Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 10 December 12 >

December 11[edit]

Non-free logos by subject[edit]

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: merge/rename all to remove "non-free", i.e. Category:Non-free software logos to Category:Software logos, Category:Non-free musical artist logos to Category:Musical artist logos, Category:Non-free logos of skeptic organisations to Category:Skeptic organisation logos, Category:Non-free logos of humanist organisations to Category:Humanist association logos. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: Logos are categorized by subject under the scheme of Category:Wikipedia images of logos. We do not need to create parallel category trees for free and non-free logos by subject, partly because nearly all logos on Wikipedia are non-free (free logos should be on Commons). All of the files are already in Category:All non-free logos, so a full upmerge is not required. Regarding the two 'organisation' categories, I do not think we should split Category:Organization logos by philosophy, but I suppose it would be fine for now to just rename them to remove "non-free". (Category creators (3) notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing the "non-free" in the category names seems a fine solution to me. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge, because many logos of Linux distros are non-free (SuSE, Red Hat), even if the software they distribute, is generally free (Red Hat software can be repackaged as CentOS). That is why I wanted to make the distinction in order to further the avoidance of user confusion. Because 'Logos of free software' is different from 'logos of freeware' and different from 'logos of open source (but not free) Linux distributions'. A non-free logo is distinct from the software that is free in code, as it is with Mozilla and Firefox; whereas GNU IceCat, a Firefox derivative, is completely free. Android also goes into this current category, though I don't know if CyanogenMod would, and I'd find it likely, that LineageOS would be termed as free, if its logo is not registered as a trademark. -Mardus /talk 18:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that, but I think the category adds to confusion. Nearly all software logos on Wikipedia are non-free (a free logo would belong on Commons), so why do we need a specific subcategory for software logos that are non-free—in other words, for an intersection of Category:Software logos (a reader-facing category of logos by subject) and Category:Non-free logos (a maintenance category of logos by copyright status)? -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2017 (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.

Sports related anime and manga categories[edit]

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: rename. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is some confusion on whether these sports related categories are subgenres of the Category:Sports anime and manga or if these categories are more akin to theme categories, like Category:Sports in fiction. While reliable sources will identify a particular fictional work as "Sports manga" or "Sports manga", they almost never identify an fictional work as "Baseball anime" or "Baseball manga". Some of these categories may even fail WP:SMALLCAT as only have no more than 4 or 5 members and two categories (Mahjong and Shogi) aren't even sports related. —Farix (t | c) 14:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom These are the sports featured in each series, not the actual genre of the series. Dimadick (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Category:Sports anime and manga is a category for genre and topic of manga at the same time. May it be, that Martial arts manga and anime is a genre as well, but the other sports are not (I assume, don't know). CN1 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom as defining categories this will still cover cases where the particular sport is a central or defining theme of the series. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - No harm in a rename here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI came across this while cleaning and and breaking apart the wrestling/professional wrestling categories. There is a lot of mixing of them between them and one is considered entertainment while the other is considered a sport. Can someone closer to this topic, such as the nom TheFarix please split these two once this issue is closed? I do not want to make the changes while the discussion is ongoing. Thanks - GalatzTalk 01:57, 22 December 2017 (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:Cinemas in Karachi[edit]

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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge the category. Störm (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2017 (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:Indian National Congress politicians by region[edit]

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) 08:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category which sorts Indian politicians by regions, all the remaining ones use state. Skr15081997 (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2017 (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:Indian National Congress politicians from Northeast India[edit]

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) 08:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are separate categories for Indian National Congress politicians from all the seven states of Northeast India;

All of the above are subcategories of Category:Indian National Congress politicians by state. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2017 (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:Cinemas and movie theatres in Sindh[edit]

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge the category. Störm (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If merging Category:Cinemas in Karachi goes ahead (see further up on this page), this nomination will be redundant. If that merge does not go ahead, support in order to remove a unnecessary additional category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2017 (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.

Years and decades in Belgium (up to 1200)[edit]

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: merge/delete all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the categories mostly consist of just one article. While the area of what currently constitutes Belgium was divided between France and the Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages, all the above establishments appeared to be in the Holy Roman Empire, so that's why HRE has been specified as a first merge target. Note, I realize there will be opposition against the second merge target, I've added it nevertheless for the simple reason that Category:10th-century establishments in Belgium etc. exist in WP and haven't been nominated for deletion (yet). Emptying a category is not a good idea when deletion is the actual purpose while deletion hasn't been discussed here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2017 (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.

Years and decades in the duchy of Brabant[edit]

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: merge/delete all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the categories mostly consist of only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2017 (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.

