Category talk:Destroyed populated places

This is a somewhat odd selection of cities, isn't it? Most ancient cities have been destroyed at one time or another, and lumping them up together with thriving cities that have ancient roots and cities that have recently been devestated by disaster seems a bit loose to me.--Doron 12:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Cfd?
I think someone should nominate this for Category for deletion... David 12:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we should think it through on what we want to do. Right now, I put it as a subset of Category:Lost cities and towns, but only the cities that were not rebuilt or substantially declined could really be a subset. Do we need a "destroyed cities" cat if we have the lost cities cat?  I don't know. --Noitall 18:40, September 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd split the section up into two categories: Category:Lost cities and towns and Category:Destroyed and rebuilt cities and towns. CrazyC83 21:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

St. Pierre, Martinique, seems to have been somehow omitted. It remains one of the most fascinating and well known city extinctions of all time. A 1902 volcanic eruption killed all but two of the roughly 30,000 people in St. Pierre that morning and physically destroyed the city. How could this disaster be overlooked in a listing of this sort? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.48.21 (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Category either badly named or badly applied
Someone seems to have been using this category as if were something like "Cities that experienced catastrophies" or "Cites that suffered devastation". Many cities in the category were not destroyed. As nothing has yet been done to remedy the problems noted for some 3 months, I am going to start removing non destroyed cities from this category. -- Infrogmation 19:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Port Royal and New Orleans are destroyed cities. So are San Francisco and Chicago, but these towns got rebuilt.

Stayed destroyed?
Maybe the distinction should be "Wiped from the map", that is, destroyed and stayed destroyed. This would leave out the numerous cities almost destroyed by war or natural disaster but rebuilt. It would also exclude cities abandoned or died out over time. But it could include ancient cities that were destroyed, but stood on what became *sites* of future cities--after all, cities/towns are usually sited at particular places for a reason. Yes, there would be some ambiguity at the margins... Doprendek (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Destroyed cities/towns: Consolidate?
There is now a category for "Destroyed cities" and another for "Destroyed towns". I moved a (stub-size) article I had created to "Destroyed towns", because it was a village, not a city, but I see that the category "Destroyed towns" is largely of towns and villages inundated for reservoirs and the like.

Or is "Destroyed towns" specifically under "Urban Studies and Planning", that is, places destroyed with forethought as part of a large development project? In which case a more specific, less confusing category title seems necessary.

Suggestion, if the "Urban Studies" distinction does not apply: One category, "Destroyed cities and towns", and no need to distinguish between 1) cities and towns, 2) natural vs. man-made destruction. Doprendek (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)