"Unable to verify" Peaky Blinders as a Historical Show.

@keyword_expert​ That means well over 50% of TV shows currently tagged as "History" would probably have to go if we take that definition very strictly. Like, the majority of TV dramatic shows with a "History" tag are widely identifiable as historical-fiction. Many historical TV and film shows focus aren't exactly *alternative history*, but they do invent characters to follow in particular periods. Or they're social history which focus on the plight of ordinary people at the backdrop of historical time periods.

And movies too, from a cursory glance.

@keyword_expert​ At the same time, I have a related question. I am going through historical TV shows and populating them with relevant keywords to their setting and time period. So adding all the "timeframe-[x]" keywords, and things like "victorian-era" (for british shows) and such. I'm also adding relatively *unused* keywords like "british history", "american history", "spanish history" etc to refer to the wider geographical location of the setting. So someone could use "british history" to collect any and all TV shows set in british history, then refine it by timeframes, or periods (georgian, victorian, edwardian etc). 

I'm excluding alternative history and fantastical historical settings in these designations when it comes to "[country] history", but on that point, is that the right use of "british history" or "[country] history", so far as you understand? The shows obviously aren't strictly factually historical, they invent characters to follow within a setting.

I feel that "British-historical-setting" *might* be more accurate, but the tag isn't used at all. People had been using "british history" for anything set in Britain in the past, even if it followed fictional personal narratives. For instance, *Call the Midwife* isn't specifically "factual". It follows invented characters in the 1960's helping people give birth. But it's also not alternative history - it follows british history. It doesn't present a deviated or sensationalised interpretation of 1950's or 1960's Britain. Is it accurate to say "british history"?

----

Also, should every single show more broadly set in britain just be tagged with "britain" or "british"? That seems to be how it's mostly used (although I did remove Buffy the Vampire Slayer, presumably tagged "british" because there are some British characters in it despite being set in California)

@Skavau​

For a British character in California, I would use "briton-abroad" or "briton-in-usa" or "briton-in-america" or "briton-in-california."

For an English person in California, I would use "englishman-abroad" or "englishwoman-abroad" or "englishman-in-america" or "englishman-in-united-states-of-america" or "englishwoman-in-america" or "englishwoman-in-usa."  (I realize there are some redundant keywords in there. That's another issue altogether.)

For a title with a British character (including titles set in Britain), I would use "briton" or "british-woman" or "british-man."

For a title with an English character (including titles set in England),  I would use  "englishman" or "englishwoman."

For a title set in Britain, I would use "britain" (rather than "british"). 

And for a title set in a specific country, I would use "england," "wales," "ireland," etc.

I agree with you that "british-historical-setting" (or really any kind of keyword with "-historical-setting" as a suffix, or even just "historical-setting") might be appropriate, although as you point out, those keywords do not exist.

I would not use a "-history" keyword for a title that doesn't fit the History genre.

For fictional films with historical settings, sometimes people use "period-film" or "period-drama" or "period-piece" which is fine, but those keywords are broad.

Whether a film is fictional or non-fiction, it can make sense to add more specific keywords like "victorian-era" or "victorian-england" or "interwar-period" or "reconstruction-era" or "american-civil-war" or "prohibition-era" or "great-depression-era" or "reconstruction-era" or "napoleonic-era" or "apartheid-era" or "elizabethan-era" or "cold-war-era."

​I agree with you that "british-historical-setting" (or really any kind of keyword with "-historical-setting" as a suffix, or even just "historical-setting") might be appropriate, although as you point out, those keywords do not exist.

I mean it can always be added to the system, to be fair. But it's hard to determine where the line of "british history" vs. "british historical setting" is valid.

For fictional films with historical settings, sometimes people use "period-film" or "period-drama" or "period-piece" which is fine, but those keywords are broad.

Indeed, which is why I wanted to chop them up in a meaningful way.

Whether a film is fictional or non-fiction, it can make sense to add more specific keywords like "victorian-era" or "victorian-england" or "interwar-period" or "reconstruction-era" or "american-civil-war" or "prohibition-era" or "great-depression-era" or "reconstruction-era" or "napoleonic-era" or "apartheid-era" or "elizabethan-era" or "cold-war-era."

Oh, absolutely - I am doing that. Albeit I don't think "cold-war-era" is especially relevant if the title doesn't have much to do with that. Call the Midwife technically happened in the "cold war era" but a British historical show about midwives doesn't seem to have much to do with it.

"contemporary history" is a term used for post-1945 history, it seems. Or maybe "contemporary historical setting" if we're distinguishing "history" from "historical-setting".

