< November 15	November 17 >

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 all using uppercase A. Kbdank71 16:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Lyndon Johnson administration to Category:Lyndon B. Johnson administration

Category:Lyndon Johnson administration personnel to Category:Lyndon B. Johnson administration personnel

Category:Lyndon Johnson administration cabinet members to Category:Lyndon B. Johnson administration cabinet members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Add middle initial to match main article Lyndon B. Johnson and main category Category:Lyndon B. Johnson. (There were 2 U.S. presidents "Johnson", which is why the full name is used rather than just the surname as in similar categories for other presidents.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all using Upper Case A's per my comments in the related CFD below. Cgingold (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all using upper case A per Cgingold. Kuralyov (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I established this category, and I'm fine with renaming it Lyndon B. Johnson to coincide with the LBJ article title. Makes sense. Breffni Whelan (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as "Lyndon Johnson" and rename the article and parent category without the initial. There is no other "Lyndon Johnson" with whom LBJ will be confused and category names should be as simple as possible in the absence of the need for disambiguation. No opinion about the upper- vs lower-case A. Otto4711 (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all As a rule, category titles should match the titles of the corresponding articles, and there is no reason this should be violated here. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. CfD is not intended to drive the names of articles. The article is titled Lyndon B. Johnson because he used his middle initial and was widely called by his three initials. The "B." is not included for disambiguation purposes, any more than for his predecessor John F. Kennedy (even if there are other articles for people named John Kennedy). Alansohn (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2008 (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 uppercase. Wizardman 21:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:George W. Bush Administration to Category:George W. Bush administration

Category:George W. Bush Administration personnel to Category:George W. Bush administration personnel

Category:George W. Bush Administration cabinet members to Category:George W. Bush administration cabinet members

Category:Clinton Administration to Category:Clinton administration

Category:Clinton Administration initiatives to Category:Clinton administration initiatives

Category:Clinton Administration cabinet members to Category:Clinton administration cabinet members

Category:Clinton Administration commissioners to Category:Clinton administration commissioners

Category:Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration to Category:Franklin D. Roosevelt administration

Category:Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration personnel to Category:Franklin D. Roosevelt administration personnel

Category:Obama Administration to Category:Obama administration

Category:Obama Administration personnel to Category:Obama administration personnel

Category:Obama Administration cabinet members to Category:Obama administration cabinet members

Category:Reagan Administration to Category:Reagan administration

Category:Reagan Administration personnel to Category:Reagan administration personnel

Category:Reagan Administration controversies to Category:Reagan administration controversies

Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to this discussion. Most who commented suggested the "A" on "Administration" should be lowercase for these U.S. presidential administration categories. This nomination includes all that currently use uppercase. This is just under half of the existing categories in this area—the other half already use "administration". (Technically this is a speedy change but since there is at least potential for disagreement, I'm bringing it here.) The targets that already exist are currently redirects. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose lower case - I didn't comment in the previous CFD, where the issue at hand was something else entirely, and the comments vis-a-vis upper vs. lower case were incidental to the discussion. It seems to me that all of the individual administrations (generic term, so lower case) must be treated as proper names, thus requiring Upper Case. I think this is most clearly seen through an example like this: "Reagan Administration controversies" clearly refers to "controversies of the Reagan Administration", whereas "Reagan administration controversies" sounds like it could refer to "administration controversies of Reagan" (whatever that might mean). Cgingold (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point, and perhaps I do have it bass ackwards. I was basing the nom pretty much on the consensus that seemed to have developed in the previous nomination, but you're right that it was incidental to the main point of it. If others agree with your point that "Administration" should be capitalised I'm willing to nominate the other ones to conform with these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lower case - Every scholarly article and textbook reference to individual presidential administrations I can recall has used an uppercase A for the "X Administration", it seems that Wikipedia should follow suit. Kuralyov (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lower case X Administration is a definite article that should have both words capitalized. Alansohn (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator). I really don't have a definite opinion on the caps issue, but I also don't think it's as clear-cut in favor of using the caps as some comments above suggest. Go to google books and do a search for a random presidential administration. I tried "Clinton Administration" and frankly, I'm finding just as many if not more uses of "Clinton administration" than "Clinton Administration" in published books. The 9/11 Report, and official government document, uses "Clinton administration". I think it's probably not clear-cut one way or the other, so I'm backing off my promise to nominate the other ones. I believe either can be acceptable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. i think perhaps it's caps for things like "Clinton Administration officials say..." while it's lower-case for things like "overall federal spending held even during the Clinton administration..." --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One use when it's an adjective and one use when it's a noun? Not a bad suggestion, but I can't see any consistency that backs up that theory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

