Talk:List of blue plaques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Remit

A good start to this page - Mr Submillimeter's format is a good idea and should be applied to the whole list, although obviously there will be a lot of blanks as regards locations, although www.blueplaque.com seems a good source, including for non-LCC/GLC/EH plaques (e.g. H.G. Wells Society's scarlet plaque to the author on Baker Street). With the latter in mind, we perhaps need an additional column in the table to denote issuing authority.

I've also altered the text to reflect the comemoration of non-person-specific events. Nick Cooper 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we place non-LCC/GLC/EH plaques on this page or a separate page? I lean towards placing them on a separate page. Dr. Submillimeter 19:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I would rather favour putting them in a separate section on this page for the time being. I would be surprised if we haven't got a number of non-RS/LCC/GLC/EH plaque listed already. A quick check on blueplaque.com shows that in some cases individuals have both RS/LCC/GLC/EH and "other" plaques, while some are only the latter. It may also be the case that the existance now of a non-EH plaque may have a bearing on whether or not an "official" one is created. Nick Cooper 20:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I reformatted the Events section. Please let me know what you think. Dr. Submillimeter 20:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with inline citation to www.blueplaque.com

An inline citation to http://www.blueplaque.com produced a "speedy deletion" template. Does anyone know what the problem is? I will try inserting the reference again. Dr. Submillimeter 20:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I must have done something strange when filling in the reference. Dr. Submillimeter 20:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Official?

Congratulations on the effort in populating these lists.

I wonder what your definition of official is? One might argue that the municipal schemes, organised by elected councils are as, or more, official than those now administered and created by non-unelected quango. I am not sure whether it makes sense to separate them, but if they are to be in two lists then one is surely London, English Heritage (and predecessors) and the other is Other schemes. Oosoom Talk to me 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Nick Cooper used the term "official". I switched it to "London/English Heritage". Dr. Submillimeter 15:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was just a first stab at an atlernative to an unweildy "Royal Society of Arts, London County Council, etc. plaques" and seemed valid given the definite line of descent from the RSA to EH via the LCC & GLC, and I thought "Original" would be misleading. That said, the current form seems OK. As regards other plaques, I think including the word "schemes" is misleading, because while there definitely are some (e.g. Bromley & Westminister), in other cases plaques very definitely based on the RSA/LCC/GLC/EH ones are either of unknown origin or are the sole examples erected by a particular organisation. I've just tweaked this to "Other similar plaques" as we need to be clear that they need to emulate the RSA/LCC/GLC/EH ones. Nick Cooper 16:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe the "other" plaque schemes can be moved to a separate page (or separate pages)? Dr. Submillimeter 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why have separate lists? Of course it makes the validation/referencing much easier, but it is a pure accident of geography whether a plaque is issued by London council, Westminster council or Manchester council. With the exception of some ad-hoc creations, such as the Tolkien Society the majority are from public or local history organisations. There are some people who are named on multiple plaques around the country, as they moved, and it would make some sort of sense to have them adjacent. Oosoom Talk to me 17:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
It's now clear that there are enough examples to have a separate list for the "Others"; it should be fairly simple to cross-reference between the two where there are both EH et al and Other plaques.Nick Cooper 17:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plaque origin

I'm going to add - where known - the appropriate acronym for RSA/LCC/GLC/EH in the "Reference" column. This seems a useful bit of information in dating the plaques. Nick Cooper 16:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The introductory text already says that the issuing authority is the RSA/LCC/GLC/EH. Also, the English Heritage website does not explicitly indicate the issuing authority. The information is not needed. Moreover, it should not be put in the "reference" column, which is for the footnote to the references. Dr. Submillimeter 16:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I would maintain that - where known - it is useful for dating the plaques, and is noted on www.blueplaque.com where there is an entry. The reference column seemed as good a place as any, given that otherwise there a fair amount of dead space there. Nick Cooper 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not indicate the date on which the plaque is erected? That would be more interesting and more useful than indicating which "official" organization issued the plaque. In any case, THE REFERENCE COLUMN IS FOR REFERENCES, NOT THE ISSUING ORGANIZATION! If you want to put this information into the table, create a new column. (I would encourage using the date on which the plaque was put up rather than the issuing agency.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
That's fair enough. I was under the impression that the EH site didn't give the dates, but I see that it does. Nick Cooper 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ser Edwin Landseer Lutyens

