This category is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
This category was nominated for deletion on 17 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
This category was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
Which part of the cited page do you think supports your assertion? Andy Mabbett 19:33, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Don't hard-code the category structure into names. Example: "Monarchs", not "People - Monarchs"."
This category is a subcategory of Category:England, therefore the "England" part in the categoryname is redundant. --Conti|✉ 23:10, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That shouldn't apply to place names in Category titles. This isn't a matter of categorization in the title, its about narrowing the Category to apply to one single city. Remember, in the article namespace, we can use disambig pages. In Category, there is no equivalent. Category:Birmingham could apply to many other articles (see Birmingham (disambiguation) for a few). I think its perfectly reasonable to allow Category:Birmingham, England to remain as is. -- Netoholic 23:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm going back a bit here, but would Category:Birmingham be better than Category:Birmingham, England to give consistency with the main article for the city? After all, that is Birmingham and not Birmingham, England. Matthew 08:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I agree. The same applies to the subcategories. Andy Mabbett 09:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who do we need to kick to get this done? Matthew 17:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
