There is no need to disambiguate at this point since there is only one category and it is very unlikely that there will be a separate category for a team that played for a single year in a very low minor league. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the CPHL wasn't a "very low-level" hockey league...it was the highest-level owned exclusively by the NHL, and only the AHL and maybe the IHL were higher. You have no problem with me spelling out on this category that it refers to the 2005-2008 AHL team? Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈20:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pretty low level of hockey in this time period it was far down the totem pole as you mention there were at least two leagues ahead of it. Being sent to the CPHL was often considered the end of your career. Either way that is neither here nor there. My only point was that its not likely to get a category. But yes on the currently existing category you can certainly make it clear what its for. I have no problem with that. -DJSasso (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That there are two separate entities means that this should be disambiguated, otherwise, it should be deleted. Categories are not supposed to be grabbag collections of things with the same label. 70.49.126.190 (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Irish American gangs, as part of sorting out a lot of Irish mob overcategorization. Irish American gangs is the larger cat. and this subcat does not serve to make things less ambiguous; what is the difference between a gang and an organized crime gang? RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive15:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; Irish American organized crime and Irish mob are the same thing. The main article is Irish mob and the category should match. The Irish American organized crime category has only one article in it: Irish mob, which is also in the Irish mob subcat. Alot of repetition here that ought to be sorted out. RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive15:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Arbitrary union. While being autistic may be a defining characteristic, it is not clear that being fictional and autistic is (especially for those towards the Asperger's side of the spectrum). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As far as I can tell the final company's name in this series (After Aero Tek) was Applebay Sailplanes, not Applebay Aviation, so perhaps a better name would be Applebay Sailplanes aircraft or if that sounds odd, since most of the designs in the series were produced by George Applebay acting as an individual or by Aero Tek then it may make more sense to rename it George Applebay aircraft designs. - Ahunt (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There are several reasons why I have proposed the aforementioned categories for deletion:
Ice class is usually not a defining characteristic of a merchant ship (WP:DEFINING). Most ships calling northern ports are strengthened for navigation in ice — for example in 2008 47 % of the Finnish tonnage had the highest Finnish-Swedish ice class, 1A Super. While the ice class is usually mentioned in the infobox and perhaps in a single sentence in the article body, it is rarely discussed further. In most cases it is a trivial characteristic (WP:OC#TRIVIA).
The categories seem to be inclined towards the Finnish-Swedish ice classes and mainly list Finnish and Swedish cruiseferries even though probably a large number of other ship articles would qualify at least for the first category (see above).
While the Finnish-Swedish ice class rules are used to determine several technical aspects (level of ice strengthening, minimum engine power, winterization), they are mainly used to determine the fairway fees and availability of icebreaker assistance in the Nordic countries during the winter months, and have nothing to do with the actual operational capability of the vessel in ice-infested waters.
Although there are other ice classes, e.g. Polar classes and classification societies' own classes, they are usually reserved for icebreakers which already have their own category group. Tupsumato (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Of all the attempts I've seen to disambiguate a category, this is one of the oddest. The article for "water ice" is at Ice—it does not attempt to disambiguate from the slang term for diamonds, or the DC superheroine of that name, or anything else. On the internet, the term "water ice" seems to refer almost solely to a dessert in Philadelphia. Yes, I'm aware that ice can come from other volatiles, but do we need to segregate articles about dry ice and spin ice from this? I think we should just assume people know what ice is.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Contested speedy. Parent category is at Category:Space launch vehicles, not Category:Launch vehicles, therefore the categories that are subcats of it should match its name if possible. If "...systems" is chosen as the preferred naming format for this tree, the parent cat and other subcats currently at "...vehicles" will be subsequently speedied, but "...vehicles" is nominator's preference, at least. - The BushrangerOne ping only09:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "space launch" versions. I'm not convinced all of these are vehicles; some seem like systems for launching launch vehicles. But they all are used in space.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but put the article in the category, not the talk page. I think it is an interesting point for the reader to see that the article they are reading is the millionth article or whatever, and then go to the category to see other landmark articles. It is not arbitrary and some at least of these landmarks were widely noted in the press around the world. --Bduke(Discussion)00:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. As currently structured, I don't see this as defining. Of the two articles in the category, one only mentions this fact on an image caption. It currently is for any mason's mark so it is simply a grouping of like named marks. Even if limited to marks of Freemasonry, it still may not be defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be more of a tourist guide than than anything; one gathers from the text that on any structure of a certain age, the masons were likely to leave their marks somewhere, and this is really only listing buildings where they can more or less conveniently seen. Mangoe (talk) 15:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale - Delete: This category doesn't really seem necessary, including only the article on Coanda himself, the effect he described, two aircraft types designed by him...and an aircraft completely unrelated to Coanda aside from its making use of the Coanda effect in its design. All but the last can be links from his main article; the last shouldn't be in the category at all, and overall this seems like a bit of WP:OC. The BushrangerOne ping only01:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhy are eponymous categories discouraged? We have a group of notable articles, three of them eponymous, and what links them is Henri Coandă. And after all, he invented the jet engine, you know ;-) Andy Dingley (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because categories allow for declarative markup (I wish to join a set), not imperative (Here is the hand-coded list of the set of members). With categories, editors mark up the members, not the encompassing list article. This isn's specific to Coanda, it's a MediaWiki (or even broader) topic - doing it this way just works better, especially when categories are growing unpredictably. Declarative markup is far easier to maintain in such a case. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
