Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
RakeInTheCache

Looking for officers for a new Romanesque Architecture category

Recommended Posts

This is a continuation of  this thread . I am attempting to jump start a Romanesque Architecture category and am looking for interested officers.  Do let me know if you are interested in helping to manage such a category.

- RitC

Share this post


Link to post

Hello I am interested in this category, if I can help, there is so much to discover

Share this post


Link to post

I am also interested but i need to study about what is romanesque architecture

Share this post


Link to post

I am also interested.

 

The Gothic Archtecture category does exclude religious buildings and castled. Do you plan similar exclusions?

 

Edit: I was not aware that you try to reactivate the old existing group, that is almost ready. I thought you want to start all over again. Forget my question!

Edited by fi67

Share this post


Link to post

I see there is a vote to demote the leader of the existing category.  If it is successful, I'm wondering who the new leader will end up being.

Share this post


Link to post

I am actually a member of that group.  If I could just become the leader, than I wouldn't have to start over from scratch.  There is already a category under construction.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess most of you know I am the leader now. Thank you to the officer with the brilliant idwa. I will start thinking about how to complete the  category.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm interested in being an officer (if there is room available of course). I'm usually quite active on the site, logging in many times a day to review. Even when I'm traveling.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a couple of notes : I think that 

 

1) Neo Romanesque should be excluded from this category.

 

2) In order to clearly identify that the structure is Romanesque written material indicating that the building is Romanesque must be included.  This can be

   a ) A photo of an informational panel, or guidebook entry or other document

   b ) A link to a website

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

Straight, non revival, Romanesque architecture will exclude all architecture in the world except for Europe and maybe extreme Northern Africa.  
This might be a really tough sell...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 11/06/2018 at 6:04 AM, iconions said:

Straight, non revival, Romanesque architecture will exclude all architecture in the world except for Europe and maybe extreme Northern Africa.  
This might be a really tough sell...

 

In fact, I see this as rounding out the existing categories regarding Gothic and Renaissance architecture, of which the same criticism can be made. I would try to sell it that way.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe the description and instructions for posting a waymark are very clear and very accurate.

Share this post


Link to post

How intact does a structure have to be? There are a lot of castle ruins in my area that would fall in the Romanesque era, but often there is little to recognize anymore. The text does not answer this question.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/26/2018 at 6:38 PM, fi67 said:

How intact does a structure have to be? There are a lot of castle ruins in my area that would fall in the Romanesque era, but often there is little to recognize anymore. The text does not answer this question.

Would these have websites clearly linking the site ad Romanesque? Having been built in the time period is not sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/29/2018 at 9:34 AM, RakeInTheCache said:

Would these have websites clearly linking the site ad Romanesque? Having been built in the time period is not sufficient.

You're right. Probably there are only web references if there are remaining parts of the structure clearly recognizable as Romanesque.

 

I think, the category description is fine. However, I would try to better highlight the mandatory parts of the posting instructions. It does not change the content, but would better prevent insufficient submissions of inattentive waymarkers and reduce unnecessary denials.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, fi67 said:

I would try to better highlight the mandatory parts of the posting instructions. It does not change the content, but would better prevent insufficient submissions of inattentive waymarkers and reduce unnecessary denials.

I know that many categories tend to follow a model regarding the requirements.  Is there any one that seems particularly well done?

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, updated the category to make the Waymarking requirements more clear. If no further comments, will submit for officer approval shortly.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/1/2018 at 9:43 PM, RakeInTheCache said:

I know that many categories tend to follow a model regarding the requirements.  Is there any one that seems particularly well done?

Many categories include the same standard naming convention and a two picture minimum requirement.

I am well aware that these are not really important, but they seem to have a positive side effect of increasing also the quality of the descriptions. And from the point of view of an officer in many categories, they reduce the review time: when I receive a submission that follows those standards, I know it's fine. When it does not, I have to check the posting instructions of that category if this is allowed, because I cannot know all of them by heart. As I said, not really important, just my personal opinion.

 

BTW: I just came back from a 40km bike ride through pouring rain, visiting some of your older waymarks from 2007 in the Lake Neuchâtel area.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, fi67 said:

Many categories include the same standard naming convention and a two picture minimum requirement.

 

Oops, yes forgot the waymark name point. Thanks for the reminder. I have updated the description.  I am personally against the two photo requirement, why? Because many times on travels I have found myself taking only a single photo or multiple photos of essentially the same shot, only to be disappointed at home that a category required two photos and of shots I hadn't planned for.

 

I will now set the officer vote in motion.

