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. – Fayenatic London 12:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:History of Spanish Sahara to Category:Spanish Sahara

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it has only one subcategory, and besides there is not a specific need for a history category since all of Category:Spanish Sahara is about history. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The target is already under Category:History of Western Sahara. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2015 (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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gaelic-language given names‎

Nominator's rationale: in contrast to e.g. Category:English-language given names‎, the nominated category is not a category for articles about given names, but instead it is a category for biographies about people with a Gaelic name. I presume the inclusion of biographies is not the intention of this category tree, basically it's a matter of WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but purge of biographies, articles on names are acceptably categorized by language, bio's are not. The contents of this category are mish-mash of the two. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep randomly reading the articles finds a mixture of given names and people. This means clean up by those who may be concerned with this, not delete Hmains (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but purge of biographies, Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but remove biographies and articles about names that do not purport a Gaelic origin. Sionk (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Purging completed, withdrawing the proposal to delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2015 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Memorials to Dhirubhai Ambani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Brand new category containing only a handful of companies founded by Dhirubhai Ambani (who passed away 13 years ago, not recently), with no clue to what kind of a memorial the category refers to. The companies in question also seem to be covered by Category:Reliance Industries. Thomas.W ^talk 15:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These aren't memorials. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete name does not accurately describe contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2015 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Establishments in the District of Columbia by year to Category:Establishments in Washington, D.C. by year

Nominator's rationale: The main category is Category:Washington, D.C. and the establishments in Washington, D.C. goes back to 1789 so this subset should be merged there. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Prior to 1871 Washington only covered part of DC and for that time frame the category should reflect such. It should not exist at all for 1789 but for that year any contents should be merged to the Maryland category. Events in Geogetown in 1789 no more happened in DC than events in Haifa in 1849 happened in Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs)
• Merge We went through this same debate recently. I don't think it makes much sense for such a small territory to have two separate category schemes, especially when there was no consensus to rename the other pre-1871 categories to "District of Columbia". This category was created while that discussion was ongoing, and it's acting as a bit of a fork, really. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recent debate was built on the premise that all the events happened in Washington. I have identified many more events not happening in Washington, including multiple foundings of neighborhoods, the founding of a cemetery and so on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it happened in the current boundaries of Washington, D.C., I don't think it matters. Readers will most naturally be looking for such topics to be grouped together, not separately. As I said in the previous discussion, such a situation is really an "acceptable anachronism" and would probably cause the least amount of confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- We have this kind of debate over countries that have changed their names. If Brentwood (Washington, D.C.) was in DC but not Washington DC before 1871, I think it can still properly stay in the category, because the place is now in Washington DC. I do not know the geography enough to know if this is a valid example, but the principle certainly applies. The alternative might be to have "1841 in DC" parented by "years in Washington DC". Another case where something similar arises is alumni categories for merged or renamed colleges: the alumni are deemed to have graduated from the present college, though the results can look a little odd. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge No need for two cats here. pbp 19:57, 24 December 2015 (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.