actually, no, what I meant was, one use when it's an honorific as used in identifying someone's role or status, and another when it's a mere term identifying a chronological era. thanks for your reply by the way. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay with upper case if someone is able to change these en-masse (Its a lot of work to change them individually.) We might as well be consistent. Breffni Whelan (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my thinking ("consistency would be good"), but right now I can't see a consensus for either way, judging by this and the previous discussion. I think it can probably go either way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep lowercase, possibly rename all to Category:Presidency of Foo You'll find that "administration" is lower-case in most major newspapers and news services, and in the journals I read both forms are used, sometimes inconsistently (e.g. Foreign Affairs). But "Clinton administration," et al. is not any kind of official name; it does not represent any kind of formal organization; it is simply a delineation of chronology in the administration of the federal government of the United States. The foreign policy of Wilson's presidency does not make it Wilson Foreign Policy, the military under Truman does not make it the Truman Military, and the appointments made by Clinton, in turn, do not turn the Clinton administration into the Clinton Administration. It is a shorthand, like speaking of the "Nixon White House" or of "Elizabethan literature." Leaving that question aside, however, it seems that the categories are not in fact limited to articles about the administrations (i.e. the personnel and policies of a presidency); they are being used as chronological containers of political history. Why else should First Taiwan Strait Crisis or Contract with America appear here when they were neither of, by, or for these governments? Perhaps renaming them to match the main articles— which are of the singular form Presidency of X, e.g. Presidency of Bill Clinton, Presidency of Ronald Reagan etc.— will help refocus them on this that bear directly on the president and the high levels of the administration. -choster (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep upper-case. I think it's better with upper-case, as I think that capitals are used when in conjunction with a specific president's name. anyway, I thought I should show up here and try to add some words of explanation, since I started some of these. by the way, I created some of these for Clinton Administration, because the only category available before that was a category for controversies, which seemed a bit too ideologically weighted. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2008 (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 to Category:Statistics-related lists. - jc37 23:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Statistical lists and tables to Category:Statistics lists

