This category is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Per previous CfD, replace use of country adjective with noun, plus fixing the spelling error. Joshbaumgartner 06:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Sounds better as it is. Carina22 10:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Comment err hello!!!? It says CANANDIAN!! Arniep 23:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Support, "sounding better" is POV, and consistency is more important. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oppose I wish I hadn't started this process. The "of" form is pointless for ships. CalJW 21:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Comment The path to this category is from Category:Naval ships of Canada, from Category:Ships of Canada and Category:Military equipment of Canada. The of Foo form you refer to is no more 'pointless' than the Fooian form, inherently. The of Foo form has the distinct advantage of avoiding the confusion of national adjectives (American v. United States, etc.) by using the proper name of the country to which it refers. The only argument I've seen for Fooian form is that it 'sounds better' to some people. Since the of Foo form 'sounds better' to some people as well, this gets us nowhere. Joshbaumgartner 21:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Support for consistency. Arniep 23:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Rename as proposed. --Vizcarra 15:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Support for consistency. - TexasAndroid 15:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg)