@Skavau​ Here are some other ideas of keywords that are probably okay to use (if applicable) for titles that do not fit the History genre:

historical-event (763 titles)

historical-fiction (603 titles)

historical-drama (189 titles)

historical-revisionism (119 titles)

historical-figure (116 titles)

historical-reference (11 titles)

loosely-based-on-historical-events (40 titles)

alternate-history (865 titles)

revisionist-history (68 titles)

Finally, a keyword that has been quite popular but should not be used at all is "historical." That keyword is an improper substitute for the History genre, and since the guidelines tell us not to use genres as keywords, "historical" shouldn't be used as a keyword.

@keyword_expert​ Yeah I intend to use many of them, but I asked in terms of specifically tagging stuff with specific historical location settings.

But it's hard to know, unless its biographical by design where "history" is valid or not valid.

I must be super-trusted now because 'british historical setting' just got made into a keyword instantly when I tried. 

@keyword_expert​ So I'm more or less undoing or converting "british history" (a tag I used) into "british historical setting". 

Same goes with the "History" genre, although I think the system thinks I'm spamming or operating will ill-intent as my attempts to delete "british history" on a number of titles (which I myself added less than a day ago) are being screened. I guess its understandable.

Same goes with "american history", "spanish history" etc albeit I haven't really started on them much

@Skavau​ Your plan makes sense to me.

As to why your current efforts are being "screened," I think the most likely explanation is that these keywords end in the "-history" suffix, which makes these keywords semi-protected (even though you created them).

IMDb changed things around a few months ago, simultaneous with their debut of the "accepted" subgenre keywords, to protect all keywords that end in main-genre suffixes.

You can read more about this issue here:

Please reinstate easy deletion of keywords that contain main-genre suffixes (e.g. vietnam-war, environmental-crime, interspecies-romance)

Subgenre keywords

IMDb seems to have ratcheted down their protections of these keywords after I and others like @bradley_kent complained. However, there may still be some level of protection on these keywords.

Keywords with the "timeframe-" prefix are also somewhat protected from editing, as discussed by @Peter_pbn in this other thread here.

@keyword_expert​ Curiously enough that doesn't apply to *creating* "British History" on a title. It instantly adds. Or editing british history, as I converted some "british history" into "british history setting"

@Skavau​ Maybe you will pioneer a new trend of "-historical-setting" keywords. It can be satisfying to start new trends.

To be honest, I'm worried about people misusing them. The site needs protection.

I purged some superhero terms earlier.

Someone unironically tagged "Sherlock" as superhero.

@Skavau​ Are you using "-history-setting" or "-historical-setting?" The latter flows better in my opinion.

@keyword_expert​ EDIT: I am using "historical setting" Browser remembers it so I've hardly been typing it.

@keyword_expert​ Also I ran into Samurai Jack again under "Cyberpunk"

I don't understand the thought process at all on that one. Otherwise Cyberpunk isn't too inaccurate to be fair, from what I can see in TV.

@Skavau​ Probably the same contributor overuses/misuses both "cyberpunk" and "dystopia." 

I'll be honest, seeing as IMDB obviously didn't take up my idea of an upvote/downvote system of any kind (when I suggested it)... they really need to put up barriers for editing full stop. After coming back and tagging for a few days the system now pretty much trusts me to add anything, and that means I could do some real damage if I was malicious or just ignorant.

And no-one would even notice

@Skavau​ People would eventually notice. 

I suppose I also mean in terms of lazy, half-hearted tagging across a random selection of content. People like you or I would notice the errors, remove them, but then someone else a little bit later would possibly put the error back up. It's basically whack-a-mole.

I mean I've had to remove "world war one" from a bunch of British shows that were set in the 1920s. Even saw "world war one" on a second world-war one too. Either they've all been put there recently, or they've been sat wrong for a long time.

@Skavau​

I have just created the new root keyword "historical-setting."

Please feel free to apply that keyword along with your more specific keywords like "spanish-historical-setting," "european-historical-setting," "korean-historical-setting," "irish-historical-setting," etc.

Oh man.... I really think that should just be autoapplied to anything with "[x]-historical-setting". I have no desire to go all the way back and manually update everything lol

@Skavau​ But you can use it going forward. That's all I'm asking.

@keyword_expert​ Yeah don't worry, I know you didn't literally mean for me to go back and add it - but I do think this is where IMDB need a system that autoapplies parent keywords.

@Skavau​ I do support that parent keyword idea, if done narrowly and accurately. 

There are ways to mass-add keywords to dozens of titles at once. That might be appropriate for the "historical-setting" keyword on titles on which you have already applied "-historical-setting" keywords.

One of these days I will find the time to earnestly audit this "historical" keyword. I have a feeling that in most cases, "historical-setting" is the more appropriate keyword.

https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?keywords=historical&ref_=kw_ref_gnr&sort=moviemeter,asc&mode=detail&page=1&genres=!History

@keyword_expert​ Also the system could be smart.

