Category talk:Former mining buildings in Sweden

Split

English: Should the content of this category be split into former mining buildings in Sweden and abandoned mining buildings in Sweden (as a subcategory to category:abandoned buildings in Sweden and category:mining buildings in Sweden)?

Svenska: Borde innehållet i denna kategori bli uppdelat i före detta gruvbyggnader i Sverige och övergivna gruvbyggnader i Sverige?

V-wolf (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think the only difference is whether the buildings are now being used for something else. If so, they are "former", if not, "abandoned". That is the approach I've taken in relation to English pubs. I don't think the category is currently so overloaded that a split is necessary, although some new categories might be indicated. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You may be right, as long as there's not overwhelmingly many files they could be in the same category – or maybe the opposite, we should make a move while there aren't so many? Hovever, there are quite a lot of mining buildings with unknown status, probably empty but not abandoned. I could focus on something more constructive, but I think the discussion is valid for a lot of building types and the categorization process. V-wolf (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"former" says something about the buildings past, "abandoned" about its present state as depicted in the image.

Personally, I think the later categories are generally more useful, as they describe what is actually visible.

Obviously, the first can provide a good basis .. --  Docu  at 11:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)