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. Sometimes a little inelegance is needed for clarity.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is worse as the parsing is now ambiguous especially for readers unfamiliar with the US state/federal court system. Even if we wanted to avoid repeating the word state, this would need to be Category:Georgia (U.S.) state courts (which is not much of an improvement). Yes, the title is slightly awkward but the same is true of other Georgia categories and it's consistent. It's not our fault they chose another country's name. :-) Pichpich (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn't the US state the one named first in the 1700's? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – it is slightly awkward but follows inevitably from Category:Georgia (U.S. state). Same for those below, and the Washington ones. Occuli (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the non-Georgia states below I disagree since their namings could be improved much easier than Georgia. Brandmeistert 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ambiguous name. Are these supposed to be any court in the US state of Georgia, or are they state-level courts in the US state of Georgia? Both meanings apply to the proposed name. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2011 (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:Georgia (U.S. state) state court judges[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ambiguous name. Are these supposed to be any judge in the US state of Georgia, or are they state-level judges in the US state of Georgia? Both meanings apply to the proposed name. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ambiguous. The anon is correct here. Additionaly, the "U.S." is a disambiguator, and should be in parentheses. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:00, 28 April 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Reasonable suggestion. Ehud (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ambiguous name. Are these supposed to be any court in the US state of Washington, or are they state-level courts in the US state of Washington? Both meanings apply to the proposed name. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ambiguous. The anon is correct here. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:58, 28 April 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Ehud (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ambiguous name. Are these supposed to be any judge in the US state of Washington, or are they state-level judges in the US state of Washington? Both meanings apply to the proposed name. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ambiguous. The anon is correct here. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:57, 28 April 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The main article for this was renamed to Royal elections in Poland. However with only 2 articles, I think that a simple upmerge to one of the parent categories would be the better option. Both articles are already in the history tree so this merge would leave them there. I will note that I removed Category:Monarchy since that does not appear to be appropriate here since this is about elections. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per main article. The category is notable, if underpopulated, see pl:Kategoria:Wolna elekcja for how many articles are in it on pl wiki. Free/royal elections are a notable subset of elections in Poland. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Royal elections in Poland or something along those lines. The current name of the category could be confusing because of the oft-used term "free and fair election". Pichpich (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above; potentially 13 articles going by the navbox! Hugo999 (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2011 (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:Professional golfers who have hit an albatross[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:Listify and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Amounts to trivia, WP:OC#TRIVIA. May be made into a list but it would be a long list. Tewapack (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This is not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivia and as an obscure/confusing term. Harley Hudson (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic for golfers. Holes don't get shorter if you're left-handed, greens aren't designed to be more complicated for right-handers, opponents are not confused by your style of play, etc. Pichpich (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2011 (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 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 as a clear G7 case. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Apologize for the typo. — Tjmoel bicara 11:52, 21 April 2011 (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 as a clear G7 case. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Apologize for the typo. — Tjmoel bicara 11:51, 21 April 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is only one person in here out of countless pornographic actresses, and given the need for public self-identification with the label in bios of living people, I don't think there ever will be more than one. Asarelah (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2011 (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.
bicara 11:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)