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. – FayenaticLondon 07:39, 11 August 2015 (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. MER-C 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd be quite happy to have it deleted too. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Thoroughly non-defining. It has the feel of a performance by performer category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete This seems non-defining. Seyasirt (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining; we usually don't categorize educational institutions by what groups (such as sports teams, cheer-leading squads, military-style squads, glee clubs, robotics teams, religious, sexual orientation, or language clubs, or such) they have on campus. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2015 (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. MER-C 12:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have recently emptied this category but suspect it will be filled again unless it is deleted. The entries were all biographical articles, with one exception that was merged elsewhere. There is a long-standing consensus that we do not categorise people by caste (User:Sitush/Common#Castecats). Sitush (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete per longstanding precedent. Seyasirt (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't categorize on caste. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2015 (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:merge. MER-C 12:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The discussion regarding future categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 28#Future categories closed with the general decade categories of the 22nd century merged into the 22nd century category and the 4th millennium in fiction century subcategories being merged to the 4th millennium in fiction but I think we need to similarly merge the 22nd century in fiction subcategories into the 22nd century in fiction category. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also an errant 2199 in fiction category that could be merged to decade or to the century. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all -- It matters little whether the fictional period is 90 or 180 years ahead. It might be worth also merging 2050s onwards into a late 21st century category (with a head note defining "late" accordingly). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all, per the arguments in last year's CfD. Note that the first merge needs to be done manually, as fictional works set in 2100, such as Revolt in 2100, should be moved elsewhere. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 23:39, 3 August 2015 (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 entire Towns by Postal Code category tree[edit]
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.
Keep: The categorisation is not trivial, because post towns, as geographical areas, form a unique contiguous geography of the United Kingdom, subdividing postcode areas with boundaries that are generally independent of government, council and electoral regions. Each UK address is allocated to a specific post town in the Postcode Address File (a statutory address database). Despite the terminology, post towns extend to the rural and suburban areas surrounding the town or city after which each is named. Unlike "towns" in general (which do not, in most contexts, have a formal definition in the UK), post towns are formally defined by Royal Mail, each corresponding to one or more specific postcode districts (or, in rare cases, parts of districts) within a particular postcode area. Because they comprise a line in every UK postal address (the only line which Royal Mail prefers to be shown in capital letters), and change less often than local government boundaries, they are often better known in practice than the official borough, district or county applicable to a particular location. Conversely, the terminology often results in confusion with the boroughs or cities they are named after, which usually have differing civic boundaries. Hence, unlike telephone area codes, their geographical coverage is specific and relevant to local identity as well as to logistics; and, within the postcode hierarchy, they group prominent placenames into local areas. For example, Category:Post towns in the EH postcode area is useful in listing prominent suburbs, towns and villages in and around Edinburgh (after which the EH postcode area is named); yet the threshold for inclusion is not arbitrary, unlike Category:Towns in Scotland. Post towns are sufficiently important to be listed in Template:Infobox UK place. So, unlike "towns" in general, they form a unique, complete and contiguous group within a well-defined and well-known hierarchy. — Richardguk (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The terminology often results in confusion with the boroughs or cities they are named after, which usually have differing civic boundaries." Exactly, this category isn't grouping actual articles about the post towns, it's grouping the municipality that the post town is named after.RevelationDirect (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Your responses (above, and to Peterkingiron, below) seem to assume that an article relates to only one aspect of a place. It is true that very prominent places do have multiple Wikipedia articles (famously, New York state, New York City; more relevantly, London, City of London, Greater London, London postal district). But most placename articles cover multiple aspects of the area named after a settlement. For example, the Cambridge article refers to the city (created in 1951) and the coterminous local government district (created in 1974), but also relates to the ancient settlement (whose boundaries have varied constantly over thousands of years) and in particular to