happygoth09
 Joined: 06/06/09
Places: 2544
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0   |
[quote="Teresa":t7x33zf5][quote="happygoth09":t7x33zf5]I would like to request to the category moderators to [u:t7x33zf5][color=#008000:t7x33zf5]add a new category[/color:t7x33zf5][/u:t7x33zf5] named [b:t7x33zf5][rice dealer][/b:t7x33zf5]. I fixed a tag named [b:t7x33zf5]Grainbow Rice Dealer[/b:t7x33zf5] and when I search the appropriate category there's no rice dealer on categories. It will be a useful category because it do exist especially countries with their staple food is [b:t7x33zf5]rice[/b:t7x33zf5].[/quote:t7x33zf5]
Done.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=16.520749&lon=121.180543&z=19&m=b&tag=61267&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=61267&lng=en&tab=main">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=16.52 ... n&tab=main<!-- m -->[/quote:t7x33zf5]
Thank you very much Teresa! I'll be fixing other tags as well with the new category [b:t7x33zf5][rice dealer][/b:t7x33zf5] <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> |
|
|
|
savirams
 Joined: 19/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
|
|
Kotyaskin
Joined: 11/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
Hi,
I'm correcting places category in France, and many places are wrongly tagged as "village" or "hamlet" instead of "lieu-dit" (but this category doesn not exist).
Here is the english definition of a "lieu-dit" :
[quote:3huk7mnn]Lieu-dit is a French toponymic term for a small geographical area bearing a traditional name. The name usually refers to some characteristic of the place, its former use, a past event, etc. A lieu-dit may be uninhabited, which distinguishes it from an hameau (hamlet), which is inhabited. (source: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieu-dit">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lieu-dit<;!-- m -->)[/quote:3huk7mnn]
Would it be possible to create such a category ?
[u:3huk7mnn]Note:[/u:3huk7mnn]
Lieux-dits places are not just local names only known by a few peoples but are real official names with road signs, identifications on official maps such as the IGN maps (official French government mapping institute), Google maps ...
Here is an example :
Branges, is a Lieu-dit of Clairavaux village.
It is listed in various maps: [url=http://geoportail.fr/url/7F7fbF:3huk7mnn]IGN map[/url:3huk7mnn], [url=https://maps.google.fr/maps?q=Branges,+Clairavaux&hl=fr&ll=45.781502,2.171946&spn=0.025589,0.038581&sll=46.515406,4.866943&sspn=0.808006,1.234589&oq=branges&t=m&hnear=Branges,+Clairavaux,+Creuse,+Limousin&z=15:3huk7mnn]GoogleMaps[/url:3huk7mnn], and here is the item I created in [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=fr&lat=45.781950&lon=2.173748&z=15&m=b:3huk7mnn]wikimapia[/url:3huk7mnn], awaiting for its category <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->
Thanks !
Cyril |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
What should be the appropriate category for [color=#FF0000:3t86k866]Lawyer's Chambers[/color:3t86k866] ?
such as this..
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.134863&lon=75.710392&z=17&m=b&show=/25059869/Lawyer-s-Chambers">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.13 ... s-Chambers<!-- m --> |
|
|
|
Teresa
 Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev":2mmb053h]What should be the appropriate category for [color=#FF0000:2mmb053h]Lawyer's Chambers[/color:2mmb053h] ?
such as this..
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.134863&lon=75.710392&z=17&m=b&show=/25059869/Lawyer-s-Chambers">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.13 ... s-Chambers<!-- m -->[/quote:2mmb053h]
I think [office] is a apt category for that, if a whole building is dedicated as chambers for many lawyers, then it can be [office building]. |
|
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Teresa":2kkkbobo][quote="acharyavasudev":2kkkbobo]What should be the appropriate category for [color=#FF0000:2kkkbobo]Lawyer's Chambers[/color:2kkkbobo] ?
such as this..
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.134863&lon=75.710392&z=17&m=b&show=/25059869/Lawyer-s-Chambers">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.13 ... s-Chambers<!-- m -->[/quote:2kkkbobo]
I think [office] is a apt category for that, if a whole building is dedicated as chambers for many lawyers, then it can be [office building].[/quote:2kkkbobo]
Thanks for the help Teresa ! There was a category [color=#FF0000:2kkkbobo][chambers][/color:2kkkbobo], but without any description, I was wondering what was that for !!!! |
|
|
|
seafordian
 Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev":30wat1h1]What should be the appropriate category for [color=#FF0000:30wat1h1]Lawyer's Chambers[/color:30wat1h1] ?
such as this..
