Category talk:Buildings

"Building photo" header

I propose that the {{Category-building-photo}} template be removed. The reason is that I see it as rather wordy / taking up loads of space at the top of the cat page, as somewhat outdated and concentrating on some odd things (such as the "drawings of..." and "painting of..." - even though those are collected in "buildings in art" anyway, and why should they receive special mention in the header over other subcategories that could be argued to have the same importance?).

I'd like to stress that I am not opposing such headers in general - however, they should be in a more condensed style, should follow the style similar to the "main category" header at the top of the page, and not give specific examples (because as I discuss above - everyone's opinion on what should be "singled out" for specific attention is different). Ingolfson (talk) 10:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

currently a lot of buildings in this category

Category:Uploaded with UploadWizard
Looks like a lot of old European buildings.199.119.232.221 20:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Historic buildings

A vague category that is supposedly a disambiguation category, though instead is filled up. What is a historic building, is just a building or was a building. The category as a meta category or disambiguation category is just problematic to manage without any real benefit  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

it's a problem that inevitably arises when users not familiar with commons categorisation fill in categories during upload.

the problem will be solved probably only if all such categories beginning with "historic" are deleted.

otherwise, when this one is deleted, and when those users type "histor" in the category field, other such categories are prompted and then files get added to those. RZuo (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I have already added some others, and today am just going to tackle those that I see today. The others can be managed in time. Have to start somewhere  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

we can try to eliminate as many of these ambiguous categories as we can, but...

1. some valid categories do begin with "histor" (e.g. "history of xx").
2. we cant control what users do. for many people, it is intuitive to describe an old building as either "old building" or "historic(al) building" (applicable to not only buildings but also any other concepts). both of these names are problematic to use as commons categories.

so in the end, those users will still add files to those cats with such valid titles.

imho it's inevitable that we keep some of these cats with very generic titles so that they catch all such files added by clueless users. then other users can sort them into better cats. RZuo (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

We do have Category:Old maps, which is for old maps in public domain. Similarly, we can create Category:Old buildings for old buildings in countries with limited COM:FOP. We also have Category:Heritage buildings for buildings explicitly declared as heritage. There used to be Category:Historical images for images in public domain. I have created Category:Old images for such images. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 09:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to avoid the words "old" and "historic..." at all in category names and use something like "in the public domain" instead? (The term of public domain might be different for each country.) I helped implementing the conclusions of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images, but I never read in the discussion page that the purpose originally was about public domain. Otherwise they might have been kept or renamed. JopkeB (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. "Old" is subjective. "Historic" just means there's something historical about a place -- the "something" might date from centuries ago, or from yesterday. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

can you not create these problematic categories? RZuo (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Agree with comments above, but I note it is now a disambiguation page pointing to some better categories - I think it might be better to leave it so for the benefit of new users to help steer them to more proper categorization. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Infrogmation: How does "category:buildings" not steer them to where we want them start? Everything on that page is not a disambiguation term, it is all explanatory. We would be better to remove the category, and if needed develop a page Help:Historic that redirects to Help:Categorisation which we develop to help people to better categorise. Leaving the categories in place just has them being populated and needing constant maintenance for no value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  Special:UploadWizard when you want to fill up the categories. noobs tend to write "historic/old..." if they are uploading such things. RZuo (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Conclusions so far + questions

1. The category name is too vague to be useful.
2. Category names with vague words in the name like "historic..." and "old" should be deleted, not get a redirect or become a disambigious page, to prevent that they are used by unexperienced uploaders. Another opinion is that we should keep some of these categories with very generic titles so that they catch all such files added by clueless users. then other users can sort them into better category. This means that editors should spend time on this kind of maintainance, which is not desirable.
3. Though, we can create Category:Old buildings (or use something like "in the public domain" instead) for buildings that are in the public domain in countries with limited FOP.
4. Perhaps it is even better to develop a page Help:Historic that redirects to Help:Categorisation which we develop to help people to better categorise.

@Billinghurst, RZuo, Sbb1413, and Infrogmation:  Question

• Do you agree with the conclusions? Is this a good summary of the discussion?
• What would be a good proposal to be able to close this discussion in the near future?

--JopkeB (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Totally agreed. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Comment "Historic" and "old" appear to be used when they are at least a lifetime ago, and historic additionally when it has a level of notability or notoriety, usually with an event or a person. They are too vague. Their notability needs to be specific, tied to a person or tied to an event, something that demonstrates the importance. This could just be an English-language attribution, so I would like to hear a broader opinion. I claim no expertise in this area, just have a dislike for vague and mis-used categories.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

---

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus	Resolved by consensus
Actions	Empty and delete categories with "historic" and "old" in titles with no redirection or disambiguation. Create categories like "X in the public domain" for PD stuff. Optional, but create Help:Categorization with Help:Historic as a redirect.
Participants	billinghurst (talk · contribs) RoyZuo (talk · contribs) JopkeB (talk · contribs) Auntof6 (talk · contribs) Infrogmation (talk · contribs)
Closed by	Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)