Expand to view current and archived category discussions related to this category
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
I dispute the argument that "the name keeps drawing in content that..." - what do you base that on? I do not object to a rename as such, though. Ingolfson (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with rename to Category:Repurposed buildings. I'm not a English speaker, but I take former buildings only as something, what isn't a building now – therefore demolished buildings. Former train station isn't a former building, if it isn't demolished. --ŠJů (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Support of Daniel's proposal (Bulding by former use). --ŠJů (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Buildings by former use", with same subcats and no images in top-level category. I used a similar name for a category I recently created on enwiki; I think that makes it clear that the building is extant and avoids confusing neologisms like "repurposed". That category could be used, however, for buildings used for one purpose originally (like a school) but now converted to another. Daniel Case (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the English Wikipedia, Category:Former buildings and structures is a parent category for buildings that no longer exist, no matter how they were destroyed. It includes buildings that were deliberately demolished, but can also include those that collapsed, burned, etc. I think we can keep this and set up a separate "Buildings by former use" set of categories. - EurekaLott (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Over a month later, the category still has a comment saying not to use it for exactly what we've agreed it would be appropriate for. - Jmabel ! talk16:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Buildings by former use; note removed. Content will need to be recategorised manually. --O (谈 • висчвын) 21:50, 14 September 2008 (GMT)
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.
"Demolished" is close enough in meaning to "Former" to cause confusion, both for categorizers and for users of categories. Hamblin (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is common for buildings left unattended to disintegrate by natural causes and leave only ruins. That would be "Former buildings". "Demolished buildings" should be used for buildings deliberately destroyed by man. My 2 cents. Lionel Allorge (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in debating semantics. Regardless of what we call the category, I think it's useful to separate buildings that were intentionally razed from those that were destroyed in other ways, like Category:Collapsed buildings.
The ambiguity I was referring to on the other talk page had to do with the usage of the word "former". It's currently used in more than one way, and it can be confusing. For example, Category:Former buildings is for buildings that no longer exist, but Category:Former post offices covers existing buildings that previously served as post offices. - Eureka Lott16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's got the same problems you outlined above: what if a building burns down and it's not known if it was accident or arson? What if an arms factory is bombed but some houses get destroyed instead? Were those buildings destroyed purposely? --moogsi (blah) 08:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. But I don't really understand the purpose of the category, by either name. Aren't most former buildings destroyed by demolition? Those that aren't must be the minorities, I would say: "Destroyed by nature", "Destroyed by fire", "Destroyed by arson", "Destroyed by war". In that context, "Destroyed by demolition" would seem more natural. Hamblin (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasant expansion of what started in Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings in New York City. So, we seem to tend to an opinion that "former buildings" are "buildings no longer existing" for whatever causation or reason. As for a former stable converted to a house and dynamited by the Army to contain an urban fire that couldn't be stopped by normal means because an earthquake destroyed the water mains, many subcategories can be created for the time, place direct cause, indirect cause and other circumstances of demise, as appropriate for the purposes of categorization. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does occur to me that, most of the time, why the building is not there is not relevant to the content of the category, unless there is media of it being destroyed --moogsi (blah) 23:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no practical reason to have separate categories for buildings that got destroyed on purpose, buildings that got destroyed by accident, buildings that gradually ceased to exist (e.g. an abandoned building that gradually falls to pieces), etc. File:Grandview Apostolic Church rubble pile from northeast.jpg and the building at the center of File:Sandusky and Main in Mechanicsburg.jpg both got destroyed in 2010, but one was arsoned while the other was demolished by the owner; why shouldn't they be categorised together? If you really care about putting an image in the "correct" category, these categories will cause problems if you know only that the building in question no longer exists. The method of destruction isn't really important (unless the act of destruction is happening when the picture is taken), so let's make it all simpler by merging the former and the demolished, together with anything else that may exist for method of destruction. Note that "Demolished buildings" shouldn't cease to exist; it should be converted into a category redirect, since people will surely try to put images into it. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's as I say above: people may look for media of buildings based on whether they exist any more, but the chances of them looking for buildings based on how they were destroyed is extremely slim (99% of the time it has no bearing on the content of the category). If people actually want to find media about demolition, they are better off looking in Category:Building demolition. Other methods of destruction, Category:Damaged buildings. Redirecting "Demolished buildings" to there may be better, because most people won't be aware of the odd quirk of the category system that makes "Demolished buildings" mean "completely demolished buildings". I'm fine with either way, though --moogsi (blah) 20:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, we seem to have 3 or 4 in agreement, and I'm not seeing a firm dissent. Contemplating killing not just a cat or a small branch or two, but a moderate sized tree, ought we seek more publicity and opinions, or are we enough? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you don't have to throw a stick very far on Commons to find someone who disagrees with you, so I put this here. I think this is a wider issue than this cat and I'd like to know what people think. I expect the consensus on this will be something like, "leave it there, it's not hurting anyone, just rename it if it's confusing". To be honest I didn't see the extent of the "by country" categories - even if there were a 100% solid reason for getting rid of this, it would still be extremely difficult --moogsi (blah) 04:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand your assessment correctly, you are suggesting that if “Demolished buildings” is deleted, then all categories that start with “Demolished” must be deleted also, like “Demolished buildings in the United States”, “Demolished churches”, etc. But I don’t think so. Deleting each of them would be a separate project that editors could evaluate individually, if interested. Needless to say, the same reasoning would apply, but that doesn’t mean they must all be done at once. The difficulty of that might indeed be prohibitive, without a bot. Hamblin (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not technically difficult - I was referring to the difficulty of gaining consensus to make a large change, even if it is justified. Maybe it is not justified and someone has a good counterpoint. And yes, the problem with "Demolished buildings" is necessarily a problem with all of it subcategories, there is no point in debating them separately -moogsi (blah) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me;
demolished buildings are buildings that are completely disappeared, for whatever what reason.
former buildings refers to the former function that it was holding: many former train stations and town halls became bars, pubs, shop. Hundreds, if not thousands of churches will be reallocated in the coming years.
Those cats help to separate an era/owner/function, otherwise people tend to merge them all under the currently used name. --Foroa (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly valid to distinguish between buildings that have been repurposed and buildings that do not exist any longer. The problem is that it isn't obvious that "Former buildings" and "Demolished buildings" mean what you mean by them; they are vague terms. Hamblin (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are pointing out the difference between Category:Former buildings and Category:Buildings by former function. When you say the former, most will think of the latter. There is a some confusion over this because the building and the function it has very often have the same name. It's easier to see in cases where they don't - when the museum/school/whatever has a different name from the building, or is in many separate buildings. However, you will often see institutions categorized under "buildings" because most of the time it's hard to see a meaningful difference --moogsi (blah) 18:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus turns out to be "leave it there, it's not hurting anyone, just rename it if it's confusing", we still have the question of what distinction is intended, and what terms to use to make that distinction clearly. Hamblin (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only saw this discussion now. Thank you to those trying to clear up what is currently quite a mess (one that has always frustrated me). My two cents:
First, I strongly disagree with the idea that we can deal with the top categories, and let the subcategories be evaluated individually and dealt with on a case-by-case basis. I agree with Moogsi on that point. It doesn't solve the problem if we leave inconsistently named category trees. Whatever is decided should be implemented down the line.
Second, we should not be using Category:Former buildings as a category tree for destroyed/demolished buildings. It is too confusing with categories related to buildings by former function. I would empty it out and redirect it.
Let's empty out the images from the Former buildings categories and put them into the Buildings by former association and Buildings by former function trees. Former buildings can become a parent for those two trees, and its subcategories can become parents for the same areas' Buildings by former function and Buildings by former association; for example, Former buildings in New Zealand could become the parent for Former churches in New Zealand. Meanwhile, as I said up above, let's not delete anything in the sense of turning it into a redlink; all of these categories have reasonable names and are likely to be used again. Instead, let's add {{Category redirect}} to the categories that we're deprecating through this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had neglected this discussion as having become too profound for my frivolous mind, but yes, "Repurposed" seems the proper root for the various branches of this "former purpose" tree. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct any errors I have made, but this is where I think we stand:
All "Demolished buildings" categories are renamed "Destroyed buildings". Category:Demolished buildings is redirected to Category:Destroyed buildings, and subcategories are similarly redirected to their corresponding new categories.
Agreed. I have started the implementation. We should keep the discussion open for a short time, in case there are any issues arising from the implementation. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced. "Destroyed" is rather a broad term, whereas "demolished" is rather a narrow term. Example is a building is destroyed by fire is unforeseen but a demolition of a building is always foreseen, since it is planned. I can't see why both can't exist. Really this discussion doesn't have a strong consensus, nor does the changes made by Skeezix1000 (talk·contribs) which really one has two people support. Bidgee (talk) 21:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I think you need to reread the discussion if you think I acted on "two people support". Honestly, the lengths people will go to criticize.
