Jump to content

Specific Wars Monuments and Memorials


Recommended Posts

Description:

This category is for monuments and memorials dedicated to specific wars, typically to honor the persons who fought in such conflicts. Exceptions made for wars which memorials and monuments already have their own categories.

 

Expanded Description:

The objective of this category is to waymark memorials or monuments dedicated to specific wars and their veterans.

 

There are some similar categories, but restricted to individual wars (see list below).

 

With this category it's possible to waymark places of the same kind dedicated to specific conflicts. Some examples:

 

- Monuments or memorials dedicated to the Portuguese soldiers who fought in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau during the Colonial War (1961-1975)

 

- Monuments or memorials dedicated to the French soldiers who fought in Algeria and Indochina after the Second World War

 

- Monuments or memorials dedicated to the men from all the countries which were once part of Soviet Union who fought in Afghanistan.

 

IMPORTANT: The following wars have their own categories for memorials and monuments, therefore no acceptance in the current category.

 

* 1866 Austro-Prussian War Memorials

* American Civil War Monuments and Memorials

* Boer Wars Memorials and Monuments

* Korean War Memorials

* Persian Gulf War Memorials

* Spanish-American War Memorials

* Vietnam War Memorials

* War of 1812

* World War I Memorials and Monuments

* World War II Memorials / Monuments

 

Also because there are already categories for those, no memorials or monuments dedicated to specific units or soldiers will be accepted. Finally, for the same reasons, we can't accept submissions of memorials or monuments dedicated to multi-wars.

Instructions for Posting a Specific Wars Monuments and Memorials Waymark:

1) Naming: Name of the monument or memorial, name of the war, city, state, country.

 

2) Accurate coordinates.

 

3) At least on picture of the monument or memorial. Additional images will be welcome, specially any showing a plate or sign.

 

4) Try to provide as much information as possible about the monument or memorial. You can take written information from any sources but you must mention the original source and use quotes marks.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

At least a picture taken by yourself is requested. Try to provide a descriptive log of your visit to the local.

Category Settings:

 

Waymarks can be added to this category

New waymarks of this category are reviewed by the category group prior to being published

Category is not visible in the directory

 

Variables:

 

War

Is it permanently accessible to the public?

Is it necessary to pay a fee to gain access to the place?

Year of the memorial or monument

Link to comment

Commenting the "abstain" and "negative" votes in peer voting of this category:

 

-----------------------

Vote:

Deny

 

User:

puczmeloun

 

Comments:

zbytečná kategorie

----------------------

 

Well. What can I say. Someone who doesn't bother to write a comment in a language we can all understand. Probably we are expected to know Czech. Which coincidentally I do. "Not an interesting category" he says. Again, no comments.

 

 

---------------------

Vote:

Abstained

 

User:

Team Sieni

 

Comments:

I can see what you're trying to do here ... but it's terribly confusing. It's like the European Postoffices thing - an attempt to introduce a new, more general, layer above the existing detailed but not comprehensive categories Does this effectively try to block creation of new categories that are for particular conflicts? I'm not at all sure about this. Abstaining as I can't make up my mind.

--------------------

 

I just can't share this point of view. I don't see Waymark with dozens of thousands of categories, which is where the ideal of Team Sieni would lead. Chop off every subject in different units (countries, wars, etc) and... well... did I say dozens of thousands? It's more likely hundreds of thousands.

 

 

This one was a positive vote but I still feel the need to comment:

 

------------------

Vote:

Approve

 

User:

Bernd das Brot Team

 

Comments:

I like the idea, but make sure you define "war" Does the Civil War in Bosnia count? Was the battle between white colonists and Native Americans a war? How about the countless skirmishes between the more than 100 German principalities in the 1700s and 1800s? Are guerrilla wars (like in Columbia or the Philippines wars? Hard to define. But anyway, I like the category.

-----------------

 

Personally I don't feel the need of approaching Waymark like a courthouse. Things are simple, no need to complicate. A war or a conflict (if it's preferable to use this word) it's what it is. People shoot each other in an organized way, they kill a lot and it's not for obviously making money out of it (like the drug action in Mexico, Brazil, etc). Yes, Bosnia had a war, yes there was a war between white colonists and Native americans and etc. And even if I have doubts on this (or any other) if there is a waymarker out there who think it should be considered so, so let it be, no drama.

Link to comment

Vote:

Approve

 

User:

Outspoken1

 

Comments:

Great category. Sad we have had so many wars, but this avoids having to create another myriad of categories for various wars. I would suggest making links to the existing war memorial categories to make it easier for Waymarkers who might have to switch to those specific categories. Missing from exclusion is the US Revolutionary War and Afghanistan-Iraq War Memorials (they both have their own categories)

 

----------

 

Notes taken, it will be done once the category is approved.

