Category talk:Birmingham, England/Archive001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Over-categorization

Though I believe that the category deserves to stay named as it is, I do think that there are far too many articles associated with it. For city-name categories, I'd limit it to articles which are about:

• Physical locations within the city (buildings, parks, schools, roads, etc.)
• Notable residents (born in, or significantly tied to the city)
• Businesses headquartered in the city
• Media (newspapers, radio stations, website portals, etc.)
• Local government

Basically, read the city's article, and include almanac-type information using reasonable judgement. Some items in this are currently over-categorized into it, such as Rip van Winkle. If people want to really see all articles linking to a city page, they can use "What links here" - the category doesn't need to have everything. I think this one can turn into a nice example of good categorization for cities, an perhaps should be documented in Wikipedia:Categorization. -- Netoholic 00:13, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. This category has an "everything but the kitchen sink" feel to it. older≠wiser 00:48, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. Would be nice to trim this back, and I think it needs it. Out of curiosity, what's the opinon of creating "Bands from Birmingham" or categories like that, in order to further seperate this category a bit. I don't particulary like the idea (I think some of the connections are tenuous at best), but that is another way to fix this. Lyellin 07:30, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

There already is a Category:Residents of Birmingham, England, and I'd like to know what should belong in such categories. Everyone who ever lived in Birmingham for a while? If yes, persons who lived in 10 cities in their life can have 10 "residents of foo" categories in their article? That sounds like alot of categories, but at the moment I don't really know how that could be shortened. --Conti|✉ 20:21, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)birmingham iz gayyyyzaaaa

I agree as well. My attempts to remove some articles from this category have been reverted so far though. --Conti|✉ 20:21, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

There is no over-categorization; there is no attempt to include in the category all articles linking to Birmingham (to suggest otehrwise is at best a red herring). All the articles in this category are relevant to (and will be of interest to people studying) some aspect or other of the City of Birmingham. Why should someone who belongs in ten categories not have those ten categories shown at the foot of their article? If not that; then what are categories for? That said, I would have no objection to, say, a sub-category of "Music of Birmingham" or some such. Please explain why you think Rip van Winkle should not be in this category, making explicit references to the circumstances in which it was written. Please also state the optimum or maximum permissible number of articles for inclusion in this category (since some apparently believe it has "too many"; stating the logic which leads you to arrive at your figure. Andy Mabbett 21:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I explained to you why I think The Legend of Sleepy Hollow should stay out of this category on your talk page, and you apparently ignored it. Maybe you could react to that first before we discuss another article?

"Too many" categories per article simply doesn't look very good and it makes things not very easy to overlook. That's not my main argument here tho, many articles don't belong in this category, whether these articles have many other categories or not. --Conti|✉ 21:49, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

I explained to you why I think The Legend of Sleepy Hollow should stay out of this category on your talk page No, you did not. You revealed that you do not know why it should be in it. it makes things not very easy to overlook Good! You still haven't quantified "too many". Andy Mabbett 22:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If I do not know why it should be in it, would you please explain to me why it should?

I'd say 10 categories are a bit too much, but it depends on how big the article is. But again, that was not my main argument, it's just another effect of overcategorization. --Conti|✉ 22:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

I've no problem with a lot of categories, as long as they are important. If they're just cruft, get rid of them. This reads more like a connections list. I'd say, for example, that since The Legend of Sleepy Hollow isn't set in Birmingham, it certainly shouldn't be listed merely because it was written there (or Gamgee Tissue just because it was invented there). Equally, The Archers isn't about the culture of Birmingham, and it isn't significantly affected by the culture of Birmingham any more than any other British city. Places that are in Birmingham should of course be included, companies that are based in Birmingham perhaps should be included, bands should only be included if Birmingham was an essential part of their history (like Liverpool was to The Beatles). Average Earthman 23:25, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looking at this talk page, most of the people who raised their voice here think this category is overcategorized, and it was explained what should belong in this category and what shouldn't, so I'm going to remove some articles that to not belong to this article (bands, books, etc.) from this category. --Conti|✉ 19:38, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