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There were only two tables in this cat that I have recategorised. This cat now only contains statistics lists. See previous discussion here —G716 <^T·_C> 15:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename but nom has hardly the clearest suggestion. Suggest Category:Statistics-related lists or Category:Lists about Statistics (keeping the capital to show it is about the subject?) Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Statistics-related lists. (There are only 2 categories beginning 'Lists about' and only one beginning 'Lists related to'.) There are very many 'Foo-related lists'. Occuli (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Statistics-related lists" is OK with me. Thanks for the clarification. —G716 <^T·_C> 04:50, 17 November 2008 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't see how the category is really useful. Wikipedia:Statistics should suffice. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this does appear to be WP:OR, as well as 'arbitrary inclusion criteria', ill-defined criteria (once? average? over what period? etc). (Rather bizarre contents too - I'd have thought Obama might have got in after recently being in the news.) Occuli (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inappropriate use of a category. I don't think this category is of any use in either navigating or improving the encyclopaedia - and besides, there are frequently-updated lists (Wikipedia:Popular pages) that do the job better. Terraxos (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (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 as not empty. If you want to re-nominated on other grounds, feel free. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Empty Damiens.rf 13:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have found an occupant, and in my view Category:Fair use magazine covers should be completely subcategorised as it is at present vast and incomprehensible. Occuli (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2008 (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, mainly for reasons of standardisation across categories, though perhaps a deletion/renaming nomination could be had for all of these landmark categories on subjectivity grounds or for the British ones alone if it's thought that the phrasing here is out of whack with UK English. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Since there is no single authoritative source for what is or isn't a landmark in Wales, additions and deletions will be arbitrary and fail WP:NPOV.Pondle (talk) 11:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there is Category:Landmarks by country but Category:Landmarks in the United Kingdom is a redirect to Category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom. (Surely a visitor attraction is not necessarily a landmark. Eg is a footpath thought to be a landmark?) Occuli (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why have similar categorys such as Category:Landmarks or Category:Landmarks by country not been nominated then? Nominator purely showing a bias. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is inevitable that the decision to include (or exclude) something involves the POV of the editor, but this seems a useful category (and category tree), and so should be kept. I hope we can avoid edit-warring over content, but visitor attractions (which may or may not be landmarks) raises the same POV issues - how many visitors to make it an attraction? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure why the presumed parent is a redirect, but there is no reason that this category should not follow the standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - category is designed to capture "anything that easily recognisable, such as a monument, building, or other structure." As such the nominator is correct that the inclusion standard is completely arbitrary and the category is without any reasonable limitation. Anything that any editor decides is "easily recognizable" is fair game. If there is a system in Wales for registering things officially as landmarks then rename the category to something like "Nationally designated landmarks" or whatever terminology is used. The same thing should be done with the rest of the landmark categories. Otto4711 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful subcategory grouping within country or political subdivision structures, though we can discuss appropriate renaming. As "landmark" means, as I think is most applicable here, "a notable building or place with historical, cultural, or geographical significance," the only real question for inclusion is whether it is about a specific-enough place/location for which we have an article. These categories can basically function to group any specific physical locations within a category for a settlement or other larger political division, to separate them from the categories/articles for cultural categories, government categories, people categories, etc. This is a matter of convenience for Wikipedia users and contributors, rather than strict definition of what a "landmark" is, just like broad subcategories like "Culture of Foo" or "history of Foo;" the lack of some official designation that something is "historical" or "cultural" does not make those problematic as they're not understood as anything more than broad subject groupings. There may be borderline disputes as to whether an article is really about a place or about the company, institution, etc., that is housed there, but the question may be framed as whether if that institution were to leave, would the location still merit coverage? "Landmark" may then be redundant with "visitor attraction," but I think "landmark" is preferable to categorizing by only whether something "attracts visitors" (UK, right?) or "tourists" (US), which I think is narrower and more POV by focusing on a specific social or commercial use or attention to the exclusion of others. Another alternative could be to merge the "visitor attractions" and "landmarks" categories into "Places in Foo," but not without some discussion on what using "places" in that way might connote. Postdlf (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many jurisdictions do have a legal standard for what is and is not a "landmark". By adopting this loosey-goosey "anything that's recognizable" standard we are creating the false impression that the included articles do meet the appropriate local standard for landmark status. We should not be in the business of presenting false information through the category system or any other part of Wikipedia. Otto4711 (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the use of the unelaborated term "landmark," unaccompanied by modifiers such as "designated" or "registered" or "official," gives the incorrect impression that we meant a designated, registered or official landmark of some kind. The informal usage is too common for a formal usage to be presumed without some express indication that formal usage is meant. But I welcome your suggestions for a rename that would have the same connotations and serve the same convenient function. Postdlf (talk) 08:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no suggestions for a rename if the category is intended to retain its current purpose, because whether going by the definition currently on the category page or your suggested substitute definition the category casts far too broad a net. Buildings and places are already categorized by the type of building and the sort of place so categorizing them vaguely as "landmarks" is pointless. What building or place with its own Wikipedia article couldn't be argued as being either historically, culturally or geographically significant? Every lake or rock formation has geographical significance. Every sports stadium has cultural significance. Every building that's been standing for more than a few decades probably has historical significance. This category and its brethren that don't rely on any sort of official designation have insurmountable POV and OR problems and are simply too squishy to support. Otto4711 (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – as Occuli has commented, there is Category:Landmarks by country, so why delete the Welsh one alone? Are you suggesting Wales doesn't have anything of significance to rate as a landmark? I can perhaps see the need of a wider debate in Wiki Categories of what is a landmark and the inclusion criteria, but this is a poor way to start such a debate or campaign by picking on one country. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - According to Category:Landmarks by country, the word "Landmark" is the American English usage, while "Visitor attractions" is the British English usage. And as Category:Visitor attractions in Wales already exists, this category is therefore duplicative. - jc37 23:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Visitor attractions in Wales, per my comments above. - jc37 23:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious as to how such things as Severn Bridge or Newport Transporter Bridge can reasonably be defined as "visitor attractions". Do the Welsh plan holidays to suspension bridges? Otto4711 (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something can be an "attraction" and not necessarily need a "holiday" planned around it. Two such examples in the US might be the Golden Gate Bridge or the Brooklyn Bridge.

