Forum:Several new species categories
Yesterday one user, Dimadick, created a bunch of new species categories that I'm not sure fit with the structure we have been using. He also made some edits to existing categories and to some species articles to refer to the new categories. I left a comment in User talk:Dimadick and he agreed to hold off until it could be discussed further. Can we discuss and decide whether to revert, move further in this direction, or what?
I've tried to list the ones he created below but I might have missed a couple and/or included a couple that had existed previously. At least one other new one he created has already been deleted.
- Category:Chiroptera order
- Category:Cetacean order
- Category:Artiodactyla order
- Category:Suina suborder
- Category:Ruminantia suborder
- Category:Camelidae family
- Category:Suidae family
- Category:Giraffidae family
- Category:Cervidae family
- Category:Bovidae family
- Category:Caprinae subfamily
- Category:Talpidae family
- Category:Erinaceidae family
- Category:Feliformia suborder
- Category:Carnivore order
- Category:Caniformia suborder
- Category:Pinniped family
- Category:Ailuridae family
- Category:Ursidae family
- Category:Canidae family
I know we've had discussions before in the areas of animal families and species about taxonomically correct usage vs. common informal usage and have generally tended to favor the latter while trying to remain reasonably accurate with respect to the former. I don't think we want to create a long list of categories using taxonomically correct names if they're not in common usage. Keep in mind also that we have to accommodate hybrid, alien, fictional/mythical, and other non-RL species as well as the RL ones.
Thoughts from the gallery? --mwalimu 20:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I know in my own use of species (and character categories) I've been leaning to common usage (common or garden names), and reasonably-common scientific terms. I think categories need to be something that are fairly transparent, and while Category:Ungulate species seems appropriate to me, Ruminantia suborder does not. Even if we were to move to more of a taxonomic tree for categories, I think keeping all species categories as X species is the way we should continue. -- Sine 20:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- I am not to sure what you mean by accomodating hybrids. From what I can see they are already included in Category:Hybrid species along with severel helpful subcategories. Most of which are also included in other existing categories and are easy to trace.
- At this point my categories do not particularly clash with the common names because they were created to include the articles using them rather than compete with them. For example I stayed well away from creating "Mephitisoid family" because every relevant article was already included in "Skunk species".
- The existing "species categories" were fine but notice they left several articles uncategorised: including bats, Cetaceans, dolphins, orcas, etc. With the later three for some reason completely seperate from each other. My main interest was in having searchable categories with some way of pointing to the similarities between some species/subject matters.
- Ruminadia may be uncommon but are you certain anyone would get confused by the terms "Carnivore" or "Chiroptera". User:Dimadick
- The category structure we are using is, as I mentioned above, Category:X species. Creating Categories of X family and X suborder is introducing a different category structuer, and one which leaves Category:Species cluttered and inconsistent.
- Articles such as Bat were already categorized: in Category:Species. WikiFur isn't intended as a taxonomic resource of species. I doubt many people would be confused by the term Carnivore in context, although there is certainly a difference between taxonomic carnivores and carnivores as species that eat meat! I am convinced people would be confused by Chiroptera--I am one of them! -- Sine 23:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)