This category is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
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 keep --Kbdank71 15:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Not enough articles to warrant sub-categorization. Joshbaumgartner 04:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oppose Naval ships should be in naval categories. CalJW 05:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Support. Nothing prevents the articles themselves from being in a naval category. There is no rule stating that articles must only be in a single category. - SimonP 14:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
And no reason to categorise imprecisely when one can categorise accurately. I put articles into extra categories every day. CalJW 15:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oppose. Not all ships are naval - not all ships are submarines. Cat 2 should be a subcat of cat 1, which should be a subcat of cat 3. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Oppose What Grutness said. Jinian 16:10, 22 November 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)