Where did Ser Edwin Landseer Lutyens come from? It must be a mis-typing. It does not exist on Google and wasn't on the original robot list. Oosoom Talk to me 16:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a mis-typing that for some reason is a redirect on WIkipedia. Nick Cooper 17:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I must have miswritten the name. Please fix it. Dr. Submillimeter 17:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone else fixed it first. I rewrote the name so that it contains the full name with the correct spelling. (The redirect will probably be useful if someone misspells it again.) Dr. Submillimeter 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization

After we fill in the existing entries on the list, can we stop to discuss how to organize the material better? The reference column may or may not be necessary, but it looks like a "year issued" and a "notes" coulmn may be useful. (PLEASE DISCUSS BEFORE DOING ANYTHING FIRST!) Dr. Submillimeter 17:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a "notes" column wouldn't be a good use of space, as in most cases it will be empty. It would probably be best to add notes where appropriate, e.g. I've already noted that the plaque to Lutyens is a joint one (and vice versa), but it seems best to put this detail with the location, rather than risk potential confusion by putting it with the other name. The name column would seem a suitable place to cross-reference between the two lists, but we'd have to agree on a common form. It would probably be better to use an aterisk or other symbol, rather than an unwieldy "see also..." Nick Cooper 17:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The Lutyens note is the one that prompted me to start this discussion. I think I agree that putting the information with the location makes sense. What about turning the reference column into a "year issued" column? A note at the top of the table can indicate that all or virtually all of the plaque information is from the English Heritage website. (The "other" plaques, however, will probably need a reference column, as the source of information for those plaques will probably be heterogeneous.) Dr. Submillimeter 18:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Meek

I'm going to move this to the "Others" list, as - as I suspected - it's not on the EH site. There seems to be plenty of evidence that there is a plaque, but I haven't been able to find out who was responsible. The Wiki page on Meeks notes that it is actually black. Nick Cooper 18:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Several of the entries are from non-EH plaque schemes. (Many entries include pictures on the Wikipedia pages.) They should all be shuffled into the "other" section. Dr. Submillimeter 18:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Likewise Spike Milligan. It seems the Dead Comics Society have now cheekily styled themselves "Comic Heritage"! Nick Cooper 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization issues

I had a few organizational issues that I wanted to discuss with people before making changes to the list:

1. I think the "reference" column could be removed from the London\English Heritage tables. This column could be replaced with a "year issued" column, which may be more interesting. A text statement at the top of the column could indicate that the information is taken from the English Heritage website unless otherwise noted. Does that seem approrpiate?

2. I would like to add two columns to the "Other schemes" section: a column for references, and a column for the plaque color. At the moment, the issuing organization, the plaque color, and the references are all jammed into one column. Do other people think that this would be appropriate?

Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 11:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections. Any plans to mention the colour (where not blue) in the London/English Heritage table? For example, Mozart. Oosoom Talk to me 13:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I had not thought about that. Since most are blue, perhaps it would not be useful to have a separate column, although a general discussion on plaque color at the top of the section and possibly notes added to the entries that are exceptions would be useful. Dr. Submillimeter 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1. I'm a bit torn on the need to reference all the EH/predecessor plaques to the EH website, but then again www.londonremembers.com has pictures of many in the capital, as has the www.blueplaques.com site. As to colour, it would be a bit of a waste of space to have a separate column, given that most of them will be blue. I'd favour noting any exceptions in the address column.
2. That seems fine. It's getting to a point now where we should probably split the Others off onto a separate page, as it is. It has occured to me that it might be deemed to be appropriate to section such a page as per the major schemes, but that would make the job of cross-referencing plaques to the same individual under other schemes (including EH) more problematic.
3. Another issue is how to treat non-London EH plaques. There is only the one to George Elkington in Birmingham, which is current in the EH/London section. Should this be separated, or the section renamed? Nick Cooper 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1. We could always have an "External links" section to BluePlaques.com and www.londonremembers.com. Alternatively, we could also note BluePlaques.com and www.londonremembers.com as supplementary references in a note at the top of the tables.
2. I suspect that the London/English Heritage plaques will eventually need to be split into separate pages anyway. However, I understand the concern about cross referencing.
3. I suggest leaving non-London EH plauqes in the list with the London EH plaques for now. One possibility in the future is to list plauqes alphabetically within one set of lists and list plaques by location in a separate set of lists. For example, a "list of blie plauqes in Kensington and Chelsea" may be veyr interesting. Dr. Submillimeter 07:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Logie Baird/22 Frith Street, W1

