Category Naming Conventions

[+silverquill]

Criterion One for Waymark Categories states:

 

"1. Global – The directory has the potential for worldwide appeal, but only if the categories are not too restricted by region. Consider whether people from all over the world will be able to contribute to this category."

 

As has been discussed earlier, this shoud be modified somewhat as there is certainly no need to exclude national or regional categories, and many such already exist. These are appropriate and much needed.

 

My concern, howerver, is an incipient ethnocentricity that creeps in (and I'm prone to it as well) when a category is given a universal name when it is actually a restricted description. An example of this is naming a category "National . . . ." That term, "national" refers to one's own country! Let's say there is a category for "National Heroes, or National Kazoos." Then there should be a variable for "country" -- France, Australia, etc. Probably the name of the group should reflect its national nature, such as "German National Heroes."

 

Another example is naming a category by a name that can apply to more than one country. An example of this might be, "Revolutionary War Battlegrounds." Many countries have had revoutionary wars and are likely to have battle grounds. A better name needs to be, "United States Revolutionary War Battle Grounds."

 

The same might be said if there were a category for "Presidential Birthplaces." U.S. Presidents? All presidents? Just needs to be named and described appropriately.

 

Just my feelings, but I think we really need to make Waymarking as global and international as possible, even in our naming and descriptions, and create global categories whenever possible. That seems to be in harmony with the Waymarking.com criteria. ~~silverquill

[+The Blue Quasar]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

If the Category is only for a certain area, put that area in the name of the Category.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+showbizkid]

The already existing Presidential Birthplaces category allows presidents (or the equivalent) of all nations to be represented. This is in the waymark description. It doesn't say just U.S. Presidential birthplaces, but actually invites submissions for other nation's presidents or prime ministers. The category reads: Locate the birthplace or childhood home of a president of the United States, or the equivalent leader of another Nation.

On another related topic: Americans refer to the Revolutionary War as the Revolutionary War. There have been other revolutionary wars (note lower case), but the war is not called the "American Revolutionary War." Just as the Civil War in America is called the Civil War, not the "American Civil War." This is being factual not ethnocentric. If a waymarker in France wants to have a French Revolution monuments category, wouldn't it be called "Monument du La Révolution Française"?

 

 

Criterion One for Waymark Categories states:

 

"1. Global – The directory has the potential for worldwide appeal, but only if the categories are not too restricted by region. Consider whether people from all over the world will be able to contribute to this category."

 

As has been discussed earlier, this shoud be modified somewhat as there is certainly no need to exclude national or regional categories, and many such already exist. These are appropriate and much needed.

 

My concern, howerver, is an incipient ethnocentricity that creeps in (and I'm prone to it as well) when a category is given a universal name when it is actually a restricted description. An example of this is naming a category "National . . . ." That term, "national" refers to one's own country! Let's say there is a category for "National Heroes, or National Kazoos." Then there should be a variable for "country" -- France, Australia, etc. Probably the name of the group should reflect its national nature, such as "German National Heroes."

 

Another example is naming a category by a name that can apply to more than one country. An example of this might be, "Revolutionary War Battlegrounds." Many countries have had revoutionary wars and are likely to have battle grounds. A better name needs to be, "United States Revolutionary War Battle Grounds."

 

The same might be said if there were a category for "Presidential Birthplaces." U.S. Presidents? All presidents? Just needs to be named and described appropriately.

 

Just my feelings, but I think we really need to make Waymarking as global and international as possible, even in our naming and descriptions, and create global categories whenever possible. That seems to be in harmony with the Waymarking.com criteria. ~~silverquill

[+KoosKoos]

On another related topic: Americans refer to the Revolutionary War as the Revolutionary War.

...

Just as the Civil War in America is called the Civil War, not the "American Civil War." This is being factual not ethnocentric. If a waymarker in France wants to have a French Revolution monuments category, wouldn't it be called "Monument du La Révolution Française"?

 

I think that any category where clarification includes "Americans refer to" or "In America, it's called" defines ethnocentric. Someone in another country WOULD refer to it as the American Revolutionary War and I think the OP would just like to see some clarification.

 

On the categories that make allowance for equivalent country-based waypoints, I don't think it's an issue. But if the category ONLY allows AMERICAN Revolutionary war sites, I agree that it ought to be named appropriately.

[+The Blue Quasar]

showbizkid Posted Yesterday, 02:41 PM

The already existing Presidential Birthplaces category allows presidents (or the equivalent) of all nations to be represented. This is in the waymark description. It doesn't say just U.S. Presidential birthplaces, but actually invites submissions for other nation's presidents or prime ministers. The category reads: Locate the birthplace or childhood home of a president of the United States, or the equivalent leader of another Nation.

