Category talk:Air forces

shouldn't all these subcategories just be articles in this category?? Alex.tan 11:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion from CfD
This is an old discussion from Categories for deletion. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah ")]] 23:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Airforce categories
Many of the categories are unnecessary and should be deleted until they do become necessary. (deleted list of deleted categories) There are probably a few more of these I didn't get to. Some of the "Military of ..." categories may be questionable due to the small number of articles, but I left them and only went for the sure bets.


 * C'mon, there are plenty more articles to come on the world-renowned Bangladesh Air Force... ; ) Postdlf 04:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * World-renowned what? :-)  &mdash;Mike 04:52, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, eventually we should have a List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force, to parallel the other inventory lists we have, as well as squadron articles. But I guess the category can wait till they appear... --Rlandmann 04:35, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Still I think it takes more than two articles to make a subcategory! &mdash;Mike 04:52, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

I guess I'm an eventualist when it comes to categorisation. Even the smallest air forces have the potential for several articles. Category:Bangladesh Air Force should eventually hold (at least): 3 current bases (and maybe other historic ones) Other facilities, eg: Squadrons (just the ones I could easily find on-line - this implies at least 19 more...)
 * List of aircraft of the Bangladesh Air Force
 * Bashar AB
 * Matiur Rahman AB
 * Zahurul Haque AB
 * Bangladesh Air Force Academy
 * No. 5 Squadron Bangladesh Air Force
 * No. 21 Squadron Bangladesh Air Force

--Rlandmann 05:24, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well hell. Keep, in that case.  I agree, categories should be kept if they will eventually be filled&mdash;it looks like I need to be even more careful in my assumptions about what has the potential.  Postdlf 06:11, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm responsible for creating many of the Military of categories. My thinking at the time was that eventually they would have to be created in an ideal world, and that they are a standard part of the article structure for country articles. David Newton 08:59, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't really have much of a complaint with the military categories. However some countries only have the single air force article, and that's not much to create a new category.  But I could see a lot of room for expansion in this area.
 * Because Category:Air forces is a member of Category:Militaries along with all the "Military of..." categories, I just don't see a great need for some of the air force categories at this time. When people eventually get around to writing the additional articles then they might be needed. &mdash;Mike 21:46, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Up until yesterday, air forces were organized in a consistent and logical manner as subcategories of "Category:Air forces" and of their relevant "Category:Military of XYZ" Now we've got some in their own category and some in their parent "Military" category. I preferred it when "Category:Air forces" listed all air forces in the same alphabetical list. --Rlandmann 08:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The parent articles of the Category:Air forces subcategories should be included in that category as well as their own subcategory, which would put them all in the same list. Postdlf 19:06, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest we kill the subcategories for now but put the outlines of your consistent and logical scheme into the talk page for the master category(ies), or even onto that page or those pages themselves, to alert later editors so that if and when enough articles were later created to truly merit a new subcategory, it could be created consistently with the system. That way, the system survives, but without premature category clutter.--Gary D 19:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, so what's the minimum number of articles needed to keep these categories? I'll be happy to contribute them. --Rlandmann 22:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I would say ten to fifteen articles is a good category justification. --Gary D 19:45, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say 3 or 4 articles are enough to justify a subcategory, especially if the parent category is cluttered. I endorse the delete but document proposal. A link to any categorization scheme guidelines should probably be added to Categorization projects (current) and possibly an appropriate WikiProject. -- Beland 01:00, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

usefulness of category
This category is useful is someone is reading and wants to read about different air forces. Quite a few air forces were missing so I added the category to several national air force articles. Archtransit 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)