Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/03/Category:Civilization

< Commons:Categories for discussion‎ | 2024/03
This discussion of one or several categories is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Category:Civilization

edit

Can this category get a proper description? Because the Wikidata item does not seem to match the subcategories. What should be in it and what not? Now it seems to be a grab bag of all kinds of subcategories. What is the purpose of this category on Commons? JopkeB (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a high-order cat, like and similar to Category:Earth. Don't really know what you're asking about but I'll add a cat description and an issue may be that it's overlapping a lot with its subcat Category:Civilizations – a difference is that this cat is also about the concept (e.g. media about the concept as a subject) as well as the contemporary civilization as one civilization which a minority may distinguish by subcultures that they consider to be different civilizations and/or as in the work "Clash of civilizations‎". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The addition of your description is certainly an approvement. But I still am stuck with questions:
  1. What is the purpose of this category on Commons? Remember: Commons categories are for organizing files and to make it easier to find files you need. For any other purpose we have Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects. In my view Commons category structures should be as simple and clear as they can be. And I wonder how this category fits into this view.
  2. What kind of subcategories should it contain? Is any country (assuming that any country is a complex society) part of a civilization, are countries part of a civilization while they started a war and murder civilians, are there any qualification to be part of a civilization, like striving for sustainability and/or "progress", or being a democracy? The answers to these questions may determine which subcategories this category can/should have.
JopkeB (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category purpose is basically the same as for any other category, organizing files and making them easy to find etc. There just are few media at the top-level so far but there are some which show which files would fit there and a prime subcategory is Time-use that is also about how current (theoretically also past) civilization(s) spend their time on. Other things relate to the concept and subject of civilization collapse, where I added subcat Global catastrophic risks. Media relate to integrate into large-order Big history and the civilizational scale. "Humanity" is too broad and "Earth" is just the place of it. There could and indeed should be more files there.
  • The kind of subcategories it contains relate directly to the civilizational scale and civilizational subjects. In today's world all countries are part of one civilization because of the high interrelations. Indigenous peoples that are fairly isolated or even North Korea may be debatable in regards to some aspects or to some but that doesn't mean we need to adopt the view that these are different civilizations. Since they make up only a very small percent of the human population, it's a quite niche detailed subject with not that much relevance here. In general, in the current world, which is only a tiny slice of spacetime, countries are part of a civilization but differ in cultural aspects, economic aspects, and so on and are (could be) different cultures or different societies. "Countries" may not necessarily be the most interesting/relevant scope in this aspect by the way where this is subject of the aforementioned book. Civilization is a layer above 1) culture, 2) society, and 3) socioeconomic system (and probably more). @Sbb1413: just proposed another cat that is a layer above society and culture – maybe you could give some input here?
    • As for specific criteria, these may be the subject of sophisticated works but that's not needed here since these distinguish between civilizations in history, not in regards to whether something is part of current civilization or are about the subject of indigenous peoples which could simply be put in a subcat where there is no need to specify if, which and why they are or aren't part of contemporary human civilization. Also I think you're confusing civilized behavior with civilization. Sustainability here refers to the endurability of the current ordered world system as opposed to collapse. (To clarify: if a medium-sized asteroid hits Earth, civilization may collapse with spatiotemporal variability depending on the size etc even if humanity doesn't go extinct.) Sustainability here does not refer to as an ideal, goal, or ethical value but simply sustain-ability (endurability) at the large-scale where I don't know why it's often considered some kind of idea rather than pragmatic imperative.
Prototyperspective (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: society and culture shouldn't be subcats here though if it seemed like I was saying that. It's just a layer above these which was previously missing. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you extensive explanation. I can see now the benefits of this category. Further remarks and questions about the subcategories:
  1. So you mean "sustainability" as a neutral term, the extend to which a society is sustainable, no matter whether the results of policies are good or bad for the environment?
    1. Because there are plenty of governments, businesses and business people who prefer short term economic profits above long term endurability (or have other priorities), and their countries still are considered to be part of current civilization.