Link to comment

It makes no sense to write a category that is defined by what is included in other categories.

 

The stated policy of Groundspeak has been that each category should stand on its own merits without reference to existing categories. This is not strictly followed, since we do have categories that exclude some times of waymarks because of existing categories (e.g. Ice Cream Parlor excludes Dairy Queen, for instance. But, when there are more than a dozen categories for veteran and war memorials, an attempt to have a category that is for "anything not included in this long list of existing categories" is just a shotgun.

 

A category should have a clear focus of logically related sites. Creating a basket for sites missed by other categories lacks any focus or cohesiveness. If there is a specific war or type of memorial that you think is worthy of a category, then focus on that and develop it, but don't just say "anything except" which is the way this category has been defined.

 

There are some logical ways to develop a category that would include some of these types of memorials, and I would much rather see a couple of those categories developed rather than this catch-all patchwork category.

Link to comment

It makes no sense to write a category that is defined by what is included in other categories.

 

The stated policy of Groundspeak has been that each category should stand on its own merits without reference to existing categories. This is not strictly followed, since we do have categories that exclude some times of waymarks because of existing categories (e.g. Ice Cream Parlor excludes Dairy Queen, for instance. But, when there are more than a dozen categories for veteran and war memorials, an attempt to have a category that is for "anything not included in this long list of existing categories" is just a shotgun.

 

A category should have a clear focus of logically related sites. Creating a basket for sites missed by other categories lacks any focus or cohesiveness. If there is a specific war or type of memorial that you think is worthy of a category, then focus on that and develop it, but don't just say "anything except" which is the way this category has been defined.

 

There are some logical ways to develop a category that would include some of these types of memorials, and I would much rather see a couple of those categories developed rather than this catch-all patchwork category.

 

Well, considering the results of peer review, the large majority of people don't agree with you, which makes your tone, sounding like the owner of the absolute truth, a bit strange. Doesn't surprise me... when someone obviously exclude the larger share of something (in this case war memorials and monuments) on account of elaborated "legal" principles, something is definitely in the need of being fixed. Unless your solution includes the creation of a category, let's say to the monuments and memorials in the honor of the "Polish-Austrian War"... oh, by the way... and all the hundreds of wars in this list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe) to mention just what happened in Europe. So, either a monument to any of this wars doesn't have the same right to exist as a waymark as those regarding Spanish-American War or we shall create a specific category. And, I suppose, you won't object about the prevalence of a Ottoman–Venetian War Memorials category?

 

Of course, nothing of this would be an issue if the already existent categories had been created in a proper way, not excluding the universe of wars around the whole world. But then, accordingly to this tiny minority who opposed the creation of the suggested category in the peer review, now there is no way to fix this. Or there is? Awaiting for solutions (although, if the principle of democracy brought by the peer review process really exist, this category will be a reality in the next hours and the problem vanishes).

 

And the same goes to the other category on peer review at the same time, the European Post Offices. Fortunately nobody had the bright idea to create a handful of national categories there, so only two need to be in the exclusion list. Otherwise,if there was already French, German, Austrian and Belgium post offices, I am sure you would believe the list of categories should be "enriched" by 50 more categories, one of each country. Many, and probably the majority, disagree with you. At least that's what the result of voting inspire me to think.

 

Plus, if for any reason, a few years ago, people had created McDonalds Restaurants of Florida, then McDonalds Restaurants of Alaska, McDonalds Restaurants of Germany and a coupe more of the kind... well, then you would deny the existence of a McDonalds Restaurants category. In alternative, a few hundred categories, all about McDonalds Restaurants, one in each State, one in each country. Disturbing thought.

Link to comment

When I did a search for this category, it did not appear. I did find it under "newest" categories. – - - This reminds me of the “Signs of History” category that picks up historic markers not included in all the other historic marker categories.

 

The search thing is a known bug. It is happening with the last 6 or 8 categories.

Link to comment

When I did a search for this category, it did not appear. I did find it under "newest" categories. – - - This reminds me of the “Signs of History” category that picks up historic markers not included in all the other historic marker categories.

 

The search thing is a known bug. It is happening with the last 6 or 8 categories.

 

Thanks - I think I may have one that fits this new catagory - now if I just had some way to search my pictures /notes to find it.

Link to comment

 

Well, considering the results of peer review, the large majority of people don't agree with you, which makes your tone, sounding like the owner of the absolute truth, a bit strange.

 

 

Hold on a minute! I really don't appreciated being attacked on YOUR perception of my "tone" because I have a strong opinion that disagrees with yours. It is NOT a new concept that individual categories should stand on their own merit. I wish this were more clearly stated by Groundspeak, but that is a clear guideline that has been given in the past. Peer review is a strange process, and one that has problems, which is something that I've discussed in the past. Just look at all the bad categories ideas that have been approved over the years.

