Talk:Blue plaque

Deletion of Category:Blue plaques, Category:People commemorated by blue plaques, Category:Buildings with blue plaques

The three categories:

• Category:Blue plaques
• Category:People commemorated by blue plaques
• Category:Buildings with blue plaques

have been nominated for deletion by another editor. If you have an interest perhaps you might consider voting at the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 18#Category:Blue plaques. Oosoom ^Talk to me 17:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate, closed on 5 December 2006, was no consensus so the categories remain. Oosoom ^Talk to me 14:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:People commemorated by blue plaques - March 2007

This category has again been nominated for deletion by another editor. Please see the discussion and voting at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 1#Category:People commemorated by blue plaques. Oosoom ^Talk to me 09:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete as overcategorisation, and listify. The list can be found at List of blue plaques. Oosoom ^Talk to me 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

A user deleted the entire "Selection controversy" subsection a while back. I've restored this section as no explanation was given for the deletion. 217.155.20.163 17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Small grammatical error/typo but not sure of the correction (sec English Heritage selection criteria)

Last sentence "proposals are be considered for the commemoration of sites of special historical interest"

I'd usually correct this kind of small error without discussion as it would be uncontroversial. However I am not sure whether to put "are to be" or cut "be". I don't know the original text or whether indeed it is quoted from literally so advice would be appreciated (or someone else to correct appropriately).

I am just getting used to Wikipedia edits and starting small so please excuse me if I am against netiquette.

-- SimonTrew 2009-Jan-14 07:19am GMT

English Heritage and money for blue plaques

It's been suggested by Wikipedia editors that money changes hands for the privilege of having a blue plaque on a house. If this is correct, it needs to be researched and included in the article with watertight referenced sources. --Kudpung (talk) 00:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

'Blue' Plaques colours

Although they are called 'blue' plaques, many are not actually blue! The eariest examples are not blue either and some other schemes use different colours. It's increasingly being used as a generic term for a commerative plaque...so I have 'undone' the change by 98.26.16.19.FGLawson (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In Literature

There is a Blue Plaque in at least one Heinlen novel that I can think of... And a few other books also. It might be a positive thing to add an "In Literature" or "In Media" section to the article? Thisfox (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Future of the BP scheme

English Heritage is continuing to support the Blue Plaques scheme - but over the next 2 years it is concentrating on reducing the backlog of plaques. So the scheme itself is not suspended as reported in The Guardian. However is not accepting any new applications for the time being. New plaques to Mendelssohn and Richard Dimbleby were put up in January and February 2013.FGLawson (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Separate articles for different UK schemes

I have a feeling that this will have been addressed before, but I wonder if there is any consensus for or against the creation of separate articles relating to local plaques schemes? The 'other UK schemes' section is starting to get quite lengthy and a little convoluted as more and more additions are made and my opinion is that local schemes are sufficiently notable so long as they meet the ordinary requirements of WP:N. Thoughts? Meetthefeebles (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Source to explain inconsistency

Under the criteria it states that fictional characters are not eligible, but then in the list of plaques it includes Sherlock Holmes. Is there some reference or statement from RSA that can be included somewhere in the article that explains this contradiction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.117.138 (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

There are many schemes and organisations that erect plaques. The English Heritage scheme (inherited from the RSA & then the LCC) is the original. Some of the other plaques use different colours but some also use blue plaques. But they don't say that they are erected by English Heritage (or the RSA or the LCC). There isn't an English Heritage plaque to Sherlock Holmes. That plaque was erected by the Sherlock Holmes Museum -- SteveCrook (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I came here seeking the same question, I think this should be expanded upon or explained in the article.76.31.130.126 (talk) 07:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is – to some extent – already explained in the article, within the "Other UK schemes" section; but I agree there's a lot of confusion on the subject, and the variety of schemes could be emphasised a bit more. I am putting a short new para about it in the lede. GrindtXX (talk) 00:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Category at Wikidata

Do you want a blue plaque category at Wikidata? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Welsh plaques

Some kind of coverage needed. They certainly exist, this one commemorates Sir Cyril Fox, but I don't know if it's Rhiwbina Civic Society or wider. Will nose around. KJP1 (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

and this one tells me it's RCS. Odd that they lived so close for so long, given that, by all accounts, Peate loathed Fox. KJP1 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Added a small section. KJP1 (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

And a little on Scotland for completeness. KJP1 (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

List of hoax commemorative plaques

Hi, @KJP1 considers my addition of List of hoax commemorative plaques to the 'See also' section as a disimprovement to the Blue plaque page, as it's "a link to a poor, weakly-sourced list, most of the entries for which are not even imitations of blue plaques." Full disclosure, I created the 'List of hoax commemorative plaques' page, and it's something I'm interested in. Admittedly, it's not a list limited to hoax "Blue plaques" alone, but the Blue plaque is such a ubiquitous style of plaque to copy that the list inevitably contains the following quite obvious pastiches of it:

• Raven Bjorn
• Katherine Ford
• Jacob von Hogflume

There are undoubtedly more of these dotted around London. Maybe part of the reason 'List of hoax commemorative plaques' comes across as a "poor, weakly-sourced list" is because the article is not being granted the exposure it needs for more people to stumble upon it and add to it. If you're as interested in plaques as I presume you must be, you could also maybe help by improving it instead of just rubbishing it as a lost cause? Regards, Ridiculopathy (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Ridiculopathy. The hoax list could certainly do with further development, but what's there is at least a start, and the topic is undoubtedly sufficiently related to this article to justify a modest "See also" entry. Note too that this article covers more than blue plaques in the narrow sense, so the argument that not all the spoof markers mimic "blue plaques" doesn't hold up. The list should also be included as a See also on Commemorative plaque. GrindtXX (talk) 14:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a hill to die on, as User:GrindtXX says it's a modest addition, but for me it's not a particularly helpful one either. The List of hoax commemorative plaques seems a poorly-focussed article; in what sense is the sign for Llandegley International Airport a "commemorative plaque"? Nor is there consensus as to the List's notability, its been tagged since 2022. Nor is it well-sourced, a mix of blogs, dead links, no sourcing at all, and a few RS, and it's tagged for this also. Lastly, of the 12 entries, only two are identifiably efforts to imitate blue plaques, a point of relevance on which I part company with GrindtXX. But if there's a consensus to include it, I won't revert again. KJP1 (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed: the idea isn't completely crazy but this list isn't yet suitable for inclusion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions @GrindtXX, @KJP1 and @Jonathan A Jones. Considering your comments, I'll leave it until the hoax list is more robust, which I do hope will happen eventually. If any of you ever stumble across any books, or newspaper articles, on the subject of "hoax plaques" please consider sending a link my way. Regards, Ridiculopathy (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)