Category Proposal: Space Flight Memorials

[+Thot]

Proposed title: Space Flight Memorials

 

Public and permanent monuments, plaques, statues, memorials, etc., erected to commemorate space flight.

[+Thot]

Edited August 21, 2005 by Thot

[+Thot]

I'm guessing this would be in:

 

Things | Historic Things

 

But, this one's hard. If monuments are Historic Things then I probably got it right. But, people visit monuments and memorials, so they're also places to go.

 

Places are:

 

. . not a thing but a place to go

Thing are:

 

. . physical objects in the world.

This means Pet Cemeteries are physical objects, while Parks are places to go.

 

Are human cemeteries Things too?

 

Am I the only one who finds that confusing?

Edited September 8, 2005 by Thot

[+NorStar]

I give it a 'Thumbs up - Go!'

 

I'm still unsure how the categorizing scheme goes, but I'm trusting that this has been thought through.

[+DominoDoggy]

Earlier I proposed a category called "Spaceflight". Although I orginally suggested only logging space vehicles, launch sites and other related support facilities, I think Thot has a good suggestion here because memorials serve to educate us us about spaceflight in general. I know of a few space memorials in my area, and when I visit them I always feel appreciative of the sacrifices astronauts of all nations have made in behalf of exploration. Thus I support this as a viable Waymarking subject.

 

I'm not trying to steal any of Thot's thunder here, but because my proposed category is much more broad in nature, maybe "Space Flight Memorials" should be placed within it as a subcategory (if either of our categories are ever approved ).

[+Thot]

Earlier I proposed a category called "Spaceflight".

I'm confused about why you feel you made your proposal "earlier" than this one. As I read the date on your proposal it was made on September 7 and this proposal was made on August 21. What am I missing?

 

Also, while trying not to be argumentative, historic spacecraft, facilities and sites are frequently converted into memorials. In that event they would seem to fall into this category.

[+Thot]

Another modification:

 

To claim a waymark in this category it must include the coordinates and a photograph of the memorial.

 

Also, depending on how this rule shakes out, for now the person claiming the waymark must have gone to the location and taken the coordinates and the picture.

Edited September 11, 2005 by Thot

[+DominoDoggy]

I'm confused about why you feel you made your proposal "earlier" than this one. As I read the date on your proposal it was made on September 7 and this proposal was made on August 21. What am I missing?

 

You're not missing anything. The mistake was mine and I apologize. Somehow I misread the date of your post and thought I had preceded it. I guess I thought the "Last Action" column showed the creation date. I'm inexperienced with the forums Sorry for the error.

 

Also, while trying not to be argumentative, historic spacecraft, facilities and sites are frequently converted into memorials. In that event they would seem to fall into this category.

 

To start off, it's not argumentative to disagree with me or share your viewpoint, so no harm done. The purpose of the forums is to solicit opinions from everybody so that appropriate categories can be created. That's all we're doing. I hope we can continue this in a friendly spirit.

 

Where I see a difference between my Spaceflight Category and your Spaceflight Memorial Category is focus. Yours is defined as "public and permanent monuments, plaques, statues, memorials, etc." As defined, the object/site must have some sort of label on it. Without it many historic sites would be ignored. While things logged under my category would include labeled objects and sites, they wouldn't be required. A broader category would allow more for more history to be preserved and appreciated.

 

I respectfully disagree that "historic spacecraft, facilities and sites are frequently converted into memorials" . . . and thus "would seem to fall into this category." I live in Southern California, where an abundance of manned and unmanned spacecraft have and are being built by major aerospace contractors. For example, within 25 minutes of my house (L.A. area) are construction sites of major space projects, including the X-15, Saturn V 2nd & 3rd stages, SkyLab, Apollo CM & SM, Space Shuttle, ISS, the future replacement Hubble Space Telescope (the Webb scope), various interplanetary probes, pioneering satellite types (comm, spy, weather, etc.), as well as many subsystems for every major manned and unmanned space vehicle. Numerous military space projects were also conceieved and built near me, including America's nuclear arsenal. To the best of my knowledge not one of these sites has been "plaqued" as a historic site or had it's contributions to spaceflight permanently acknowledged for the public (trust me, I've looked! ). I was so dismayed at the destruction of North American Aviation's plant that I created a cache to memorialize it myself. Currently the plant is being converted to offices, a movie studio, and yet another mall. A small museum is being set up offsite and some distance away, but that doesn't replace a plaque on the historic site itself. If you read my write up about the plant, you'd see that it is indeed VERY historic but that it wouldn't qualify for listing as a Spaceflight Memorial.

 

Near me is a beautiful Challenger Memorial (with cache). It is very moving and educational, and certainly more exciting visually than an old building. But in my humble opinion I would rather visit the NAA plant because it has been visited by every man who walked on the moon, President Kennedy, the first human to walk in Space (Alexi Leonov), and it's where space exploration actually happened. Brass plaques and models have their place, but I don't think they compare to the real thing. That's why I propose a broder Spaceflight Category.