But that aside, this looks to me to merely be a confusion of national English usage. And per the guidelines, we should defer to national usage when appropriate. - jc37 17:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would think the U.S. analog of "visitor attraction" would be "tourist attraction." Postdlf (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication in either of the above-mentioned articles that anyone goes to the bridges just to see the bridges. This again raises the complete subjectivity of the category as it is currently conceived, since there is no possible objective definition to guide editors as to what structures or geographical features draw sufficient visitors so as to be considered an "attraction" and nothing at all to guide editors as to when something is objectively classified as a "landmark". Squish squish squish. Otto4711 (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what you're getting at. The answer, of course, would be sources noting that they are such. But it occurs to me that an "attraction" could be anything someone is interested in. And that includes everything in this encyclopedia. So as a potentially all-inclusive category scheme, I agree with you that this scheme should be repurposed. That said, it doesn't look like that's going to happen in this discussion, and as such, this category needs to be dealt with, (on the short term at least). I think my comments above would seem to be the best course. Do you support that at least? - jc37 15:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Penguin Dictionary of Human Geography (edited by Brian Goodall, published 1987) a landmark is a feature or point-reference in a landscape or townscape that can be observed but not normally entered or passed through. To me, this makes a "landmark" fundamentally different to a "visitor attraction" - you'd expect to be able to enter a castle, zoo, park, museum or gallery - although I accept that monuments and mountains could be both landmarks (on Goodall's definition) and attractions. Pondle (talk) 20:46, 26 November 2008 (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 both. Close is without prejudice to a future CfD re: the special characters. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beşiktaş players --> Category:Beşiktaş J.K. footballers
Category:Galatasaray players --> Category:Galatasaray S.K. footballers
Rename. Both clubs are multi-sport clubs, therefore referring to football-related categories only as "players" is simply not correct. I added also abbreviations to be more precise, e.g. Beşiktaş is also a district of İstanbul, Galatasaray can denote many other things. - Darwinek (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; it seems these categories are indeed intended for football (soccer) players given siblings like Category:Beşiktaş basketballers and Category:Galatasaray volleyballers.-choster (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; once basketball or other sport player articles are added to this category, it will be unclear which are footballers and which are not. Jogurney (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cavill – I have been waiting for the chance to quibble about the likes of Beşiktaş in category and article names, containing symbols whose names and significance are well beyond my limited education. If en-dash is not OK in category names, how does ş get through? (This apart, I agree with the nom.) Occuli (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category titles should always match the main article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is written where exactly? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Limited support. I agree with the rename, but not using special characters. I have no objection to this being closed as a rename as long as the first one is then relisted to change to a name without the ş characters. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2008 (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:

Relisted at 2008 NOV 27. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Groups to Category:Air force groups
Category:British groups to Category:Air force groups of the United Kingdom
Category:Groups of the United States to Category:Air force groups of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous. --Eliyak T·C 02:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eliyak, are you planning to add Category:Groups of the United States and Category:British groups? They both need renaming, too. Cgingold (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have, but I got disconnected. They are there now. --Eliyak T·C 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Air groups - This is a textbook illustration of what happens when a category name is too generic and imprecise: 4 of the 5 articles currently listed don't belong there, as they have nothing to do with military aviation. However, the rename should not be to Category:Air force groups since not all of the sub-cats are Air force groups -- some are naval or marine corps groups. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Groups (military aviation). The main article is "Group (air force)," but if it is important the category exclude units that are not part of Air Forces (though they may be part of air forces), perhaps it is the article that needs renaming to Group (military aviation). IMHO "air group" would be redundant to an insider while being no less ambiguous to the lay person, and if "Air groups" is interpreted to contain any grouping of military aviation units, it would swallow Category:Flights and Category:Wings (aviation), wouldn't it? Incidentally I could stand to see those categories renamed as well (to Category:Flights (military aviation) and Category:Wings (military aviation)) depending on the outcome of this discussion. -choster (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a pretty fair case for Category:Groups (military aviation). But how would that work with the 2 sub-cats that also need renaming? Cgingold (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would Category:Groups (military aviation) of the United Kingdom be too unwieldy? We could eliminate this layer of subcategorization, seeing as they contain only two subcategories apiece, or go the route of Category:Squadrons and divide further by branch. I also found Category:Army groups in Category:Military units and formations by size.-choster (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was, indeed, my concern -- both of the subcats would end up with pretty unwieldy names. Would it make sense to use a different formulation for the sub-cats? I'm thinking perhaps Category:Military aviation groups of the United Kingdom. For that matter, how about using that formulation for the parent cat? (Or does that come across too much like "Military aviation fan clubs"?) Cgingold (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, preferably per Choster. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I invited WikiProject Military history to participate; they appear to be the only active WP throughout the branch.-choster (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there is also Category:RAAF groups which needs more attention. I favour the Choster solution of replacing 'Groups' with 'Groups (military aviation)'. Occuli (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, probably as choster, but does the existing name "Groups" need to be retained for the miscellany that has been added, or does the category merely need to be purged of these? The RAAF item merely needs its abbrveiation expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Groups should probably redirect to Category:Organizations. --Eliyak T·C 15:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - 'Military aviation groups' seems best to me, as I dislike seeing brackets in category names, but it may be necessary here. Category:Groups should probably be redirected to Category:Organizations, as proposed by Eliyak above. Terraxos (talk) 03:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you've suggested Category:Military aviation groups for the main category. The thought had crossed my mind, since it would be consistent with the sub-cat I suggested, Category:Military aviation groups of the United Kingdom. I would like to know what other editors think of this formulation. Cgingold (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 10:28, 26 November 2008 (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.

November 16

Lyndon Johnson administration

U.S. presidential administrations

Category:Statistical lists and tables

Category:Articles viewed more than 10,000 times a day

Category:Fair use Vibe magazine covers

Category:Landmarks in Wales

Turkish football clubs players

Category:Groups