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

Category:History

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

 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 caregory 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)

@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)

 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)

@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)

 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)

@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)

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)

 Comment Again, it's not about "what qualifies has historical". It's about navigation. - Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)

 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)

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)

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)