Wikipedia talk:Featured pictures/History

I find it quite americanocentric that the two categories are American History and Other History. Especially as american history is not the richest one. While it is possibly done because of the amount of pictures for each category, I feel it very disturbing in a world wide encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.135.144 (talk • contribs) 11:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are thinking that the categories were determined and then Featured Pictures put into them, but instead it's the other way around. The reason we have an American History category is because we have so many American History Featured Pictures. Is this a sign of systemic bias? Possibly, but the other entirely plausible reason is that we have access to far more U.S. pictures because of the online access to the U.S. Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. If you find the categories disturbing, then feel free to find and nominate quality pictures of European or Asian history, enough so that we can create separate, named categories for them. howcheng {chat} 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, Other history is a very title off-putting. Kingturtle (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming to state the same thing; I find it awfully disconcerting when I see "US History" and then... "Others"... It's like the only history that ever existed focused on that particular country. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 22:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]