Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Slovenian Chetniks
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Montenegrin Chetniks
Clarified above? Merge targets are still not listed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C.
the name Highland is often not used as a proper noun, and local usage would be one of the following: the Highland Council Area, the Highlands, the Scottish Highlands, the Highland area or the Highland region. Alternatives would be Category:Small Isles, Highlands, Category:Small Isles, Highland council area or Category:Small Isles, Scottish Highlands. I'm still supporting option B, and why not go with option C if it has support among other editors. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
My opinion, though, remains that no disambiguator is needed.Place Clichy ( talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
If it is decided to disambiguate, the above suggestions of "Small Isles, Highland" are inappropriate – per WP:UKPLACE we use districts as disambiguators within Highland, so we would use "Small Isles, Lochaber".. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 15:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Slovenian Chetniks
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Montenegrin Chetniks
Clarified above? Merge targets are still not listed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Civil War defenses of Washington, D.C.
the name Highland is often not used as a proper noun, and local usage would be one of the following: the Highland Council Area, the Highlands, the Scottish Highlands, the Highland area or the Highland region. Alternatives would be Category:Small Isles, Highlands, Category:Small Isles, Highland council area or Category:Small Isles, Scottish Highlands. I'm still supporting option B, and why not go with option C if it has support among other editors. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
My opinion, though, remains that no disambiguator is needed.Place Clichy ( talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
If it is decided to disambiguate, the above suggestions of "Small Isles, Highland" are inappropriate – per WP:UKPLACE we use districts as disambiguators within Highland, so we would use "Small Isles, Lochaber".. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 15:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)