This one has been bugging me all week. Is this to Baird or to Television? When you look at the actual plaque ([1]), the latter word is given more prominance than you usually see. Nick Cooper 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

English Heritage lists it under Baird, and I would interpret it as commemorating Baird. I suggest listing it under Baird. Dr. Submillimeter 07:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sortable tables

Have you seen what you can do with sortable tables? Just add the keyword sortable after wikitable. I have done this for the Others table to demonstrate. It makes the display sortable on each column by clicking the symbol in the column header. It does not change the order in the source page which will show the original order next time, or if the page is refreshed. I was rather hoping that something like this could have been used for all plaques in one table to show plaques grouped by name, by profession, or by awarding body. Naturally some columns will not be meaningful if sorted. Oosoom Talk to me 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to make the sort mechanism more intelligent? For example, when sorting by name, the table alphabetizes people by their first name. Is it somehow possible to set up the sorting mechanism to sort people by last name instead? What else could we sort by aside from name and issuing agency? Is the sort mechanism really appropriate for these lists? Dr. Submillimeter 19:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Using a technique from wikimedia Help:Sorting], by adding
<span style="display:none">Surname, Forenames</span>
before each visible name you can make the table sortable by Surname. This is a rather cumbersome technique! I wonder whether a clever template could construct both the invisible and visible portions.
This is realy only worth thinking about if the table itself is worth sorting - pretty useless if all the data is is different lists. I envisaged a single list with all plaques, sortable by person, place, profession or notable event type, awarding body, date, whatever.
Example based on the B section of the list. Edit the section to see how it is done:

[edit] B

Person Notability Address Reference
Baird, John LogieJohn Logie Baird
(1888-1946)		 Television pioneer 3 Crescent Wood Road
Sydenham, Lewisham, SE26		 [1]
Balcon, MichaelSir Michael Balcon
(1896-1977)		 Film producer Ealing Film Studios, Ealing Green
Ealing W5		 [1]
Barlow, William HenryWilliam Henry Barlow
(1812-1902)		 Engineer High Combe, 145 Carlton Road
Charlton, Greenwich, SE7		 [1]
Baird, John LogieJohn Logie Baird
(1888-1946)		 First demonstration of television 22 Frith Street
Westminster, W1		 [1]
Bazalgette, Joseph WilliamSir Joseph William Bazalgette
(1819-1891)		 Civil engineer 17 Hamilton Terrace
St John's Wood, Westminster, NW8		 [1]
Beardsley, AubreyAubrey Beardsley
(1872-1898)		 Singer Hampton Branch Library, Rose Hill
Hampton, Richmond Upon Thames		 [1]
Burne-Jones, EdwardSir Edward Burne-Jones
(1833-1898)		 Artist 41 Kensington Square
Kensington, Kensington and Chelsea, W8		 [1]
Burnett, Frances HodgsonFrances Hodgson Burnett
(1849-1924)		 Writer 63 Portland Place
Westminster, W1		 [1]
Butterfield, WilliamWilliam Butterfield
(1814-1900)		 Architect 42 Bedford Square
Camden, WC1		 [1]
Just something to think about :) Oosoom Talk to me 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not mind the laborious route. However, I have a couple of additional questions:
  • For practical reasons (mainly so that we can edit the list relatively easily), we need to divide the English Heritage list alphabetically into smaller lists. Does it make sense to add sortability functions to a list that is already divided this way? Does sorting everyone whose last name begins with a specific letter make sense?
  • What should the sort criteria be for the address box (if we use sorting)? Would borough or city be a good idea?
I am beginning to think that the sort function is not useful for the current English Heritage list or a series of subpages sorted alphabetically, although its implementation in the "other schemes" section currently makes sense (because the names are not split alphabetically yet). Sortability could be very valuable if we create something such as specific lists of EH plaques for individual boroughs or cities (e.g. List of blue plaques in Kensington and Chelsea) or lists of plaques given by a specific agencies (e.g. List of historical plaques issued by the Westminster City Council). Oosoom, what are your thoughts? Dr. Submillimeter 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it makes a lot of sense to sort by, or within, surname letter. Only across the whole superset of plaques is the ability to cross-categorise by location, event, or name (a person may have a plaque in more than one city or town) useful. In any case, once you have, for example, a List of plaques issued by Westminster then you are just duplicating information which may be on the web site of the awarding organisation. I realise that having one huge table is awful to edit, made worse by the extra columns that might be added to make sorting sensible, but I reckon that's the only way. Anything else is just a bunch of lists with not much added value. Oosoom Talk to me 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I do think that this article's list is a useful navigational aid for Wikipedia. This list should be considered a supplement to blue plaque. I also think that smaller lists for other agencies issuing plaques (such as the City of Westminster) could actually be placed within articles with additional information on the histories of the various plaque schemes. Does this seem like a good justification for keeping the lists? Dr. Submillimeter 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of experimental additions

