Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:History

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

Category:History

[edit]

There's plenty of examples that are pretty easy to find but this whole category structure seems rather ambiguous and just keeps files from being put in more descriptive categories. Not that a category like this one wouldn't work in theory, for instance as a place to store files specifically related to the field of historical research and analysis. That's clearly not what it's being used for though. Instead it's just a dump of random images and categories that seem to have absolutely nothing in common with each other outside of someone thinking they are somehow "historical."

That's not to say I have a better idea though. Maybe move everything to more descriptive categories like "by date" and confine this category specifically to images that have to do with the field of historical research and analysis. Does anyone have any objections to that or a better idea? Because I'm pretty sick of repeatedly coming across and fixing the mess that this whole thing has created. There really needs to be a clear, long-term solution to this chaos. Adamant1 (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think people conflate History (the study of humans' past and historical events) and Past (no focus on the study/education of it, not just historical events but also e.g. daily life and developments/trends more than in the context of History, not just about humans' recorded past or humans' past in general). But this doesn't seem to be the subject here precisely and I don't fully understand what exactly is discussed here...for example there is no concrete proposed change and obviously the overall category is valid and needs to stay. If one would ask me I'd reorganize by broader "Past" but that's not easy, would need to be done over time and very carefully, and on the Main page Cat:History is linked. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: Maybe you missed it, but I actually proposed confining this to the actual study and analysis of history while moving everything else to more relevant "by date" or "by subject" categories depending on the situation. I generally agree with your comment overall though. The problem is that people will just dump random images in an "history of whatever" category 15 places down the line instead of finding somewhere more appropriate. I think that can mainly be solved moving out most everything in this to better cateogries that have nothing to do with "history" to begin with though. Like I recently a "history of" category for a location where the only files in it we're from last year. The whole thing is just an excuse to do lazy categorizing. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you missed it, but I actually proposed confining this to the actual study and analysis of history while moving everything else to more relevant "by date" or "by subject" categories depending on the situation. We already have Historiography for the actual study and analysis of history, isn't it? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413: It's super pedantic but historiography is "the study of the methods used by historians in developing history as an academic discipline", not the study and analysis of history as such. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep the history categories if either or all of the following criteria satisfy:
  • The history caregory covers both the past events and the historiography (historical research, study and analysis) of the given topic.
  • The history of an entity is divided into widely recognisable periods, like Middle Ages, Early Modern Age etc.
  • The corresponding event category is missing. This is especially applicable for geographical categories, like countries, regions, cities etc.
  • The "by date" or "by subject" categories are not well-developed.
Otherwise, the history category will be deleted. However, thanks to the automatic categorization templates introduced by Joshbaumgartner, deleting a history category of certain countries or subdivisions may break the chain of categorization, unless the user introduces mechanisms to avoid such hypothetical events. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sbb1413 It depends on the details of what exactly is being changed, but the template is based off of the current structure of Category:History. If that structure changes, then of course, the relevant bits of the data template should be adjusted to match. In some cases if something is oddball enough, we may have to (at least temporarily) fall back on manual categorization for some history-related parents. In any case, I wouldn't really worry about the template in this discussion. Just reach the best conclusion for Commons and the history category tree. If you ping me with the specifics, I'll gladly see what tweaks can be made to keep the templates in line with the latest changes. Josh (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment This should be about navigation, not ontology. If "history of France" doesn't end up under "history", we have a problem. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Yeah, but what exactly qualifies something as "historical" or worthy of being in a category having to do with "history"? Like if there's a category called "history of X church" containing images that are fairly recent and don't necessary show any "history" (however you'd define it) is that OK or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep, but strip the category from all files currently in it. The 28k+ images in this category are an intractable mess; they're a mixture of old photos from various (mostly American) collections, photos of old objects, images from old books and maps, modern maps of ancient history, and a handful of modern photos which have slipped in by mistake. Everything in here is effectively uncategorized; throwing it back into the {{Unc}} slush pile will at least give it a chance of being filed somewhere more appropriate. Omphalographer (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omphalographer: I don't have a problem with that. The question is how to handle things further down the line where there's the same issue. I guess we could do the same thing, except maybe up merging the files instead of just un-categorizing them. But that would probably involve deleting a lot of "history of" categories, which your comment seems to be against, and I'd also like to get a good idea of exactly what the purpose of this category is before doing so. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Permanent diffusion, just like what we already have to do with other catch-all categories like Category:Photography or Category:People. "History of X" categories should be categorized under "X", not "History", just like "Topic in Year" should be categorized under "Topic" but not "Year". Omphalographer (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Again, it's not about "what qualifies has historical". It's about navigation. - Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it is hard to imagine an image that belongs directly in this category. Edits like [1] are counterproductive: they don't usefully categorize the image, they just partly hide the fact that it is effectively uncategorized. - Jmabel ! talk 02:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence of Fæ's "legacy". While it's possible to identify the individuals in that photo, what sort of hints are offered by a title such "...) Red(...) to send (Ford?) to Japan"? Sheesh. I don't necessarily want to dump on Fæ in their absence, but the countless files that are poorly described, poorly categorized (including some which have been in that state for as long as 10–12 years), including some of questionable COM:SCOPE, makes me wonder why some people are happy to keep pushing "quantity over quality". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a good start to "strip the category from all files currently in it", is to move files from the Library of Congress to a category like Category:Media from Library of Congress to categorize‎ (with Category:Files needing categories by source as one of the parents, and NOT a hidden category, because otherwise the files will be automatically copied to a "Media needing categories" category, what should not be done). About 25k from the 28k files are from the LOC (see query), so that would make already quite a relief. Is there another method than using Cat-a-lot to do so? JopkeB (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Relevant past discussions on using the phrase "History" or "Historical" in category names: History of Africa by century (and others), Historical images, Historical speeches. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Historical images is an interesting one since there was clearly a consensus to depreciate it but yet there's still 34,494 categories involving the term "historical images." Sheesh...We should at least have a single category for this if nothing else. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
156,302 categories using "historic" in their name to BTW. Category:Historic motorsport being a sub-category of Category:History of motorsports gives a me a particular laugh for some reason lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Yes, there is a problem with catch-all categories like History. But changing the definition or purpose of it, will not help prevent the dumping. Uploaders who are not familiar with the Commons category structure will continue to add their uploads to easy to find categories. (And I guess editors who's job it is to empty categories "Media needing categories as of date month year" might also do so, and I would not blame them, in the hope that the rest of us will pick up the challenge.)
I am pro a broad definition of "History", like it is used in everyday speech, and not limit it to store files specifically related to the field of historical research and analysis. Perhaps create something like for Economy\Economics has been done: Category:Economy is for the real thing as everybody knows it (money, business, economic problems) and one of its subcategories Category:Economics is for scientific theories (which might include research and analysis).
And I think that we should continue to categorize "History of X" categories under "X" AND (a subcategory of) "History"; "Topic in Year" should be categorized under "Topic" AND (a subcategory of) "Year". Reasons:
  • I, not a historian, use (subcategories of) History often to find categories about anything of the past, like dates, events, paintings, books and many other subjects. And I think other people (editors and end users alike) will profit from this category structure as well. So please keep it this way.
  • This is how the category structure on Commons is and works: if a category name involves two concepts (like "History" and "X") then this category should have parents for both concepts. Please, let there be no exceptions, it will only make the category structure less transparent and less useful, and perhaps more problematic.
We "just" have to stimulate that files should first of all be put in a topic category, and only then in a History category or any other. And if you are sick of it, you may move files from time to time to a (new or existing) subcategory of Category:Files needing categories by source, Category:Uncategorized files by language of description or another subcategory of Category:Files needing categories. And of course you can help by properly categorizing files in those categories and other overpopulates categories from time to time (but I am sure most of you already do). --JopkeB (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing the definition or purpose of it, will not help prevent the dumping. Obviously. It doesn't currently have a definition or purpose though, and you can't change something that doesn't exist to begin with. That's a large part of the problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For Commons a description might be (as a starter, please correct and adjust): This category is for media showing what took place in the past, how organisms and objects looked like and activities were done in the past; it covers all aspects of earth. Please add only subcategories to your files that are as specific as possible. JopkeB (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment It's outright false to claim that the problem lies with this category's mere existence. Between spot-checking revision histories of files and contributions of editors, the problem lies squarely with editors who rely on Cat-a-lot and HotCat as a substitute for human judgement. I've observed clear patterns of either dumping uncategorized files in an overloaded main category for the sake of saying they've been categorized, or swapping one overloaded main category for another without regard for what COM:CAT says about specificity of categorization. Some editors have been engaging in this sort of behavior for many years across the project, making this yet another pointless siloed micro-discussion that avoids the bigger picture. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What solution do you propose? JopkeB (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Category:History I decided to implement JopkeB's proposal here, about moving almost all files to Category:Media from Library of Congress to categorize. I have started a bot run with my bot. I don't know how to close discussion here, please, close it. MBH 12:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion (about Category:History) is not yet finished, only your question about how to "strip the category from all files currently in it" may be on track. We are still discussing the purpose and a description, what should it be about, what should be in it and what not, and perhaps many more subjects. So it will take a while before we'll reach a conclusion. But I am glad I could help for this part of the discussion. JopkeB (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bot run is over, 2829 files still in category. MBH 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MBH: Thanks for doing the bot run. Unfortunately there's still the same issue further down that needs to be dealt with. So I don't think this should be closed just yet, but I do appreciate that the files in the main category are being dealt with in the meantime. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Someone seems to have created Category:Historic views and a bunch of subcategories for it a few days ago. I had already started a CfD for "views" and there seems to be agreement in it that "views" needs to be dealt with somehow. Regardless, we now have a bunch of categories for "history", "historical", and "historic" subjects. I can kind of understand if certain people in this discussion (@Jmabel: ) don't want to make this about definitions, but I feel like multiple category names for what are essentially the same concepts are bound to occur without one. Regardless, can we at least agree on a single name to use for subjects having to do with "history" even if there doesn't seem to be a consensus about how to deal with the wider problem with the category at this point? Because it's totally ridiculous to have three different category names for what's essentially the same concept regardless of what that concept ends up being once this is resolved. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like [1] are counterproductive: they don't usefully categorize the image, they just partly hide the fact that it is effectively uncategorized. @Jmabel: So what's your solution then? Turn these into metacats or whatever that can only contain other categories? I'd probably support something like that but I don't really see people not just using the categories as dumps for random images that should be in better ones otherwise. Plus you could probably argue files shouldn't be put directly in the categories to begin with anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, possibly not a metacat as such. A metacat isn't just a category that shouldn't have images directly in it, it's one where images directly in the category make no logical sense. E.g. it would be literally meaningless to stick Category:Buildings in the United States by state on an image. Not just vague, meaningless. Not having images directly in Category:History is more like not having any images directly in Category:United States. At the very least, this needs {{Categorize}}; arguably, even the wording there isn't strong enough.
I stand by my statement that it is more useful to have an image marked overtly as needing categories than to add a category so vague that it still comes down to "this image needs categories" but that is no longer explicit - Jmabel ! talk 01:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Fair enough. What do you think about having "history" categories for random natural objects like Category:History of caves or Category:History of animals? I could a see a category for the history of something like a country, but one for caves or bears seems a little weird. I think the study of those things in the past would just be part of normal geology and paleontology. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to think the same. Conversely, for purely navigational purposes I think Category:Historical images of caves and Category:Historical images of animals (currently a redirect, probably shouldn't be) make sense but, please, not a raw Category:Historical images. The image isn't historical in its own right; things like Category:Historical images of Mammoth Cave National Park‎ are just a way of sectioning out stuff no one would want to use as a current portrayal, images that would almost certainly only be used to illustrate the history of human interaction with the cave. - Jmabel ! talk 06:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: Am I correct to assume you have the same opinion about the various "historical photographs" categories that exist on here? --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Yes, unless there is a specific objective cutoff like "20th Century" or "World War II", or even "PD-US-expired".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certain adjectives I've seen used in the US can serve that purpose, like turn-of-the-century (within say 10 years of 1900), antebellum (before the American Civil War started in 1861), and prohibition-era (1919-1933).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:21, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/06/Category:History&oldid=917827942"