Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 8

August 8

Category:Centenarians

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The age to which one lives is a non-defining characteristic. For the overwhelming majority of people who live to 100 years old, it is completely trivial to what makes them notable. Surveying those belonging to this category, it is quite uncommon for them to be called a centenarian at all. For context, this discussion began on another recent nomination so please read that discussion before commenting. User:Namiba 20:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion resulted in no consensus. How can you claim that something which is not even mentioned in most articles is a defining characteristic? Left-handedness and blonde hair are arguably more defining than the age to which one lives in most cases.--User:Namiba 20:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no consensus leads to keep. It would be a wholly incompetent obituary that did not mention centenarian status. Also Category:Centenarians by nationality and all its subcats should be nominated as otherwise they are left unparented. Oculi (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Survey the hundreds of biographies tagged with these categories and you will see that a majority of them do not. Is this because they're overwhelmingly "wholly incompetent" or because it's non-defining and trivial? If no sources comment on it (and they usually do not), then what place does it have in our encyclopedia?--User:Namiba 23:05, 8 August 2021 (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.

Rulers of Austria

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 all. – Fayenatic London 09:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good work,'RandomCanadian. Sadly there are now unmerged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:16th-century rulers of Austria
Nominator's rationale: "Austria" did not exist in the 16th century. At that time, it was a state called the Archduchy of Austria within the Holy Roman Empire. All members are already listified in List of rulers of Austria (probably erroneously). All members are already members of Category:Archdukes of Austria and of Category:15th-century monarchs in Europe so there is no loss of information. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:15th-century rulers of Austria
Nominator's rationale: "Austria" did not exist in the 15th century. At that time, it was a state called the Archduchy of Austria within the Holy Roman Empire. All members are already listified in List of rulers of Austria (probably erroneously). All members are already members of Category:Archdukes of Austria and of Category:15th-century rulers in Europe or to Category:15th-century monarchs in Europe so there is no loss of information. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:14th-century rulers of Austria
Nominator's rationale: "Austria" did not exist in the 14th century. At that time, it was a minor state called the Duchy of Austria within the Holy Roman Empire. All members are already listified in List of rulers of Austria (probably erroneously). All members are already members of Category:Dukes of Austria and of Category:14th-century rulers in Europe so there is no loss of information. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:13th-century rulers of Austria
Nominator's rationale: "Austria" did not exist in the 13th century. At that time, it was a minor state called the Duchy of Austria within the Holy Roman Empire. All members are already listified in List of rulers of Austria (probably erroneously). All members are already members of Category:Dukes of Austria and of Category:13th-century rulers in Europe so there is no loss of information. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:12th-century rulers of Austria
Nominator's rationale: "Austria" did not exist in the 12th century. At that time, it was a minor state called the Margraviate of Austria within the Holy Roman Empire and later elevated to the Duchy of Austria. There are only 6 articles. All are already members of Category:Margraves of Austria or Category:Dukes of Austria as appropriate so there is no loss of information. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note all members have been individually added to Category:12th-century rulers in Europe to prevent info loss on deletion. Note also, despite the misleading article title, there were no rulers of Austria in the 12th century. The Margraviate (& Duchy) included lots of places not in the modern state of Austria and excluded lots of places that are in the modern state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:11th-century rulers of Austria
Nominator's rationale: "Austria" did not exist in the 11th century. At that time, it was a minor state called the Margraviate of Austria within the Holy Roman Empire. There are only 5 articles. All are already members of Category:Margraves of Austria so there is no loss of information. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note all members have been individually added to Category:11th-century rulers in Europe to prevent info loss on deletion. Note also, despite the misleading article title, there were no rulers of Austria in the 11th century. The Margraviate included lots of places not in the modern state of Austria and excluded lots of places that are in the modern state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:10th-century rulers of Austria
Nominator's rationale: "Austria" did not exist in the 10th century. At that time, it was a minor state called the Margraviate of Austria within the Holy Roman Empire. There are only 3 articles. All are already members of Category:Margraves of Austria so there is no loss of information. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note all members have been individually added to Category:10th-century rulers in Europe to prevent info loss on deletion. Note also, despite the misleading article title, there were no rulers of Austria in the 10th century. The Margraviate included lots of places not in the modern state of Austria and excluded lots of places that are in the modern state. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments/!votes
