which/is — category for "Cupolas"

[+Ianatlarge]

I came across these architectural oddities in Singapore. They seem entirely without purpose or function (thus, most likely, Oscar Wilde would have approved). They stand in Fort Canning Park, before the former governor's mansion, in central Sing. Rather cute (and I don't use that word often) in appearance.

 

Is there a category into which these might fall? I could find none.

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2012 by Ianatlarge

[+BruceS]

It does not sound like these two were ever part of a larger building. Normally cupolas are on top of buildings as indicated on the information sign. If they had been part of a building then I would recommend "Preserved Architectural Remnants and Ruins" however that does not seem to fit here.

[+Ianatlarge]

Ummmm, new category: "misc architectural fancies"?

Or, perhaps, gasp gasp, not everything needs to be waymarked?

[+BruceS]

Ummmm, new category: "misc architectural fancies"?

Or, perhaps, gasp gasp, not everything needs to be waymarked?

 

I know there was discussion of a "Follies" category... I would think these would fit there but that category didn't get going.

[Sandflea28]

How about "Interesting oddities" category?

[+silverquill]

If these were never used, then I think they are a type of sculpture.

 

But, I think the <gas> not everything needs to be waymarked might apply here.

Even then, many things can be included in other waymarks. If these are in a park, for instance, they can be incorporated into that waymark.

 

I would be reluctant to suggest something like "interesting oddities." Both "interesting" and "oddity" are so very subjective. Follies might be a better go. Then, maybe we should have a catch-all category for things and places that have no other home. I think it would be more of a mess than anything else, though. It could become a real junkyard. Then, what happens when a category pops up for "homeless cupolas?"

[+Ianatlarge]

"Misc-non-categorisable-oddities waymarks."

Sounds good to me.