My (actually not only my) attempts to remove some categories from the articles are getting reverted. Again.. Now I could revert again and start an edit war, but that won't help anyone. What to do in such a situation? --Conti|✉ 22:34, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Either produce evidence that of Wiki policy that categorizaton should be arbitrarily limited in the way you seem to desire; or accept taaht there is no over- categorization. Andy Mabbett 08:46, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no policy about what belongs in a category and what not (some guidelines should be made IMHO), therefore we must rely on common sense and what the majority of wikipedians think is right. --Conti|✉ 14:18, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, the old "common sense" fallacy - and (lack of demonstration of a majority of Wikipedians not withstanding) Wikipedia is not a democracy. Andy Mabbett 16:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course I didn't meant the majority of all of the thousands of wikipedians, but the majority of the wikipedians that raised their voice here. So if not the majority and not common sense, who or what decides what belongs in this category in your opinion then? --Conti|✉ 17:03, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

ContiE, I agree with you about this, and what few comments have been made to this page also seem to support the opinion that there are too many extraneous articles in this category. However, I think it will be difficult to gain any traction over someone determined to revert. I suspect that an RfC will be needed for each and every article that you want to extricate from that category. Once there is a clear majority in favor of removing from a specific article (as with LOTR), Andy will have a harder time continuing his reversion. older≠wiser 17:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there are extraneous articles. It is important not to develop a "George Washington slept here" kind of mentality when categorizing. For example Rip Van Winkle should not be included here partly because the story isn't related to Birmingham and partly because the author's article is already in Category:Residents of Birmingham, England.

And although there isn't really such a thing as too many articles within a single category, if you find several articles (5 or 7 maybe) that could be grouped together, creating a subcategory would be a logical step. —Mike 19:22, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

As there is no clear consensus on this topic, why don't we just start a vote? I wrote all the articles that I think should be removed from this category down and also added what connection they have with Birmingham I found on the corresponding articles. --Conti|✉ 01:09, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Wizzard, Spencer Davis Group, Dexy's Midnight Runners, Charlatans UK, Musical Youth, Bentley Rhythm Ace, Duran Duran and Black Sabbath are all bands that were formed in Birmingham. No special connection between Birmingham and these bands is mentioned in any of the articles, so I've put them all into one vote.

• Keep:
• Remove:

1. Conti|✉ 01:52, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
2. PMcM 00:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. older≠wiser 01:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Sean Curtin 09:52, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC) although maybe move into Category:Musical groups from Birmingham, England.

Bakelite "was formed in 1927 from the amalgamation of three suppliers of phenol formaldehyde materials: the Damard Lacquer Company Limited of Birmingham; Mouldensite Limited of' Darley Dale and Redmanol Limited of London."

• Keep:
• Remove:

1. Conti|✉ 01:52, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
2. PMcM 00:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. older≠wiser 01:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Sean Curtin 09:52, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

The Archers is a radio series with a "rural flavour" that is recorded in Birmingham.

• Keep:
• Remove:

1. Conti|✉ 01:52, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
2. PMcM 00:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. older≠wiser 01:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Sean Curtin 09:52, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Mellotron is a keyboard "developed and built in Birmingham".

• Keep:
• Remove:

1. Conti|✉ 01:52, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
2. PMcM 00:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. older≠wiser 01:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Sean Curtin 09:52, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ummagumma is an album by Pink Floyd recorded in Birmingham.

• Keep:
• Remove:

1. Conti|✉ 01:52, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
2. PMcM 00:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. older≠wiser 01:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Sean Curtin 09:52, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

Rip van Winkle is a short story written in Birmingham.

• Keep:
• Remove:

1. Conti|✉ 01:52, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
2. Jeez... PMcM 00:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. older≠wiser 01:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Sean Curtin 09:52, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

HP Sauce is a sauce produced in Birmingham.

