Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century

Category:United States in the 16th century

The United States didn't exist before the 18th century, so nuke it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for all following (United States in <year/decade>-Categories): Nope, no nuking without finding a suitable replacement. And there I'm not convinced yet that we could have a suitable alternative. Yes, we don't have the US which is obvious, but what different umbrella will we use for content in these categories? For the continental territories we might use a general "<year> in North America", but as soon as there are the English colonies that will later make up the territory of the US, I think we shouldn't create a complicated system of new categories. For example, Virginia and Conneticut were places even when there wasn't a US state, but there were about three Colonial structures that organized the pre-US-territories. Remember, there were Crown Colonies, Charter Colonies, border redrawings, renamings of territories. There was at one point a unification of the whole colonial chaos, the Dominion of New England but it was very short-lived (1886-1889). Summing this up: Using the current states and US as the category tree is better than super-political-correct names that nobody will be able to make sense of. We should instead just place a short disclaimer in all categories before 1776, why this structure was chosen despite being anachronistic. --Enyavar (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many categories by time & place use geographic designations of what country a place would become much later. (For example Italy did not become a nation until the 19th century, but Category:Italy by decade has categories going back more than two thousand years earlier.) Suggestions for alternative method of organizing media by time & place? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to all USA nominations below There is a difference between the creation date of an object (e.g. a work of art) and the current location of that same object (e.g. USA). A piece of art painted in Itaty in the year 1501 is entitled to be categorised as Category:1501 in Italy; that same piece of art, if it is currently in a museum in New York, is entitled to be categorised as Category:Art of New York City. It is not, however, permissible to categorise that piece of art as Category:1501 in the United States, firstly because it was never created in the United States and secondly because the USA itself did not exist in that year. At best, it is a permitted member of Category:1501 paintings in the United States, since the painting was indeed painted in 1501 and in currently housed in the USA. However, I think that this category is itself rather problematic as it may give the impression that the painting was painted in the USA in 1501; accuracy of this category could be improved by renaming it to Category:Paintings created in 1501 that are currently located in the United States. A bit clunky, but better conveys the intent. In Wikipedia, the problem of what to call that bit of North America before the foundation of the USA is solved by the "Category:Years of the 18th century in the Thirteen Colonies": I recommend this solution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Now that is a fully different reasoning, and one I support. I knew the contents of several other categories like that from the 17th century, and just assumed that we had similar cases here: Files connected to events that happened (e.g.) 1528 in Florida. For that content, a category of "1528 in Florida" is in my opinion fully justified, and would logically fit into "1528 in the US". Same with "Category:Puerto Rico in the 1530s" --> This category is about a building built in Puerto Rico in 1532, so yes my reasoning of above applies, the Florida or the Puerto Rico categories should stay, and so would the US categories (Florida and Puerto Rico were famously NOT part of the 13 colonies).
You are right about the 1500s examples: all we have here, are 1501, 1505 and 1508 and 1509 paintings that by accident are currently residing in the US, and those have really no connection at all to "1501 in the US", and (like this work from 1501 in Urbino) no business staying in the "1501 in the US" category. In my opinion, those files should be recategorized into a category like 1500s works displayed in the United States, and the works themselves must be properly categorized as "<year> work from <country>". Once that is done, we have empty US-categories, and those wouldn't be needed anymore. See also this fresco (not part of 1100s in the US) and this bust (not part of 500 BC in the US). --Enyavar (talk) 13:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This points to a fundamental problem with the naming order of "<year> in <country>" categories, which indeed would indicate that the primary topic is the year, limited to the geographic/political limits of a country. It would have been better if we had gone with "<country> in <year>", in which the primary topic is the country, specific to a given year. That's a pretty esoteric delineation but in this case it matters. Currently, we are using "1501 in the United States" to put depictions of 1501 which are at some point within the United States (i.e. a painting made in 1501 that is in a US gallery in 2001). Technically, this is okay as a depiction of 1501 may indeed be on display in the US in 2001, but results in weird categories such as these that are nominated.

Unfortunately, just as Category:2001 in the United States is a natural parent of Category:2001 paintings in the United States, Category:1501 in the United States is a natural parent of Category:1501 paintings in the United States, so trying to suppress that parent for some (pre-1776) years but not all is a nightmare for maintenance swimming against the tide.

None of this changes the fact that Category:1501 in the United States is completely counter-intuitive on its face, yet technically legitimate, and could certainly cause some confusion. Category:United States in 1501 would be a lot clearer, and definitely not legitimate, making deletion straight-forward. Basically, there was indeed no United States in 1501 (even conceptually, as far as I am aware), but 1501 can exist (as a concept, or a depiction of that year) in the United States.