 

6 hours ago, fi67 said:

 

BTW: I just came back from a 40km bike ride through pouring rain, visiting some of your older waymarks from 2007 in the Lake Neuchâtel area.

the La Tene site was a very important location for my Celtic category.

Share this post


Link to post

I am essentially copying the category text here as I do believe if the category gets voted down, it is then permanently erased.

 

Romanesque Architecture

Romanesque

Buildings => Architectural

Your mission if you choose to accept it, is to find either an original Romanesque (not pseudo-/neo-Romanesque) building or structure to post in this category.

 

<p style="text-align: justify">
<font color="#000099"><b>Romanesque architecture </b> is an architectural style of Medieval Europe characterized by semi-circular arches.
<p>
This category adds to the existing categories <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=025d09bf-9e1a-4549-b001-ebb16d586d94"> Gothic Architecture</a>, <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=e965dd67-5ba4-4ec6-aee6-b4d83e546e98"> Renaissance Architecture</a>, and <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=7b8ca64b-d9e8-4e68-b77b-132d7f3cde87"> Baroque Architecture</a> identifying European architectural styles between the classical and modern periods.
<p>
The term "Romanesque" was first applied by the archaeologist Charles de Gerville, in the early nineteenth century, to describe Western European architecture from the fifth to the thirteenth century,
<p>
The term is now used for a more restricted period from the late tenth to the twelfth century.
<p>
The word was used to describe the style which was identifiably Medieval and prefigured the Gothic, yet maintained the rounded Roman arch.
<p>
Examples of Romanesque architecture can be found across the continent, making it the first pan-European architectural style since Imperial Roman Architecture. The Romanesque style in England is traditionally referred to as Norman architecture.
<p>
The semicircular arch was very popular in the Roman Empire. This similarity is likely where the term 'Romanesque' originated. The semicircular arch is strong and durable. Romanesque architects love this arch, and they use it everywhere: doors, windows, ceilings, arcades.
<p>
An arch allows you to build unsupported openings out of masonry. It only took a little bit of cleverness to stretch this arch out, making a sort of tunnel. When this arched tunnel is used to roof a building, it's called vaulting. There were three sorts of vaulting popular in Romanesque times. First was the barrel vault. Next came the groin vault, which was later improved to ribbed vault.
<p>
The walls of Romanesque buildings are often of massive thickness with few and comparatively small openings.
<p>
The foliate Corinthian style provided the inspiration for many Romanesque capitals, and the accuracy with which they were carved depended very much on the availability of original models, those in Italian churches such as Pisa Cathedral and southern France being much closer to the Classical than those in England.
</FONT>
 
 
<p style="text-align: justify">
Your mission is to find either an original Romanesque era building or structure to post in this category. Any structure demonstrating Romanesque architecture, whether partly or entirely,  e.g. churches, castles, town palaces, burgerhouses, watch towers, bridges, city gates, bell towers etc., are welcome in this category.
 
<p>
 
<B> 1). QUALIFYING SITES:</B>
<p>
Because the officers in this category are not experts in identifying Romanesque architecture, this category requires that a reference on the internet clearly identifies the structure as belonging partly or entirely to the Romanesque style. The URL of this reference must be provided. The reference may be in any language, although the connection to Romanesque architecture must be easily determined from the results of an on-line translation in English.
<p>
 
A romanesque element of the structure must be clearly visible to the visitor. A structure simply built during the time period is not sufficient to qualify as a waymark in this category.
 
<p>
 
 
    <B>2). COORDINATES:</B> Personally obtained coordinates must be obtained as close to the structure as possible. Coordinates should NOT be taken from a distant vantage point unless access is somehow restricted.
<p>
 
    <B>3). PHOTOS:</B> At minimum one daylight photo is required showing the entire structure or the romanesque feature (no GPSr please).
 
<P>
 
Other photos showing different views and details of the site are highly encouraged. While we don't expect professional photography, waymarks submitted with underexposed, blurred, skewed or otherwise poor quality photos may be declined.
 
<P>
 
All photos must be the waymarker's original photos and be placed in the photo gallery for the waymark.
 
<P>
   <B>4). DESCRIPTIONS:</B> Keep in mind that the quick description is what people see when browsing, so do your best to give a succinct description that will give people an "at a glance" overview of the waymark.
 
<P>
 
Bi-lingual descriptions of sites located in non-English speaking countries are encouraged in order to open the hobby to non-English speakers.
 
<P>
 
Further to this point, descriptions may be written completely in the local language.
 
<P>
 
In the long description please provide additional information about the history of the structure, its
 original and current use, etc.
 
