Kilian, Of course each state may have its own naming convention, and I know the Deutsche Stiftung Denkmalschutz probably struggles with the same problem, but we can't wait for them to come up with a guideline on this, so I would just make a "Kulturdenkmale with known IDs" category and put each list in there at a top-Germany-level "Cultural heritage objects of Germany with known IDs" (note this wording intentionally also allows for similar categories in future such as moveable objects such as boats or artworks).
Even if it means you end up with 4 or more lists for just Hesse, who cares? Here in the Netherlands we have been looking at adding the Archis (archeological information) and though many are rijksmonuments, some are not, so this would probably mean a new category (somewhat like your difference between kulturdenkmale and baudenkmale). My point is not that everything has to go into one category per country. My point is that the name of the category should have the native name of the protected object in it. I can recall a discussion on the English wikipedia a few years ago where it was decided to merge the article for "Dike (construction)" to "Levee" (this was after hurricane Katrina). You always have people who feel the need to "clean up articles and organize things better" on Wikipedia. Calling the dikes in Holland "levees" just seemed silly to me then, and I notice now that there still isn't much support to that idea, considering the category name is "Dikes", and how much the word "dike" is still used on the English wikipedia in new articles. The nice thing about Wikipedia is that in the end, it's the usage (or not) of categories that proves the validity of this type of decision in the long run. To sum up, I personally feel we need BOTH categories: Kulturdenkmale in Hesse and Baudenkmale in Hesse. Jane 2011/8/2 Kilian Kluge <[email protected]> > Hi Jane, > > in Germany the trouble is that in every state there are different names for > essentially the same thing. Some just have "Kulturdenkmale" (cultural > heritage monuments), some have "Baudenkmale" ("building heritage > monuments"), some have both, some differentiate between three or four > categories... It's already a bit confusing on de-wp, where as a result the > lists for each state have different naming schemes, and I doubt that it'd be > helpful to carry this to Commons. > > Kilian > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> I am sending out a new message, since I feel this issue is pretty >> important and impacts a lot of Wikipedia projects. The other issues that Bas >> addressed also need follow up, but let's tackle these categories first. >> >> This is the list of categories as they stand today on Commons in the top >> level category (see the email from Bas): >> Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Andorra with known IDs >> Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Austria with known IDs >> Category:Onroerend erfgoed with known IDs >> Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Brussels with known IDs >> Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Estonia (with known IDs) >> Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Hesse with known ID >> Category:Rijksmonumenten with known IDs >> Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Portugal with known IDs >> Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Romania with known IDs >> Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Spain with known IDs >> Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Wallonia with known IDs >> >> I think only the Belgians and the Dutch have chosen their names well, >> because they are using the terms that are covered by law in their country. >> The other categories should be renamed to reflect the legal term in those >> countries. My reasons are as follows: >> 1) The term "Cultural heritage monument" is not defined anywhere, in any >> country's wikipedia. >> 2) We are using a formal designation that has been assigned by a >> government agency and is covered by the European Council's international law >> on cultural property. In order to refer to the proper designation, we need >> the formal name of the designation. >> 3) The sub categories are going to have native names anyway, so why have a >> strangely named top-level category that no one understands (including >> English-speakers)? >> 4) When we make interwiki links to these things we should be consistent >> across all countries. >> >> I noticed a confusing situation has already occurred in the German >> Wikipedia, where the top level category for the Austrian monuments is >> "Kategorie:Liste (Kulturdenkmale in Österreich)", when I fully expected it >> to be "Kategorie:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekte". On Commons I would expect >> "Category:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekte with known IDs", and in the English >> Wikipedia, I named it "Category:Denkmalgeschütztes Objekte". >> >> Jane >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments >> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu >
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