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.134863&lon=75.710392&z=17&m=b&show=/25059869/Lawyer-s-Chambers">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.13 ... s-Chambers<!-- m -->[/quote:30wat1h1]
We do have the category "attorneys" in the system...do we still have the category "lawyers" in there? We also have "law firm"...
perhaps if the local custom is "lawyer's chambers" it wouldn't hurt to make that a child of "law firm"? <!-- s:mrgreen: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_mrgreen.gif" alt=":mrgreen:" title="Mr. Green" /><!-- s:mrgreen: --> |
|
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":2kl0asj4][quote="acharyavasudev":2kl0asj4]What should be the appropriate category for [color=#FF0000:2kl0asj4]Lawyer's Chambers[/color:2kl0asj4] ?
such as this..
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.134863&lon=75.710392&z=17&m=b&show=/25059869/Lawyer-s-Chambers">wikimapia.org/#lang=en&;lat=29.13 ... s-Chambers<!-- m -->[/quote:2kl0asj4]
We do have the category "attorneys" in the system...do we still have the category "lawyers" in there? We also have "law firm"...
perhaps if the local custom is "lawyer's chambers" it wouldn't hurt to make that a child of "law firm"? <!-- s:mrgreen: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_mrgreen.gif" alt=":mrgreen:" title="Mr. Green" /><!-- s:mrgreen: -->[/quote:2kl0asj4]
Yes [lawyer] is a category there.
In India there are laywer's rooms within or outside the compounds of courts, some time there are only huts etc. Laywer's own offices usually elsewhere away from the courts. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| Oh I see...interesting. That would be a tough one to categorize without actually creating the category itself....... |
|
|
|
Teresa
Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="acharyavasudev":1ast2xdp] There was a category [color=#FF0000:1ast2xdp][chambers][/color:1ast2xdp], but without any description, I was wondering what was that for !!!![/quote:1ast2xdp]
The word 'chamber' can mean many things. My Oxford dictionary states 'Chamber : 1. Is a hall in a public buildings that is used for formal meetings as in Senate/House Chamber. 2. One of a parts of of a parliament as in Lower/Upper Chamber. 3. Room used for the particular purpose, for example 'a burial chamber'; 'decompression chamber' . 4. A space in the body, in a plant or in a machine, for example, the chambers of the heart; 'the rocket's combustion chamber'; 'the chamber of a gun'. 5. A space under the ground which is almost completely closed on all sides. 6. A bedroom or private room.
Therefore I think we have to look at [chamber] individually and perhaps reassign them accordingly. |
|
|
|
savirams
Joined: 19/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
Requesting:
- Octagon Mode architecture/octagonal buildings (see my previous post for details)
- Pueblo Revival architecture |
|
|
|
RK77
 Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="NovaBen":h7xdrfrc]Request "Octagon Mode architecture/octagonal buildings". This is a distinct and interesting architectural plan (which sometimes displays other styles as well) that has no existing tag. It experienced a period of popularity in U.S. in the mid 19th century, though it appears in numerous places worldwide. Perhaps the most notable example in America is Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest. See Wikipedia links:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagonal_buildings_and_s...">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oc ... structures<!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagon_houses">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagon_houses<;!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Forest">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Forest<;!-- m -->[/quote:h7xdrfrc]
[quote="NovaBen":h7xdrfrc]Requesting:
- Octagon Mode architecture/octagonal buildings (see my previous post for details)
- Pueblo Revival architecture[/quote:h7xdrfrc]
Hello NovaBen,
"Octagon Mode" refers to a specific form of architecture style from 1850 until 1870. If a category is created for this, it should only be used for buildings built during that period. Having "/octagonal buildings" suggests [i:h7xdrfrc]any[/i:h7xdrfrc] octagonal building and will contradict "Octagon Mode". If we are to have an octagonal building category it should be generic; however, if we are to create this category it may open an unwanted door for requests referring to square, circular, triangular, pentagon, hexagon etc. shaped buildings. I don't know where my colleagues stand on this matter but I must admit I'm 50/50 with this proposal because searches for particular shaped buildings [i:h7xdrfrc]could[/i:h7xdrfrc] be useful. That being said, categories should refer to the function/purpose of a building and not its shape, so if shaped building categories are accepted, they will need to be used in tandem with function/purpose categories.
I would like in depth clarification justifying an octagonal building category and perhaps the two cents of my cat mod colleagues before a category is created.