  • Oppose all Modern Austria (the country as we know it) didn't exist, correct, but that's irrelevant. Countries changed/evolved/lost or gained status throughout the centuries before settling in their modern form. The fact is, "Austria" is the name commonly used to refer to this entity, ruled throughout much of its history by the Habsburgs (the continuity here is rather clear). The nomination seems, at best, somewhat pedantic in this regard. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, we might instead discuss upmerging all Rulers by country and century categories, as they always remain quite small. In contrast to other occupations, there is usually only one ruler of a country at a time, thus limiting expansion possibilities. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks @RandomCanadian: for grouping the noms - very useful. I had thought of making a group, but since each involved a separate state (margraviate / duchy / archduchy), I thought it best to do them singly. Regarding your rationale above ("Modern Austria (the country as we know it) didn't exist, correct, but that's irrelevant."), I must disagree with it; far from being irrelevant, it cuts to the very heart of the nominations; since, by your own admission, no such state existed at time, why should categories purporting to represent a non-existant state be permitted? Take for example Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, he is categorised as a Category:15th-century rulers of Austria. Yet he was also the Duke of Brabant, Duke of Limburg and Margrave of Namur: must we therefore create a new category called Category:15th-century rulers of Belgium? Maximilian was also Count of Zutphen, Count of Holland and Count of Zeeland: must we therefore create a new category called Category:15th-century rulers of the Netherlands? Maximilian was also Count of Artois, Count of Charolais and Count Palatine of Burgundy: must we therefore create a new category called Category:15th-century rulers of France? Maximilian was also Duke of Luxemburg: must we therefore create a new category called Category:15th-century rulers of Luxembourg? If not, then why should Austria alone receive exceptional treatment? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The situation in Austria is is not exactly similar to Belgium, because there was no Belgium in the 15th century, while there was an Austria in the 15th century which was the 'core' of what we nowadays call Austria. The situation in Austria was rather similar to 16th-century Russia, where Ivan the Terrible was tsar of Russia before Russia also contained Siberia. Probably a better rationale for this is that we shouldn't diffuse rulers by century and country if they are below the rank of king. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "we shouldn't diffuse rulers by century and country if they are below the rank of king". Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously disagree, because the entire category tree would be pointless. It would only serve as an empty parent to the monarchs' category tree. Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not how I envisaged it. I meant to upmerge dukes and counts categories, I have no intention to remove the categories altogether. After upmerging there will be a subcat for monarchs plus articles (not subcategorized) about dukes and counts. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austria in this regard is not much different from other medieval entities. The King of England was, for a while (after the Norman Conquest), also Duke of Normandy etc., and France didn't quite have it's modern shape either. Austria not only existed (the HRE is too complex an entity to get into fine nuances here), it clearly evolved, and there's a clear continuity, both through the ruling dynasty and the core territory, which is, unambiguously, the predecessor of the modern state. In addition to this, reliable sources certainly refer to it as "Austria" during this period, whether it be a duchy, margraviate, ... , so there's a clear COMMONNAME argument here. A subcategory of the European rulers one is certainly viable, and if it exists, and I along with others contend that this is perfectly acceptable, then "Austria" is the name it should be at. Obviously, if you disagree, there's no point continuing to talk past each other and we're better off leaving others to make up their own mind on this. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The continuity is more imagined than real. The original duchy only comprised the modern state of Lower Austria. What about the other 8 states? Are they less Austrian? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that countries "settle in their modern form" is ahistorical. Categories which are deeply entwined with political entities - like rulers - should have titles linked to the relevent political entity as it existed when they ruled it.Rathfelder (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- There has continuously an entity called Austria from 978 until today. Its extent may have varied, but it existed. In view of the comparative lack of central authority in Holy Roman Empire, it is wholly appropriate to have categories for the larger German states. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not imply that its helpful to categorise the rulers of these various entities by century - giving the impression that they were ruling the same thing.Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It is incorrect to say that there has been "an entity called Austria"; it is more accurate to say that there have been several entitles with "Austria" in their titles, each of which has differed from the other. @Peterkingiron: by you logic, Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor must now become a member of Category:15th-century rulers of Belgium, Category:15th-century rulers of the Netherlands, Category:15th-century rulers of France and Category:15th-century rulers of Luxembourg which is quite preposterous. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this way, I realize I should have voted earlier on, for more clarity. Austria expanded from a moderate-sized archduchy to a huge empire and shrunk back to the current republic, but there was definitely continuity. The last archduke promoted himself to emperor, and the Republic of Austria was the legal successor of the Austrian Empire. Vienna was the capital of Austria for most of its history. The nomination as it stands is flawed anyway because if not kept it should be a merge to parent categories instead of a straight deletion (but it does not look like there is going to be enough support for merging either). After this discussion closes I am planning to nominate the categories for renaming to Category:10th-century margraves of Austria up to Category:18th-century archdukes of Austria, but I guess this can better be left to a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, if you have removed any other legitimate archdukes from the category, could you please restore them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:37, 27 August 2021 (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.