<p>
 
    <B>5). VARIABLES:</B> Please make a good faith effort to provide the information for the variables including architect when known, date built, etc.<p>
<P>
 
    <B>6). WAYMARK NAME:</B> The waymark title must include the full name of the structure followed by a dash and its associated community (city, village, named place, etc.) and the country separated by a comma must be at the end of each waymark name (Please spell out country names). An additional administrative subdivision of the country may also optionally be included between parenthesis, before the comma and country name using the following format.  Example: Notre-Dame Church - Saint-Saturnin (Puy-de-Dôme), France.
 
 
Logging requirements: Please upload your own personal photo of the building. You or your GPS can be in the picture, but it’s not a requirement.
 
Romanesque architecture original medieval

Share this post


Link to post

I think this description and its variables are very complete, but I think that two photos should be mandatory, but no zoom of the first.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, RakeInTheCache said:

I am personally against the two photo requirement, why? Because many times on travels I have found myself taking only a single photo or multiple photos of essentially the same shot, only to be disappointed at home that a category required two photos and of shots I hadn't planned for.

 

Silly me, I really like the new categories with the three photo requirement.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm, someone has been initiating demotions during the vote for the category.  Well, it wasn't me. Afterwards the vote for demotions was cancelled. One of the persons targeted seemed to be active.  The other seems to be off-line for over a month.

 

I admit I have thought about initiating a demotion for the off-line officer who has also not be very responsive lately to numerous attempts at communicating via e-mail.

 

I'm assuming that even if all officers don't vote, the vote will still end at some point.  Is this true?

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 6:04 AM, iconions said:

Straight, non revival, Romanesque architecture will exclude all architecture in the world except for Europe and maybe extreme Northern Africa.  
This might be a really tough sell...

Oh the irony.  How many of those who complained about the category not being global are leaders or officers in categories like US State Historical Markers.   And those are REALLY global. Give me a break!

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, RakeInTheCache said:

Oh the irony.  How many of those who complained about the category not being global are leaders or officers in categories like US State Historical Markers.   And those are REALLY global. Give me a break!

Historical markers are global. It would be impractical to have one group responsible for the entire worldwide set. I only speak English so French Historical Markers are beyond my abilities to decide but no problem with Australian Historical Markers. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, RakeInTheCache said:

Oh the irony.  How many of those who complained about the category not being global are leaders or officers in categories like US State Historical Markers.   And those are REALLY global. Give me a break!

Here is what was sent to my account by the above waymarker: 
"I don't expect this to help my cause but you are an officer in the Iowa Historic Markers category. WOW, talk about a category which is NOT GLOBAL. Shame on you! "

I'm going to REALLY try to be diplomatic about this since you are obviously pissed off and not thinking clearly.  I will tell you right off the bat, however, what you did is truly outside the boundaries of acceptable social norms - I guess it is to be expected in these days of computer anonymity.  Act first, get called out on it, then apologize - pretty much par for the course in this day and age.
  

First, I did not create the Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, or Oklahoma State Historical Marker categories that I officer, and, as a favor, became an officer to keep them alive.  So, no, actually, I'll take your thanks and not your shame for doing that - I had NO control on whether or not those categories were created or not.  If you look at the dates of creation of those categories, three were created at the time Waymarking was created and Oklahoma was created in 2008.  For more of your information, Missouri Historical Markers was created by one of the early founders of Waymarking - the late GEO*Trailblazer1.  I was more than honored when I was asked to take a spot as an officer in a group that he founded.  I think I would try to get my facts straight before I went on an email blast, but that is just me...


Second, I gave my HONEST opinion in both the forum and in the Peer Review - DEAL WITH IT AS AN ADULT!!!!!  Everyone isn't going to like your category.  I thought then, and I think now it is a niche category that is limited in both of those buildings that CAN be waymarked and WHERE they can be waymarked.  You knew EXACTLY how my vote was going to be.  If you didn't, go back up about halfway up this discussion - I said it would be a tough sell because of the limits of geography.  Sorry, I didn't sugarcoat, I didn't lie, I didn't blow smoke up a certain orifice - I told you exactly how I was thinking then, and it was exactly how I voted in Peer Review.  At least I had the guts to keep my comments public, I could have hidden them and as well as my name.  It's crappy emails like you sent is the reason that the tickbox to keep comments hidden is there.   I was at least trying to give you some feedback, obviously, not wanted UNLESS it was of the positive kind.  

Third, you actually got some very nice comments from some VERY well respected waymarkers in Peer Review.  WHY, do you then feel the need to go ahead and slam other waymarkers like this?  Are you really that insecure of the category passing that you feel the need to lash out at negative comments?  If my actually very calm comments in the peer review section touched a nerve like that, just imagine the first time you deny a waymark?  You will learn very quickly what "Shame on you!" REALLY means when you read what an angry waymarker writes.

