Template talk:Cathead English people by place/Archive 1

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)

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)

Merseyside

It obviosly doesn't work as it places all the settlements in Merseyside as well as the broughs. It confuses Bouroughs with their name sakes. It makes a mocary of the word hierachy by placing everything evrywhere. As for the diagram above it is not very good as an explanation.--84.9.210.94 16:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

OK then so why is Category:Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley not containing Category:People from the Metropolitan borough of Knowsley now then? And you still haven't explained why boroughs are somehow different to districts only in Merseyside. I note that you have still reverted before discussion again. Regan123 17:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've lost track with what is going on with these categories at the moment and its delayed any further work on them as I will not roll-out a template that is not stable. I have thoroughly explained every step of the way what I am doing and encouraged discussion in a variety of places. Can we have some polite and coherent explanation of exactly why Merseyside has to be treated differently to every other county in England, so we can move on? MRSC • Talk 08:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

It did, thankyou. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Thankfully there was no consensus to delete. MRSC • Talk 14:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, though I bet someone comes back. No consensus generally bringts another XfD at some point. Regan123 23:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Boroughs are not districts?

I've removed this again. I can't see how a borough is different from a district and no explanation has been given yet. MRSC • Talk 18:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Districts are not unitary authorities with large populations. The boroughs is short for metropolitain counties. Which have since the abolition of the County Councils been totally independent they are not a district of anywhere.--Idris Ginger Beer 21:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

But in the hierarchy on Wikipedia what is the difference from say Stoke-on-Trent (a unitary authority), Newcastle-under-Lyme (a district in Staffordshire) and the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens or Metropolitan Borough of Wigan? For the way this is set up, they all work the same. Why go to the effort of forking them? Also, there are still ceremonial counties above the Met Boroughs and county wide institutions. Regan123 21:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The is no estabished heirechy on wikipedia, there has been no vote. You have destroyed the one that existed in the Merseyside. You should explain why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idris Ginger Beer (talk • contribs).

I have destroyed no hierarchy that I can tell. If I have point it out. Regan123 23:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to inform you that what you have just said is totally incorrect. Metropolitan boroughs (aka metropolitan districts) are districts as defined by the Local Government Act 1972 and continue to be right now. The Local Government Act 1985 did not change their status, it only abolished the metropolitan county *councils* and moved functions around, it made no structural changes. So they are still (metropolitan) districts of (metropolitan) counties. I can dig out a wide variety of sources for this if you like, or just look at the relevant articles. MRSC • Talk 22:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You behaviour--Idris Ginger Beer 23:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC) in your reverts is unacceptable.

Here are a variety of sources which confirm metropolitan boroughs are districts:

• Arnold-Baker, C. Local Government Act 1972 (1973)
• Barlow, I Metropolitan Government (1991)
• Bryne, T. Local Government in Britain (1994)
• Elcock, H, Local Government (1994)

Unless you can find a variety of sources which confirm your claim, do not revert again. MRSC • Talk 09:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You produce the text which say's that. Now stop vandlising Wikipedia. --Idris Ginger Beer 15:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments by banned User:Irate using sock accounts were striked out as at this timestamp. MRSC • Talk 08:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)