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.688102&lon=-105.939199&z=18&tag=62167&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=62167&lng=en&tab=main:h7xdrfrc]Pueblo Revival architecture[/url:h7xdrfrc] has been created. |
|
|
|
savirams
Joined: 19/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":279300oe][quote="NovaBen":279300oe]Request "Octagon Mode architecture/octagonal buildings". This is a distinct and interesting architectural plan (which sometimes displays other styles as well) that has no existing tag. It experienced a period of popularity in U.S. in the mid 19th century, though it appears in numerous places worldwide. Perhaps the most notable example in America is Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest. See Wikipedia links:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagonal_buildings_and_s...">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oc ... structures<!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagon_houses">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagon_houses<;!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Forest">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Forest<;!-- m -->[/quote:279300oe]
[quote="NovaBen":279300oe]Requesting:
- Octagon Mode architecture/octagonal buildings (see my previous post for details)
- Pueblo Revival architecture[/quote:279300oe]
Hello NovaBen,
"Octagon Mode" refers to a specific form of architecture style from 1850 until 1870. If a category is created for this, it should only be used for buildings built during that period. Having "/octagonal buildings" suggests [i:279300oe]any[/i:279300oe] octagonal building and will contradict "Octagon Mode". If we are to have an octagonal building category it should be generic; however, if we are to create this category it may open an unwanted door for requests referring to square, circular, triangular, pentagon, hexagon etc. shaped buildings. I don't know where my colleagues stand on this matter but I must admit I'm 50/50 with this proposal because searches for particular shaped buildings [i:279300oe]could[/i:279300oe] be useful. That being said, categories should refer to the function/purpose of a building and not its shape, so if shaped building categories are accepted, they will need to be used in tandem with function/purpose categories.
I would like in depth clarification justifying an octagonal building category and perhaps the two cents of my cat mod colleagues before a category is created.
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.688102&lon=-105.939199&z=18&tag=62167&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=62167&lng=en&tab=main:279300oe]Pueblo Revival architecture[/url:279300oe] has been created.[/quote:279300oe]
You make several excellent points...I hadn't thought about this from that perspective. I agree that an "octagonal buildings" category could create the danger of other shaped buildings gaining their own categories when it might not be preferable for that to happen. Would it make sense to create a category along the lines of "Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)" to focus the category and avoid it being a catch-all category for ALL buildings of that shape? I realize that that date range is quite specific , but I do believe that there are enough examples that fit within that description to make this category useful. |
|
|
|
savirams
Joined: 19/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":2cwy7hjv][quote="NovaBen":2cwy7hjv]Request "Octagon Mode architecture/octagonal buildings". This is a distinct and interesting architectural plan (which sometimes displays other styles as well) that has no existing tag. It experienced a period of popularity in U.S. in the mid 19th century, though it appears in numerous places worldwide. Perhaps the most notable example in America is Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest. See Wikipedia links:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagonal_buildings_and_s...">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oc ... structures<!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagon_houses">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagon_houses<;!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Forest">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Forest<;!-- m -->[/quote:2cwy7hjv]
[quote="NovaBen":2cwy7hjv]Requesting:
- Octagon Mode architecture/octagonal buildings (see my previous post for details)
- Pueblo Revival architecture[/quote:2cwy7hjv]
Hello NovaBen,
"Octagon Mode" refers to a specific form of architecture style from 1850 until 1870. If a category is created for this, it should only be used for buildings built during that period. Having "/octagonal buildings" suggests [i:2cwy7hjv]any[/i:2cwy7hjv] octagonal building and will contradict "Octagon Mode". If we are to have an octagonal building category it should be generic; however, if we are to create this category it may open an unwanted door for requests referring to square, circular, triangular, pentagon, hexagon etc. shaped buildings. I don't know where my colleagues stand on this matter but I must admit I'm 50/50 with this proposal because searches for particular shaped buildings [i:2cwy7hjv]could[/i:2cwy7hjv] be useful. That being said, categories should refer to the function/purpose of a building and not its shape, so if shaped building categories are accepted, they will need to be used in tandem with function/purpose categories.
I would like in depth clarification justifying an octagonal building category and perhaps the two cents of my cat mod colleagues before a category is created.
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.688102&lon=-105.939199&z=18&tag=62167&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=62167&lng=en&tab=main:2cwy7hjv]Pueblo Revival architecture[/url:2cwy7hjv] has been created.[/quote:2cwy7hjv]
You make several excellent points...I hadn't thought about this from that perspective. I agree that an "octagonal buildings" category could create the danger of other shaped buildings gaining their own categories when it might not be preferable for that to happen. Would it make sense to create a category along the lines of "Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)" to focus the category and avoid it being a catch-all category for ALL buildings of that shape? I realize that that date range is quite specific , but I do believe that there are enough examples that fit within that description to make this category useful. |
|
|
|
savirams
Joined: 19/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":2o9aqxg1][quote="NovaBen":2o9aqxg1]Request "Octagon Mode architecture/octagonal buildings". This is a distinct and interesting architectural plan (which sometimes displays other styles as well) that has no existing tag. It experienced a period of popularity in U.S. in the mid 19th century, though it appears in numerous places worldwide. Perhaps the most notable example in America is Thomas Jefferson's Poplar Forest. See Wikipedia links:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagonal_buildings_and_s...">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oc ... structures<!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagon_houses">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_octagon_houses<;!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Forest">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poplar_Forest<;!-- m -->[/quote:2o9aqxg1]
[quote="NovaBen":2o9aqxg1]Requesting:
- Octagon Mode architecture/octagonal buildings (see my previous post for details)
- Pueblo Revival architecture[/quote:2o9aqxg1]
Hello NovaBen,
"Octagon Mode" refers to a specific form of architecture style from 1850 until 1870. If a category is created for this, it should only be used for buildings built during that period. Having "/octagonal buildings" suggests [i:2o9aqxg1]any[/i:2o9aqxg1] octagonal building and will contradict "Octagon Mode". If we are to have an octagonal building category it should be generic; however, if we are to create this category it may open an unwanted door for requests referring to square, circular, triangular, pentagon, hexagon etc. shaped buildings. I don't know where my colleagues stand on this matter but I must admit I'm 50/50 with this proposal because searches for particular shaped buildings [i:2o9aqxg1]could[/i:2o9aqxg1] be useful. That being said, categories should refer to the function/purpose of a building and not its shape, so if shaped building categories are accepted, they will need to be used in tandem with function/purpose categories.