 

In conclusion, this is the second time this year someone from across the pond has felt the need to admonish me through a private email.  This is a global hobby, not just one for either the European or North American areas.  Seriously, and I really say this with the utmost respect, what you said in the forum and privately was totally uncalled for.  You should have researched more about those State Historical Markers before you decided to put some of the Waymarking population on email blast.  Seriously, you look really immature by slamming fellow waymarkers in the forum and in private emails.  I'm not holding my breath for an apology, although one is certainly due me and the rest of the waymarkers you decided to go on full tilt.

To the rest of the Waymarking population, I'm sorry you have to read the above diatribe from me.  I guess I could just have bitten the bullet and taken the personal attack, however, our friend above has decided the measurement of certain body parts is in order.  I guess from now on, we have to agree with EVERY category that comes down the pipe,

Share this post


Link to post

Don't get me wrong, but these endless "not global" discussions are boring me to death. There are a lot of categories that one will only find on the American continent and some that will be hard or impossible to find on the American continent. I personally can live with both. If we had to make all the categories global, we wouldn't have "Iowa Historical Markers", but "Worldwide Historical Markers". Would that be better? I doubt it a lot.

 

We have "Deutsche Denkmallisten - German Monument Registers", "Norway Historical Sites", "Austrian and Swiss National Heritage Sites" and so on in Europe and "Kroger Supermarkets", "U-Haul SuperGraphics", "Painted Barn Quilts" and many more that most Europeans have never heard of before.

 

I've been to the US twice (before I started Waymarking) and you can be sure that if I ever visit the american continent again, I will try to find as many non-European categories as possible. Not only to fill my category grid, but because these categories show me something new, that I will not be able see when I'm back in Europe.

 

In other words: If we would start again from scratch, I would vote Yea on the category "Painted Barn Quilts", although it is definitely NOT global. But it's an interesting subject and it's nothing that can be found in the yellow pages or an online database. I think, the very first question should be: Is it an interesting subject (not necessarily to me but to a bigger group of people)? Second question for me is: Is it a helpful category, because it would be very difficult to find these locations. (This is why I love my category Chronograms. Sooner or later this category will be the best source for finding chronograms worldwide - Have I ever said how happy I am that one chronogram has already been found in Canada? ;)) And the last question for me is about global or not. But if the first two questions had a positive answer, the fact that the category isn't global doesn't disqualify it anymore.

 

So, to answer the last sentence of iconions (" I guess from now on, we have to agree with EVERY category that comes down the pipe") with my humble opinion: No, you don't have to agree with EVERY category, but first think if it's an interesting category and if it is, accept that there might not be waymarks on every continent and/or in huge quantity.

Edited by PISA-caching
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be a double standard:

Not global for some, and that is okay.

Not global for some, and they fail peer review for not being global.

We have witnessed this several times during the past year or so.

Explain that.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

There seems to be a double standard:

Not global for some, and that is okay.

Not global for some, and they fail peer review for not being global.

We have witnessed this several times during the past year or so.

Explain that.

 

 

1 hour ago, PISA-caching said:

Don't get me wrong, but these endless "not global" discussions are boring me to death. There are a lot of categories that one will only find on the American continent and some that will be hard or impossible to find on the American continent. I personally can live with both. If we had to make all the categories global, we wouldn't have "Iowa Historical Markers", but "Worldwide Historical Markers". Would that be better? I doubt it a lot.

 

We have "Deutsche Denkmallisten - German Monument Registers", "Norway Historical Sites", "Austrian and Swiss National Heritage Sites" and so on in Europe and "Kroger Supermarkets", "U-Haul SuperGraphics", "Painted Barn Quilts" and many more that most Europeans have never heard of before.

 

I've been to the US twice (before I started Waymarking) and you can be sure that if I ever visit the american continent again, I will try to find as many non-European categories as possible. Not only to fill my category grid, but because these categories show me something new, that I will not be able see when I'm back in Europe.

 

In other words: If we would start again from scratch, I would vote Yea on the category "Painted Barn Quilts", although it is definitely NOT global. But it's an interesting subject and it's nothing that can be found in the yellow pages or an online database. I think, the very first question should be: Is it an interesting subject (not necessarily to me but to a bigger group of people)? Second question for me is: Is it a helpful category, because it would be very difficult to find these locations. (This is why I love my category Chronograms. Sooner or later this category will be the best source for finding chronograms worldwide - Have I ever said how happy I am that one chronogram has already been found in Canada? ;)) And the last question for me is about global or not. But if the first two questions had a positive answer, the fact that the category isn't global doesn't disqualify it anymore.

