- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Tetrapods by year of formal description to Category:Vertebrates by year of formal description
- Propose merging Category:Tetrapods described in the 21st century to Category:Vertebrates described in the 21st century
- Propose merging Category:Tetrapods described in 1904 to Category:Vertebrates described in 1904
- Propose merging Category:Tetrapods described in 1969 to Category:Vertebrates described in 1969
- Nominator's rationale: The categorization of birds, mammals etc directly under vertebrates works fine - it does not need a (incomplete) tetrapods layer. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_2#Category:Tetrapods_by_country DexDor ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Not an idea worth completing. Oculi ( talk) 00:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge I'm actually open to deleting this whole tree as undefining. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge but they should mostly be container only categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Through numerous precedent and WP:OC#Eponymous, this category is an unnecessary parent to the artist's songs and albums categories, as all articles are also already linkable directly from the main article at Marcia Hines. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is insufficient material to warrant this kind of category. Subcategory information is better explored through the songs or albums tree. Still, I think we need to make better use of {{ Category see also}} between artists' songs and albums categories, which will make categories like the above one entirely redundant navigation-wise. SFB 22:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete; there's also general agreement that
Category:Fictional slave traders may have some potential as an acceptable category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional slave owners to Category:Fictional slave owners and slave traders
- Nominator's rationale: Inclusiveness is better then creating more categories. -- 76.175.67.121 ( talk) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Probably better to create Category:Fictional slave traders (which would fit under Category:Slave traders) (we normally categorize fictional fooers under fooers) - then consider deleting this category as I'm not sure that being a slave owner (in Roman times etc) is a defining characteristic. DexDor ( talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete not defining. If Jabba the Hutt is a fictional slave owner for having non-human slaves, perhaps every animal owner is a slave owner for having their animal. The trivialization of slavery is a serious matter, and this category does much to perpetuate the myth that it isn't/wasn't so bad. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete not defining. They're all evil characters but slave ownership only plays a marginal role in that character. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep but Purge so that the category only includes Watto, Mongul, Mojo (comics), Apocalypse (comics) and Jabba the Hutt as these article all clearly articulate that they held slaves as a key piece of their identity. The others either "enslaved" a population as an expression, or a passing reference to slaves, or absolutely no reference to slavery. No opinion on the actual nomination to rename the article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as per RevelationDirect -- 173.55.119.156 ( talk) 07:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining and, furthermore, not categorization of fictional characters by occupation (owning slaves is not an occupation). A character who owns slaves could be defined by what he/she/it does to/with those slaves, but I cannot think of any character (and there are none in the category) defined by the mere fact of owning slaves. I think that Category:Fictional slave traders has more potential. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category is too broadly characterized. Head is: "A category for individuals who have significantly influenced the culture of automobile ownership along with driving, through automotive media, customization or services for automobiles." That could apply to hundreds of bios, many of which don't have anything in common with each other. The Magliozzi brothers and auto customizers don't belong in the same category. At the very least, the scope of the category needs to be redefined. p b p 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Possibly selectively upmerge to Category:Automotive pioneers. DexDor ( talk) 21:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The main article and the only other article in the category are well-linked anyways. If kept, I suggest at least renaming to Category:Arid Forest Research Institute. Pichpich ( talk) 16:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Way to small to warrant a category. Category:Forest research institutes is more than enough in respect of navigation. SFB 22:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I think there is nothing that is not already in Category:Forest research institutes. I think this is the result of an inexperienced editor creating unnecessary categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Born in Buchach to Category:People from Buchach
- Nominator's rationale: Probably too specific. Do we want every geographic category to have "born" as a subcat of "from"? brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge – the tree of 'born in' categories was deleted long ago. Oculi ( talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge. 'Born in' is being born again? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge Using "From" is preferable as the defining aspect is mostly to do with an identity association with a place. A large number of people were born in places other than those they grew up in and have much more significant associations with. One obvious point is that in rich countries babies tend to be born in hospitals or clinics and many places (where those people later grow and thrive) don't have those facilities. SFB 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. If only it was that simple. There are valid objections raised about some simple upmerges as proposed. So that close it what is left after all of the exceptions are processed.
Category:Lists of fauna of the United States by state should be the target for lists which are in some cases the only content or overview articles of fauna in a state.