So my support depends on the structure used:

If we keep the current structure of "'year' in 'country'" categories, I'd say Keep for now, and we instead need to rely on better hatnotes and diffusion to mitigate the potential confusions.
Alternatively, if we make them "'country' in 'year'", we can clearly Delete any years which precede a country's conception.

Josh (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This probably doesn't add much but I think the category should be moved / merged and only deleted in worst case. For example, it could be merged into 16th century in North America. Prototyperspective (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions

@Joshbaumgartner, Enyavar, and Laurel Lodged: The discussion is now stale for over a fortnight. Now, what should we do with the anachronistic "[year] in [current country]" categories? --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like I argued before: it depends on "which year in the US" we're talking about, and what the current content is.

Based on current elements in the category: first recategorize stuff for "1066", "1501", "1505", "1508", "1509", "1529", "1531", "1533" --> afterwards Delete. European renaissance artwork from the era may be displayed in the US today, but it doesn't represent what happened in 1501 in North America.
On the other hand: clear Keep for "1532", "1541", the Puerto-Rico-CfDs and the non-empty decade-CfD. They do represent the area of the times, no other suggestions are convincing me.
Had not checked the 1560s, 1580s, 1590s, 1600s back then, and didn't do so now either. I trust they can be treated by the same standards.
No other [current countries] are up for debate here, and I suggest we don't draw conclusions from these CfDs for other countries/regions. Some may be treated similarly, others may already have established different standards.

PS, @Infrogmation: was also involved in the debate. --Enyavar (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am okay with a local solution for these specific categories that seems to make sense for those that use them with the caveat that this decision does not set precedent for other topics or situations. That precedent can be set by a larger discussion at that level, but in lieu of it, doing something that seems reasonable for these specific categories is okay. Josh (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshbaumgartner, Enyavar, and Laurel Lodged: See also: Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/08/Category:Centuries by country. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now see @Rathfelder and Prototyperspective: are nominating other anachronistic categories by year. So they are requested to participate in this category discussion, which will define the ultimate fate of anachronistic categories. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which such cat I nominated, probably it was simply empty. I already commented above. Probably it should be moved without leaving a redirect or merged. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My current proposal is to delete the anachronistic country categories by period, but keep the geographical ones. That is, delete Category:United States in the 16th century but keep Category:North America in the 16th century. Similarly, Category:India in the 1st century should be renamed to Category:South Asia in the 1st century or Category:Indian subcontinent in the 1st century, because Category:India refers to the modern country established in 1947. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 05:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think there are easy answers to these questions. Each place has its own history, and in some cases - like much of Eastern Europe - variable geography. India, for example, clearly did exist before 1947, but with different boundaries. As far as I can see nobody talked about Pakistan until the 1930s. Germany was not a state until 1870, but it clearly was seen to exist for hundreds of years before that. Poland was repeatedly divided, abolished, and re-established, with variable boundaries. So I think we need proposals not just to delete anachronistic categories but also to propose alternatives. From 1707 to 1801 we can use Great Britain, rather than United Kingdom. Constantinople and Byzantium are the same city in different times and our categories should respect that. Rathfelder (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sbb1413's proposal is reaching far beyond the categories that are to be discussed here, i.e. "in/of the United States". We should not make general assumptions for the whole world, because there are very different standards: The solution for the United States (however it turns out) can not be transferred to Poland, Sri Lanka and Algeria (who each have a long history although there were long periods where you could claim that the countries were "nonexistent", and certainly didn't have the current name). I am not in favor of how the "Czechia"-CfD turned out... but it was ruled in favor of keeping anachronisms. The same is with India - have a different CfD if it's bothering you.

Now, about the US specifically: Historical correctness is understandably a great goal, but the devil lurks in the details. Right now, we have Category:1755 in Boston, and this stuff is in "1755 in Massachusetts" and in "1755 in the United States". Yes, of course, neither Massachusetts nor the US existed back then, but it is unnecessarily confusing to put these category contents into "1755 in the Province of Massachusetts Bay" which would be in "1755 in British America and the British West Indies" which would be "1755 in Great Britain". Oh, that would be super-correct, but how many people are aware of the correct names of historical governing bodies? How many people would know that the "Colony of Massachusetts Bay" was dissolved in 1686 and governed together with the "Province of West Jersey" (snd others) in the "Dominion of New England", which in turn only existed for three years before new(=old) political entities were (re-)established? Until a better cat-framework can be devised, I prefer anachronism, thanks. If you are bothered by anachronism, place hat-notes with explanations on top.

Still there are things that can be done. Content which is not connected to the subject (like 1501 Italian art that happens to be displayed in US museums today) should be removed from "year-in-US" categories, alright. Empty categories should get deleted until there is fitting content, alright. Best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical note: I am closing discussions with no comments about the following categories as duplicates of this one to prevent additional fragmentation of the discussion:

Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:United States in the 16th century

Duplicate discussions with no comments:

– BMacZero (🗩) 20:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]