Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Category:North Carolina places

The following discussion comes from Categories for deletion. This is an archive of the discussion only; please do not edit this page. -Kbdank71 19:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Category:North Carolina places
Unnecessary blending/redundancy of Category:North Carolina landmarks, Category:North Carolina geography and Category:North Carolina municipalities. "Places" is a term beyond vagueness, and the other subcategories are quite proper to have in the root level of Category:North Carolina&mdash;there is no need to jumble them together in a manner that is furthermore inconsistent with the structure of all other state categories and does not fit into the parent structure for states and their subcategories within Category:United States. Postdlf 22:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I dunno. With the proliferation of categories for unincorporated communities, census-designated places, cities, towns/townships, and villages (and in NC military bases), I've thought about doing something similar to organize all these populated places. I agree that "places" is a vague name, but some sort of holding category for all of these other related categories might be useful. So, for now I support this specific deletion, but I think I'd like to see essentially the same category with a more meaningful name--maybe "Populated places in xxxx"? older &ne; wiser 23:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * "Communities in xxxx"? -Aranel (" Sarah ") 01:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "Communities in xxxx" would be nice except that many of the census-designated places are not exactly communities in any traditional sense of the term--many are just arbitrary areas defined for statistical purposes. older &ne; wiser 01:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * If it has no legal designation and is not recognized locally as a community, why should there be a separate article? It seems rather silly to me.  But putting the towns, cities, and villages in separate categories also seems a bit overdone for my taste.  &mdash;Mike 07:31, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * CDPs are a grab-bag. Many ARE communities (or a least there is a community with the same name that the CDP approximately corresponds to). However, some are simply the urbanized area around a municipality, but outside the municipal boundaries. In other cases they are an aggregation of several nearby unincorporated communities. I find the demographic information useful, though it requires some research to determine what exactly the CDP represents. older &ne; wiser 12:58, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * One solution would be to put all such "places" in the state geography subcategory, with the municipalities also cross-categorized under the state government subcategory. I believe "geography" is broad enough to include politically defined places, as well as physical features of the landscape, isn't it?  Postdlf 21:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Category:North Carolina geography.