Category:Endemic fauna of the United States is the target for the endemic fauna material by state. Following that
Category:Fauna of the United States by region should be the target as appropriate. This will be slow to implement and will take a while. Help is welcome.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also note this old discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Propose upmerging:
-
Category:Fauna of the United States by state to
Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Alabama to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Arizona to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Colorado to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Florida to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Indiana to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Kansas to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of New Jersey to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of New York to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Oregon to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Texas to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Utah to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Washington (state) to Category:Fauna of the United States
Rationalle: Fauna ranges don't recognize the state borders, I see no reason why these are defining for these animals. Note that Hawaii was left out intentionally. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support All To see what a mess categorizing animals by political boundary makes at the article level, take a look at the bottom of one of these pages: Clay-colored thrush or Estigmene acrea. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comments – this is not entirely straightforward as Category:Fauna of Arizona, say, has several perfectly valid subcats, which the nomination would place immediately under Category:Fauna of the United States. One wonders why there are so few states in the scheme. Merging to the valid subcat Category:Endemic fauna of Arizona (and removing non-endemic fauna) might work. Oculi ( talk) 13:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- If an animal is only endemic to a single state, that is a much more compelling case than grouping something with a wide range to 20 separate state categories. I suspect the animals are really limited not by the state boundary but rather by the Category:Fauna of the Yuma Desert or Category:Fauna of the Yuma Desert (which in turn fit under Category:North American desert fauna) but your proposal at least minimizes category clutter on the bottom of articles. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom, except leave Category:Fauna of the United States by state as that's an appropriate category for Fauna of Nevada etc. DexDor ( talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I sympathize with the nominator's desire for simplification. However, by that logic fauna by country categories shouldn't exist either, as animals don't respect political boundries of any kind (especially in places with many small countries close togher [i.e. Europe]). I like consistancy. Keep "by state" or get rid of "by country". --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- For what's it's worth, I would also be in favor of reducing country tree.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also in favor of reducing the "by country" tree (see my vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 6#Category:Moths of Cameroon), except for big countries (e.g the US), which may be considered regions in their respective continents; and island countries (e.g the UK, Australia, Madagascar), which are likely to have their own animal life. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- For what's it's worth, I would also be in favor of reducing country tree.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge the articles. The subcats need individual thought (eg Category:Endemic fauna of Arizona is already in a suitable US tree but should be placed in an Arizona cat such as Category:Biota of Arizona - present for some states - or Category:Natural history of Arizona). Oculi ( talk) 17:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge/listify as appropriate Fauna by American state is very useful information, but categories are a disruptive way to gather this information ( brown rat anyone?). I believe fauna are better categorised by landmasses or bodies of water, where appropriate, as that better follows how animal territories are formed (i.e. not on a human border basis). SFB 22:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as container categories, and either purge individual species or move them into an "Endemic" sub-cat where appropriate. Otherwise, if not kept, selectively upmerge sub-cats and lists to appropriate parents by state e.g. "Biota/Natural history of Foo". The nomination would remove the sub-cats of the nominated categories from the state hierarchies, e.g. Category:Endemic fauna of Arizona from Category:Natural history of Arizona, which is presumably not intended. (The latter category also needs to be converted to a container category, but that's another matter.) – Fayenatic L ondon 17:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge per nom -- There may be some merit in creating subcategories for broad regions by habitat type. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose merge — State subcats under Category:Fauna of the United States by state are very useful when species are only in several adjacent states, but not an entire region such as Category:Fauna of the Eastern United States. With climate change, it could be a long range data tool for wikipedia users.
- If deleting fauna by state categories does become the consensus, then please merge their articles into their parent subregion's cat, such as Category:Fauna of the Southwestern United States, and not just into Category:Fauna of the United States as nominated here. The United States is too large, and too diverse in ecoregions/subecoregions, to dump every regionally distributed animal into the cross−continental scale Category:Fauna of the United States and have the articles be useful or findable, beyond biologists' "by genera/familia" searches.
- If a consensus to merge does occur, please exempt Category:Fauna of Hawaii and Category:Fauna of California from extinction by merges, as both are biodiveristy hotspots with numerous species beyond their endemic fauna crucial to their ecology (and often endangered/threatened), making research at the geopolitical state level most useful.
- Lastly, the suggestion by Oculi (12 Nov.) above, to transfer a state's articles to their natural history cat. under Category:Natural history of the United States by state is another method for the average wiki user to not loose the ability to discover some of what is living in a state. Thank you— Look2See1 t a l k → 23:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge This leads to over categorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Tetrapods by year of formal description to Category:Vertebrates by year of formal description
- Propose merging Category:Tetrapods described in the 21st century to Category:Vertebrates described in the 21st century
- Propose merging Category:Tetrapods described in 1904 to Category:Vertebrates described in 1904
- Propose merging Category:Tetrapods described in 1969 to Category:Vertebrates described in 1969
- Nominator's rationale: The categorization of birds, mammals etc directly under vertebrates works fine - it does not need a (incomplete) tetrapods layer. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_2#Category:Tetrapods_by_country DexDor ( talk) 22:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. Not an idea worth completing. Oculi ( talk) 00:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge I'm actually open to deleting this whole tree as undefining. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge but they should mostly be container only categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Through numerous precedent and WP:OC#Eponymous, this category is an unnecessary parent to the artist's songs and albums categories, as all articles are also already linkable directly from the main article at Marcia Hines. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There is insufficient material to warrant this kind of category. Subcategory information is better explored through the songs or albums tree. Still, I think we need to make better use of {{ Category see also}} between artists' songs and albums categories, which will make categories like the above one entirely redundant navigation-wise. SFB 22:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete; there's also general agreement that
