Category talk:Birmingham

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion discussion[edit]

The following discussion moved from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion when this category was listed on December 14, 2004. Category will remain as a placeholder since Birmingham can refer to multiple places in the world. RedWolf 19:59, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

This really should be renamed to Category:Birmingham, AL or Category:Birmingham, Alabama. Yes, there is a category Category:Birmingham, England (a far more famous Birmingham, but let's not argue that point), but Birmingham points to the English city, not the Alabama one. Precedent for state in category name: Category:Minneapolis, MN. Precedent for disambiguation geographical category: Category:Georgia. Dryazan 18:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Agree, but please do not use Category:Birmingham, AL. Category:Minneapolis, MN should really be moved to either Category:Minneapolis or Category:Minneapolis, Minnesota. older≠wiser 20:27, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

Should we make it policy that all categories for places should have the same name as the article about the place? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh please no. It would mean moving all the New Zealand categories that were moved last week to yet another name! Move Category:Birmingham to Category:Birmingham, Alabama and move Category:Minneapolis, MN (I thought that was Maine...), too. If there's another Minneapolis somewhere move it to Category:Minneapolis, Minnesota; if not, move it to Category:Minneapolis. Grutness ^hello?

12:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason for this suggestion is to stop duplicate categories from being created. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As long as there's a logical, consistent way of doing things (as there now is with the NZ articles), I don't think that's likely. The problems arise when there are inconsistencies. Take the NZ goegraphy example, for instance. There is a category:Thames-Coromandel, of which the main article is Thames-Coromandel (district), New Zealand. The category is named to keep it consistent with the other new zealand geographical distinctions, all of which simply have the names of the one or two areas concerned, some of which are governmental districts and others of which are not. The article is named to keep it consistent with the other articles about NZ administrative districts. Changing the category name to keep it consistent with the article name would lead to it being inconsistent with the other subcategories of New Zealand geography. Surely there's less likelihood of duplicating categories if all the category names are formed in the same way? Grutness ^hello?

00:40, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have created Category:Birmingham, Alabama and moved the articles that were in Category:Birmingham to it. I have updated the wording on Category:Birmingham to link to Category:Birmingham, Alabama and Category:Birmingham, England and changed its parent to Category:Cities so it's not orphaned. I have to wonder if Category:Birmingham should be deleted so as to prevent it being re-created again in the future. RedWolf 22:26, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)