    2. But can we not judge/investigating/laying along the yardstick of sustainability also those societies that are not part of civilization (like hunter/gatherers)? So is it really part of civilazation or just of humankind?
    3. Is Category:Economics of sustainability‎ then the correct subcategory?
  2. Shouldn't other subcategories be added, like the ones mentioned in the second paragraph of w:en:Civilization: agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, a currency, taxation, regulation, and specialization of labour (and perhaps many more) or their parents?
JopkeB (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Yes, that's also why not the entire category falls into the scope of this large-scale category...only sustainability relating to or at the scale of civilization falls into its scope.
(I think it generally refers to that though when discussed for societies – it's just that sustainability is made up of so many small parts so it's used more in the sense of an adjective referring to different degrees of some specific small part as in what is either more or less matching what would be sustainable if implemented at large scale.) –– The thing is, whether actions or policies are good or bad for the environment doesn't really matter to sustainability itself, that's a misconception that's probably not important to correct: if there were only a million people living on Earth they could both extract more resources and pollute the environment more than two average Americans and Chinese combined and it would still be sustainable. Since we can't and certainly shouldn't quickly reduce population size like that, the subject sustainability is the change of societal/civilizational patterns so as to be continuable for some forseeable/meaningful amount of time (btw which duration is where subjectivity could come from). Continuation refers to both the sustainance of the civilization as well as more ethics-related aspects such as the amount of early deaths (e.g. years of potential life lost), suffering, risks, reduction of freedoms in the future, reductions of well-being in the future, and so on.
1.1. Nowhere is there any implying that societies or entities that currently aren't sustainable, or aren't moving towards sustainable practices, or are actively obstructing moving towards sustainable patterns aren't part of civilization. It's just that here it's considered from the whole-civilization approach, just like the Carbon Budget studies do: these studies e.g. calculate how many years at the current level of GHG emissions there are left for the climate goals to be missed with a 50% likelihood at the level of civilization. One could also say at the level of humanity, but the former is about the modern society-aspects of it like economics, culture, state structures, and so on.
1.2. …and as you said, some isolated hunter-gatherer tribal societies are part of humanity but not necessarily of civilization – within scope here would be those that aren't fully isolated or the interface of modern civilization with these. For example, if they get somehow rewarded from elements of modern civilization for protecting rainforests then not only are they not fully isolated but the interface would be of special relevance here.
1.2. Yes, that's a subcategory. It relates to large-scale sustainability in specific within scope here (either directly or in the sense of being a research subject and/or trial-like smaller-scale testing/drafting).
2. It's not simple to (properly) populate/structure this category and the top-level of its subcategories – yes, these could be subcategories but I think they shouldn't be lumped into it directly but would need some intermediate subcategory/ies like Typical components of Earth civilizations->Land management->Agriculture instead of cat:Agriculture. Note that the paragraph states "Civilizations are often characterized by additional features as well, including…". Alternatives to "cat:Typical components…" could be "Societal management" or "Civilizational management" which could include methods of/large-scale "Land management‎". Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Global civilization is related and seems problematic – it only contains one subcategory (the one I've added didn't fit there as is even though much of it does and there doesn't seem to be a better-fitting subcategory). Maybe it should redirect here. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that on Commons we have categories for organizaing files, not for having a complete reconstruction of humankind? To me it looks rather complicated to build in all those extra layers (and thus extra clicks which nobody likes), let alone for ordinary people who are just searching for images and who are not familiair with the Commons category structure. If you have so much to explain in a discussion about what subcategories exactly should be in it and why, how can passersby, other editors and people looking for files, then understand that without having to read this discussion? One of my mottos is: "Keep it simple" (at least as simple as possible); I do not think this category construction meets this motto. So: can you make it more simple, without extra layers? JopkeB (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not complicated; maybe I shouldn't have taken the time to answer you in detail so it seems more complicated than it is, it's really simple and this is a major concept of utmost importance and notability with the cat being perfectly fine as it is. I don't have much to explain, you asked a lot and maybe I just shouldn't answer with precision – again this is a big concept with lots of books written about it. To make it simple: the category contents, scope and contents/subcategories are fine exactly as they are right now (except that more media like compilation videos would be good but isn't on WMC yet). Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction: To you it is not complicated (please speak for yourself). And I can handle details, but in discussions it may help to be compact and only add details when people ask for more explanation.
