Talk:Aggsbach Charterhouse

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aggsbach Charterhouse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723130413/http://www.mom.findbuch.net/php/main.php?ar_id=3263&action=.&kind=t&id=7&be_id=1&source=rechter to http://www.mom.findbuch.net/php/main.php?ar_id=3263&action=.&kind=t&id=7&be_id=1&source=rechter

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1782 disestablishments in Austria

@Fram and Liz: I propose that this article be deleted from Category:1782 disestablishments in Austria. It is already categorised to the Hapsburg and Holy Roman Empire categories. While it is located in territory that is currently situated in the Republic of Austria, it was not disestablished during the existence of the Republic of Austria since that republic was only established in 1918. Perhaps the category was intended to cover the Archduchy of Austria; if so, the category should be renamed for that purpose. Meanwhile, the article is manifestly in the incorrect category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the Austria category should be kept, as decided at the CfD you started but where consensus was against you: and the two other categories should be removed, as the Austris cat is a daughter of both. Fram (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram and Liz: The CFD decided no such thing. Each individual article stands on its own merits. The CFD recommended the creation of categories that were more precise in terms of geography and time period. this i did with Category:Establishments in the Empire of Austria (1867-1918). I have also done the same for states of the Holy Roman Empire prior to 1867. As a result, this and other articles are now correctly categorised. I would remind you that the Republic of Austria did not exist in 1782. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's why no categories are created for the Republic of Austria in those years... Your definition of "more precise" seems to exactly match the rejected result you wanted at the CfD, and is "more broad", not "more precise". Fram (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the CfD did not "recommend" anything, the CfD ended in "No consensus" plain and simple. If a CfD ends in "no consensus" to delete cats, and the very next thing you do is empty those cats anyway and proceed with your own rejected recommendations, then you are being disruptive. Fram (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was a sensible recommendation from an editor with wide experience in these matters - @Marcocapelle:. He wrote, "There certainly was an Austrian Empire, since 1867 as one of the constituent parts of Austria-Hungary. As we allow year categories for constituent parts in general (e.g. for Wales) there is no reason why we should not do that for Austria as well.". Nobody contradicted him. I took that as a mandate to put it into effect. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree that no categories for the Republic of Austria should exist for 1782 ("That's why no categories are created for the Republic of Austria in those years."), then why persist with an ambiguous name that can only lead to the conclusion that it does in fact refer to the modern state? There is an easy way to avoid that error by the way... Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you had succeeded in convincing people that it was an "error", the CfD wouldn't have closed as it did. Relitigating the discussion here won't change the outcome. You disagree, that's clear, but sometimes one has to accept that their position, even if it is the "correct" one and the consensus is wrong, is not an accepted one, and move on. Fram (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: It may be useful to seek a Request for Comment at this time as we just seem to be talking at each other without really listening. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You tried a CFD, it had no consensus for your proposed deletions. Multiple people have asked you at your talk page to stop implementing that failed proposal anyway. For some reason, you don't react at your talk page but at this article talk page, which is weird. You are free to start an RfC of course, but until then, please stop your disruption and accept the advice you have received on your talk page. Worse, you tried the same two years ago, and didn't get consensus then either[1]. This is looking worse and worse by the minute. Fram (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about the categorisation of this article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus to give this a procedural close as the broader issue is being discussed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article be categorised to Category:1782 disestablishments in Austria? It is already parented to the Hapsburg and Holy Roman Empire categories (Category:1782 disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:1782 disestablishments in the Habsburg Monarchy). Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to start a separate RfC about every article where you are editing to impose your preference despite not finding consensus at CfD just weeks ago? What a completely impractical way to proceed. In any case, the "Austria" category is a daughter of the two others, so instead of those two it just can have the one for Austria, which means adding more information in the category tree with less category clutter in the article.

Procedural close, this is happening on many articles, has been at CfD, and is now at WP:ANI#Emptying categories out of process. A single-article RfC about the same is not helpful. Fram (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1)"Are you really going to start a separate RfC about every article". No. This is a test case. (2)"not finding consensus at CfD". CFD is about categories. This is about an individual article. (3)"the "Austria" category is a daughter of the two others". It can only be a daughter after it is born. It was born in 1918. (4) You had your opportunity to talk above. This is now the space for others. please allow them the time and space in a non aggressive way. Thank you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you start an RfC with "should this article" etc, then it is invalid for other articles, no matter what the outcome. And you have to make up your mind; at the ANI discussion, you claimed "it's a pity that the nominator chose not to engage in a meaningful way with it", but here, you want me to shut up? That's not how this works, and that's not for you to decide. I'll not even engage with your points two and three, as they don't make sense. Fram (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boisterously demanding a Procedural close is not meaningful engagement. It's just designed to bully disinterested third parties from participating. In the case of a RFC, the best engagement that you could have done would have been to have quietly logged your vote with a simple rationale and then withdrawn. You have done neither of these things. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is "procedural close". How this would "bully" third parties isn't clear, it's not as if people participating here face any consequences over ignoring (or supporting) my proposal. The only one bullying here is you, with your repeated comments that I should leave this discussion. Fram (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Summoned by bot) Comment: I don't see the point in discussing this here. This is a general problem of a whole class of categories. MarioGom (talk) 15:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Came here from ANI. None of this makes any sense really - this was just at CfD, and a proper child category applies to this article, so the correct course of action is to actually delete the Habsburg and Holy Roman Empire categories as superfluous. Since these were added 1 April 2021 by the nom, this shouldn't be a problem. SportingFlyer T·C 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment makes no sense. If "Austria" was a proper child, there would be no need for this RfC. We need the RfC to discuss the whether or not it is a proper child. Please advance arguments that it is a proper child. Re "the Habsburg and Holy Roman Empire categories as superfluous", that is not the question here. They are long standing categories not created by me. Nobody, until now, has suggested that they are superfluous. See related CFD here. Pinging contributors to that CFD @Fayenatic london, Fram, and Marcocapelle: Please advance arguments for this position. @SportingFlyer:.Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You wrote: It is already parented to the Hapsburg and Holy Roman Empire categories (Category:1782 disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:1782 disestablishments in the Habsburg Monarchy). You added these categories to the article this month, it's been at Austria since at least 2012, and Austria is a proper sub-categorisation of the two parent categories. I have no idea why there's conflict here or why all the forum shopping is going on. SportingFlyer T·C 12:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This is not forum shopping. See my comments indented below. (2) What's wrong with adding those categories? I did not create those categories. They are long-standing categories. (3) How is Austria a proper category? It was created in 1918 and did not exist in 1782. (4) The Holy Roman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy by contrast did exist and ruled those territories at that time. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close – per WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Mathglot (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that disputes on articles were supposed to go to the talk page in the first instance. No? This is what happened here. The next escalation step is RfC. No? Please indicate what is the proper escalation procedure if not these. @Mathglot:. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.