 

Until you said that, I've avoided that Category even though I have a statue of the first Prime Minister of Canada, thinking it was not eligible for inclusion... basically saw the word "President" and said "well, doesn't apply to me". And almost created a Category to have "Leaders of the World" as a complement to my "Monarchs of the World"... now I know better... thanks (edit: I didn't fully read that.. it's Birth Places... although I can also now contribute to that, for the same reasons that I was previously unaware of)

 

On another related topic: Americans refer to the Revolutionary War as the Revolutionary War. There have been other revolutionary wars (note lower case), but the war is not called the "American Revolutionary War." Just as the Civil War in America is called the Civil War, not the "American Civil War." This is being factual not ethnocentric. If a waymarker in France wants to have a French Revolution monuments category, wouldn't it be called "Monument du La Révolution Française"?

 

You might call it the Civil War... however, we call it "The American Civil War". In the same way that Americans call it "The War of Independance"... the British call it "The American Revolution", although come Americans do call it "The Revolutionary War"...

 

Probably those within the country of conflict don't need to add the country into the name of the war... but those external to it would add it... after all... there is the "Russian Revolution", I doubt they call their own revolution by that name, but I'm not sure either.

 

The Blue Quasar

Edited April 17, 2006 by The Blue Quasar

[+Razak]

Personally, I find something rather pleasing about a category such as "Revolutionary War" that has landmarks from any revolutionary war regardless of country. I realize Americans think that there is only one revolutionary war, but I personally would prefer less localized categories if possible. (I think the "(insert state or country) historyical markers" categories are a bit much, not that I think 1 should be there and 1 shouldn't... I'd just rather see a singular United States HIstorical Markers category that housed them all (I also realize that there are billions of these darn things out there given the American propensity to glorify any little thing that ever happened!)

 

All that being said, I agree to a clarification that somehow we need to clarify if these categories are indeed international (International House of Pancakes? Oh wait I mean International Revolutionary Wars? (sounds funny)). Obviously there is some problems with leaving it ambiguous as Quasar pointed out... people don't even bother to read the descriptions for clarification, it needs to be in the title=/

 

Would Sub-titles be possible? Honestly I like the sub-titles in these forums as clarification for a topic, and shows on front pages so I don't have to go in if it doesn't matter to me... the reverse could work to get people in when they don't think it matters to them.

[+The Blue Quasar]

If it is going to be a territorial Category, then name it by including the territory in it.

 

If you want to have an international Category, and are determined to include the territory somehow then add a Text Box as a variable.

 

Personally I don't see the need for that since not only do the coordinates tell you what Country (or State, Province, County, Town.. whatever) it is in, the Geocaching.com maps tell you too. Even the maps that Canada gets at least have the nearby town name.

 

Basically, if you want to use borders... then post your borders. Otherwise people will either ignore your Category if it named in such a way that causes confusion, or will try to stuff a square peg into that round hole.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+StagsRoar]

This line of discussion has actually been hammered out in the past in regards to Waymarking being implied more internationally but I can't find the thread - which is maybe a good thing because as I remember the content of the thread just went round in circles with some fairly unusual suggestions and implications being made. I seem to recall that it started with the suggestion that Waymarking was 'To American' basically and then it just snowballed from there. In anycase I wouldn't see the need for that type of thread to be rehashed over again but that being said I do agree with the initial below quote:

 

Criterion One for Waymark Categories states:

 

"Just my feelings, but I think we really need to make Waymarking as global and international as possible, even in our naming and descriptions, and create global categories whenever possible. That seems to be in harmony with the Waymarking.com criteria. ~~silverquill

 

And in all fairness I think for the most part Groundspeak have tended to be fairly Global - it's just a matter of people who suggest categories and are given right to create them to think of maybe how it can be made or how it can imply places or categories from around the world. I mean I lead the Inukshuks category and Inukshuks are primarily an Inuit/Canadian/Arctic symbol. But when I listed the criteria for placing a waymark I stated and was aware that these statues can be found in lesser numbers all over the place due to a fairly recent rekindling of interest internationally of Native North American culture. Besides I would think you would get a whole lot more submissions and interest in a category if it was international which I tried to do and which in fact it did. In conclusion: Global is good!

[+StagsRoar]

(I also realize that there are billions of these darn things out there given the American propensity to glorify any little thing that ever happened!)

 

 

LOL - Radical Dude! I've thought it but I wouldn't have said it!

[+Razak]

Yes I remember that thread from a few months ago. But it probably is in everyone's best interest to remind them to make things more global. Currently there is a category proposal in the waymark proposals category for Floridian birdwatching trails. And if this sort of topic was more widely known maybe he would have just made the more general Bird Watching category wihtout having Jeremy mention it...

 

 

LOL - Radical Dude! I've thought it but I wouldn't have said it!

 

Yeah, me saying things that most wouldn't is what gets me in trouble in these discussion group and ends me in a 3 page debate with Quasar=P