Second, no one said demolished=destroyed. In fact, quite the opposite. And nothing stops someone from creating a subcategory later on that is strictly for demolished buildings (as stated above, Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition if we have similar categories for fire, war, etc. or even just Category:Demolished buildings). But the categories right now are an unorganized mix of buildings both demolished and destroyed, and unless someone wants to do an analysis of all the media to determine what was demolished, what collapsed, what was destroyed by fire, etc. we should not have all the content in the more specific category. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was only two supports for your proposal above, in fact you should have left it for another Admin since the scope of the proposal was changed by yourself.
Unbelievable. I really do urge you to read the discussion above, because you clearly have not. And I ask that you try to contribute without insulting people's work and making silly accusations. Seriously, it is possible to communicate your concerns without shitting on others. And, demolished buildings are destroyed buildings. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WOW, so now you're resorting in insults. I've read the discussion, and again, you've applied your own proposal without getting more support from the community.Again you don't get it, you don't call a partly demolished building (for construction purposes) a partly destroyed building. Though if it was caused by fire, earthquake or a tornado, you would. I'm not fixing something that you've caused yourself. Bidgee (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I don't know what "resorting in insults" means. Not sure why you feel insulted, since you are the one going around saying "I'm not going to fix this mess, I'm leaving it up to the people whom created it", because you seem to feel some need to put down people when you are concerned about what they've done. Asking you to knock it off was not an insult. Second, no one asked you to fix anything, so unclear why you keep repeating that. Third, I never made any proposal. I simply summarized what people had agreed to after two months of discussion - I think the only part that I came up with myself was the use of a DAB page. Finally, yes, a building that is half demolished is half destroyed. Demolition is simply the type of destruction. While we would normally use the word demolition rather than destroyed in some contexts, the word "destroyed" is also correct and the baseline situation has been explained below. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You told me "And I ask that you try to contribute without insulting people's work and making silly accusations" and then you said "Seriously, it is possible to communicate your concerns without shitting on others", do you see the irony? If you bothered to look at my concerns, you'll note that I was raising the fact that all you did was move the issue, rather then fixing it. Having a partly demolished house in a destroyed category is completely wrong, it wasn't destroyed by fire, earthquake, tornado or a bomb. Hang on, can you make up your mind? "Second, no one said demolished=destroyed" but above you then change your mind "While we would normally use the word demolition rather than destroyed in some contexts, the word "destroyed" is also correct and the baseline situation has been explained below". I'm not going to have files I've uploaded in an inaccurate category and the fact that you've pushed your proposal without any community notice, other then this hidden discussion. Bidgee (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is not hidden. What would constitute "community notice"? Hamblin (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Which of your files do you feel are inaccurately categorized? Are they by any chance media of demolitions in progress? Hamblin (talk) 10:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hamblin, I'm not sure it's worth engaging Bidgee. He is only interested in telling people how wrong they are. Until he calms down and tries to show that he understands that the others here are just as interested in the best solution possible as he is, I've just stopped reading his stuff. When he is interested in finding a solution rather than laying blame, I'm happy to discuss with him. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My good faith with you is now non-existent if you think that keeping the bigger mess you've created is ok, rather then fixing it. I've have said, "Demolished buildings" could've remained as a subcat, the main problem was with the "Former". Unlike someone here whom is doing nothing but throwing insults at me, I've taken a stab on a system to use the less then ideal solution Category:Buildings destroyed by type (type is not the ideal word but can you think of one that doesn't make it long and complex?) which would contain buildings that were destroyed by fire, tornadoes, floods, cyclones ect. Though I've come across another category (Category:Damaged buildings and Category:Fire-damaged buildings by country) that clearly should fit in this one, according to Skeezix1000. Bidgee (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Enough of the blame, Bidgee, and please just assume others are as interested as you in coming up with a solution. It's impossible to have a discussion with you when you only want to start with the premise that others are at fault. Having said that, my last comment was uncalled for, as I should never be encouraging people to ignore someone. That wasn't fair, and I apologize for that, and I ought to have worked harder at trying to discern your concern. Onto the substantive issue, then, Category:Buildings destroyed by type is what I also envisioned, and I don't think "type" is the wrong word. I wonder if that category name might, however, suggest that that it is types of buildings, rather than types of destructions, which are at issue? Would Category:Building destructions by type be better? Category:Fire-damaged buildings by country wouldn't necessarily be the same as Category:Buildings destroyed by fire, as the former could involve buildings that survived. However, you are correct that they are linked, and perhaps the latter is a subcategory of the former? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of subcategories, I am still concerned with, and I think we still need to address the problems with the word "demolition" (and variations thereof) raised by Hamblin below. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it necessary to have an overarching category for types of destruction? How about having two subcategories -- say,”Buildings destroyed by natural events” and “Buildings destroyed purposely”. Each could be further subdivided if people see a need for that. The first would have subcategories like “Buildings destroyed by storms”, “Buildings destroyed by earthquakes”, etc. The second could have “Buildings destroyed by criminal acts”, “Buildings destroyed by war”, “Buildings destroyed lawfully”, “Buildings destroyed by accident”, etc. Fire would be subsumed in the various categories I’ve already suggested, depending on whether wildfire, arson, war, or accident. Or if there is some reason to give fires a separate category, regardless of how they originated, that could be done instead. I would suggest assessing the need for all these categories, though. Let’s be sure to imagine a use someone would find for each, before multiplying categories beyond necessity. Hamblin (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Correction: In order to accommodate accidents correctly, instead of "Buildings destroyed purposely", it would have to be "Buildings destroyed by people". Hamblin (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC) Another thought: Instead of "Buildings destroyed lawfully," we could use the already existing Category:Demolitions (which I noted in a Comment below as not being a subject of this discussion), unless that would cause a problem elsewhere. Hamblin (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the content of Category:Demolished buildings includes more than just buildings destroyed by demolition. So moving it all to a precise category like Category:Buildings destroyed by demolition doesn't make a lot of sense, although such a category could (like most of our subcategories) be developed over time as people finesse the categorization of media and place it in more precise subcats. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the actual move was a little hasty, but how many months we have to wait ? Anyway, I think that the move was needed as the current categories where a mix-up, so it is probably better to start with a neat baseline that can be expanded upon. Anyway, as often with such discussions, people tend to notice it only when the categories start moving. Maybe we should investigate to execute such mass moves in stages with some intervals: top level + country level, Sublevels + deeper cats. ... But that is not necessarily easy to manage. --Foroa (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, and nobody ever said Category:Demolished buildings couldn't be a subcategory. The problem was that the existing category structure was a mess, with three category trees (former buildings, demolished buildings, destroyed buildings) all covering the same subject area and simultaneously attempting to address distinct concepts. The point was to establish a clear category framework (I like Foroa's use of the term baseline), get everything in a correct category (even if it might be broad in terms of type of destruction), and in the normal Commons course nothing would stop the implementation of more precise categories for types of destruction. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite true. But, as I mentioned above, "Demolished buildings" is not more precise, because “demolish” is too close in meaning to “destroy” for the distinction to be clear to everyone, even with common sense. For example:
And categories must be useful, not only precise. Otherwise we could have "Yellow buildings," "Pointy buildings,” “Buildings near telephone poles,” “Buildings between 50 and 75 years old,” “Buildings commissioned by clients whose last names begin with the letter ‘M’,” etc. Categories exist to quickly narrow the field of a search. What search would -- in real life -- benefit from the category, “Buildings destroyed by demolition”? It’s like having a subcategory of “People” called “People who lived less than 85 years.” By contrast, an actually useful category might be "Controversial demolitions," like New York City's Pennsylvania Station. Hamblin (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that's a good point. I do think demolition has a different and more precise meaning, but I get your point that the distinction if often lost in common usage. I also suspect that on a multilingual/global project like this, any distinction between the two words may be completely lost (even among anglophones from different parts of the world). But I do think that there must be a way on a go-forward basis to come up with wording that would allow for more precise subcategories for planned demolitions (although I can't think of that wording at this very moment -- deliberate demolition?). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Deliberately and lawfully [to exclude war and crime] destroyed buildings". But most buildings are deliberately and lawfully destroyed; that was the point of my analogy to "People who lived less than 85 years". What purpose is served by a subcategory that narrows the parent category only slightly? Hamblin (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading Bidgee's comments, he or she seems to be interested more in the present tense (or present progressive); i.e., buildings being demolished, which is a much smaller, and, in my opinion, more sensible category. Hamblin (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good first point. As for your second point, I honestly can't tell what Bidgee is trying to say. But I see what you are saying about the act of demolition. I would have thought that would fall under the related category tree of Category:Demolitions. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only became aware of this discussion when Category:Cine City, Withington was abruptly moved from Category:Demolished buildings in the United Kingdom to Category:Destroyed buildings in the United Kingdom. In this case, the building was clearly deliberately demolished, so the categorisation was correct in the first place. 