I would like in depth clarification justifying an octagonal building category and perhaps the two cents of my cat mod colleagues before a category is created.
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.688102&lon=-105.939199&z=18&tag=62167&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=62167&lng=en&tab=main:2o9aqxg1]Pueblo Revival architecture[/url:2o9aqxg1] has been created.[/quote:2o9aqxg1]
You make several excellent points...I hadn't thought about this from that perspective. I agree that an "octagonal buildings" category could create the danger of other shaped buildings gaining their own categories when it might not be preferable for that to happen. Would it make sense to create a category along the lines of "Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)" to focus the category and avoid it being a catch-all category for ALL buildings of that shape? I realize that that date range is quite specific , but I do believe that there are enough examples that fit within that description to make this category useful. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="NovaBen":3mscfdcn]You make several excellent points...I hadn't thought about this from that perspective. I agree that an "octagonal buildings" category could create the danger of other shaped buildings gaining their own categories when it might not be preferable for that to happen. Would it make sense to create a category along the lines of "Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)" to focus the category and avoid it being a catch-all category for ALL buildings of that shape? I realize that that date range is quite specific , but I do believe that there are enough examples that fit within that description to make this category useful.[/quote:3mscfdcn]
[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=37.718590&lon=-116.059570&z=5&m=b&tag=18643&show=/object/category/?type=view&id=18643&lng=en&tab=main:3mscfdcn]Done![/url:3mscfdcn] <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
NovaBen,
Are you sure about those dates? 1850-1870? I am know of several Octagonal mode schoolhouses that were all built before 1850 |
|
|
|
savirams
Joined: 19/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":2qj8rbnt]NovaBen,
Are you sure about those dates? 1850-1870? I am know of several Octagonal mode schoolhouses that were all built before 1850[/quote:2qj8rbnt]
This is a good point. The aim of that date range was to avoid the possibility of other shapes of buildings getting their own category,and thus cluttering up WM with categories that aren't necessarily helpful. The date range 1850-1870 was intended to focus in on the period of history during which this architectural style enjoyed the most popularity, though you are right that it existed before 1850 (and actually there are legitimate examples of the style beyond 1870 as well). I don't see any reason why we couldn't amend the category to read something like "Octagon Mode architecture (pre-1900)". This would still preserve the category as one that is focused exclusively on historic buildings that display a distinct style that had a period of popularity in history. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| How about the word "historic" in parenthesis with no dates? <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> I mean dates limit historic octagonal architecture...I can name several structures that pre-date the 19th C that are Octagonal.....and yes some modern structures built deliberately that way.........dates are limiting which is why I don't like all those "date...construction" categories.... |
|
|
|
savirams
Joined: 19/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":gl5d7fuq]How about the word "historic" in parenthesis with no dates? <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> I mean dates limit historic octagonal architecture...I can name several structures that pre-date the 19th C that are Octagonal.....and yes some modern structures built deliberately that way.........dates are limiting which is why I don't like all those "date...construction" categories....[/quote:gl5d7fuq]
I do respect the opinion that the category needs to be a bit looser, but in my view simply using the word "historic" is opening it up too widely. Different people have wildly differing opinions on what the word "historic" means. Some people (not myself) might deem a building built in 1965 to be "historic", for their own reasons. The reason I wanted this category in the first place was to zero in on a [i:gl5d7fuq]specific[/i:gl5d7fuq] time period, namely the period of time lasting a few decades in the 19th century during which "Octagon Mode" buildings were built. I want to be clear that "Octagon Mode" is NOT interchangeable with "octagonal building". Someone similar to myself, who might be looking specifically for the unique Octagon Mode architecture, built during a specific time, is NOT going to want post-1900 buildings coming up in his/her search results, because those won't be at all relevant to the search. In summary: yes, 1850-1870 may be too specific, BUT...a cutoff of 1900 at the latest is necessary so as not to water down the category with irrelevant examples. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| Well we don't have anything else for Octagonal Architecture (not even octagonal building) period so........lots of worms in this can....... |
|
|
|
savirams
Joined: 19/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":dbcc6y0i]Well we don't have anything else for Octagonal Architecture (not even octagonal building) period so........lots of worms in this can.......[/quote:dbcc6y0i]
