I do not believe categorizing cities by geographic region is OK. Let me explain
There are a lot of geographic regions intersecting with each other and people wont be satisfied if we just use UN definitions. Not to mention, there is almost always a disagreement in the boundaries of geographic regions. If we use the UN and EU definitions alone countries like Cyprus Turkey, Armenia, Georgia will be problematic to tag for instance. Is parts of Texas really a part of [[Eastern United States]]? Then there is the matter on how small geographic regions will we consider worthy of tagging... Would middle east count? If so some cities will be tagged with oodles of categories.
Lists would be better in this case too. [[Eastern United States]] article for instance is somewhat a list (I would prefer to see two lists on that page, one for "traditionally accepted" and another for "others", with proper sourcing of course). Same goes for a [[List of Pacific Rim cities]].
- Cool Cat
On 2/4/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
Abigail Brady wrote:
On 2/3/07, Bryan Derksen bryan.derksen@shaw.ca wrote:
(Not sure how else to phrase "cities located within the geographical boundaries of the Pacific Ocean" in a shorter manner, actually)
[[Category:Pacific Rim cities]]?
Honolulu isn't particularly near the rim, though, and most of the cities that are Pacific Rim are actually on continents.
And it was just a quick hypothetical example I came up with to illustrate a more general point, too, so this is all kind of a digression. I don't actually want to create this category. My point was simply that one can have both region-based and political-based geographic categories existing in parallel.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l