Anything with an "alternate history" keyword would automatically lose, or be ineligible for a "History" genre. And vice versa. This would just be a protection against sloppy tagging. 

@Skavau​

I am seeing that the "-historical-setting" keywords are apparently already being misused.

Specifically, I see a bunch of titles that have both a "-historical-setting" keyword and a counterpart "-history" keyword on the same title. And many of them also have the History genre assigned to the same title. 

I understood your "-historical-setting" keywords to be reserved for titles that do not warrant the History genre or the "-history" keywords. That's the context of where the entire discussion started, from which the "-historical-setting" keywords were born.

For example, a single title should not have the History genre as well as the "british-historical-setting" keyword on the same title. Nor should a single title have both the keywords "british-historical-setting" and "british-history" on the same title. Yet there are currently 55 titles that have the History genre and both the keywords "british-history" and "british-historical-setting."

Basically, it should be an either-or proposition: either a title qualifies for the History genre and the "british-history" keyword, or it qualifies for the "british-historical-setting" keyword. But it shouldn't be both on the same title. It doesn't make sense to use "british-historical-setting" on a title that already warrants the "british-history" keyword.

@keyword_expert​ I'm not so sure that's necessarily a misuse. Someone may wish to watch a historical series set in Britain, for instance, but may not necessarily think it should be 'factual' if that makes sense. So by searching "british historical setting" they'll get anything that is set in British history, regardless of accuracy. You would specifically filter *by* "british history" if you wanted accuracy.

But if it is factual, (or "Historical" by IMDB standards) then "british history" would also apply.

In any case, some of that may be me when I originally used "british history" before changing it to "british historical setting". I did try to remove some of it. Some of it was also there before i got there.

@Skavau​ I see your point. But couldn't people just use "british-history" for "factual" and "british-historical-setting" for "non-factual" (or loosely factual)? That would be a pretty easy way to search and filter.

I think a related problem, which also predates your "-historical-setting" keywords, is that the History genre has been way overused (in violation of the IMDb guidelines). There are a lot of titles -- many of them TV shows -- with the History genre where that genre does not truly belong. (It's a similar story with the "-history" keywords.) 

@keyword_expert​ Well we could remove "british historical setting" entirely under that situation and just have it all as "british history" and + "factual" for true stories.

@Skavau​ I view the "-history" keywords as the matching counterparts to the History genre. As a result, I think the concept of "factual" is embedded within and integral to the "-history" keywords, just like it's embedded within the History genre itself.

@keyword_expert​ Sure, although keep in mind that "alternate history" popped up again as another IMDb subgenre so they don't really have their minds worked out here on what is valid "History" and not.

But couldn't people just use "british-history" for "factual" and "british-historical-setting" for "non-factual" (or loosely factual)?

I suppose I mean in the way I see it, "british historical setting" is like the *parent* of "british history*. All "british history" is necessarily a "british historical setting".

@Skavau​ I do understand your points, but I still question why the word "setting" is needed for a title that tries to accurately depict historical events, regardless of whether it's a documentary, reenactment, biopic, or something else -- given that the perfectly fine "-history" keywords already existed.

I was thinking of the "-historical-setting" keywords as being like an exception to the longstanding rules and guidelines on history keywords (and the History genre): if a title doesn't qualify for the history keywords and the History genre, but it still has historical events as a backdrop, then people could use the "-historical-setting" keywords.

If the "-historical-setting" keywords have become the parent keywords, then why would the "-history" keywords even be needed? (I know your answer to that question is so people can filter out for "factual" titles, but how would the average user understand that distinction when confronted with these two types of keywords on the same title?)

@keyword_expert​ Yeah, I guess they wouldn't necessarily know the difference. It's difficult.

I'll be honest the entire keyword system needs serious overhaul and guidance. It honestly should've functioned like a whitelist, from day one. But I don't get the impression the staff either care enough, or have the power to do anything about it.

@Skavau​ By the way, your reference to "factual" reminds me of this thread:

Keywords "historically-accurate" and "historically-inaccurate"

@Skavau​ 

I suppose I mean in the way I see it, "british historical setting" is like the *parent* of "british history*. All "british history" is necessarily a "british historical setting".

I continue to view this differently. I believe that titles that qualify for the History genre are also eligible for the "british-history" keyword, while titles that do not qualify for the History genre are not eligible for the "british-history" keyword but could instead get the "british-historical-setting" keyword. That was literally how your "-historical-setting" keywords came about -- as a way of indicating that the title has both fictional and historical elements.  I think of the word "setting" in your keywords as being a synonym of "backdrop" -- these keywords are for fictional shows and films that have a historical setting as a backdrop.

Now that subgenre keywords are valid and recognized, I am hoping that eventually a bunch more "-history" keywords will eventually be recognized as History subgenre keywords. I posted a list of "-history" keywords that could/should be subgenre keywords here.