I made a couple of experimental additions to the H section:

1. I added an image of a blue plaque (from User:Oosoom).
2. I added a wikilink to the article on the building where Handel's plaque is located.

If you have comments, please let me know. I think adding more pictures and Wikilinks would enhance this page. (I would also like to add credits to the captions. Would "Credit:User:Oosoom." be an acceptable addition?) Dr. Submillimeter 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You can also add pictures in a column of a table to place them next to their details. However, I worry about page load time and performance if every plaque has a picture. Crediting the photographer, I think, is unnecessary and would clutter the page. Nice thought though :) Oosoom Talk to me 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth having more than a few example plagues, say an early RCA one, an LCC/GLC/EH blue one, and a couple of "others" to demonstrate variance. There are photos of many/most London plaques on www.londonremembers.com and www.blueplaque.com, and links to either/both should suffice.
Incidentally, I think we do need to have non-displayed warnings not to add names to the EH et al sections unless they're verified on the EH website. Recent experience with someone arbitrarily adding Joe Meek - even though he's already and properly in the "others" - demonstrates that some people are apt to put names in when they're aware of a plaque, without knowing who was actually responsible for it. Nick Cooper 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the picture for now. I like Nick Cooper's idea of showing a few examples. Maybe this can be done at the tops of the "London/English Heritage" and "other plaque schemes" sections.
I guess the links to specific buildings are OK. Please let me know if you have specific comments on the implementation.
I do agree with Nick Cooper on adding "hidden" instructions about non-EH plaques, but I have the impression that those would be ignored. I have the impression that many people cannot tell them apart. (At some point, Category:Buildings with blue plaques will need clean-up for similar reasons, but that is a subject for another time.) Dr. Submillimeter 14:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability column usage

There is nothing in the notability column for Gandhi. Is there an intention that this column should only state what is on the plaque or EH website (in his case, nothing), or should a summary be created? Something like politician or Indian leader? Oosoom Talk to me 09:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I had been using what was written on the plaques (as stated on the English Heritage website). We could state that the intention of the Notability column is to indicate what London\English Heritage cites as these individuals' notability and then leave the notability sections blank for Gandhi and Marx, which would be my preference. However, if other people want, we could also attempt to write small descriptions of Gandhi and Marx based on their Wikipedia articles. Dr. Submillimeter 11:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we should in some way indicate that the notability is not declared by EH (ie. "Not stated"), otherwise other editors may see a blank space and try to research the EH site (as I did) and invent a description (as I nearly did). Oosoom Talk to me 11:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That seems appropriate to me. I still think a text description at the top of the tables would be appropriate, too. Dr. Submillimeter 11:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I certainly think we should stick to the EH descriptions, and feature them in inverted commas to indicate them as direct quotes from the plaques/site, which would help avoid people "embellishing" the description (which may lead to POV issues). In the case of plaques where there is no description, it would be best to stick to how Wikipedia describes them. Nick Cooper 14:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unpublished list from English Heritage

I have today received from English Heritage a list of the blue plaques outside London. This is unpublished, presumably copyright, and also, presumably, original research, so cannot be used as a sole reference for the lists. I have suggested that they add it to their website! For what it is worth, it is here, and may be useful for checking lists. Oosoom Talk to me 21:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for acquiring the list. Hopefully, we can find web references for these plaques. (Plaques in Birmingham appear to be easy to confirm using the web.) Dr. Submillimeter 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A quick glance shows all the Portsmouth and Southampton plaques covered by the Wessex Tourist Board. The Liverpool plaques seem to be all covered here. Nick Cooper 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/s/Talk%7EList_of_blue_plaques_db44.html"