It seems to me we could come to a kind of middle ground here...Could we not have two categories? "Octagonal buildings" as well as "Octagon Mode architecture (pre-1900)", with the latter being subordinate to the former. Obviously this flies in the face of my earlier stated opinion that we maybe don't want categories that refer simply to shapes. Would it perhaps make sense to agree that we should have shape categories, but only for unusual or unique shapes? For example, we could have categories for octagonal buildings, hexagonal buildings, and round buildings, but NOT necessarily ones for the obvious ones like squares and rectangles and even cruciform buildings. After all, it IS up to a select group of WM users what categories get added. Those select few could make the judgment on what shaped buildings warrant their own categories and what ones simply do not. This way we can still have a tag that pertains to the octagonal shape, but also have one that zeros in closer on a specific time period. |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
No doubt there are Octagon Mode buildings that pre-date and post-date 1850 and 1870 respectively but I have only come across articles which specifically refer to [b:1dg0t9dn]1850 - 1870[/b:1dg0t9dn] as the active period. To reinforce my opinion, [url=https://historicyork.wordpress.com/architectural-styles-categories/:1dg0t9dn]this article[/url:1dg0t9dn] shows a series of architectural styles which are rounded off to the nearest decade, including the Octagon style. Furthermore, I also believe the inclusion of the dates will help distinguish it as a specialized category and not a generic one. With this in mind, the category will remain [u:1dg0t9dn]unchanged[/u:1dg0t9dn], but can be obviously used for any Octagonal Mode building that was built during the Octagon Mode period. Of course, we may risk this category being misused for generic octagonal buildings, but it will be treated the same as other similar "high risk" categories which are necessary for fine-tuned classification, since we have the means to rectify foreseeable problems of this kind.
If there is a need for a specific building shaped category which does not tie in to an architectural period, please feel free to submit your proposals here. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="NovaBen":21pz9h7c] For example, we could have categories for octagonal buildings, hexagonal buildings, and round buildings[/quote:21pz9h7c]
Fine. Already asked........would be helpful then to distinguish the variety of other octagonal structures now from this more specific one.......before someone puts this on a building that wasn't constructed between 1850 and 1870......... |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
As I have stated before, it would be favourable to have a variety of shaped building categories; I'd even nest 'Octagonal Mode' under a generic Octagonal category. However, I would like my fellow cat mods to impart their two cents on the matter before we proceed.
In the meantime, I wouldn't worry about potential misuse of [Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)] because there are a plethora of other categories which have some element of ambiguity involved with their naming and usage, yet they still exist and have been utilized properly. Fear of misuse should not hinder necessity; besides, we have the category clean up forum. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":3pny4kjm]
In the meantime, I wouldn't worry about potential misuse of [Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)] because there are a plethora of other categories which have some element of ambiguity involved with their naming and usage[/quote:3pny4kjm]
Ugh huh.......this is the only category with "Octagon" in the title chief...therefore, if someone (and it's already been done btw) wants to use it for an octagonal structure outside the date range.....well.....you know......misused <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| [Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)] is there to be availed for Octagon Mode structures and that's that. If there is a "misuse", category moderators encourage said users to either correct such errors themselves when they find them, or they can report the errors in the forum. Pinpointing potential errors of one category when there are a myriad of existing misuses with almost every other feature of Wikimapia doesn't change anything. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":1i62xpc1][Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)] is there to be availed for Octagon Mode structures and that's that. If there is a "misuse", category moderators encourage said users to either correct such errors themselves when they find them, or they can report the errors in the forum. Pinpointing potential errors of one category when there are a myriad of existing misuses with almost every other feature of Wikimapia doesn't change anything.[/quote:1i62xpc1]
Ok, great, so in the meantime, let's get an "Octagonal building" or "Octagonal architecture" parent category that isn't specifically dated for all the other octagonal structures out there that I discussed in previous posts with NovaBen............so we can avoid anyone using this specific one incorrectly. Prevention is the best medicine! |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":13bavnwr]
Hello NovaBen,
"Octagon Mode" refers to a specific form of architecture style from 1850 until 1870. If a category is created for this, it should only be used for buildings built during that period. Having "/octagonal buildings" suggests [i:13bavnwr]any[/i:13bavnwr] octagonal building and will contradict "Octagon Mode". If we are to have an octagonal building category it should be generic; however, if we are to create this category it may open an unwanted door for requests referring to square, circular, triangular, pentagon, hexagon etc. shaped buildings. I don't know where my colleagues stand on this matter but I must admit I'm 50/50 with this proposal because searches for particular shaped buildings [i:13bavnwr]could[/i:13bavnwr] be useful. That being said, categories should refer to the function/purpose of a building and not its shape, so if shaped building categories are accepted, they will need to be used in tandem with function/purpose categories.
