Disputatio Categoriae:Incolae Angliae

ex pagina Disputatio Categoriae:Homines Anglici

Reasons:

• This category hasn't got Categoria:Homines secundum terram as a supercat. anyway
• Since in that supercat. the pages are classified according to modern states, I suggest Categoria:Homines Britanniarum Regni instead.

--Iovis Fulmen 11:41, 9 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

The reason it hasn't got Categoria:Homines secundum terram as a supercat is that Anglia is geographically part of Britannia, so it has Categoria:Britanni as a higher level category, and that in turn has Categoria:Homines secundum terram as its supercat.

This is not one of the easiest ones to sort out. The problems with "Regnum Britanniarum" are (a) it has no meaning before, say, the 18th century; (b) it currently includes all of Britain (but not all of the outlying islands) and a quarter of Ireland. These problems might make it more difficult to categorise people in practice, especially historical people.

In my view (but others may well disagree!) it may make sense to retain the geographical/traditional divisions:

1. Britannia
   1. Anglia
   2. Cambria
   3. Scotia
2. Hibernia

I think it's a fact that people do tend to self-identify, and to identify others, with these divisions. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:33, 9 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, whatever is decided in this case, I think (and maybe you do too) that the pattern "Homines XXXiae" is better in practice than any of the others. Patterns like "Britanni" and "Homines Anglici" are, I now think, inadvisable, because they imply ethnicity; this makes categorising more difficult and contentious. But this is another matter on which others may have quite different views! Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 9 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

To round off the discussion: the preferred form, as discussed elsewhere, is now Incolae XXXiae. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:01, 15 Decembris 2008 (UTC)