  • No matter how many books are written about a subject, how much scientific literature there is, that all is not relevant when it is about organizing media. Then we only need literature when we want to give a good description or want to tell the difference between two or more concepts.
JopkeB (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other uses like the film and series so its possible this could be a DAB though the generic meaning is likely the primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These other uses are named referring to this concept. We don't make a DAB out of cat:Earth just because some board games or films or called like that (likewise referring to that concept). There already is a note about For other uses, see… in the cat description and if there are too many other uses of that name, there could be a subcat for these. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB and Prototyperspective: I think this category should be redirected to Humanity, and the subcategories should be dealt as follows:
Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have proposed an umbrella category covering both Culture and Society, as there are some levels of overlap between the two concepts and many people confuse the two. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this is supposed to argue for deleting/redirecting this category but if it does, it contains absolutely no explanation or argument as well as ignores everything that has been explained above.
The concept of civilization is broader than particular instances of civilizations and the target categories is not where these cats would be recategorized into. I elaborated above specifically what the difference to humanity is. As an illustrating example:
  • an individual of an isolated uncontacted tribe is currently part of biological humanity but isn't really part of contemporary civilization,
  • civilization is about things like infrastructure and activities with spatiotemporal reference rather than biological species,
  • and one may be interested in how things varied between and throughout different instances of civilizations or in things relating to how it may develop going into the future, in what is associated with humans developing a civilization but not yet other animals of Earth, or how such may look like on other planets and so on
Pinging main authors of the Wikipedia article on this very notable concept @AukusRuckus, John D. Croft, Maxim Masiutin, Fishal, Smallchief, Serein, Yitzilitt, and PerytonMango: do you also think this category is not a notable important concept that shouldn't be kept as a category? (if so, please elaborate – this is not or shouldn't be mere voting) Prototyperspective (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I favor having comprehensive descriptions for each category on Wikipedia, including high-level categories such as "Civilization" and "Earth". I believe that a well-defined description is not just a "nice to have", but a "must-have" for each category. The primary reason for this is to avoid ambiguities in categorization. A clear, thorough description helps editors understand the scope and intent of the category, thereby ensuring that articles are categorized correctly. Unambiguous classification of articles is particularly important for broad categories, where the risk of misinterpretation is higher. The imperative to have categories defined exhaustively is a prerequisite to avoid conflict in editing or misunderstanding between editors on tossing the categories, which leads to conflict between editors.
Moreover, a well-defined category description can guide editors, helping them decide whether an article fits into a specific category or a more general one. Clear guidelines in the category description can help editors make these decisions.
If a category cannot be defined exhaustively, it may be a sign that it is too broad or ambiguous and should, therefore, be reconsidered or even deleted. Categories should be distinct and meaningful to aid not only in the organization but also in the retrieval of articles since the reader is the principal user of Wikipedia rather than the editor. Clumsy or broad categories that are hard for the reader to fathom how they unite articles, especially if they are not uniform, are the worst thing.
Therefore, please make a thorough description. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Sbb1413, this makes sense. I  Support your proposal.
Which category do you mean by "an umbrella category covering both Culture and Society"? JopkeB (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What makes sense? There is no explanation in the comment that could make sense as far as I can see. I have elaborated specifically why Civilization should not redirect to Humanity and your comments seem to show how you two want to decide on a subject you don't understand and without considering such explanations. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: It is a good practice on Commons to wait with any changes in the discussed category until the discussion has been closed. Please keep this practice. JopkeB (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusions so far

