Category talk:Brisbane

I query whether this Category is necessary. The usual reason for creating a subcategory is overcrowding of the parent category, but with Australia's population distribution nearly everyone in Queensland is going to happen to be living in Brisbane anyway. Hence you don't gain anything from the subdivision. Also, the number of articles under Cat:Queensland was not excessive in my opinion, so I think Australia does not need subdividing beyond state-level.

(Yes, I know there's a precidence with Category:New South Wales and Category:Sydney, but I disagree with that subdivision for the same reason.)--Higgs Raccoon 21:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We do also have Category:London and I think that has value. I guess the question is, what do we lose? We have CategoryTree/MultiCategorySearch/DynamicPageList to do queries for people in subcategories. Perhaps we need to make those tools more widely usable? --GreenReaper(talk) 01:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as Category:Brisbane has been applied so far (with Category:Queensland used as well), we're losing the established convention of only using the "highest" appopriate category in the Geography tree.


 * Category:London doesn't leave Category:England empty, which is what Category:Brisbane would largely do to Category:Queensland. Category:Australia was subdivided into states when the number of articles in it got quite large, but the situation here isn't the same and I feel we "lose" a useful category by leaving it with hardly any articles associated with it.


 * I could answer the question with another question, and ask what do *gain*? It seems to me to be neater in this case to keep the entire state in one category.--Higgs Raccoon 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I already disagree with the current application of all three categories to each person. :-) I guess perhaps locals think it's worth identifying those furs in Brisbane? It is a large place, after all, and it might be a hassle for people to figure out who lives where. I don't feel that strongly one way or another, though. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)