 

So, to answer the last sentence of iconions (" I guess from now on, we have to agree with EVERY category that comes down the pipe") with my humble opinion: No, you don't have to agree with EVERY category, but first think if it's an interesting category and if it is, accept that there might not be waymarks on every continent and/or in huge quantity.

 

No, interesting is just ONE of the factors that we are to think about in peer review, and it isn't even listed first.  I made my objections in Peer Review against two of the four categories -
1.) Global.  I don't really see this fill-in category fulfilling the first, and

2.) Prevalance. How many of these buildings are truly Romanesque, and how many are going to be 19th century Romanesque Revival which are already accepted in another category (which violates the third of the fourth category).  Anyway, that's beating a dead horse and I already explained all of that in my Peer Review comments.

Nope, you just took the last single sentence and missed the ENTIRE point of the rest of my post.  Personal attacks made by one waymarker against another have no place in this hobby or on this forum.  The waymarker in question decided, on his own, that because I was an officer in a category that was for a single U.S. State (actually 4 if the waymarker in question had looked further), that my opinion not only did not matter, but that I wasn't even qualified to even make that opinion.  To make that point, the waymarker in question emphasized that choice also by sending a personal email directly to me - really bad form and bad manners. Please, instead of just answering my last sentence and paragraph, which was a rhoterical question, look at the entire entry and the reason for my making the entry.   Seriously, it has NOTHING to do with some 7th to 12th century European building at this point and whether someone gets a new icon or not.

We, as a community, have a voice as to what gets approved and what doesn't, and that voice is Peer Review.  I hope that the blatant attempt that I pointed out in my post above of a waymarker trying to stifle my voice in the Peer Review doesn't go unnoticed.  We, as a community, should be sending a message that this kind of behavior is not only unwanted, but inappropriate.  That is all I was saying in my first post this evening, and it is what I am saying now.


To the waymarker who began this little diatribe, my opinion is valid on what I feel is what your new category fits against the four categories we are supposed to assess; sorry to let you in on that secret.  You may not like it, but it is just that, my opinion.   My original comments and my Peer Review comments WEREN'T personal until YOU decided today to make them personal.  Just sayin'!

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

There seems to be a double standard:

Not global for some, and that is okay.

Not global for some, and they fail peer review for not being global.

We have witnessed this several times during the past year or so.

Explain that.

 

Ummm...  Dunno...  I vote consistently by the four core principles.

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, iconions said:

No, interesting is just ONE of the factors that we are to think about in peer review, and it isn't even listed first....

Nope, you just took the last single sentence and missed the ENTIRE point of the rest of my post.  Personal attacks made by one waymarker against another have no place in this hobby or on this forum... 

 

Whether it is listed first or not, for me "interesting" is the most important criterion. AND, the sentence "We can afford to be somewhat flexible with the application of this guideline for truly outstanding categories.", that is stated in the "Global" section of the Peer Review page is - in my opinion - saying, that if we have an "outstanding" category idea, it shouldn't be denied just because it isn't totally global. Maybe that is a misinterpretation, but it might be the reason, why some not-global categories made it through Peer Review and others didn't.

 

No, I didn't miss the entire point of the rest of your post. I didn't comment on the rest, because I share your opinion on that point. It's never a solution to become personal in discussions like this.

Edited by PISA-caching

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, iconions said:

 

First, I did not create the Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, or Oklahoma State Historical Marker categories that I officer, and, as a favor, became an officer to keep them alive.  So, no, actually, I'll take your thanks and not your shame for doing that - I had NO control on whether or not those categories were created or not. 

Sorry, but that doesn't hold.  If you are an officer in a category, you undoubtedly feel there is some value to it and it's worth keeping. If you really felt strongly that categories which are not global are unworthy I don't think you would agree to be an officer in such a category.

 

9 hours ago, iconions said:

 

Second, I gave my HONEST opinion in both the forum and in the Peer Review - DEAL WITH IT AS AN ADULT!!!!!  Everyone isn't going to like your category. 
 

I only responded to those who obviously held a double standard, not all those who voted against.

 

The e-mail was undiplomatic, expressed dismay, but was not abusive. 

9 hours ago, iconions said:

 

someone from across the pond 

 

I'm from Michigan by the way.