I would like in depth clarification justifying an octagonal building category and perhaps the two cents of my cat mod colleagues before a category is created.[/quote:13bavnwr]
Two steps ahead of you. If we have octagon, then we'll need other shapes too. We need participation of other cat mods to discuss the ramifications of having shaped building categories that are generic and not linked to an architectural phase. Fear of misuse should not hinder necessity. |
|
|
|
bio2935c
 Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
If there were a large number of possible shapes, then I would definitely be less than enthusiastic about "building shape" categories.
As it is, I'm still [u:3vcrine7]not[/u:3vcrine7] "enthusiastic" about the idea, but since there are in fact only a few possible shapes, I don't see that there would be any harm to it.
So what shapes can we have?
Round, Oval, Star, Triangular, Rectangular, Pentagonal, Hexagonal, Octagonal ... I don't think we can reasonably expect any other shapes, but perhaps my imagination is just lacking today? Of course, I would NOT want to have the "rectangular" category, which leaves only 7. Triangular buildings are probably not uncommon, especially in old cities that don't follow a rectangular street grid. Note that we already have one '3-sided' category [flatiron building], and how many 'pentagons' are there anyway?
Some of these 'shaped' buildings are bound to be [url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=49.323689&lon=-124.310618&z=20&m=b:3vcrine7]trite[/url:3vcrine7]. Do we care??
What about combinations / 'parts of buildings'? I think it is not all that unusual that a building may have an feature (perhaps a tower/[url=http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=38.735262&lon=-85.385959&z=20&m=b:3vcrine7]cupola[/url:3vcrine7]) or something on the roof that is some particular shape. Should those buildings be included?? (My vote: no.) Is this what those worried about misuse are thinking of? Or ... ?
Bottom line for me? I'm not thrilled about the idea, but ... a bit more junk will hardly be noticeable. Alas. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
I am thinking in terms of buildings that are clearly referred to by their shape....for instance, there are a number of Octagonal Schoolhouses out there that are named as such, one is located not too far from me.........as for triangles, yeah that is somewhat uncommon. I wouldn't go so far as to call the Flatiron Building "triangular architecture" as that was not the mode of its design. Geography dictated its construction. As for pentagons, military forts generally took an pentagonal shape, that was standard in their construction AND the main reason why the Pentagon in Virginia was constructed in the manner it was!
I guess it could be open for further discussion, but my point is (and no I am not hindering anything) that if you now have one specific "octagon" category that does not fit the pantheon of structures that are octagonal and outside the date range, that yes people will misuse it! I did! Ok??? I'd like something that could be used with octagonal schoolhouses and such...they do exist and were constructed outside this date range! |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
It should be noted that those concerned about the misuse of perfectly functional categories need not be concerned because that is the purview of category moderators. [Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)] is necessary for all octagonal buildings built during the [url=https://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/mid-19th_century_period/2386/octagon_style/293483:12kn56ra]Octagon Mode[/url:12kn56ra] period, but is not necessarily restricted to those dates. The inclusion of the dates in the name, as well as a notification in the description, is sufficient clarification to alert users about its correct utilization.
I am now convinced it is not a necessity (though it would have been OK) to provide shape based categories purely for that purpose because building function supersedes ancillary considerations. Octagon Mode architecture is an exception because it pertains to building styles built during a particular point in time and is also consistent with other existent architecture style categories. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="RK77":f4rurue3] [Octagon Mode architecture (1850-1870)] is necessary for all octagonal buildings built during the [url=https://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/mid-19th_century_period/2386/octagon_style/293483:f4rurue3]Octagon Mode[/url:f4rurue3] period, but is not necessarily restricted to those dates. [/quote:f4rurue3]
I think the last paragraph of that website makes my point...not necessarily restricted? So I guess it's ok to use a "19 C Construction" category on a building completed in 1902 then huh?
Fine, if you don't want a whole bunch of shape categories for architecture ( I mean, we don't even have A-Frame and that's a very popular style) them makes something generic that can apply to all shape based architecture.....has to be something that can be used. I mean, the article already says there are a number of Octagonal schoolhouses out there built BEFORE 1850......I don't find using this one category logical since it doesn't match the history.... |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":wofrxu48]... Fine, if you don't want a whole bunch of shape categories for architecture ( I mean, we don't even have A-Frame and that's a very popular style) them makes something generic that can apply to all shape based architecture.....has to be something that can be used. ...[/quote:wofrxu48]
So you're suggesting a single catch-all category for "buildings with an unusual shape" then? |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="bio2935c":h505gqj7][quote="seafordian":h505gqj7]... Fine, if you don't want a whole bunch of shape categories for architecture ( I mean, we don't even have A-Frame and that's a very popular style) them makes something generic that can apply to all shape based architecture.....has to be something that can be used. ...[/quote:h505gqj7]
So you're suggesting a single catch-all category for "buildings with an unusual shape" then?[/quote:h505gqj7]
Sure, how about "shape based architecture", that should blanket all the items |
|
|
|
Teresa
Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
After spending a long time digesting the various postings about the merit of [Octagonal Architecture], my personal view echoed that of seafordian as well as bio2935c.