 

 

Of course, nothing of this would be an issue if the already existent categories had been created in a proper way, not excluding the universe of wars around the whole world. But then, accordingly to this tiny minority who opposed the creation of the suggested category in the peer review, now there is no way to fix this. Or there is? Awaiting for solutions (although, if the principle of democracy brought by the peer review process really exist, this category will be a reality in the next hours and the problem vanishes).

 

 

This probably illustrates my point. Categories have been developed over a period of years now in a haphazard way. Is there a more logical way to create and organize categories for war and veteran memorials? I'm sure there is. But, in the beginning it seemed reasonable to have separate categories for each of the major wars. None of them is arbitrarily limited to a single country. Probably most of the monuments to the U.S Revolutionary War and Civil War are found in the U.S., but Korean War memorials are found in dozens of countries. The Boer War - well, not so widespread geographically. It is wrong to view this as an attempt to exclude anything or anybody.

 

I still think that grouping all wars, except those that happen to have a category created before this date, into one all-inclusive category is not a good idea. I really think it dilutes the focus of each war that is lumped together rather than honoring them. We will see. If it works, then that is great. So, what should I do with the dozens of monuments to the Korean fight for independence? Should I have a dedicated category for them, or should I put them in the mix of this category where they will be lost?

 

There are better ways to organize the categories for cemeteries, churches, sculptures, and so forth. No one will deny that it is a mess. Democracy, is messy and inefficient. Oh, here is another thing to consider. I would say that over half of the active waymarkers were not around five years ago. So, naturally standards, opinions, and goals have changed. That is just another reason for the inconsistency we see. And, as far as peer review is concerned, as I have pointed out before, there are sometimes LARGE numbers of people voting who are NOT active waymarkers at all. This really skews the results when this happens.

 

 

And the same goes to the other category on peer review at the same time, the European Post Offices. Fortunately nobody had the bright idea to create a handful of national categories there, so only two need to be in the exclusion list. Otherwise,if there was already French, German, Austrian and Belgium post offices, I am sure you would believe the list of categories should be "enriched" by 50 more categories, one of each country. Many, and probably the majority, disagree with you. At least that's what the result of voting inspire me to think.

 

 

Well, this is another catch-all category that really seems illogical to me. Why should we not then just have one huge "Post Offices of the World" category like we do for cemeteries (another unfortunate category)? Why stop at European? And, if it is going to be European Post Offices, then why exclude ANY of them - just because someone decided to create a few country-specific ones first? Or, why not follow that precedent and continue in that vein. If there is someone in a particular country interested in creating a post office category, then great; if not then that is fine, too. If I'm out of step on this, that is fine. I'm just one voice and I don't intend my tone to be taken as anything other than the expression of my opinion, certainly NOT as if I have the absolute truth about this or anything else. Obviously I think think I'm right. That's why it is called an opinion.

 

 

Plus, if for any reason, a few years ago, people had created McDonalds Restaurants of Florida, then McDonalds Restaurants of Alaska, McDonalds Restaurants of Germany and a coupe more of the kind... well, then you would deny the existence of a McDonalds Restaurants category. In alternative, a few hundred categories, all about McDonalds Restaurants, one in each State, one in each country. Disturbing thought.

 

 

No, it wouldn't happen. This is exactly what the "Global" criterion is designed to prevent. Categories may not arbitrarily restrict waymarks by country or region, such as Russian McDonalds. There are many categories that are limited just because they exist in only one country or state. One of the initial experimental categories, for instance, was for historical markers. But, when Groundspeak set up Waymarking.com it was felt that this would be a category just too large to handle. So, they began with Pennsylvania Historic Markers. That actually turned out to be a wise decision. Categories for specific states were added over time as people showed an interest in creating and managing them. Them came categories for country historical markers, and this has worked out well, too. So, when there is an extremely large pool of potential waymarks, it is sometimes reasonable to break them down into logical groups, and sometimes country or state divisions make the most sense, especially when the nature of them vary widely from country to country.

 

So, how do we divide up the pie? Should there be ONE category for ALL churches of ALL types - maybe even ALL places of worship? ALL post offices of the world? All, war memorials everywhere? All, benchmarks in the world? We already have all cemeteries of the world. Obviously some divisions are necessary to give us focus and to make thing manageable, to give some interest for each person. There is no perfect way to do this, and we will never agree on the best way, and peer review will never give us the best way.

 

Tone cue: passionate but respectful, convinced but humble

Link to comment

 

Well, considering the results of peer review, the large majority of people don't agree with you, which makes your tone, sounding like the owner of the absolute truth, a bit strange.

 

 

Hold on a minute! I really don't appreciated being attacked on YOUR perception of my "tone" because I have a strong opinion that disagrees with yours. It is NOT a new concept that individual categories should stand on their own merit. I wish this were more clearly stated by Groundspeak, but that is a clear guideline that has been given in the past. Peer review is a strange process, and one that has problems, which is something that I've discussed in the past. Just look at all the bad categories ideas that have been approved over the years.