 

Edited by RakeInTheCache

Share this post


Link to post

You really, really need to read what you are typing.  All you are doing by getting this upset at other waymarkers is just alienating them.  What you are stating - again read what you typed - is either I quit being an officer an any pre-existing category possibly letting an original category die and not get to vote in Peer Review OR shut up.  Is that what you are telling me officially?  Are you going to give up your French Historical Marker officership to also be able to have a future vote in Peer Review?  I mean, if you're telling me this, I'm guessing it's the same for you since a country's historic marker is only slightly more global than a state, but not much.  Also, you have focused strictly on the global aspect - you have said NOTHING to my prevalence argument which is also in my Peer Review statement and renders your ENTIRE global argument moot.  Besides, dear heart, the item up for discussion isn't whether the Iowa, Kansas,  Nebraska, or Oklahoma categories are going to be accepted - it's whether the Romanesque category is going to be accepted.  My being an officer in ANY other category has no affect or bearing on whether the Romanesque category gets approved or not.  I FOLLOW THE WAYMARK CATEGORY CRITERIA AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN!!!!!!!!!!  If you don't like the criteria, get them changed through Groundspeak - don't get upset at me.  Here they are for your perusal

 

There are certain guidelines you should follow when reviewing this new category. Most importantly, we ask that you set aside your personal feelings for a moment and objectively reflect on this category's suitability for placement in the directory. Before we get started, however, remember that duplicate categories should be disqualified from the start.

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. We can afford to be somewhat flexible with the application of this guideline for truly outstanding categories. 

Prevalence - How many potential waymarks exist throughout the world? Too few and the category may be of little or no interest to anyone. Too many and you may end up with a category full of mundane, everyday locations.

Interesting or Informative - In general, good categories can be classified in one of two ways. Interesting: Can you imagine yourself sifting through the gallery for compelling and entertaining images, or making a special trip to visit a waymark in this category? Informative: On the flipside, you may not exclaim "Wow!", but perhaps you or someone else might find the waymarks in this category useful in some way. These waymarks can aid in accomplishing an everyday task more efficiently, or serve to gather enlightening information about a commercial location which may or may not be available from traditional sources. 

Redundant - Could this category be included as a variable in an existing category? For instance, let's say this new category is called "Blue Lighthouses". But, wait! There may already be a "Lighthouses category". Would it make more sense to add a variable for different colors in the "Lighthouses" details?


Double Standard - guess what, did you also contact those who voted YES who hold officerships in those same types of categories and tell them to quit being officers?  I'm guessing not.  There is another double-standard for you and you're in the middle of it.  By the way, did you also know that I also help with Finnish Benchmarks?  Yea, I got asked to assist with those by someone in Europe.  Do you want me also to give that officership and let that European category die so I can give an opinion, since it is also a "local" category, or is it ok because it is European?   Look, you trying to silence people's opinions like you are smacks of kind of stuff going on over here in the US on college campii.  Sorry, with this group, you're going to get called out on it and it won't be tolerated.  

Telling me "Shame on you!" is not abusive?  Umm, you and I have different opinions on that. You seriously can't treat people that way.  It wasn't just undiplomatic; it was truly uncalled for, and it was downright rude.  

 

I'm wondering how many minds you changed with that outstanding email blast you sent, or better still, how many positive votes were changed in Peer Review due to your impolitic replies?

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

 

Whether it is listed first or not, for me "interesting" is the most important criterion. AND, the sentence "We can afford to be somewhat flexible with the application of this guideline for truly outstanding categories.", that is stated in the "Global" section of the Peer Review page is - in my opinion - saying, that if we have an "outstanding" category idea, it shouldn't be denied just because it isn't totally global. Maybe that is a misinterpretation, but it might be the reason, why some not-global categories made it through Peer Review and others didn't.

 

No, I didn't miss the entire point of the rest of your post. I didn't comment on the rest, because I share your opinion on that point. It's never a solution to become personal in discussions like this.

 

I would agree if this was an outstanding category, however, this is a fill-in category where the waymarker is filling in a gap in the architecture hierarchy.  The problem is that, like I stated , everyone is focusing in on my Global argument, but nothing has been said about prevalence.  We still do not know how many of these buildings there are.  Also, the building only has to show Romanesque features - it doesn't truly have to be Romanesque.  A building could have been built in the 15th or 16th century, but as long as it has the archwork they are looking for it'll be accepted.  This also tells me that reconstructs would be welcome, which would not be true Romanesque buildings.  Again, lots of problems with this category - I told the waymarker it probably would be tough to get it through.  The waymarker decided it's easier to attack me and my character than to address the issues.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Many moons ago, when I was a newbie, the then regulars of the forum had come to a more or less common understanding of the global criterion and I think it is still valid. Especially silverquill has stated it countless times: the global criterion is violated, when a category is arbitrarily excluding or including specific geographic areas, like "Lighthouses in Australia" or "Churches in Belgium".

