Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Is there any reason at all that this isn't Category:Historical markers? I notice that there is exactly one item in the latter, which is not hooked into the category tree, but it's the one that follows our naming rules. Can we just get a bot on this? - Jmabel | talk19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have some additional requests for cat renames based on this request. If this is a clear reason for the capitalisation that is currently used, please explain why. Siebrand07:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Canada National Historic Sites to Category:National historic sites of Canada (0 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Canada National Historic Sites;National historic sites of Canada;r;
Rename Category:Historic Sites Schleswig-Holstein to Category:History of Schleswig-Holstein (430 entries moved, 0 to go) Warning: Please add a reason. Warning: Username of requester missing (user parameter). For transparency and to prevent abuse, please add your username. Historic Sites Schleswig-Holstein;History of Schleswig-Holstein;r;
3. Category:National historic sites of the United States (designations by National Register of Historic Places, Federal government of the United States)
National Historic Sites is a proper noun, at least in the US. I can't speak for other countries. So I'd leave it capitalized. ++Lar: t/c12:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 of my proposals are grounded on the spelling of List of national historic sites of Canada. A proper name usually point to an unique entity. Plural for proper names is odd, in my opinion. In the other hand, you can still have plural in a proper name, like National Register of Historic Places, but it is an unique organization. --Juiced lemon15:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first three will be moved now. Please rephrase what you like done to the fourth. I'm not sure I understand. Cheers! Siebrand07:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, State Historic Sites of the United States is a wrong category name, because you can interpret it as a category for historical sites registered by a state institution. I didn't find such state institutions. Since this category is an erroneous concept, it's useless to rename it unless we can find an appropriate subject.
Ah, OK, I understand. Done. Cheers! P.s. please take a look at the cats to be renamed in the topic at the bottom of this page. Siebrand10:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
In my opinion, "Historical information signs" is for information boards only (no plaques, no stone signs, no pointers). --Kaganer (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of suspected that historical markers were largely intended to cover plaques on pedestals, etc., while historical information signs was intended to cover information boards, etc. The problem is twofold:
1. First, the description at the top of Category:Historical markers is so broad that it encompasses all historical signage (including information boards). This presumably could be remedied (subject to comments below). The term "historical marker", however, is itself arguably broad. 2.The name of Category:Historical information signs, in plain language, encompasses all types of historical signs that convey information, including plaques, historical markers, etc. There is nothing in the title which suggests that it is limited to information boards. Confusingly, it is a subcat of Category:Historical markers, suggesting it is a type of historical marker. Arguably it should be the parent category.
I am concerned that the terms "historical information signs" and "historical markers" are a bit imprecise (especially the former) and the current organization is muddled. To add to the confusion, we also have Category:Plaques, the contents of which are described as "A [sic] commemorative plaques, or simply plaques, are plates of metal, ceramic, stone, wood, or other material, typically attached to a wall, stone, or other vertical surface, and bearing text in memory of an important figure or event." Not sure what the difference is between a plaque and a historical marker. A historical marker would seem to be a type of plaque, but what other types of plaque exist that wouldn't also be historical markers? The description at Category:Plaques makes clear that it is not intended to cover machine signs (whatever that is), information tablets (the parent cat for Category:Historical information signs) and plaques in biology (good to know). Even though the contents of Category:Plaques are described as commemorative in nature, we also have Category:Commemorative plaques just to add to the fun. Unclear what makes Category:Commemorative plaques different from Category:Plaques.
I'm not saying we should merge all these categories or anything. Just that there is a lot of overlap, and the distinctions between them are less than crystal clear. It would be great to figure out a rationale schema that covers these categories so that someone with a photo of a historical sign has a better idea where it goes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also seem to have a category entitled Category:Historic plaques, the name of which suggests that it should contain files of plaques that themselves have historic value (i.e. really old plaques), but unfortunately the category just duplicates the other categories mentioned above. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above. We should consolidate these categories: if the purpose of having categories is so that people can find images, then having multiple categories that cover the exact same topic defeats this purpose. I am sure that many editors created categories for their images without first conducting an exhaustive search for extant categories that cover the topic. That means they were careless, and that what they did can be fixed by consolidation and then deletion of the extraneous categories. Is there a way to create a kind of redirect so that no one recreates a deleted category, thinking it doesn't exist and not knowing what else to search for? I am not sure there is, but I do feel that having multiple categories on the exact same topic ("fish that breathe water", "water-breathing fish", "fish requiring water to breathe", "fish of the water-breathing variety") is redundant and not useful. If you are looking for community consensus to take action on this, I think you may consider yourself to have it at this point (and oh, have you ever seen the bridges of Cedarburg?? I have!). KDS4444 (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The COM:REDCAT shortcut is about category redirects. In simple cases it can be done manually, just update one parent category A for all files, galleries, and sub-categories of A to a new category B. After that A is empty, delete old CfD note in A (and B), and put {{Category redirect |1=B|reason=...}} in A. Finally close this CfD, ready. –Be..anyone💩01:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We still have Category:Historic plaques as a child cat, but at least all of these things are under one roof for visitors to find and that is probably a good thing. Such fuzziness and overlapping items. Dear oh dear.
Oh, a "sign" is obviously a marker that indicates something, whereas a "plaque" is a thing you a get on a your a teeth! (That's a smart alack a response— a sorry!). Anyway, I like where this has gone so far. Consolidate, baby! KDS4444 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
