nlu (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)