From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus to merge --KarlB (talk) 04:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose merging the information in Designated (landmarks) here. That page was created in an attempt to justify Designated as a disambiguation page, but this article appears to be the correct place for it (and is listed on the Designation disambiguation page). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • support but only if the heavy US-centric spin and buzzwords are removed for more neutral terms. Exit2DOS2000TC 12:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article "Designated (landmarks)" is not focused on the notion of "landmark" as a term, but rather on the word "designated" as defined in the process of approving a landmark as a so-called designated landmark. Hence the article focuses on the questions: What does it mean for it to be "designated" and by whom? That article was created (by me) to explain what is meant by the term "designated" in regards to landmarks, historic places or other objects of historic value. I began writing the article with the highly notable information about U.S. National Historic Landmarks, but the intent is to expand that article with more information about other notable procedures for approving a landmark as "designated" rather than describing the meaning of the term "landmark" as an object. The focus of that article truly is the term "designated" (for landmarks) rather than a general description of the term "landmark" across the world. There are other words, such as "declared" or "listed" which have specific official meanings for historic places or other objects of historic value, as defined by government agencies or societies.
    I can understand the viewpoint, that if the text of "Designated (landmarks)" were to be merged into "Landmark" then the scope of information would seem inappropriate, and much too detailed, for describing the term landmark. It's like the difference between "car" and "safe driving" or "defensive driving" as regards the difference in scope. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, with the pruning recommended by Exit2DOS2000. As it is, the page is mostly a recapitulation (often verbatim) of [1]. While there is no copyright on U.S. federal works, there is little point to slavishly reproducing content available (and maintained) elsewhere. olderwiser 18:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think I oppose until the place of the quite specific Designated landmark (what's with the parentheses?) in relation to Cultural heritage management is carefully considered. I only stumbled on that article looking around for an equivalent of de:Denkmalschutz. Sparafucil (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
oppose - the page landmark is about the broad English usage of a very broad term, whereas the specified page is much more about a term d'art, though the later might merit a note and brief explanation. However, the "designated landmark" page is longer than the NHL article (of which it deals heavily), which could use expanding; further, it covers much the same that should be in the Historic preservation, cultural heritage and cultural heritage management pages. I suggest that it be incorporated into those relevant articles. Morgan Riley (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - although at present this page is mainly US orientated, the term 'designation' has a legal meaning for certain landscape structures in UK planning legislation as well. However the UK use of the term does not just refer to landmarks. Historic buildings, ancient monuments, battlefields and archive collections are 'designated' by the UK government to give them a measure of legal protection from damage and neglect. It depends on what you mean by the word 'landmark'. Agree that this page should be re-oriented towards 'designation' and its meaning for heritage related items across the world, rather than incorporating it into 'landmark'. Alternativly, re-name this Designation US. There are also Wikipedia pages for related topics for other countries designated place which seems to refer to Canada, and one called Designation Scheme which refers to the UK. It would be nice to reach some common naming convention for all of these 3 pages, which contain information about similar issues but for different legislative regimes. FGLawson (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.