edit
  • Questions are:
    • Can this category get a proper description?
    • What subcategories and files should be in it and what not?
    • What is the purpose of this category on Commons? [Addition:] What problem does it solve?
  • Answers so far:
    • (about the description) [Added to the category by Prototyperspective, before this discussion was closed, not discussed here:] A civilization is any organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond natural spoken language such as writing systems. It usually includes agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor. This category is about the broad general concept as well as the concept of modern civilization as one interconnected global civilization.
    • What should be in: subcategories and files:
      • that relate directly to the civilizational scale and civilizational subjects;
      • about agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor;
      • about how things varied between and throughout different instances of civilizations or things relating to how it may develop going into the future, in what is associated with humans developing a civilization but not yet other animals of Earth.
    • What should not be in: countries.
    • (about the purpose) Still no acceptable answer, it looks like this category makes things more complicated rather than simpler, with an extra layer. And as User:Sbb1413 has proven: we can easily do without it.

@Prototyperspective, Sbb1413, and Maxim Masiutin:

  1. Do you agree with these conclusions?
  2. Is this good enough to know what this category is about, what should be in and what not? Would that also be clear enough to an unsuspecting passerby looking for images or an editor looking for a correct category to put files into?
  3. Should this category be kept?

--JopkeB (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, about agriculture, architecture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor should not be in this category. Subcategories like "Origin of architecture" or maybe categories that contain multiple of these like especially Category:Industries dealing with natural resources could be there.
  • In addition, see the files and subcategories that are currently contained here to get a better sense of what fits here. I spelled that out in explanations above but maybe concrete examples are more easily understood.
  • An "acceptable" answer has been provided in regards to purpose. It could be that you don't understand it which is fine but then please don't delete categories just because you don't understand them. The purpose is as for any other category on notable subjects of WMC, making things discoverable, organizing things, and so on. See the category description you quoted. Sbb1413 even asked for a category that encompasses in its scope both culture and society and did not provide any explanation whatsoever. Do not delete categories on obviously very notable subjects with Wikipedia articles in a large number of languages just because you based on misunderstandings and ignorance of explanations vote (that is: not argue based on rational explanations) against their presence. And I don't know why you mention "unsuspecting passerby" users.
  • If this is still not clear here are some WP:RS sources that prove this is a notable major subject that should not be deleted despite of that by a small handful of users who don't provide any good reasons; these all back up what I've been explaining above: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].
  • Yes, it should be kept and these sources ^ should be enough in regards to this question.
Prototyperspective (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the concept behind the Civilization category can be easily covered in Society. Although there are uncontacted tribes that are considered to be outside of the global civilization, the number of images we have for such tribes is few, and it is logically so. Therefore, having a category on civilization just to exclude the uncontacted tribes doesn't make any sense to me. The entire global society should be considered to be synonymous to the global civilization. I'm withdrawing my proposal for a category covering both culture and society, as culture is an inherent part of society. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't. This comes from a fundamental understanding what Civilization refers to. It is much broader than Society; nobody would say there is a global society, rather it is a global civilization which encompasses many societies. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't. This comes from a fundamental understanding what Civilization refers to. It is much broader than Society;

This is why the category should be disambiguated instead of being kept.

nobody would say there is a global society, rather it is a global civilization which encompasses many societies.

