Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)