the current urban area ("Cambridge Local Authority District covers most of the City's urban area but some [of the City's urban area] extends outside this into South Cambridgeshire District"). The Norwich article covers the ancient city, the local government district (created in 1974), and the more sprawling settlement (paragraph 2 begins: "The urban or built-up area of Norwich had a population of 213,166 according to the 2011 Census. This area extends beyond the city boundary..."). The Lichfield article covers the settlement, ancient city and modern civil parish (though not the local government district). The Shetland article covers the archipelago and local government area with which the modern post town's name and boundaries are synonymous. UK civic boundaries have changed continually over the past thousand years, including major changes throughout the past century. It would be absurd to require separate articles when categorising different aspects of the same settlement, even where past or present boundaries differ. Each post town corresponds directly to its categorised article, because the Royal Mail delivery office was named after the place in which it was situated and so gave the town its post town status. The parallel usage to denote contiguous areas (including rural addresses served by the nearest delivery office) does not detract from the fact that the post towns, as historic entitities and logistical hubs, clearly correspond to the places which the articles are about. — Richardguk (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial, as are ZIPcodes, telephone area codes, license plate codes, or other governmental assignment of letters, numbers, or whatever, to simplify governmental functions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is not trivial. Post towns as part of UK addresses are of very long endurance, deriving from the way in which the Post Office organised postal deliveries a long time back, certainly 150 years ago, possibly from the 18th century. This was organised through Post Offices in major towns, but these postal districts do not conform to county and district boundaries. I live in Hagley, which is in Worcestershire, but my postal address is Hagley, Stourbridge, West Midlands. The postcode starts DY, which is an abbreviation for Dudley, because the Stourbridge postal district has been subsumed into that one. However last time I had to contact Royal Mail administration, I found that DY was administered from Wolverhampton. Something similar applies to telephone STD codes. Mine is 01562, which is the code for Kidderminster, becasue the Hagley Exchange was subsumed under Kidderminster: the code was possibly originally 0KM2, but that would be before I lived here. This code also applies to parts of Pedmore, which is part of the former Borough of Stourbridge and thus now under Dudley MBC. All this has a logical historic origin. I was born in Kinver, which is in Staffordshire, but its postal address is also Stourbrige, West Midlands and used to be Stourbridge, Worcesterhire. There used to be an advantage in omitting Worcesterhire, to prevent letters being sent (erroneoudly) to Worcester and thus taking an extra day to arrive. Its phone code 01384 used to be 0DU4, which also refers to Dudley. I think that there may be a logical extension to this tree: Stourbridge and Kidderminster will be in the DY category. Hagley is in Bromsgrove District and Worcestershire, but it should also be categorised as within Stourbridge postal area. I fear that this is a case of those from another country, who are regarding significant local arrangements as trivial, because they do not understand their origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: The problem is that not a single post town is in this tree. It categorizes the town/burough/city that shares the same name (and generally is only part of) the post town by what 2-letter postal code it uses. For instance, the article Stourbridge is in this tree, there is no Stourbridge (post town) article to categorize. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That, for example, "DY was administered from Wolverhampton" may be an interesting fact (for those interested in such things) - hence, it may deserve a place in an article/list, WikiData etc. However, it has little/nothing to do with Wikipedia categorization. DexDor(talk) 21:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that DY (=Dudley) being admionstered from Wolverhampton at one stage would be useful in categorisation. I merely mentioned this to show how the postal system has evvolved since the 1970s. Of course we do not need an article, Stourbridge (post town): if we did it would quickly get a merge nom to Stourbridge. It is clear that people from the new world do not understand the complexities of the old world and of systems that emerged gradually, in an almost organic manner, unlike in the new world where most boundaries seem to have been defined on a map with a ruler. As an English, I may say that Jersey City is a suburb of New York City and should be cateogised as such. I am sure that if I intferfered with thge category structure to suggest such, I would have Americans howling at me in derision for my ignorance. I would make the same point against Americans rushing in on British categories whose local significance they do not understand. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record - I'm British. DexDor(talk) 05:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked a sample of articles in these categories and none prominently mentioned that the town is a post town; many didn't mention it at all. Hence, it's a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of a town. Afaics being a post town means there is/was a postal delivery office in the town - that isn't sufficiently important to a town that the article should be placed under Category:Postal system of the United Kingdom. We don't (afaik) categorize towns based on whether they have/had a maternity hospital, a driving test centre, a HWRC ... This also appears to be categorizing towns based on their name - i.e. that "FOOVILLE" is part of Royal Mail's preferred address format is not a defining characteristic of the town of Fooville. DexDor(talk) 21:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a helpful explanation. WP:NON-DEFINING seems more relevant than the original rationale. I would, though, distinguish post towns from maternity hospitals etc, because they have been relatively stable over the past 150 years; and comprise a rigid hierarchical logistical network (more akin to council boundaries which are strictly observed than to health service boundaries which patients often cross or are unaware of). If you ask someone where do they live, they are more likely to think in terms of their address than in terms of their local government status! With the UK place infobox linking to a list and map in the relevant postcode area article (e.g.), there is nothing further really to mention in the body of the article itself – which concords with the advice at WP:NON-DEFINING: "...a list article is often the preferred alternative." So I now understand the CfD rationale, though I remain unconvinced that there is any advantage in removing potentially useful information; particularly as some articles do not use the same infobox and so lack the postcode area article link. — Richardguk (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CErtainly we do not categorise as to whether towns have a materity hospital or a driving test centre, but that is not relevant. The post town should always be given in a UK address. US forms are very difficult for UK people to fill in because they are always at least one line too short. A typicial UK address is number+street/village or suburb/post town/county/postcode. If the house has a name, not a number yet another line is needed. The post town is a vital part of the address, and as I indicated above, in places near a county boundary, the address may give a misleading impression of which county the address actually lies within, as the copunty named is that of the post town, not that of the address. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may all be true, but what's it got to do with how we categorize towns in Wikipedia? Note also that these categories don't categorize most places (those that are not post towns) by their post town area. DexDor(talk) 05:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re Richard's comment: "they are more likely to think in terms of their address than in terms of their local government status" - really? e.g. a child is likely to learn which county they live in long before they learn about the concept of post towns. Also consider places where one doesn't live - e.g. I know that the village of Corfe Castle is in the county of Dorset and in the district of Purbeck, but I don't know (without looking it up) which post town area it's in (WAREHAM, SWANAGE, CORFE CASTLE?). The post town is likely to become less well known as email/phone replaces "snail mail" and these days when one does give one's postal address to a business it's inevitably house name/number and postcode that they ask for - the computer fills in the rest of the address (including post town). Look also at articles about UK towns/villages in Wikipedia - many don't mention which post town area the place is in (example), but few (if any) such articles omit to mention which county/district the place is in. DexDor(talk) 05:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Peterkingiron and Richardguk. The post towns postcodes are an integral part of a post town's identity. ww2censor (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference for that assertion? If the whole thing were re-done, we'd delete the lot since the integrity was ripped from them? hardly... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete I work with software that has to deal with zip codes, which have a lot of the same sort of issues as arise with the British postcodes. The fundamental problem is that both systems are geared towards delivering the mail, and they do not establish other geography except incidentally (and sometimes not at all). Perhaps the situation is not as bad as in the USA where the postal authorities have tried to suppress town names below the main office in many areas, and where people assume that a zip code is all in one town in one county in one state (which even ignoring APO and FPO addresses isn't true), but as the article on post towns says, the use of town names rather than something else (from what I gather they roughly correspond to the first three digits of a zip code) is simply historical. Post towns are named after real towns, but they are really a level in the addressing hierarchy. Seyasirt (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46. Imagine that they decided to split Northern Ireland between BT (Belfast) and LO (Londonderry) instead of it being all BT, and northwestern County Antrim gets put in LO. Once the residents get their stationery changed and update their addresses with their friends and magazine subscriptions, how would anything be different in Dervock? In what way would this split create a significant difference between Dervock and the "big city" folks down in Ballymena? Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per various, whilst the history of the post code system is interesting (and anomalous) postcode is a non-defining characteristic and the first two letters of the postcode more so. Why would any reader want to which towns share the same code for the 'top-level' of postal sorting for a district? btw UK readers, why are NW1, NW2, NW3 etc. not adjacent? Reply on my talk!.Pincrete (talk) 07:54, 19 August 2015 (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.