Then why there is a category called International society? Although "international" and "global" are not exactly synonymous, the two terms are used interchangeably. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Void of any reason to properly address. Should Cat:Humanity be deleted as well because there already is a cat:"People by name"? Or Cat:Food because there already is Cat:Nutrition?
2. This is about a) international relations between b) countries. If anything it could be a subcat here. Both a) and b) as well as several other things like scope (again civilization is broader than society) are different. Society is a kind of generic term applied to different scales etc, I was referring to one firm society. You could make it a subcat but the cat's contents are problematic.
Also I think this is becoming another case of a wall of text disincentivizing further editors to participate while ignoring the explanations made and especially the refs provided which should override such objections. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the word "civilization" in sources cited by Prototyperspective can be easily replaced by "humanity" or "society" depending on context. Just because many sources using the term "civilization" does not mean we should keep the category. Instead of redirecting to somewhere else, I think the Civilization category should be converted into a dab page with links to Civilizations, Humanity, Society and World. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they can't. I suggest you simply don't comment when you don't understand something. To pick an example I already used earlier for illustration: humanity may not and probably would not go extinct with some of the ten threats of source [7] however civilization may collapse worldwide. I already elaborated in length what the difference to humanity is before so I suggest you read that instead. Humanity is also a much different scope, it's about a biological species while civilization about higher-level social structures and so on. Do not flout these high-quality sources with your personal layman assessment that finds the concept to be superflous. Civilization is a notable subject which encompasses historic civilizations and does not refer to Humanity, Society, and World. If these are the terms you most closely associate with it that's all fine just like it's fine when a person thinks Cat:"Animals on flowers" to be redundant because there already are categories "Insects on flowers‎" and "Insects on leaves". Prototyperspective (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I still believe the Civilization category can be done away with, I can't totally ignore how the sources use the term. The scope of the category is broad and based on what JopkeB and Prototyperspective have said and what I have analysed, the category scheme might be as follows:
  • World — a broad-concept category, generally covering the planet Earth and all the people in it.
    • Humanity — sum of all humans in existence.
      • Society — group of people related to each other through persistent relations.
        • Civilization — organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond spoken language.
        • Culture — shared aspects of a society's way of life.
The subcats of civilization might be as follows (the list is not exhaustive):
Human involvement in nature should not belong to Civilization as so-called "uncivilized" people also involve in nature in some way. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The brief description are useful for illustration but it should probably be mentioned that they aren't accurate as is, for example the relations do not need to be persistent and it can also revolve even more loosely around common fictions like cultural aspects.
I do not see how Education and Knowledge could directly be subcategories here. They could maybe become part of this cat tree through some intermediate categories that connect them to it, maybe via Category:Knowledge-based sector (it's the same as with Cat:"Industries dealing with natural resources").
  • The adjective "uncivilized" referring to "uncultured" or "barbarous" behavior in contemporary language does not refer to the same concept of Civilization as organized society; it refers to behavior and this can sometimes be confusing. For example multiple historic civilizations could be considered to have acted in quite uncivilized ways and the same applies to groups and individuals who are part of some civilization.
  • This is a subcategory because it relates fundamentally to civilizations as in how civilizations interact reciprocally with their environments. This is a concept that can be compared throughout and between civilizations that is characteristic to civilizations and doesn't imply there are people not involved in nature, the subject is how they inevitably are (e.g. see Classic Maya collapse#Drought theory or Avatar (2009 film)#Themes and inspirations). Nevertheless, the category should indeed not be a subcategory after just looking at its contents: things like "Nature photography‎" or or "Stairs in nature‎" are entirely out of scope (they may however also be inappropriate there) – instead I'd move the category to Cat:"Human impact on the environment‎" and Cat:"Human use of natural resources" (which is one layer above "Industries dealing with natural resources‎" and could be included instead of the latter).
Prototyperspective (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Sbb1413: , this looks like a constructive, well thought out and useful contribution. This is closer to what I understand civilazation is. The subcategories make more sense than the current ones: more clear and more in the top of the category hierarchy (while this category is also such a top category), less complicated. Though: even so-called "uncivilized" people have an economy (they also have to deal with needs, limited means and allocation) and education (not formal education, but children learn how to gather food, hunt, being social, move, get knowledge about what to eat and what not, where good places to stay are, and so on). But maybe we can overlook that disadvantage because at a quick glance, I do not see subcategories that are about them, I see only categories about civilized economies and education.
And @Prototyperspective:
  1. There is more than one meaning of "uncivilized"; here the first one is meant: Not resembling a civilization, exactly what we are discussing here.
  2. Civilazations interact not only with their environment:
    1. Also so-called "uncivilized" people interact with their environment.
    2. In civilazations people interact for instance also with other people.
  3. I hope you can consider the category structure of Sbb1413 again: is it good as it is, or what should be changed to that structure to meet your criteria?
JopkeB (talk) 04:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. I wasn't saying that. It's just one major aspect/facet of civilizations. 2.1. Yes, that's why the subject is the how etc, not the if. 2.2 not exclusive or key to civilizations. (Key is the resulting systems/structures such as freshwater supply networks)
3. I wouldn't mind if these were direct subcategories; however for accuracy and optimal relational structure I think they should eventually rather be subcategories to some broader and more directly civilization-related category but these may not yet exist and maybe these categories would be better than alternatives. Civilization would be about grand-scale (e.g. overall) impact on nature, history of infrastructure technology, and so on where distant subcategories would be more specific such as about these at a specific time. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot express any opinion on your particular proposal because I do not have enough time to analyze it thoroughly. If I had more experience, I could conclude quickly. My point is that any category should have explicit and thorough descriptions. The descriptions should not be "implied" (implicit). Whichever way you decide, make sure that your reasoning behind a particular decision is explained in the description of the category itself rather than buried in talk pages so that new editors or readers can understand your reasoning on why you categorized this way or another way. Is my opinion useful? If so, please let me know. If my opinion does not add value to the discussion, please also let me know (so there will be no reason to ping me). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Maxim Masiutin: I value your remarks and warning. I agree with you that categories should have an explicit description and that editors and readers should not have to read an extensive discussion to be able to make proper use of a category. JopkeB (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall conclusions

