Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 11

December 11

Non-free logos by subject

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.
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]
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

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]
  • Rename to Category:Cinemas and movie theatres in Karachi and populate. Störm, you didn’t give a rationale for upmerging. There is at least one other article about a theater in Karachi, which I have added to the category. However, the current name is inconsistent. 165.91.13.28 (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that with this merge Category:Cinemas and movie theatres in Sindh will become empty and can be deleted as well, together with its redirect Category:Cinemas in Sindh. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 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.

Category:Indian National Congress politicians by region

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

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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Indian National Congress politicians from Northeast India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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

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]
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)

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]
  • Propose merging Category:987 establishments in Belgium to Category:987 establishments in Europe, Category:980s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:10th-century establishments in Belgium
  • Propose merging Category:1060s establishments in Belgium to Category:1060s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:11th-century establishments in Belgium
  • Propose merging Category:1105 establishments in Belgium to Category:1105 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:12th-century establishments in Belgium
  • Propose merging Category:1130 establishments in Belgium to Category:1130 establishments in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:12th-century establishments in Belgium
  • Propose merging Category:1130s establishments in Belgium‎ to Category:1130s establishments in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:12th-century establishments in Belgium
  • Propose deleting Category:980s establishments in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:980s in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:987 in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:1060s in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:1100s establishments in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:1100s in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:1105 in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:1130 in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:1130s in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:Years of the 10th century in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
  • Propose deleting Category:Years of the 12th century in Belgium, container category, becomes empty after the above mergers
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

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

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]
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

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

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"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 11, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.