Everything that goes beyond that is subjective. If you like it or not, you have to draw a line somewhere, because there are hardly any categories that are truly completely global. There are no Glaciers in Singapore, no Cruise Ship Ports in Liechtenstein, and no McDonald's Restaurants in North Korea.

I personally prefer to stay quite close to this basic definition. If you draw your line somewhere else, I disagree with you, but I don't say you cannot vote based on that line. You can, but you cannot say that your opinion is the objective and correct one and other opinions are wrong.

Many of the greatest categories are somewhat historic, at least for me and many others I know. And the older the better, back to eras when the world was not very well known and those different cultures did not cover huge areas.

It is sad to see special categories being voted down, just because they do not exist on all continents or in the twenty most active Waymarking countries or however you define it. I often smell the cheapest of all those definitions in the Nay votes: "Not in my neck of the woods; if I can't have the icon, you shall neither." This current trend is one of the major obstacles for great and unique locations in the orginal spirit of the game.

 

Then we have this special field of established regional categories: historical markers, heritage buildings, benchmarks, and post offices. In my opinion, they should never be even mentioned in a discussion of the global criterion, because they have developed based on early precedents. This field is under a grandfather clause and cannot serve as a justification for whatever is outside of it.

Edited by fi67
typo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, iconions said:

Also, the building only has to show Romanesque features - it doesn't truly have to be Romanesque.  A building could have been built in the 15th or 16th century, but as long as it has the archwork they are looking for it'll be accepted.  This also tells me that reconstructs would be welcome, which would not be true Romanesque buildings.

This is not correct. The Romanesque feature has to be original. Other parts of the building can be younger, but this does not say, Romanesque Revival is accepted.

As an example, many large churches were built during centuries until complete, ending up with a Romanesque nave and a Gothic chancel and Baroque tower. Or parts had to be rebuilt after a disaster, leaving some original Romanesque feature visible. Such a building would qualify.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, fi67 said:

Many moons ago, when I was a newbie, the then regulars of the forum had come to a more or less common understanding of the global criterion and I think it is still valid. Especially silverquill has stated it countless times: the global criterion is violated, when a category is arbitrarily excluding or including specific geographic areas, like "Lighthouses in Australia" or "Churches in Belgium".

Everything that goes beyond that is subjective. If you like it or not, you have to draw a line somewhere, because there are hardly any categories that are truly completely global. There are no Glaciers in Singapore, no Cruise Ship Ports in Liechtenstein, and no McDonald's Restaurants in North Korea.

I personally prefer to stay quite close to this basic definition. If you draw your line somewhere else, I disagree with you, but I don't say you cannot vote based on that line. You can, but you cannot say that your opinion is the objective and correct one and other opinions are wrong.

Many of the greatest categories are somewhat historic, at least for me and many others I know. And the older the better, back to eras when the world was not very well known and those different cultures did not cover huge areas.

It is sad to see special categories being voted down, just because they do not exist on all continents or in the twenty most active Waymarking countries or however you define it. I often smell the cheapest of all those definitions in the Nay votes: "Not in my neck of the woods; if I can't have the icon, you shall neither." This current trend is one of the major obstacles for great and unique locations in the orginal spirit of the game.

 

Then we have this special field of established regional categories: historical markers, heritage buildings, benchmarks, and post offices. In my opinion, they should never be even mentioned in a discussion of the global criterion, because they have developed based on early precedents. This field is under a grandfather clause and cannot serve as a justification for whatever is outside of it.

Thanks for the reply - again, my concerns are two fold.  1.) the global where everyone has beat this dead horse into hamburger and 2.) prevalence which no one has addressed.  Again, I appreciate that a detente  was reached by a group of people on the forums, however, I wasn't privy to those discussions. I go back to the facts that I a.) read through the category placement requirements, b.) read the proposed new category, and c.) voted as my conscience dictated and made appropriate comments as to why I voted. 

 

I repeat - bottom line - I don't care one whit about this category either way - NONE.  It can pass or not pass.  I DON'T CARE!!!!!  I do care that another waymarker decided that it was appropriate to not only call out other waymarkers on the forum for the peer review votes, but to contact them personally and chastise them for their votes.   This was a childish move at best, there is a really a better term for it that I'm not going to repeat, but if the Waymarking community allows that kind of behavior to stand, it will have a definite chilling effect on free speech in both the forums and in Peer Review process.  The funny thing is, I'm afraid that people are SO focused on this stupid Global argument on one category that they do not see the free speech problem we have here.  I am, however, not going to have someone, upset at perfectly valid point I made in both the forums and in my peer review, try to tell me that I am not allowed to vote or comment due to my geographic location and/or whether I have some officership somewhere.  Basically, the waymarker in question needed to either accept or reject my comment and move on, like everyone else who has had items go through Peer Review, instead of telling me that I had NO right to review the category in the negative or make comments in the forum.  There is the REAL issue we have facing the Waymarking community at the moment.



