Template talk:England people message

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This template is intended to be placed in categories such as Category:People from Chigwell. It fills in all the various categories they should belong to automatically, so to keep things consistent.

This:

{{ England people message
| place=     Chigwell
| district=  Epping Forest
| county=    Essex
}}

produces:

This category includes people from Chigwell in Essex.

For places within Greater London, use Template:London people message (it fills in some other details).

Contents 1 Discussion 1.1 From or natives? 1.2 Recent changes 1.3 Category topology 2 disambiguated cities 3 Category for Deletion on People from Stoke on Trent by settlement

[edit] Discussion

[edit] From or natives?

"From" is a fairly meaningless term. The "natives of" and "people from" cats should really only cover people who were born there and/or grew up there (until they left school). Otherwise people get stuck in who once lived there for a bit, which makes the cats fairly meaningless. People tend to be shaped by where they grew up, which is what is interesting about these cats. I've changed the template to reflect this. -- Necrothesp 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I created this template with a view to standardising the categories as they have become very inconsistent. We need to have a discussion with other editors to agree the best way forward on this. Amending the categories in this template at the moment, while it is only partly implemented will just make this more of a mess. MRSC • Talk 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but why? Why does the wording need to be changed back again (and what on earth is "complicated" about it)? As a bit of background, I created many of these cats in the first place and this template has already changed a lot of what I put in, and removed a lot of what I added (e.g. my attempts to categorise the towns by their modern boroughs as well as by their modern and former counties). As this wasn't discussed first, I fail to see why the template can't be altered without discussion - that strikes me as being rather high-handed, I'm afraid. Although I agree that it's a good idea in principle, I did put a lot of work into this and I'd rather it wasn't just overridden because a new template has appeared on the scene. -- Necrothesp 23:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Then we are most definitely not at odds, as my change to the template was with a view to organising by counties and districts. I had also categorised many others by county and district elsewhere but put the settlement categories directly in a category for all articles relating to the district rather than Category:People from district.

As regards the text changes, I left the bolding out but changed the text so part of it was not in parenthesis, I felt this look awkard and was less clear.

I've noticed there has been debate about if natives of/people from should be used on other talk pages. I would like to see this explored further here. MRSC • Talk 23:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks much better for each unitary authority cat to have a single "People from x" cat and subcats for each town ("People from y") under that, as opposed to have the "People from y" cats directly under the unitary authority category. Otherwise the UA category is swamped by "people from" cats.

What I was really wondering about though was why you changed my wording back, thus once more ditching the specific "born or raised" in favour of the nebulous "from", and also removing the links on the counties and removing "England" again (yes, we know it's England, but somebody from abroad might not - we should never assume knowledge). These seemed to me to be eminently sensible things to include, which is why I did so in the original pre-template text. You also removed my link to the London Borough articles (which are the appropriate ones in the circumstances). -- Necrothesp 00:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. The "born and raised bit" was removed because I am not convinced that is what is contained in all these categories at the moment. I accept that is most likely what should be in them, but that would describe a "natives of" type category; it didn't seem to match up with the category naming. England is a perfectly valid addition, I should have left that in. However, I don't see the need for lots of links, the parent categories go to the counties and districts, it seemed overlinking to have them in the text. It also would make West Midlands not work properly. MRSC • Talk 00:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

re: the district cats: I think it is confusing to have, for example Category:People from Salford with sub cats for the individual settlements, and articles for people from central Salford in the category too. I think this will be non-obvious for some people. MRSC • Talk 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's what should be in them (and I think these categories are pointless otherwise) then it's a good idea to say so, otherwise people will continue to add inappropriate articles to them. We may as well be proactive. I'm not sure there's such a difference between "natives of" and "people from", actually. I grew up in Cornwall and I now live in Coventry after spending years in Kent, but I'd never say I was from Coventry or Kent - I just live(d) there. I'm still very much from Cornwall. Maybe other people use the terms differently, but I'm not so sure they do.

I'm afraid I disagree about the district cats. I think it's far more confusing now than it was before. -- Necrothesp 00:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't see how it is confusing to have Category:People from Salford and Category:People from Eccles on the same category level. To have Category:People from Eccles within Category:People from Salford, where Salford only refers to the city centre for articles directly within in, but to the whole district only for categories in it seems illogical. There are a number of settlements that give their name to the larger district, this would blur the lines between the two. This already happens at the moment where people add information to the district article rather than the settlement and vice versa. MRSC • Talk 07:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Under Category:Oldham I think it's much better to have a single Category:People from Oldham category and subcats within that instead of swamping the category with "people from" categories. Of the eight subcats there, all but one are now "people from" cats, instead of the single one that was there before. That to me looks wrong. -- Necrothesp 02:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

The effect of some recent edits was to make Category:People from Preston a sub cat of Category:People from Preston. Was this really intended? MRSC • Talk 22:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there now district and borough? What is the difference? MRSC • Talk 07:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a district. Why did you revert it. The problem is you do not understand the organisatin of local government in this country. I suggest you leave it well alone.--84.9.192.124 11:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

All boroughs are districts in England. Your change makes no sense. MRSC • Talk 16:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

and would you care to explain this edit summary: rvv. No they are not. See reality stop messing up the hierachy and messing with things you have no knwoledge off. If the borough var is not set it has no effect no leave it alone as you are messing up [1] ? MRSC • Talk 19:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category topology

I have made a change to group the settlements together by borough or district. To make it clear what is happening, here is the topology for two examples using the template. MRSC • Talk 11:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Natives of Essex	Category:People by city or town in England	Category:Epping Forest
		Category:People from Epping Forest by settlement
Category:People from Loughton

Category:Natives of Greater Manchester	Category:Natives of Lancashire	Category:People by city or town in England	Category:Manchester
	Category:Natives of Lancashire (before 1974)		Category:People from Manchester by settlement
Category:People from Burnage

Here is a further example, this time for Merseyside. I welcome any explanation as to how this scheme does not include the metropolitan boroughs as claimed by the anon ip that edits this template. MRSC • Talk 14:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Natives of Merseyside	Category:Natives of Lancashire	Category:People by city or town in England	Category:Sefton
	Category:Natives of Lancashire (before 1974)		Category:People from Sefton by settlement
Category:People from Aintree

[edit] disambiguated cities

How do I use this template for categories like Category:People from Lancaster where I want to disambiguate Lancaster to Lancaster, Lancashire? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what I am doing:

| place= Etruria, Staffordshire

| piped= Etruria

| district= Stoke-on-Trent

| county= Staffordshire

Hope this helps, Regan123 22:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category for Deletion on People from Stoke on Trent by settlement

Contributors may be interested in the above, in relation to this template, which came up after I have begun updating the Staffordshire entries. Regan123 21:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion there seems to be suggesting that people should be categorised by contemporary local government district only, not by settlement. I have grave concerns with this approach. MRSC • Talk 20:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)