• Keep:
• Remove:

1. Conti|✉ 01:52, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
2. PMcM 00:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. older≠wiser 01:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Sean Curtin 09:52, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

All the articles have been moved to subcategories or have been removed from this category, so I think it's ok to close this poll now. Any objections? --Conti|✉ 14:07, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-categories

These are my suggestions, try them out or feel free to give feedback. Keep in mind too that anything in a sub-category should not also be in the main category. -- Netoholic 22:41, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Category:People of Birmingham, England - "Residents" implies on people that have homes there. This sub-cat should include all articles about people who originated from, or are strongly tied, to the city. (Think this way - each person article should have one maybe two such categories... is Birmingham one of those?)
• Category:Places in Birmingham, England- "Places of interest" implies the places need to be interesting. This sub-cat should include all articles about physical locations within the city (buildings, streets, airports, etc.).
• Category:Government of Birmingham, England- This sub-cat should include all articles about governing bodies within the city. It should also include any "government-devised" area divisions ("lines drawn on a map" such as districts, towns, etc.) within its confines.

"Residents" was chosen deliberately, to provide an objective qualifying measure. There is a difference between "Places", which would include all the wards, districts, towns, villages and oethr centres of community, and "Places of interest" which are generally buildings, museums, art venues and other historical or tourist attractions. There are few "goveernemnt derived" divisions whcoh are not also "Places" as I have just described. Surely this debate should be generic, and not repeated for each town and city in the UK, or even World?? Andy Mabbett 23:26, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have to say that this is certainly one of the most confusing category pages I've come across, and I'd like to see (or help with) further sub-categorisation (or complete removal from the category hierarchy) of the vast majority of the articles which are currently there. People coming to this category are surely most likely to be looking for info about things to do with Birmingham, rather than an exhaustive, and almost completely non-differentiated scatter-gun approach to everyone and anything that ever existed in, though of, or passed through the place. Furthermore, the main Birmingham, England article itself serves as an excellent point for linking to many of the things which would seem to be present here, in the category page. This seems much more sensible than including everything about Birmingham in a single one-level category. If there are enough things to make a sub-category, then why not make one?

As it stands, the list of things which is present in the main category is very hard to parse, as although they (supposedly) all have something to do with Birmingham, they have nothing in common except that. This makes it very difficult to pick out what things might actually relate to, so difficult to assign meaning to them. I'd like to see Birmingham looking more like the New York category page, with many well-organised sub-categories. PMcM 14:17, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

...or more comparably, the London category even. Note how there the articles tend to be in the form 'X about London', 'Y of London', 'List of Z in London', rather than seemingly arbitrary names, places, entities, bands... There are no doubt many more articles in the tree stemming from the plain London category than there currently are in the Birmingham one, but because they are much better organised, it is trivial to find what you might be looking for.

Also, a lot of the things which are/were in the Birmingham category (Rip van Winkle?! A joke surely...) could/should be more easily, and appropriately found by anyone doing research on Birmingham via What links here from that page, rather than indiscriminate overpopulation of the category page.

By all means have many things which are (pretty tenuously) related to Birmingham, but plonk them in more sensible sub-categories. The current very lazy approach is like having a Yellow pages with a single category called "Businesses"... PMcM 23:45, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

People coming to this category are surely most likely to be looking for info about things to do with Birmingham all the things in the category are to do with Birmingham. That said, I've already said that I would support an expansion of the sub-categories. And no, RvW is not a joke. Andy Mabbett 23:50, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you (PMcM). The problem here is that every removal of some articles from the category are constantly getting reverted by User:Pigsonthewing (aka Andy Mabbett), and it seems that many wikipedians just gave up on this topic. I started a vote (see above), but I got no response to that yet. This page is on request for comments, which brought the many comments by the wikipedians on this page. Still, besides many comments like yours, nothing has changed yet. --Conti|✉ 23:56, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I started a vote (see above), but I got no response to that yet. - That was the response. Andy Mabbett 23:59, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The category in its current form is not useful at all, due to its lack of organisation. Possibly you (both?) should support an expansion of the sub-categories by... expanding the sub categories? Suggestions for serious consideration: Areas of B'ham, Bands of B'ham, Bands influenced by B'ham, Artists influenced by B'ham, Notable inventions of B'ham, Venues in B'ham, etc. Having lots of categories with say... three to 50 things in them will be much more useful than the current undifferentiated mass that we have here at the moment.

