Category talk:Bank buildings

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/06/Category:ANZ banks in Australia.

More productive if renamed "Category:Banking infrastructure in Portugal", to allow for ATMs and other structures other than whole buildings and staffed branch offices. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, see Category:Bank buildings by country and its subcategories and the way they are organized. Tm (talk) 12:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Category:Banks and Category:Banks by country and subcategories. Tm (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you don’t address the concerns expressed, you’re just saying that this should be like it is because it is like it is. But I prefer to be bold. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously what I argued above could/should/will be argued for other countries, too — we just need to start somewhere. As it stands now, ATMs are categorized under the parent category Category:Banks in Portugal, bundled at the same level as things such as bank logos, media showing financial and commercial data, vanity portraits of bankers, etc. — and that, I feel, is suboptimal.

Alternatively, Category:Banking infrastructure in Portugal could be created as intermediary level under Category:Banks in Portugal, to include Category:Bank buildings in Portugal and the other mentioned infrastructure items, but there’s not enough media items for that currently, causing new intermediate categories to be ghost towns.

On the other hand, when there is enough media to properly populate intermediate categories, what is currently in Category:Bank buildings by country will have to be split between, at least, what is whole bank HQ ofice buildings, and what is street level branch offices taking a store space in a common street building or mall. That’s why I think this category should be renamed now instead of just nested under a new category with the newly proposed name.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 12:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose No need to rename a fairly well-developed category tree by giving it a less applicable name. I am not concerned at all that Category:Bank buildings by country may end up getting subdivided by various types of bank building -- that's the normal process here on the Commons. I have mixed feelings for creating categories such as Category:Banking infrastructure in Portugal as interim categories, but tend to lean against it - I think it just creates an unnecessary level of categorization under category:Banks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t address my concern at all: Where to place ATMs (which exist not only in Portugal, I am quite sure, so the question applies to the whole tree you cherish so much). They are infrastucture, but they are not buildings. Care to think again? -- Tuválkin ✉ 21:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, please keep your comments respectful to others. Condescending and sarcastic comments like "care to think again?" and "the whole tree you cherish so much" are neither appropriate nor helpful.

Second, you have edited Category:Automatic teller machines in Portugal in the past, so there appears to be a clear answer to your question. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than two years later, I notice I didn’t (even!) reply to Skeezix1000 reply. Concerning the warning, condescension and sarcasm are well deserved in this matter, as, after 4 levels of threading, this user (who is an admin and reputes the matter at hand a «well-developed category tree», and therefore someone who put some thought in the whole issue) is still not getting it:

When I ask «Where to place ATMs», I don’t mean where (= in which category) to put media items, but where (within the «well-developed category tree») should the mentioned category go — unsatisfied, as I expressed several times in this discussion, to see it wholly separated, as a sibling, from bank buildings, while both are infrastructure and other sibling items are not.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about creating Category:Banking in Portugal as a parent category to match Category:Banking? --ghouston (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, but unrelated to the discussion. "Banking in (Country)" is still not detailed enough to categorize "ATMs of (Country)" with, while there is another cat about banking infrastructure and these both are at the same level with non-infrastructure items and cats, as mentioned. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that bank buildings are infrastructure, since Category:Buildings isn't a subcategory of Category:Infrastructure. The description of the latter says "The infrastructure means any kind of built structure not designed for continuous human occupancy" which would exclude buildings. An ATM machine isn't designed for human occupancy, but it doesn't seem like a "built structure" either. --ghouston (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose whether ATMs are infrastructure or not is debatable, but so far Category:Automatic teller machines isn't in any infrastructure category. --ghouston (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I was going to add it, I'd put it in Category:Infrastructure by function and then the Portugal ATMs could go in Category:Infrastructure in Portugal as well as Banking in Portugal. It doesn't seem to belong in any of the other infrastructure subgroups, and there doesn't seem to be much else that could go in "banking infrastructure". --ghouston (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin, Ghouston, and Skeezix1000: The category structure for ATMs seems well in place at this point, so the question of where to put ATM images seems resolved since this discussion was last commented on. There appears to be no need to rename the category under discussion. Closing and archiving. Josh (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Bank buildings in Portugal.

Propose move to Category:ANZ Bank buildings in Australia. These are buildings used by banks, not banks - Banks are organisations Mattinbgn (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's consistent with the higher level categories, see Category:Banks and Category:Bank buildings. If you think one or both of those should be changed, I suggest starting a discussion there. --ghouston (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I may even agree with you that the current usage is confusing and should be changed. "Bank building" wouldn't be the right term though. Think of a random office skyscraper that happens to have the branch of a bank in the ground floor. It's still an office building, not a bank building. It has a bank retail outlet. Maybe "Bank branches", which may or may not be a subcategory of Shops? The present use of "Bank buildings" for bank headquarters etc., could be replaced with "Bank headquarters" which would be a subcategory of Category:Corporate headquarters. Or they could just be placed in Corporate headquarters directly without a subcategory. Then you've got office buildings occupied by banks which aren't their headquarters, I don't know if there's any need for a separate category for these, they can be categorised to the specific bank and to the Office buildings categories. --ghouston (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Category:Bank branches has been created in the meantime, I'll rename it to Category:ANZ Bank branches in Australia (and likewise for related categories). --ghouston (talk) 06:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]