Category talk:en:Cities in Bangladesh

RFD[edit]

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

The entries yes, but certainly not the category. We are not Wikipedia, and we don't need categories like Category:en:Cities in Germany, Category:en:Cities in the United States, etc. -- Liliana • 12:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An organizational system cannot be encyclopedic, only an entry can. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make more like it. Category:en:Cities is huge and unnavigable. Just today I created Category:en:Cities in Burma and Category:my:Cities in Burma. —An gr 19:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some time ago that we have categories for all kinds of subdivisions of Bangladesh, most of them (almost) empty. I disagree with Metaknowledge; an organizational system can be encyclopedic because Wiktionary is about words, so to categorise words based on what they refer to (rather than how they are used) is encyclopedic. It would be no different from categorising Einstein in Category:en:Physicists. So delete. —CodeCa t 19:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wiktionary is about words, and this kind of category is very useful when you try to find a word you know but you cannot remember. This is a major use of topical categories. It's not the same as Einstein: we define town names as towns names, we don't define surnames as Physicist... etc. Lmaltier (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Yair rand (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D Lexicographical = about terms; encyclopedic = about referents. We’d be better off adding Wiktionary links in the many well-categorized encyclopedia articles in Wikipedia than we are expending energy watering down the dictionary by incorporating an inevitably poorer version of Wikipedia into it. —Michael Z. 2013-02-02 22:58 z