edit
  • Questions are:
    • Can this category get a proper description?
    • What subcategories and files should be in it and what not? Or: What should the category structure be?
    • What is the purpose of this category on Commons? What problem(s) does it solve?
    • Should this category be kept?
  • Answers:
    • Description: Organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond spoken language.
    • The category scheme might be as follows:
      • World — a broad-concept category, generally covering the planet Earth and all the people in it.
        • Humanity — sum of all humans in existence.
          • Society — group of people related to each other through persistent relations.
            • Civilization — organized or complex society characterized by the development of social structures and symbolic systems of communication beyond spoken language.
            • Culture — shared aspects of a society's way of life.
    • The subcatetories of Category:Civilization might be as follows (the list is not exhaustive):
    • What should not be in:
      • countries
      • Human involvement in nature because so-called "uncivilized" people also involve in nature in some way.
      • According to Prototyperspective: subcategories and files about agriculture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation, and specialization of labor; but this is doubtful because these subjects are mentioned in the EN-WP as part of civilization, and it looks logically to add them as subcategories.
    • About the purpose for the category in Commons: Still no acceptable answer, it looks like this category makes things more complicated rather than simpler, with an extra layer. And as User:Sbb1413 has proven: we can easily do without it.
      • Additional reason: Commons needs a category that encompasses in its scope both culture and society. But Category:Culture is already a grandchild of Category:Society, so a parent category for both would not be inline with the category structure of Commons.
      • The links given to external websites only proof that "Civilization" is a concept that we need in general, for instance in Wikipedias, but they do not proof that we need it on Commons. Just because many sources using the term "civilization" does not mean we should keep the category on Commons.
      • The concept behind the Civilization category can in Commons easily be covered in Category:Society or Category:Humanity.
    • Keep or delete? There still is no agreement on this question.

