Commons:Categories for discussion/2012/08/Category:Derelict buildings

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Category:Derelict buildings[edit]

Derelict buildings and Category:Abandoned buildings are the same thing. I suggest redirecting this to Abandoned buildings and also reactivating Category:Neglected buildings for buildings that are run-down but still in use. Ghouston (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Category:Neglected buildings is probably not worth maintaining. There would be far too many buildings eligible for the category, and it would be too subjective to decide which buildings should be included. . If looking for a neglected building, you'd be better off looking through Category:Buildings to find a suitable one. Ghouston (talk) 01:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I would say that "Abandoned" is NOT the same as "Derelict" which means "damaged, heavily run down" - but can still be in use! Vice versa, a brand spanking new building can be abandoned.
I agree that "neglected" is very subjective, and probably should not exist as a separate category from "derelict" (i.e. move to derelict, then remove all that are just looking a little tired, but not broken down). Ingolfson (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Wikionary say that derelict is a synonym of abandoned: [1], [2]. Looking through what people have put in the two categories, I can't see any difference, and I wouldn't be able to give any advice on which one should be used for a particular building. In practice it can sometimes be hard to tell if a building is actually abandoned or not, since people will sometimes carry on using extremely dilapidated buildings. Most empty buildings are just untenanted, not abandoned. Ghouston (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It's quite common for some "installations", particularly farms, to have one or more buildings that have become derelict, yet for the farm overall to be far from abandoned. Derelict is certainly not a synonym for abandoned, or even that close in meaning, even there is a considerable overlap in the instances of each. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case the building is abandoned but the land isn't. You see the same thing in cities where somebody has stopped maintaining a building but hasn't abandoned the land, they expect to sell it some day or demolish it and redevelop. I'm thinking that derelict/abandoned isn't a great name for a category, if it also has a legal meaning of walking away from the land. In the USA people have been abandoning perfectly good buildings simply because the value has gone down and it's not worth paying the mortgage anymore - the bank will foreclose and take possession themselves before the building turns into a ruin. So abandonment/dereliction tells you nothing about the state of repair of the building. Ghouston (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you also have buildings like File:The_Old_Brown_Jug,_Carr_Hill.JPG or that people call derelict, but are still weatherproof and can be renovated and put back into use later - they've even gone to the trouble of boarding them up for protection. Any damage is relatively minor. Ghouston (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I see a sequence of conditions (it's not completely a logical progression, because decaying buildings can sometimes be still occupied):

  • vacant buildings, in normal condition but currently empty, maybe available for rent
  • mothballed buildings, which are still weatherproof
  • decaying buildings, no longer weatherproof, these are also damaged buildings
  • Ruins, no longer repairable, would need rebuilding from the ground up

Ghouston (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep without changes. Many abandoned buildings are also derelict, and vice versa, but the two aren't the same — if you keep using a building for a long time without maintaining it, it's going to be abandoned but not derelict, while a newly-abandoned building may not yet be derelict. One's a state of use, while the other's a condition. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
    • No objection to leaving this category as it is, but perhaps we need something separate for mothballed buildings, for which I don't see a suitable category. For example, File:Seattle - 313-321 E Pine 02.jpg is a building mothballed in reasonably good repair, with concrete plans for redevelopment. I stuck it in Category:Abandoned buildings for lack of a better category, but it really doesn't seem right to me. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • How can a building that is still in use be described as abandoned, even if it's not maintained? Of the many files in Category:Abandoned buildings, how many examples can you find that aren't derelict? Perhaps my original argument that abandoned and derelict are synonyms can be questioned, since definitions do vary in different sources. However I'm still not sure that abandoned buildings forms a useful category, since an abandoned building in a good state of repair is photographically indistinguishable from a temporarily vacant building (and you'd expect most such "abandoned" buildings to be reclaimed for use sooner or later.) Perhaps if Abandoned buildings was renamed to Category:Disused buildings with the subcategory Derelict buildings for those that are no longer weatherproof? Then we still have the issue that some buildings look like they are on the point of collapse, but are actually still in use. --ghouston (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Some of the arguments above basically reverse Nyttend's statement, from "if you keep using a building for a long time without maintaining it, it's going to be abandoned but not derelict" to "if you keep using a building for a long time without maintaining it, it's going to be derelict but not abandoned". Then you can use a definition of derelict to mean "heavily run down" (by which I'd say no longer weatherproof). However with this definition, Derelict buildings should no longer be a subcategory of Abandoned buildings, as it is at present, they would only have a see-also relationship and share a parent category. However I'd still argue that Abandoned buildings is not a useful category and could be renamed to Disused buildings, so that it would cover the case of "mothballed" buildings, which are disused but not abandoned. --ghouston (talk) 23:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
      • Although we then have the problem that most derelict buildings are actually disused, so they'd need to be added to both categories. Also it may be hard to tell whether a building is in use or not just from the photo. --ghouston (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete and merge into Category:Abandoned buildings. Not enough files to justify a very minor difference (difference which usually can't be seen). Nicolas1981 (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It's actually a fairly large difference given the fact that "abandoned" and "derelict" are not synonyms and do not mean the same thing at all. Some derelict buildings are abandoned, others are not. Not all abandoned buildings are derelict. Prefer "derelict" to "neglected" as the latter is subjective and a non-derelict building can arguably be neglected. This category should actually be removed from Category:Abandoned buildings. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep like User:Skeezix1000--Pierpao.lo (listening) 08:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)