 

 

Of course, nothing of this would be an issue if the already existent categories had been created in a proper way, not excluding the universe of wars around the whole world. But then, accordingly to this tiny minority who opposed the creation of the suggested category in the peer review, now there is no way to fix this. Or there is? Awaiting for solutions (although, if the principle of democracy brought by the peer review process really exist, this category will be a reality in the next hours and the problem vanishes).

 

 

This probably illustrates my point. Categories have been developed over a period of years now in a haphazard way. Is there a more logical way to create and organize categories for war and veteran memorials? I'm sure there is. But, in the beginning it seemed reasonable to have separate categories for each of the major wars. None of them is arbitrarily limited to a single country. Probably most of the monuments to the U.S Revolutionary War and Civil War are found in the U.S., but Korean War memorials are found in dozens of countries. The Boer War - well, not so widespread geographically. It is wrong to view this as an attempt to exclude anything or anybody.

 

I still think that grouping all wars, except those that happen to have a category created before this date, into one all-inclusive category is not a good idea. I really think it dilutes the focus of each war that is lumped together rather than honoring them. We will see. If it works, then that is great. So, what should I do with the dozens of monuments to the Korean fight for independence? Should I have a dedicated category for them, or should I put them in the mix of this category where they will be lost?

 

There are better ways to organize the categories for cemeteries, churches, sculptures, and so forth. No one will deny that it is a mess. Democracy, is messy and inefficient. Oh, here is another thing to consider. I would say that over half of the active waymarkers were not around five years ago. So, naturally standards, opinions, and goals have changed. That is just another reason for the inconsistency we see. And, as far as peer review is concerned, as I have pointed out before, there are sometimes LARGE numbers of people voting who are NOT active waymarkers at all. This really skews the results when this happens.

 

 

And the same goes to the other category on peer review at the same time, the European Post Offices. Fortunately nobody had the bright idea to create a handful of national categories there, so only two need to be in the exclusion list. Otherwise,if there was already French, German, Austrian and Belgium post offices, I am sure you would believe the list of categories should be "enriched" by 50 more categories, one of each country. Many, and probably the majority, disagree with you. At least that's what the result of voting inspire me to think.

 

 

Well, this is another catch-all category that really seems illogical to me. Why should we not then just have one huge "Post Offices of the World" category like we do for cemeteries (another unfortunate category)? Why stop at European? And, if it is going to be European Post Offices, then why exclude ANY of them - just because someone decided to create a few country-specific ones first? Or, why not follow that precedent and continue in that vein. If there is someone in a particular country interested in creating a post office category, then great; if not then that is fine, too. If I'm out of step on this, that is fine. I'm just one voice and I don't intend my tone to be taken as anything other than the expression of my opinion, certainly NOT as if I have the absolute truth about this or anything else. Obviously I think think I'm right. That's why it is called an opinion.

 

 

Plus, if for any reason, a few years ago, people had created McDonalds Restaurants of Florida, then McDonalds Restaurants of Alaska, McDonalds Restaurants of Germany and a coupe more of the kind... well, then you would deny the existence of a McDonalds Restaurants category. In alternative, a few hundred categories, all about McDonalds Restaurants, one in each State, one in each country. Disturbing thought.

 

 

No, it wouldn't happen. This is exactly what the "Global" criterion is designed to prevent. Categories may not arbitrarily restrict waymarks by country or region, such as Russian McDonalds. There are many categories that are limited just because they exist in only one country or state. One of the initial experimental categories, for instance, was for historical markers. But, when Groundspeak set up Waymarking.com it was felt that this would be a category just too large to handle. So, they began with Pennsylvania Historic Markers. That actually turned out to be a wise decision. Categories for specific states were added over time as people showed an interest in creating and managing them. Them came categories for country historical markers, and this has worked out well, too. So, when there is an extremely large pool of potential waymarks, it is sometimes reasonable to break them down into logical groups, and sometimes country or state divisions make the most sense, especially when the nature of them vary widely from country to country.

 

So, how do we divide up the pie? Should there be ONE category for ALL churches of ALL types - maybe even ALL places of worship? ALL post offices of the world? All, war memorials everywhere? All, benchmarks in the world? We already have all cemeteries of the world. Obviously some divisions are necessary to give us focus and to make thing manageable, to give some interest for each person. There is no perfect way to do this, and we will never agree on the best way, and peer review will never give us the best way.

 

Tone cue: passionate but respectful, convinced but humble

 

The problem with all-encompassing categories (as I see it) is the volume of review work. Most reviewers have a very limited interest, and a very high level category would be a reviewer nightmare.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...