Years and decades in the county of Flanders[edit]

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: merge/delete all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the categories mostly consist of only one article. Note that in the Middle Ages the larger part of Flanders was a fief of the kingdom of France, not of the Holy Roman Empire. It seems therefore reasonable to merge to year-in-France categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query did Flanders not straddle both France and the Empire? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... The article on the County of Flanders mentions that it was primarily a French fiefdom for most of the Middle Ages. During the late 15th century and early 16th century, what remained of the County was inherited by the House of Habsburg. It was officially attached to the Holy Roman Empire through an agreement in 1549. All Counts of Flanders between 1482 and 1700 belonged to various lines of the House of Habsburg. The County briefly fell under the control of the House of Bourbon (1700-1706), was contested between the Houses of Habsburg and Bourbon (1706-1713), and then passed under Habsburg control again (1713-1795). The county ceased to exist in 1795, when annexed by the French First Republic. Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, the Scheldt was the border between France and the Holy Roman Empire in the Middle Ages and only some 10% of Flanders was east of it. It's quite hard to imagine for us that borders in the distant past were completely different. Another example is that all that is now eastern France, from Lorraine to the Provence, belonged to the Holy Roman Empire during the Middle Ages. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am familiar with some of the territorial changes over the centuries, but less familiar with who was the monarch that a feudal lord payed tribute to (and in some cases only lip service). The Duchy of Lorraine was contested between France and the Holy Roman Empire for much of the 17th century, and was finally annexed by France relatively late in the 18th century. The County of Provence (for which we have no article) belonged to the Holy Roman Empire, but several of its rulers were part of the cadet lines of the House of Capet. The title was eventually inherited by the Kings of France in the 1480s, and attached to their kingdom as one of various French expansions in the late 15th century. The expansions set the stage for the Valois-Habsburg rivalry of the 16th century, and I have read history books and novels about said conflict since my late childhood and early teen years. Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what leads to this conclusion. User:Dimadick discussed the centuries after the ending of the Hundred Year's War when France started eastward expansion. Until then, there hasn't been any controversy about the French-HRE border. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the 10% that was east of the Scheldt? Was it not that way in the 14th century also? If so, then the triple merge is needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was indeed. So I can 't argue that triple merge is wrong, I do think that triple merge is a bit exaggerated though. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a minimum step. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to elimante the ahistorical references to Belgium. If these categories become unmanageably large in the future, further division could be considered. Saying that, I know that these establishment by place categories are severly under created for many years, so there is lots of potential growth, although most of that in more modern times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 26 December 2017 (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.

Years and decades in the Burgundian Netherlands[edit]

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: merge/delete all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the categories mostly consist of only one article. Note, the merge targets have been dispersed between France and the Holy Roman Empire, dependent on geographical scope of the article in the category. If a year-in-HRE category does not exist, a year-in-Europe has been proposed as an additional target. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2017 (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:Disestablishments in the Hasmonean Kingdom[edit]

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). The discussion about Herod the Great is beyond this deletion proposal, it may lead to a new merge proposal though. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small Category Editor2020 (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think so, the Hasmonean dynasty ruled an independent kingdom as Israelite Kings-Priests, which in its final two and a half decades fell under the influence of Rome (63 BCE - 40 BCE) and then shortly Parthian Empire (40 BCE - 37 BCE). With the rise of Herod the Edomean, the Jewish religious leadership was practically discontinued and the reorganized kingdom became a Roman client state, increasingly influenced by Greco-Roman culture. With the death of Herod the Great his kingdom became a tetrarchy divided between his family members - primarily his three sons Achelaus, Philip and Antipas. From 6 CE to 44 CE the Herodian tetrarchy was gradually absorbed into the Roman Empire provinces of Syria and Judea and though the dynasty existed into the late 1st century (the last notable member was Agrippa II), it practically lost all control over Judea. The Hasmonean and Herodian kingdoms were hence differing in governance, nominal status (independence in Hasmonean case through most of its existence), territory, leadership origins and even religious demographics (strictly Judean under Hasmoneans and increasingly Greco-Roman under Herodians).GreyShark (dibra) 20:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite familiar with their dynastic history, but the Hasmoneans were already under Greek influence. Several of them used Greek names, such as Aristobulus, Alexander, Alexandra, and Antigonus. Their period represents Hellenistic Judaism at its height. Judea was already a Roman client kingdom since the conquests of Pompey, and Herod secured his right to the throne by marrying Mariamne I, a Hasmonean princess. Herod's descendants, while including several interesting historical figures, are largely irrelevant here. The Province of Judea was set up a decade following Herod's death and most of his descendants ruled minor realms. Herod Agrippa II reigned over the Kingdom of Chalcis and various areas of the Roman Middle East, but not over Judea. Dimadick (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there was not one but multiple co-existant successor states (the tetrarchy) is sufficient reason to disambiguate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Herodian kingdom dies with Herod himself (4 BC). I was not suggesting we should include the tetrarchs as monarchs. Dimadick (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2017 (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/2017_December_11&oldid=872002277"