Category:Cities and towns in Sri Lanka

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: delete (or merge if needed) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not have "Cities and towns" categories for any other country. We instead categorise populated places as cities (e.g. Category:Cities in Sri Lanka) or towns (e.g. Category:Towns in Sri Lanka). Obi2canibe (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2021 (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.

Category:Shreveport Pirates (baseball)

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: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:36, 8 August 2021 (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.

Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 10#Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia status

Category:Athletes (track and field) at the (Year) Summer Olympics

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. bibliomaniac15 05:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This stands out by its inconsistency (unnecessary use of parenthesis when there is a perfectly valid natural English alternative) from pretty much every other category in Category:Competitors at the 2020 Summer Olympics... (and so on for the other Olympics) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, notably because Athletics is the common name of the sport and track and field is an important precision to avoid misunderstanding. Those categories exist since 2004.--Arorae (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Those categories exist since 2004"? That's an undisguised appeal to tradition. "Athletes", especially but not solely in the context of the Olympics Games, refers to all competitors, and I don't see justification in your comment for the inconsistency with all the other categories. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (sports, especially Britain) A group of sporting activities including track and field, road running, cross country and racewalking.
  • (sports, especially US) Physical activities such as sports and games requiring stamina, fitness and skill.--Arorae (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, notably Olympic Marathoners and Racewalkers all belong to this category, but Marathon and Racewalking are neither track nor field. "Track and Field" is a common name with practical usage, but it cannot replace "Athletics". --阿pp (talk) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, marathoners and racewalkers are also included in the existing category, so at best your argument is one to split out the marathoners and the racewalkers from the existing category. That second sentence is a non sequitur, and I can't understand its relevance, because the proposed category rename does not do away with either of "athletes" or "track and field". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Athlete" is being used in the name as to mean "someone who competes in Athletics", while in the proposed name it is being used to mean "sportsperson". There's an important difference. Changing to the proposed name 1. is effectively negating the fact that the common name for the sport is "Athletics", replacing it with "track and field", an Americanism that has become adopted for situations when "athlete" became broader but isn't the IOC registered name: Athletics is the common name and so its derivative (Athlete) should be used. 2. The change to a format of "SPORT athletes at the X Olympics" from "DOERS OF SPORT at the X Olympics" would require all the other categories be changed in a similar way in order to match format (consistency!): "Swimmers at the X Olympics" would all have to become "Swimming athletes at the X Olympics". Boxers Boxing athletes. Cyclists Cycling athletes. Kingsif (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsif What you're doing is attacking a strawman, and an inaccurate one at that. The one sport that doesn't have a "Doers of sport at the Olympics" is this one. It should maybe be separated into sub-categories, ex. Category:Javelin throwers at the 2020 Summer Olympics; Category:Marathon runners at the 2020 Summer Olympics. What you're saying is that, essentially, [making a comparison], because "hockey players" is ambiguous, we should have Category:Hockey players (ice) at the 2018 Winter Olympics and Category:Hockey players (field) at the 2020 Summer Olympics (instead of the more natural Category:Ice hockey players at the 2018 Winter Olympics). Yes, "athletes" is ambiguous, but that doesn't support the rest of your argument. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your opening sentence is what's inaccurate, and your second sentence supports opposing. And nobody is saying that, not only is "Ice hockey player" the doer in ice hockey, but ice hockey and hockey are separate sports, your analogy is completely incomparable. Kingsif (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And what is a "Track and field athlete" but the doer of the sport in question here? Since "athlete" is ambiguous, we have to go for some form of disambiguation. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:42, 8 August 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_August_8&oldid=1073192837"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 8, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.