 

Share this post


Link to post

I too have been the recipient of peer review bullying. This is why I now only vote anonymously. It's a shame I have to do that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wollen wir uns endlich mal dem praktischen Teil der Kategorie zuwenden:

 

" Der romanische Bamberger Dom St. Peter und St. Georg gehört zu den deutschen Kaiserdomen und ist mit seinen vier Türmen das beherrschende Bauwerk des Weltkulturerbes Bamberger Altstadt.  Ein prägnantes Beispiel dieser Epoche ...  (Wikipedia @ all)  Warum ium alles in derr Welt wettern einige Waymarker gegen diese Kategorie, obwohl diese mindestens über 400 Jahre prägende Geschichte in Europa (mindestens) verkörperte...

 

Für 'Ungläubige' mal auf Englisch:

 

Let's finally turn to the practical part of the category:

"The Romanesque Bamberger Dom St. Peter and St. Georg is one of the German imperial cathedrals and is with its four towers the dominant building

 of the World Heritage Bamberg old town. Hope, that only ONE waymark of any building should be a very pleasant Waymark for this category...

A concise example of this epoch ... (Wikipedia @ all) Unbelievable that some some Waymarker rant against this category, although this at least over 400 years formative history in Europe (at least) embodied ...

 

Peer Review seems to be  positive  for this perfect category ;-)

 

 

 

Your *SportBaer*

 

 

250px-Bamberger_Dom_BW_6.JPG

Edited by *Team Krombaer*

Share this post


Link to post

I am not sure the problem is about Global, Prevalence or Interesting, the problem is, if you do not want to have negative votes, do not submit a category in Peer review, even if the Peer review could be optimized, we all have to respect this democratic system.

I would not put a bomb in the neighbour's house only because he did not vote like me....

And the forum exists to discuss all differents arguments.

There is only one thing i do not like (and it's not the case for Iconions), most of times people votes Nay in Peer reviews, sometimes with really interesting arguments and they did not take time to discuss their arguments in the forum before, the vote should start 4 days after the beginning of Peer review, like that everybody is aware a vote will start and they have time to participate in the forum.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Alfouine said:

I am not sure the problem is about Global, Prevalence or Interesting, the problem is, if you do not want to have negative votes, do not submit a category in Peer review, even if the Peer review could be optimized, we all have to respect this democratic system.

I would not put a bomb in the neighbour's house only because he did not vote like me....

And the forum exists to discuss all differents arguments.

There is only one thing i do not like (and it's not the case for Iconions), most of times people votes Nay in Peer reviews, sometimes with really interesting arguments and they did not take time to discuss their arguments in the forum before, the vote should start 4 days after the beginning of Peer review, like that everybody is aware a vote will start and they have time to participate in the forum.

THANK YOU!  

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, iconions said:

What you are stating - again read what you typed - is either I quit being an officer an any pre-existing category possibly letting an original category die and not get to vote in Peer Review OR shut up.  

That's not at all what I'm saying. From my recollection of your remark during the vote, it would seem that you voted down the category simply because it wasn't global without taking into consideration anything else.  This gives the impression that you will vote down any category which you feel you personally could not easily waymark due to geographical constraints, rather than considering the merit of the category itself.

 

10 hours ago, iconions said:

 

Double Standard - guess what, did you also contact those who voted YES who hold officerships in those same types of categories and tell them to quit being officers?  

Sorry, don't follow your logic. The point here, is that if we are all flexible in applying the Global criteria, we can all be happy.  From my perspective, you gave the impression of being inflexible in applying the rule.

Edited by RakeInTheCache
.

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, Alfouine said:

I am not sure the problem is about Global, Prevalence or Interesting, the problem is, if you do not want to have negative votes, do not submit a category in Peer review, even if the Peer review could be optimized, we all have to respect this democratic system.

I would not put a bomb in the neighbour's house only because he did not vote like me....

And the forum exists to discuss all differents arguments.

There is only one thing i do not like (and it's not the case for Iconions), most of times people votes Nay in Peer reviews, sometimes with really interesting arguments and they did not take time to discuss their arguments in the forum before, the vote should start 4 days after the beginning of Peer review, like that everybody is aware a vote will start and they have time to participate in the forum.

Just to clarify, my previous posts in this thread are not about negative votes. They are rather about voting based on double standards.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×