The other point of my concern is that if to have Octagonal Mode (1850-1870)" (1850-1870) as a category, then this could be fairly restricted to United States as these types of buildings are in the main existed in America. Nothing wrong in that, as we have other categories that only catered for a specific country. But from past experience when editing category words I noted some users when seeing a category of certain words they will use it without taking note of the description of the category. In this case some could omit to take note of the period of 1850-1870, which is the main crust of this category. Although under such misuse circumstance it could be taken out and the correct one inserted, but it does taking up time for many who monitor such tags.
As to "shape based architecture", it will apply to all buildings then, since every kind of building is a shape of some kind! <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) --> |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="Teresa":9uidytl7] As to "shape based architecture", it will apply to all buildings then, since every kind of building is a shape of some kind! <!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->[/quote:9uidytl7]
Ehhh good point...any other suggestions? |
|
|
|
RK77
Joined: 27/02/07
Places: 4488
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":3bplpgn1]I think the last paragraph of that website makes my point...not necessarily restricted? So I guess it's ok to use a "19 C Construction" category on a building completed in 1902 then huh?[/quote:3bplpgn1]
I don't think architectural periods with rounded-off dates like the ones listed in this [url=https://historicyork.wordpress.com/architectural-styles-categories/:3bplpgn1]article[/url:3bplpgn1] were meant to be taken literally. The dates most likely take into account the period in which such constructions were popular, but there will be structures built outside of the dates which may share every intrinsic characteristic. In this case, if there is sufficient evidence to prove an association then by all means use the category.
[quote="Teresa":3bplpgn1]But from past experience when editing category words I noted some users when seeing a category of certain words they will use it without taking note of the description of the category. In this case some could omit to take note of the period of 1850-1870, which is the main crust of this category. Although under such misuse circumstance it could be taken out and the correct one inserted, but it does taking up time for many who monitor such tags.[/quote:3bplpgn1]
[b:3bplpgn1][i:3bplpgn1]"Fear of misuse should not hinder necessity"[/i:3bplpgn1][/b:3bplpgn1]
Yes, [Octagonal Mode architecture (1850-1870)] has the potential to be misused by those seeing "octagon", but like many other ambiguously-named categories which have been misused and corrected before, we can't filter the information source at the point of submission, we can only attempt to provide the best solution - short of it actually being a complete solution - and hope users utilize it as intended. Thus, ambiguously named categories which have been misused can only be corrected after they've been discovered. That's why we have this clean-up forum. What we are not encouraged to do is allow our precautionary instincts to stem the admission of ambiguous data in the first instance, because even though a user may misuse an ambiguously-named category, he/she may go on to provide valuable data (i.e. information source) in the form of descriptions, photos, links, addresses etc. which [u:3bplpgn1]is[/u:3bplpgn1] accurate and useful. I know the admins would rather have unfiltered information which can be refined afterwards, than no information at all.
We see this flexibility for ambiguous objects in other features too. For example, places with dubious outlines or descriptions should not be deleted. Instead of deletion (removal of information), the interface prompts users to remedy the incorrect outline or description after the fact.
Necessity dictates [Octagonal Mode architecture (1850-1870)] is required for buildings built during that mode or phase of architecture. There are sufficient authentic reference sources (some of which we have seen here) which validates the category as a viable one, even though there is a margin of misinterpretation because of one ambiguous word in its name. The inclusion of "Mode architecture" and "(1850-1870)" is there to set it aside from being a generic category. If it is misused, we can correct it afterwards. We must also remember that the emphasis of [Octagonal Mode architecture (1850-1870)] is its association with the architectural style category tree which lists unique architectural forms; there is more purpose to it than it being regarded as an eight-sided structure category. |
|
|
|
tipiti
Joined: 20/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
Hi,
There are categories from "21th century construction (en)" - to 9th and 6th, 4th, 1th, SO there is NO category:
• 8th century construction (en)
• 7th century construction (en)
• 5th century construction (en)
• 3th century construction (en)
• 2th century construction (en)
• 0th century construction (en)
AND
• from 1th BCE century construction (en) - to 20th BCE minimum
It is necessery and urgent. Thanks for help.
