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) 03:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish inventions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The member pages are all within Category:Jewish cuisine. – Fayenatic London 23:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We categorize inventions by century or by country, but not by religion or ethnicity — whatever that means in this case. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- If this were about the ethnicity of named inventors, I might have voted differently, but appropriate not for Jewish dishes. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Consent to LaundryPizza03 above. --Just N. (talk) 19:50, 25 November 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.

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 Siam for 1782–1938, rename others to Thailand. – Fayenatic London 11:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A: Rename all to Thailand
• Option B: Split Lan Na and other vassals into separate century/decade/year category trees
• Option C: Split Lan Na and other vassals, and rename the Siam categories to use Sukhothai, Ayutthaya, Thonburi and Rattanakosin, so that they correspond to the respective articles and main categories
  • C1: Don't use Siam at all, as it's ambiguous. Use Rattanakosin Kingdom up until 1938. (This is technically accurate, since the Rattanakosin Kingdom continues to the present day, though the term is rarely used to refer to contemporary times.)
  • C2: Use Siam for the years 1932 to 1938, when the country had abolished absolute monarchy but not yet changed its name.
  • C3: Use Siam from 1901 to 1938, arbitrarily dividing at the century line, which happens to be around the time the country was transformed into a modern nation-state with today's boundaries.
  • C4: Use Siam from 1872 1782 to 1938, covering the entire Rattanakosin Kingdom.

This probably needs a bit of background, so sorry for the lengthiness. The short reason is that using the name Siam to cover the modern boundaries of Thailand is inaccurate. The long version follows.

While Siam was the internationally recognised name of Thailand before 1939, and the names corresponded exactly to the same country then, things get messy as we go further back in time. Siam was used primarily by Westerners to refer to the successive kingdoms of Ayutthaya (14th century–1767), Thonburi (c. 1767 to 1782) and Rattanakosin (1782 onwards), and today some sources use it to cover Sukhothai (13th–15th centuries, coexisting for some time with Ayutthaya) as well. But as can be expected, the boundaries of these historical polities don't exactly correspond to the modern country. For example, Lan Na, today's Northern Thailand, was under Burmese suzerainty from the 16th to 18th centuries, before it came under the fold of Siam in the 1770s and annexed in the late 19th century. It's quite clearly incorrect that Lan Na is categorised under Category:13th-century establishments in Siam when they were very much separate back then. One way to deal with this would be option B/C, splitting centuries in Lan Na off into their own category tree, but this will also need to be done for every vassal state, likely resulting in a bunch of WP:SMALLCATs. Things are also complicated by the fact that the local mandala tributary system very much blurs the line between independence and being part of a larger kingdom. Alternatively, I'm also suggesting option A: just use Thailand for all history that falls within the area of modern Thailand. This is already the scope by which the parent Category:Centuries in Thailand is organised, and reflects some of the opinions expressed in this 2016 CfD, which resulted in using "Thailand" for the centuries before Siam came into existence. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging Polyesterchips, who has made quite a few recent edits in the subject area. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:
  • Issue of Siam and Thailand name: Siam and Thailand have the same meaning. I would argue that seperating between Siam and Thailand would make category complicated. So at first we should rename all Siam to Thailand, this is first step of all.
  • Historian, Thongchai Winichakul, wrote in Siam Mapped that boudary of the nation called Siam/Thailand emerged from Franco-Siamese War event in 1893. Siam beyond Rama V era, refered to Ayutthaya Kingdom and Early Rattanakosin era which is more of Mandala (political model). In my opinion, the states of Sukhothai, Ayutthaya and Early Rattanakosin were a political agenda of the status quo and conventional pseudo history. I suggest the category about Thailand would begin at Category:19th century in Thailand only since the real boundary of Thailand began in 1893 but some would argue that Rama I started Siam/Thailand as a Kingdom in 1782 so it can be as earlier as Category:18th century in Thailand instead. Beyond 18th century is not Siam as we understand today, because Thonburi and Ayutthaya were different such as a capital, royal bloodline.
  • If we want to mention Thailand in year 1892 then I suggest Category:19th century in Rattanakosin Kingdom since the Kingdom changed it status of mandala model to the nation in 1893.
  • comment for the options
    • Option A: would be to vague and not accurate but easy to understand that Lanna and other vassals were annexed states. In other perspective, amusingly, when you see category like Category:9th century in Thailand, there was no Siam/Thailand beyond 19th century yet.
    • Option C: similar to my idea as I suggest but I would change all Siam to Thailand since they are the same. (Just the name changing by Phibun)
  • Not just category but entire history of Thailand may has to be revised sometime because current conventional history came from right wing and royalist academic. Lately, there are more alternative history as I mention. (Thongchai Winichakul)--Polyesterchips (talk) 03:46, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While 1893 is widely recognised as a turning point in the development of the modern nation, I don't think it's regarded as a formational event marking the country's rebirth, which was very much a gradual process. Changing the category name at that point would still seem rather arbitrary, even if less so than option C3. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would go for C4.--Polyesterchips (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, potentially oppose, neither borders nor dynasty is decisive. Take France for example, it has continuously expanded in eastern direction since the 15th century and has had multiple dynasties, but it is still called France all the time. So the decisive argument is how (modern) English-language historians refer to it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This addresses the Siam vs Thailand question but not the scope issue. Continuing the France example, putting 16th century events in Alsace under 16th century in France wouldn't be desirable, no? The Siam category situation is a bit like having Scotland under 16th century in the British Empire. While the British Empire is the direct predecessor to the modern-day United Kingdom, it was a much different entity back in the 16th century. It seems you wouldn't be opposed to option B? I haven't done a survey of modern English-language historians, but off the top of my head it seems that for the 13th–18th century kingdoms, the capital names would be preferred, especially when discussing domestic/regional affairs. The name Siam isn't necessarily avoided, but would more likely be used within the context of overseas international relations. As the country became primarily engaged with the Western world and transformed into a modern nation-state in the 19th century, Siam becomes the primary term used. Rattanakosin doesn't seem to be used much in English literature (maybe partly because the capital is known in English as Bangkok). Use of the name Thailand when referring to pre-1939 or 1932 events seems rare. I guess this leans toward option C4—using the name Siam from 1782 to 1939. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• For the record, C16 disestablishments is now empty, as as Pattani Kingdom was apparently there only by mistake. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As with France, the boundaries changed from time to time, but it was essentially the same kingdom. A move of capital does not create a new country. We might have made the boundary slightly later when the name was actually changed (precedent: Upper Volta/Burkino Faso). Personally, I do not like the way we categorise UK as of England ceased to exist in 1707 and GB in 1801. Where a country has had a continuous existence it should (as far as possible) have a single category or set of categories. The parent should use the current name, so that "years in Thailand" should parent "1900 in Siam". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom mentions two roughly opposite methods: following current boundaries and name (option A) or diffusing according to historical polities (options B & C). Which of them specifically are you opposing? By my reading, you're opposed to using "Thailand" (option A), and to split names according to period (option C), with leaves option B as a viable choice—is this correct? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: or are you arguing to keep using "Siam" for the whole nominated date range from C12 up to 1938? – Fayenatic London 20:56, 26 December 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.

