Category talk:Peach items

I don't get this. If this is suppposed to be a list of all the items Princess Peach can used, then all the items from Super Paper Mario should be listed here.
 * The explanation of the category needs to be updated/improoved, so it clearly states what this category is for (Items that were used by Princess Peach only, in the Paper Mario series.). This is currently on our to-do list. - 21:34, 6 January 2010 (EST)
 * Shouldn't it be Peach's Items, then?
 * Yes.

1-up
In SMG2, Peach sends the player 1-ups. Does this count? RPG Gamer. I HAVE RPG!! (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2013 (EDT)

What?
What is this category supposed to be about anyway? Why don't we have a category on Bowser's items, Mario's items, Luigi's items, etc.? This category seems very pointless to me, especially how it's defined is vague. 23:55, 24 October 2014 (EDT)
 * I believe it's about any item involving Peach, minor or major. But you are right, it is kinda pointless especially since there aren't categories for the other main ones. -- 00:08, 25 October 2014 (EDT)

Delete this category
This category does not serve its function as a category well, which is just lumping all loosely-connected items together just because Peach gives them or uses them. It's not great as a navigational aide as categories are supposed to serve. Also, this brings up several questions: why isn't there a category on Mario's items, Bowser's items, Wario's items, Luigi's items, Toad's items, Yoshi's items, or Pink Donkey Kong Jr.'s items? Because those categories are stupid and shouldn't exist. Like this one.

Proposer: Deadline: November 9, 2014 23:59 GMT.

Support

 * 1) There is no reason this category to exist, much less, give Peach and only Peach the privilege to have her useless items displayed in this category.
 * 2) Why the HECK did this EVER exist?
 * 3) These are just items from the Mario Series, Peach never had her own series, these should be in Category:Items
 * 4) Per all.
 * 5) What a USELESS category. Seriously it makes no sense that this category exists. Per proposal.
 * 6) Per proposal.
 * 7) Per my comment on above section.
 * 8) Per all.

Comments
There was really no need for a TPP: it's a pretty obvious call. - 11:07, 28 October 2014 (EDT)

To answer the question presented in the proposal text, we did have those categories at one point or another. They were all broken down into other categories that were more useful and specific. This category, like many of our problem articles, is a straggler that was missed from the purge. -- Ghost Jam 04:22, 29 October 2014 (EDT)
 * Oh, really? Well, the more you know. Nevertheless, I wasn't confident that this page would be deleted if I just added on the category page and made a comment on why it should be deleted.  21:15, 29 October 2014 (EDT)
 * Depends on who got to it. I normally prefer that pages with content go through the standard TPP process first, but I would have deleted this one and made a note about possible need to reassess the tone of collected articles under the category. -- [[Image:Shyghost.PNG]]Ghost Jam[[Image:Shyghost.PNG]] 05:23, 31 October 2014 (EDT)