Category talk:Houses in Scotland

Renaming
Further to the discussion that took place on June 19th, re. Historic Houses in Scotland &c: I would have thought that it would have been courteous to have made known that it was taking place, to those who have spent most time working on these articles, eg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scottish Castles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wales. I live in a house, in Scotland, it is 350 years old, therefore it has some "History". It is not, however, "Historic" as that implies that either it was of unique construction, or that specific important events took place there. I would not presume to give my building an article, yet nevertheless it is a still a "House in Scotland". I would therefore ask those who have changed this classification to explain themselves on the relevant noticeboards. Regards. Brendandh 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC) copied from User talk:Dr. Submillimeter Brendandh 21:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your historic house
copied from : Brendandh 09:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC) Actually, I think your house is historic. "Historic" is a POV word with many meanings. From the perspective of many Americans, it would definitely be applicable to any house that was built before the establishment of the Untied States. For that matter, the 100-year-old house that I reside in here in Ealing is "historic" by my standards and the standards of many peopl from North America and Oceania.

Anyhow, "historic" is a subjective word with many interpretations. Categories need objective definitions; subjective inclusion criteria do not work (see Overcategorization and the examples therein). I have already given ample explanation for why the word "historic" should not be used for categorization; just look at the nominations from Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 19 and Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 21. I am honestly tired of trying to communicate my viewpoint to people who either cannot understand or are unwilling to understand, so I really do not feel like discussing this further.

I apologize for not contacting everyone involved, but as you can see, the nomination of the Scotland categories were part of a much broader set of nominations. It would have been difficult to contact everyone and every project involved (especially for the England categories). Dr. Submillimeter 00:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "I am honestly tired of trying to communicate my viewpoint to people who either cannot understand or are unwilling to understand, so I really do not feel like discussing this further." What an incredibly pompous statement. Have you ever considered that "your viewpoint" is wrong! I think that some of us are sufficiently intelligent to understand what a Historic House is, and is not, in our own country. Never have I read such ludicrous arguments on such a simple topic, which no-one in Scotland would ever have dreamed would warrant even a discussion. The simplest answer to them all is this: would someone referring to Wikipedia go looking for a Historic House under that heading, or under Houses in Scotland. I think the answer speaks for itself. One more question: since when did a historic house have to be open to the public?? David Lauder 08:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have here both an English and an American dictionary; the US one has 'historic' as a synonym for 'historical', while the English one warns about the potential for confusion in its usage. Perhaps the concept of 'historic' is not understood outside the English-English speaking world, this faux ami might explain several people's apparent confusion between 'historic house' and the more ambiguous term 'old house'? However, as a UK-specific term, with a clear meaning in this context and country, I still see no reason to 'standardize' it. Ephebi 16:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)