Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Historic views
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Ridiculous category. What on earth does this even mean? "Things that look old to me?" Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete as nominator. - Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete See conclusions of Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images: images and other media should be sorted by date (including year, decade and century) or "History of ...", not by vague concepts as "Historic".
- JopkeB (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per the preceding "historical" discussion. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 07:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Per the nominator and previous CfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete including all subcategories that follow this format. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment there seem to be countless subcategories: Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Historic_views_of. I added cfd notices there. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete all of them and replace with "[location] by [period]" where [period] can be millennium, century, decade, year etc. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment as the nominator, I shouldn't close this (especially shouldn't close it early), but this sure looks like a foregone conclusion to me. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be a fairly old way of doing subcategories, even if the main category was created just recently. Depending on what people actually need it for, an alternative should be found. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Previous discussions on this topic settled on the "Place by year/decade/century" format, and I'm inclined to agree. Media can also be subdivided in illustrations and black-and-white photography to set aside older works from modern photography. A category structure being old is not a good reason to keep it. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- After looking into the "historical images"-question (Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Move_"Historical_images_of"_to_"History_of"), I think it would be consistent with that to just move "Historic views of" to "history of". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Between "historic views" and "historical images"? yes indeed. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- That strikes me as a distinction without a difference. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- After looking into the "historical images"-question (Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Move_"Historical_images_of"_to_"History_of"), I think it would be consistent with that to just move "Historic views of" to "history of". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Previous discussions on this topic settled on the "Place by year/decade/century" format, and I'm inclined to agree. Media can also be subdivided in illustrations and black-and-white photography to set aside older works from modern photography. A category structure being old is not a good reason to keep it. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- My suggestion: Wait another two weeks to see wether there are other opinions (in accordance with Closing a discussion) and then close this disucssion. JopkeB (talk) 08:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be a fairly old way of doing subcategories, even if the main category was created just recently. Depending on what people actually need it for, an alternative should be found. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
KeepI can't see what is "ridiculous" about the term "historic". However, moving these categories in categories of the type "1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway" would be acceptable. Or then "Rigi railway vies of the steam days".--Gürbetaler (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is ridiculous is that the word is vacuous. My oldest picture a took that is here on Commons was taken in 1966. (I'm old.) Is it "historic"? Are all pictures of the Berlin Wall now "historic"? How about Kurt Cobain or Tupac Shakur? The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption in Port-au-Prince? At what point do images become "historic"? And, for any of these, how does this provide any information not provided by date categories? - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- The question isn't really any different if we use "history of" instead. Enhancing999 (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Re:
I can't see what is "ridiculous" about the term "historic". However, moving these categories in categories of the type "1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway" would be acceptable. Or then "Rigi railway vies [sic] of the steam days".
- Nowadays I support categorizing old/historical images by year/decade/century. So the images of "1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway" can be categorized into "Rigi railway in the 19th century" and "Rigi railway in the 20th century". Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree. For a specific subject "20th century" doesn't say a lot. It is a fact that the Berlin wall isn't the same again since Wiedervereinigung. There IS a before and an after. And the Rigibahn saw important changes in 1907 and 1937 and it is useful to subdivide the categories by such important years. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gürbetaler: I could be wrong, but I think you are missing Sbb1413's point. I don't think Sbb is saying Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway would be an invalid category, and that seems to be what you are responding to. But it isn't clear which of two things Sbb is saying. Sbb, are you saying, in effect, that if you have a Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway, its images should each also be categorized into Category:Rigi railway in the 19th century or Category:Rigi railway in the 20th century, or are you saying that Category:Rigi railway in the 19th century and Category:Rigi railway in the 20th century should both be parent categories of Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway, or are you actually saying something else entirely (including what Gürbetaler seems to have understood)? - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I had said that I prefer categorizing things by century/decade/year, but it does not really mean that we won't have categories for specific periods of history. 1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway might be a useful category, covering the railway system using steam locomotives. But it should have a better descriptive name instead of arbitrary years. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- What are "better descriptive names in your eyes? I'm sorry but sometimes I don't understand where you want to go to. Maybe examples can help. Gürbetaler (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what Sbb would prefer, but if that's the point I'd say something like Category:Rigi Railway in the steam locomotive era. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- What are "better descriptive names in your eyes? I'm sorry but sometimes I don't understand where you want to go to. Maybe examples can help. Gürbetaler (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- In my opinon categories like "Rigi railway in the 20th century" are as useless (or even more useless) as "History of Rigi railway". Gürbetaler (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I had said that I prefer categorizing things by century/decade/year, but it does not really mean that we won't have categories for specific periods of history. 1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway might be a useful category, covering the railway system using steam locomotives. But it should have a better descriptive name instead of arbitrary years. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gürbetaler: I could be wrong, but I think you are missing Sbb1413's point. I don't think Sbb is saying Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway would be an invalid category, and that seems to be what you are responding to. But it isn't clear which of two things Sbb is saying. Sbb, are you saying, in effect, that if you have a Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway, its images should each also be categorized into Category:Rigi railway in the 19th century or Category:Rigi railway in the 20th century, or are you saying that Category:Rigi railway in the 19th century and Category:Rigi railway in the 20th century should both be parent categories of Category:1871-1937 views of the Rigi railway, or are you actually saying something else entirely (including what Gürbetaler seems to have understood)? - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree. For a specific subject "20th century" doesn't say a lot. It is a fact that the Berlin wall isn't the same again since Wiedervereinigung. There IS a before and an after. And the Rigibahn saw important changes in 1907 and 1937 and it is useful to subdivide the categories by such important years. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- What is ridiculous is that the word is vacuous. My oldest picture a took that is here on Commons was taken in 1966. (I'm old.) Is it "historic"? Are all pictures of the Berlin Wall now "historic"? How about Kurt Cobain or Tupac Shakur? The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Assumption in Port-au-Prince? At what point do images become "historic"? And, for any of these, how does this provide any information not provided by date categories? - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete vague to the point of meaningless. Of course views taken today can be "historic" (especially if they show some significant event) while an image from 100 years ago may be rather mundane. If "old" is meant, that or some more specific language (such as year, decade, or century) is much better. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we largely agree that a defined time frame is better than words like "historic", "old" or "history of". However, I stick to my point that the time frame must be found in the context of the specific main category but not in a general view of years, decades or centuries. Gürbetaler (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you could come up with an example of what you mean, something tangible we can work off of. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really see how that issue and this one are related. Assuming we all agree that "historic" is a bad term, which it seems like we do, then there's no reason we can't just get rid of it and then someone can figure out a better alternative for specific images after that. Its not like we are expected to do that on our end for every image in the categories before getting rid of them though. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can accept this and will do my part. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- A discussion came up, if the Historic xxx categories should redirect to one of the possibly more specific categories (like Category:Historical trains redirecting to Category:Preserved rail vehicles) or if they should be deleted. A third possibility is a disambiguation. I tried this for Category:Historical locomotives and wonder what be the preferred solution. BTW a similar discussion is here: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/04/Category:Historic buildings Gürbetaler (talk) 09:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can accept this and will do my part. Gürbetaler (talk) 11:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we largely agree that a defined time frame is better than words like "historic", "old" or "history of". However, I stick to my point that the time frame must be found in the context of the specific main category but not in a general view of years, decades or centuries. Gürbetaler (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep For me Historic views of Bildergalerie Sanssouci, Potsdam is very helpfulOursana (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Oursana: I don't think anyone has said we can't have categories like "historic views of [something]". The problem is the abstract "historic views". It's like having a Category:Former things. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- One of the problems that hasn't been addressed as much is the whole "views" thing. It's ill defined at best, if not completely meaningless at worst. I just went through some of these categories for churches and most of them just contained random images. A few were taken recently, making them not "historical", and quit a lot weren't "views" either. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the word "view" is just a synonym for "image" in most cases. I don't necessarily have a problem with categorizing images by perspective or whatever, but I don't think there should be separate "view" categories that just contain normal images of the subjects. So the point is that there's multiple issues here beyond just the whole "historic" thing. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- "Views" is discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/07/Category:Views, so please add your comments there. JopkeB (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2024 (UTC)