petrolski |
|
|
|
Teresa
Joined: 16/10/06
Places: 10868
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| I think the creation of all these categories will generate a lot of confusion. How are you going to define the exact period of constructions? Many records of old buildings are hard to come by, not sure how helpful this is. <!-- s:? --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_confused.gif" alt=":?" title="Confused" /><!-- s:? --> |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="petrolski":3k93h2kx]Hi,
There are categories from "21th century construction (en)" - to 9th and 6th, 4th, 1th, SO there is NO category:
• 8th century construction (en)
• 7th century construction (en)
• 5th century construction (en)
• 3th century construction (en)
• 2th century construction (en)
• 0th century construction (en)
AND
• from 1th BCE century construction (en) - to 20th BCE minimum
It is necessery and urgent. Thanks for help.
petrolski[/quote:3k93h2kx]
I think categories like these probably won't generate any more confusion than the ones we already have, so I have no objection to adding a few more.
How about if we start with the ones that are not "BCE" and then we can talk about whether we "need" to extend it to BCE centuries?
Two points however:
• You need to provide an example of each category that we can use to start the category with. It is not possible to just "create" a category with no members.
• There is no such thing as "0th century", so I am not sure that you understand what the names mean. For example, the "5th century" includes the years that [u:3k93h2kx]END[/u:3k93h2kx] with 500; in other words 401, 402, 403, ... 499, 500. I hope you have not been mis-applying categories, using "9th century" for years beginning with "9", for example. |
|
|
|
seafordian
Joined: 24/07/07
Places: 6146
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="petrolski":2ayl8n6q]Hi,
There are categories from "21th century construction (en)" - to 9th and 6th, 4th, 1th, SO there is NO category:
• 8th century construction (en)
• 7th century construction (en)
• 5th century construction (en)
• 3th century construction (en)
• 2th century construction (en)
• 0th century construction (en)
AND
• from 1th BCE century construction (en) - to 20th BCE minimum
It is necessery and urgent. Thanks for help.
petrolski[/quote:2ayl8n6q]
I would wager that being THIS specific would not be all that necessary given that there are not an awful lot of buildings still standing from these times periods...they would be few and far between......can we just create a broad category such as "Pre-Medieval" or "Roman era"? Don't we already have something broad like this?
Frankly, I am already annoyed by the number of dated construction categories we have now! <!-- s:evil: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_evil.gif" alt=":evil:" title="Evil or Very Mad" /><!-- s:evil: --> |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="seafordian":3ujey1os]I would wager that being THIS specific would not be all that necessary given that there are not an awful lot of buildings still standing from these times periods...they would be few and far between......can we just create a broad category such as "Pre-Medieval" or "Roman era"? Don't we already have something broad like this?[/quote:3ujey1os]
Yeah, well, uhm ... yes (or is that "no"). I figure that since we already have 75% of the most recent 20 centuries, it makes more sense to just add the remaining few than to disable the rest. It really doesn't hurt anything.
But note that we don't know that people will want to add only "buildings" with these categories. Could be other "stuff" too. "Construction" could be applied to things like walls or canals, eg. Nowhere does it say it has to be a building; nor do I think it should.
As for "Pre-Medieval" or "Roman era", I think those kinds of terms [u:3ujey1os]could[/u:3ujey1os] be implemented as parents of a group of "century" categories. Even then, they would only be meaningful in some geographic settings. "Pre-Roman" (eg) probably doesn't mean much in India or China. |
|
|
|
desu
 Joined: 01/01/07
Places: 5521
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| Looking for [[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_end_station:1rtkjiiq]base end station[/url:1rtkjiiq]] and [[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_control_tower:1rtkjiiq]fire control tower[/url:1rtkjiiq]] to be added, as I cannot add these myself. It is inappropriate to use either [pillbox] or [bunker] for BSEs. |
|
|
|
bio2935c
Joined: 15/12/06
Places: 1426
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
[quote="desu":1catkp3c]Looking for [[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_end_station:1catkp3c]base end station[/url:1catkp3c]] and [[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_control_tower:1catkp3c]fire control tower[/url:1catkp3c]] to be added, as I cannot add these myself. It is inappropriate to use either [pillbox] or [bunker] for BSEs.[/quote:1catkp3c]
From a quick glance at the WP articles, it seems that both these are very closely related. As you may know, I (personal opinion) am not in favor of hair-splitting categories (as these seem to be). I would much rather see a common category that can be used for both types of objects and you can write in the description about the more specific details. Perhaps something related to [artillery battery]?
It would perhaps also be useful to see links to a few examples. We'd need these anyway in order to create new categories. |
|
|
|
savirams
Joined: 19/05/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
|
|
timper
Joined: 29/06/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
|
|
Harooni
Joined: 19/04/11
Places: 0
Userlevel: -2 |
|
|
JAT86
 Joined: 21/06/08
Places: 231
Userlevel: -2 |
| 11 years ago |
0 |
| The description of the category [state school] has "public school" in it, but there isn't any [public school] (which should be added as its synonym). |
|
|