Less realistically, and on a lighter note, I'd like to see a category: Things which don't have anything much to do with B'ham, except in the eyes of one terribly stubborn individual. Everything in the current B'ham category could go in there, until the useful bits are shuffled around into the appropriate sub-categories.

In response to User:Pigsonthewing; that's precisely what the What links here feature is for. Think of it as 'Show me everything vaguely related to this page', which is what you seem to be hoping to turn the category into. PMcM 00:25, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Subcategories would be nice in some cases, but I do not think we need a category like Bands influenced by Birmingham etc., therefore the only thing I could to would be to remove the categories from some articles, which gets reverted as I already said. Categories like Areas of Birmingham would be fine, but that's not really the thing I'm complaining about. ;-) --Conti|✉ 00:35, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

I get what you're saying. I hope that once a few more sub-categories are in place, the odd-ball inclusions (Rip van is the one that most irks personally) will look even more obviously out of place, and common sense will prevail. Forgot to mention I voted above too. PMcM 00:45, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, subcategories would be nice. But having dealt with this for a while now, I strongly doubt that they will solve the overcategorization problem at all. Thanks for your votes by the way. --Conti|✉ 01:02, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

How sad to see people resort to personal abuse and the "common sence" fallacy. Andy Mabbett 10:14, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

err.. could you please explain who's personally abusing what here..? --Conti|✉ 10:31, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Pigsonthewing for putting in a lot of effort and making some very sensible sub-categories. Would you like myself and others to help you out in this task, or is this category 100% your baby?

With respect to personal abuse, it would seem to be (from looking at your other ongoing crusades) something with which you are more than capable of dealing, albeit in a rather abrasive, and brusk manner. The majority of your counterpoints to people's issues raised with some of your edits (XP, Prince Charles as a painter, etc.) seem to take the form of "I know best", "So? I don't care", and "Please explain, with reference to...". This is often the case after someone has just spend five to ten minutes of editing time explaining quite clearly their point of view.

Just to try and explain my reasoning against the over-categorisation issue once more (although I'm starting to lose the will to live with this one) I would imagine that out of people looking for things relating to Birmingham, probably a tiny minority will be interested in the fact that Rip van Winkle was written there. These people can read it in the article, so there's no need to include it in the category. I am, however, willing to concede to your sensible idea of having it in the Literature of... sub-category, which is infinitely more sensible than simply having it lying - inexplicably - in the main cat.

I can't really understand your fixation with needing to populate various categories to extreme degrees. To digress somewhat, and go back to the Prince Charles example; if I was to consider Prince Charles, I would think of him as a Prince (clearly), future king, philanthropist and possibly, eventually, I'd remember that he's a painter in his spare time. A quick glance at the categories he is in suggests that he is a well-known and influential painter most of the time, which is "a fallacy". His inclusion in the category for the sake of name-dropping devalues its usefulness, much in the same way as many of the Birmingham entries did. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh paint too; why are they excluded? (This question is rethorical). Furthermore - and quite incredibly - not a single mention of his painting activities occurs in the article, yet he is in the British Painters category...? This seems pointless. Should he also be in a Known wearers of shoes category?

You have no doubt noticed a pattern developing in your edits; that they are praised, with the exception of some of your categorisation decisions, which you seem to single-handedly taking the high-ground on. Polite requests by many users are met with terse put-downs, and a dreadfully unhelpful "No surrender" attitude. This is in no way in the spirit of Wikipedia, and is intensely frustrating for any user who has the patience and time to put up with it for more than a few rounds. I also note that you seem to be the only person in your corner on this issue.

Possibly you should consider being somewhat more accommodating on the issue of categories? The time you spend defending your repeated reverts could much more productively be spent doing other editing tasks, which are more beneficial to the community, and don't put so many noses out of joint. I also refer you to the unfortunately titled 'Stay cool' page, which I have found most helpful.

Thanks again for making the additional sub-categories. It looks much more sensible already. Again, I'm more than willing to help you out with these, provided everything I do isn't instantly unilaterally reverted! PMcM 15:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC) (Not doing too well at remembering to sign things today...)