Disputatio Categoriae:Aedificia

message: This category seems to be unnecessary: it duplicates :Categoria:Aedificia; at least, it has the same interwikis. I propose to merge at :Categoria:Aedificia. I think that Buildings and structures was just a phrase made up to cover English-speaking asses. We don't have that problem in Latin: "Aedificia" deals with it. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 11:50, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobis monet en: "An architectural structure is a free-standing, immobile outdoor constructed element. The structure may be temporary or permanent. Structures include buildings (occupied—habitable) and nonbuilding structures (non-occupied—habitable). Examples of building structures include houses, town halls, libraries, and skyscrapers. Examples of nonbuilding structures include bridges, monuments and memorials‎, dams, windmills, and lookout towers." So unless you want to call bridges, monuments, dams, etc. aedificia (and maybe one does, but then the article on article on architectural structures might get tongue-tied), it's best to separate the concepts. In effect, Categoria:Aedificia might well be abolished and its contents moved to Categoria:Aedificia et structurae. IacobusAmor 12:09, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :Of course Latin structura might not be the best equivalent of English structure, and perhaps the overworked opera ('works') or, as Cassell's suggests, compages and moles might be better (except that one gets the impression that the basic sense of moles is 'a shapeless mass', which seems to imply the opposite of 'structured'). A category that includes all built-up things must be very broad indeed. :/ IacobusAmor 12:14, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::"Aedificia" is already a subcategory of "Opera".

text: ::It is nonsense (I think) to say "it's best to separate the concepts" and then to propose combining them in "Categoria:Aedificia et structurae". Which do you want to do, separate them or combine them?

text: ::If you want to combine them, I still think that "Aedificia" does what you want; and I agree with you that "structura" would not be the ideal word in this context anyway. Why "compages" or "moles" would be logically combined with "Aedificia" in a single category I can't yet quite see. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 12:53, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Oh it may be OK, as long as everyone agrees that (as in en:) things like Building and structure fires, Drilling rigs, Emergency medical services, Offshore wind farms, Space stations, and Stargate (device) are examples of aedificia. Anthropological jargon includes the built environment (the part of the environment that's been constructed by humans), so maybe that's an aedificium too. The concept of "things built up by humans" must be broad in the extreme. :/  IacobusAmor 13:04, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::OK, par contre, if you're developing this area, more strength to you and I don't want to be awkward. I'm happy for you to choose. If you decide we want to abolish "Aedificia" and move the contents to "Aedificia et structurae" or some other more all-encompassing name, you merely need to place a request at Vicipaedia:Automata/Category move requests; UVbot will then cleverly deal with it. I'll leave you to do that if you so choose. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:25, 25 Ianuarii 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Since you didn't do that, I've merged at :Categoria:Aedificia. A move is still possible: use that same page to request one. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 17:04, 5 Februarii 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [De categoria "Aedificia et structurae"]