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: speedily deleted as G5 by Ponyo. (non-admin closure) Paul_012 (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fave TV affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Created by a sock of SPWTulsaOK1213, but even if that were not the case, I'm not sure this category needs to exist — all Fave TV affiliates are owned by CBS Television Stations, a corporate sibling to the network. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:14, 18 November 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.

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: no consensus. However, it appears that the category may warrant a purge of non-defining articles. bibliomaniac15 06:34, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People with dyslexia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorization by a non-defining characteristic. For the vast majority of those categorized, this diagnosis is trivial to their notability. User:Namiba 18:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see this as any different than the other "people by disability" categories. Is Category:People with HIV/AIDS defining? Or (ignoring the visible v. invisible disabilities issue) is Category:Wheelchair users defining? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 15:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with User:力 above. Dylexia is a handicap nobody should be ashamed of being born with. I'm even sure that our users are positively encouraged by seeing well-known people in Wikedia as related. No it's not a shame! The DEFINING aprroach is wrongly applied here! --Just N. (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one said anyone should be ashamed to have dyslexia. Everyone should be listed at List of people with dyslexia. Not one article in a random assortment of those in this category had their dyslexia mentioned in their introduction and nor should they. It is not defining (as Wikipedia defines it) for Whoopi Goldberg. In several cases, their dyslexia is not mentioned at all except in the form of a category.--User:Namiba 22:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: do you feel categories such as Category:Wheelchair users should also be deleted? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really considered it. Regardless, it sounds like an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. If you think this category should be kept, defend it by explaining why it is defining as Wikipedia defines the term.--User:Namiba 16:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay. Comparison to other topics can be very illuminating by revealing assumptions or unintentional biases that have been overlooked. Yes, the comparisons are more useful if the underlying assumption is spelled out, but regardless its still helpful to think through why you would remove one but not the other (assuming that is the case). --Xurizuri (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge then reconsider. It needs to be purged of all people for whom it's blatantly non-defining before this decision can reasonably be made. There are hundreds of articles in the category, I doubt anyone's checked all of them already. --Xurizuri (talk) 02:04, 15 December 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.

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) 03:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Anomalous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: doesn't seem like a useful category DirkJandeGeer (щи) 17:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't seem like the creator knew what he was doing and was attempting to create an in-universe category for the fictional universe already covered by Category:SCP Foundation. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yeah, I agree with Paul. Remove this anomalous category. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is unclear what this is meant to be about. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Useless and self-descriptive category. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 06:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Anybody able to explain the labeled statement "This is a maintenance category, used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project. It is not part of the encyclopedia and contains non-article pages, or groups articles by status rather than subject." for that? --Just N. (talk) 20:23, 25 November 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.

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. bibliomaniac15 06:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Southern Kings Pro14 players to Category:Southern Kings players
• Propose merging Category:Southern Kings Super Rugby players to Category:Southern Kings players

Nominator's rationale: Southern Kings have been disbanded so unnecessary to have competition split, especially as a number of these players have played in both Super Rugby and Pro14 for the Kings. It's not typical of rugby union categorisation to categorise by competition either (see Lions who have played Super Rugby and URC) for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge -- We should only have multiple categories for those clubs that have teams playing different sports, not merely different competitions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:26, 25 November 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.