@Prototyperspective, Sbb1413, and Maxim Masiutin:

  1. Do you agree with these conclusions? Are these the things we can conclude from the discussion (apart from whether you agree with the outcome or not)?
  2. Is this good enough to know what this category is about, what should be in and what not, and what the purpose of this category is? Would it also be clear enough to an unsuspecting passerby (who does not know about this discussion and only sees the description and the subcategories) looking for images or an editor looking for a correct category to put files into?
  3. How to go on? What procedure should we follow since there is no agreement on keep or delete?

--JopkeB (talk) 07:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep this category with modifications I have proposed. Categories like Agriculture, Infrastructure etc. can also be subcats of Civilization, as they are related. As said before, we can do away with this category, but we can't ignore the importance of the concept. Besides, the category tree of Society can be streamlined using this category. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be kept. You misrepresented a few things I stated there though – I didn't say things like cat:agriculture shouldn't be in in it, I just said it should be in a broader category that also clarifies how it relates to this category such as cat:"Typical components of Earth civilizations" as just one example. Also this I wouldn't mind if these were direct subcategories; however for accuracy and optimal relational structure I think they should eventually rather be subcategories to some broader and more directly civilization-related category (like the mentioned cat but that's just an example) seems to have been missed.
It was not proven we could do without it and the purpose is as shortly and easily describable as a category for the concept of Agriculture; there are just so many ways and reasons to have it such as enabling things to be put in and found in their appropriate category. Already streamlined cat:Society quite a bit. In general, civilization is of larger scale than society and society is of larger scale than community but all of these three are needed and all of them are a different approach than cat:Humanity. There also is Category:Organization (activity) instead of only cat:Organizations. Further, the purpose is to put and find media where it belongs and to have a place for files about civilization that don't fit elsewhere. If there was a CCBY mini-documentary on the emergence, characteristics, potential future, and Anthropocene issues of civilization, then it would be put/found here.
It can definitely not be covered by cat:Society (not even with difficult inappropriate subcats or lumping things to where they don't fit) and Humanity is a different approach that is not partly but fully different from the Civilization concept. Humans in small groups in caves 100k years ago would be Humanity, the subject of human anatomy, individual humans, and human bodily eating behavior functions would all be in scope of cat:Humanity. Best procedure would be to keep consistent with the WP:RS; there would need to be strong consensus to delete with good arguments for why to delete a cat despite of the RS for a concept this notable containing a reasonable amount of subcats+media. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So (additions and corrections to the Overall conclusions):
  1. This category should be kept, but adjustments should be made as mentioned above (description, category structure and subcategories) AND the categories about agriculture, infrastructure, technological advancement, trade, regulation and specialization of labor should also be subcategories, as long as there are no categories for them available that are broader and more directly civilization-related.
  2. The purpose of this category is / the category should be kept because:
    1. the concept of it is important
    2. the category tree of Society can be streamlined using this category
    3. enabling people to find media where they belong and having a place for files about civilization that don't fit elsewhere.
@Prototyperspective, Sbb1413, and Maxim Masiutin: Can you now agree? Can we close this discussion and implement the Overall conclusions including these additions and corrections? JopkeB (talk) 09:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, let other people express their opinion to come to the consensus, I'm not the one involved in this issue. I edited the article, but my edits were technical, so I don't have any position on this particular topic, apart from general consideration on describing categories, which I expressed earlier on this talk page. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree. If there are still any issues, people could edit/recategorize and/or ask about it on the talk page. Yes. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no objections to the proposal within a month, I close this discussion. --JopkeB (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category discussion has been closed.
Consensus Resolved by consensus
Actions1) Make sure the description in the category is correct. 2) Make sure it has proper parents and subcategories. 3) Check the Wikidata item. ✓ Done
Participants
NotesChanges during implementation: @Sbb1413: Would you please implement the changes involving "the category tree of Society can be streamlined using this category"? --JopkeB (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closed byJopkeB (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/03/Category:Civilization&oldid=871657074"