'Destroyed' is a very general term, and if this move does take place then great care should be taken to ensure that categories are appropriately recategorised rather than just blanked recategorised. If there is going to be a bot move here, then perhaps a heads-up notice could be given on the talk pages of the affected categories, along with some way of opting a category out of the move if 'demolished' is already the correct category? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the whole discussion on this page? I realize it's gotten kind of long by now, but I do think it's worth taking the time. Thank you in advance. Hamblin (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to ask you (and everyone else) a good-natured question. Can you think of a hypothetical reason a user might have to search for buildings that don't exist any longer, but not owing to nature, accident, collapse, neglect, crime, or war; rather, owing to the ordinary and routine activity of replacing smaller/older buildings with larger/newer ones? I can't, so I don't understand the need for this category. Maybe you see something here that I'm missing? Thanks. Hamblin (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, the problem was that the categories were a mess, with the categories pertaining to demolished and former buildings applying to all sorts of different types of situations. So while categories for demolished buildings contained buildings that were demolished as part of redevelopment activities, but they were also full of images of buildings destroyed in other manners. And as seen above, there is a lot of debate as to what "demolition" even means, which likely contributed to the mess. While I agree with your statement "great care should be taken to ensure that categories are appropriately recategorised", it is already a massive task just clarifying and cleaning up the categories, let alone analyzing all of the content to try and discern the manner of destruction. In most cases, there is no explanation as to how a building ceased to be. Of course, in the normal course all of this content can be placed in more precise categories (as part of a clearer category structure). Now, as for images pertaining to the act of demolition in the construction sense, Hamblin helpfully points out that there is a separate category tree for that. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hablin and Skeezix1000 for your replies. Cleaning up the category structure makes a lot of sense, but I do worry that they shouldn't be bluntly moved without explanation. I know it's a big job, and understand bots doing the work, but perhaps talk page warnings can be left by the bot so that people watching the affected categories can help out? I'm not sure that the distinction of "intact buildings later demolished" makes sense, as I'd expect images of both the whole and demolished building to potentially be in the same category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "intact buildings later demolished" I meant buildings whose demolitions are not uploaded. For buildings whose demolitions are uploaded (i.e., whose demolitions are of interest, as opposed to the mere fact that they were demolished), I agree the intact building should be in the same category as the pictures of the demolition. Hamblin (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that en has many "Defunct" categories such as en:Category:Defunct organizations and, closer to home, we have Category:No longer existent subjects with similar "Defunct" subcats. I like "Defunct" better than "Demolished" or any of the others, for its shortness and for its precise degree of vagueness, but my desultory participation in this discussion leaves me unqualified to do more than suggest. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Defunct" with reference to buildings is exactly as unclear as "former": a "defunct gas station" normally refers to a still-standing building. - Jmabel ! talk16:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I don't use it that way, but perhaps I'm the odd one. I'll go back to my usual activities and hope you folks can work out a clear, unambiguous nomenclature, and perhaps not too verbose. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of a few times I've heard of the owner of a building in the U.S. deliberately demolishing it without appropriate permits to create a "fact on the ground" in terms of wanting to build a new building on the site. I gather that there are a number of other countries where this is more common, including cases where the party responsible for the demolition may not even have had entirely clear ownership. I don't have a citation offhand, though. - Jmabel ! talk04:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we need such a category, then I'd expect something like "Buildings destroyed by demolition". But since that's the normal case when a building is gone, I doubt we need such a category. It would be the residue in a category for buildings that no longer exist, whatever the latter is called. - Jmabel ! talk15:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just assumed that this got closed years ago. I'm fine with the "Buildings destroyed by demolition" action and see no reason to suggest further changes. Nyttend (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The names of this category and its subcategories appear rather clumsy. Shouldn't we rename them into "Demolished buildings ..." (and adjust the redirects accordingly)? --Schlosser67 (talk) 07:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Schlosser67: As you can see in the Category Discussion linked above, that was the previous name for this category. The concern seems to have been that "demolished" might been destroyed in any number of ways (by bomb, for instance, for by earthquake) whereas this category is to be for buildings destroyed by, say, a demolition crew. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. But it does not answer the question why the old category name was not reused for the subcategory for those buildings specifically "destroyed by demolition". I never heard anybody use this expression. People just say "demolished". By the way, no need to ping. That only makes things look more important than they are. --Schlosser67 (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged because I didn't know if you followed the page. And yes, it does answer the question. It was felt that "demolished" was ambiguous, whereas "destroyed by demolition" was clear. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
