User talk:Barliner/Categories

English names

Any ideas on the format for English city names. Should the US example be followed, for articles and categories - so that "Birmingham" becomes "Birmingham, West Midlands", or should that be "Birmingham England"

Likewise is the county "West Midlands" to stay, or become "West Midlands, England"--Bärliner 18:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I'm sure you probably already know, on en:wiki they just use the city name. Now, I don't know if that's the best way to do it here or not. I would think that we should do what's common in England. In other words, if they would say "Birmingham, West Midlands", we should too. Unfortunately, as I'm not from England, or even Europe, I don't know what's most common. I could also see us using "Birmingham, England" for the purpose of clarity. I'm not opposed to just keeping it as the city, either.

I know that that probably doesn't help a lot--that paragraph can kind of be summed up as "let's do what's common...or something else..." :-) · Tygrrr... 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The common thing is just the name of the city, But Birmingham is on a redirect to Birmingham England. I didn't want to leave Birmingham as it was and seem to make "Birmingham, Alabama" inferior --Bärliner 19:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In that specific case, Birmingham can be a disambig page. Or we could keep it as a redirect with the dablink to Birmingham, AL if there's just the 2 Birminghams.

Also, should we/do we use the same formatting for cats and articles? I think we need to be more specific about the categories (i.e. not having cats with just the city name) because we can't really do disambiguous categories, can we? :-) · Tygrrr... 20:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True, and as categories are not likely to be searched for, a specific title can be used. I will look through what cities and counties there are in England, I can imagine several possibile ambiguities within England, let alone adding US and Canadian placenames.--Bärliner 21:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)