Category:Fictional slave traders may have some potential as an acceptable category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Fictional slave owners to Category:Fictional slave owners and slave traders
- Nominator's rationale: Inclusiveness is better then creating more categories. -- 76.175.67.121 ( talk) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Probably better to create Category:Fictional slave traders (which would fit under Category:Slave traders) (we normally categorize fictional fooers under fooers) - then consider deleting this category as I'm not sure that being a slave owner (in Roman times etc) is a defining characteristic. DexDor ( talk) 21:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete not defining. If Jabba the Hutt is a fictional slave owner for having non-human slaves, perhaps every animal owner is a slave owner for having their animal. The trivialization of slavery is a serious matter, and this category does much to perpetuate the myth that it isn't/wasn't so bad. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete not defining. They're all evil characters but slave ownership only plays a marginal role in that character. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep but Purge so that the category only includes Watto, Mongul, Mojo (comics), Apocalypse (comics) and Jabba the Hutt as these article all clearly articulate that they held slaves as a key piece of their identity. The others either "enslaved" a population as an expression, or a passing reference to slaves, or absolutely no reference to slavery. No opinion on the actual nomination to rename the article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as per RevelationDirect -- 173.55.119.156 ( talk) 07:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as non-defining and, furthermore, not categorization of fictional characters by occupation (owning slaves is not an occupation). A character who owns slaves could be defined by what he/she/it does to/with those slaves, but I cannot think of any character (and there are none in the category) defined by the mere fact of owning slaves. I think that Category:Fictional slave traders has more potential. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category is too broadly characterized. Head is: "A category for individuals who have significantly influenced the culture of automobile ownership along with driving, through automotive media, customization or services for automobiles." That could apply to hundreds of bios, many of which don't have anything in common with each other. The Magliozzi brothers and auto customizers don't belong in the same category. At the very least, the scope of the category needs to be redefined. p b p 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Possibly selectively upmerge to Category:Automotive pioneers. DexDor ( talk) 21:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The main article and the only other article in the category are well-linked anyways. If kept, I suggest at least renaming to Category:Arid Forest Research Institute. Pichpich ( talk) 16:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Way to small to warrant a category. Category:Forest research institutes is more than enough in respect of navigation. SFB 22:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I think there is nothing that is not already in Category:Forest research institutes. I think this is the result of an inexperienced editor creating unnecessary categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Born in Buchach to Category:People from Buchach
- Nominator's rationale: Probably too specific. Do we want every geographic category to have "born" as a subcat of "from"? brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge – the tree of 'born in' categories was deleted long ago. Oculi ( talk) 15:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge. 'Born in' is being born again? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge Using "From" is preferable as the defining aspect is mostly to do with an identity association with a place. A large number of people were born in places other than those they grew up in and have much more significant associations with. One obvious point is that in rich countries babies tend to be born in hospitals or clinics and many places (where those people later grow and thrive) don't have those facilities. SFB 22:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. If only it was that simple. There are valid objections raised about some simple upmerges as proposed. So that close it what is left after all of the exceptions are processed.
Category:Lists of fauna of the United States by state should be the target for lists which are in some cases the only content or overview articles of fauna in a state.
Category:Endemic fauna of the United States is the target for the endemic fauna material by state. Following that
Category:Fauna of the United States by region should be the target as appropriate. This will be slow to implement and will take a while. Help is welcome.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also note this old discussion. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Propose upmerging:
-
Category:Fauna of the United States by state to
Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Alabama to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Arizona to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Colorado to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Florida to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Indiana to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Kansas to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of New Jersey to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of New York to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Oregon to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Texas to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Utah to Category:Fauna of the United States
- Category:Fauna of Washington (state) to Category:Fauna of the United States
Rationalle: Fauna ranges don't recognize the state borders, I see no reason why these are defining for these animals. Note that Hawaii was left out intentionally. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support All To see what a mess categorizing animals by political boundary makes at the article level, take a look at the bottom of one of these pages: Clay-colored thrush or Estigmene acrea. RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comments – this is not entirely straightforward as Category:Fauna of Arizona, say, has several perfectly valid subcats, which the nomination would place immediately under Category:Fauna of the United States. One wonders why there are so few states in the scheme. Merging to the valid subcat Category:Endemic fauna of Arizona (and removing non-endemic fauna) might work. Oculi ( talk) 13:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- If an animal is only endemic to a single state, that is a much more compelling case than grouping something with a wide range to 20 separate state categories. I suspect the animals are really limited not by the state boundary but rather by the Category:Fauna of the Yuma Desert or Category:Fauna of the Yuma Desert (which in turn fit under Category:North American desert fauna) but your proposal at least minimizes category clutter on the bottom of articles. RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom, except leave Category:Fauna of the United States by state as that's an appropriate category for Fauna of Nevada etc. DexDor ( talk) 21:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I sympathize with the nominator's desire for simplification. However, by that logic fauna by country categories shouldn't exist either, as animals don't respect political boundries of any kind (especially in places with many small countries close togher [i.e. Europe]). I like consistancy. Keep "by state" or get rid of "by country". --
Kevlar (
talk •
contribs)
23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- For what's it's worth, I would also be in favor of reducing country tree.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also in favor of reducing the "by country" tree (see my vote at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 6#Category:Moths of Cameroon), except for big countries (e.g the US), which may be considered regions in their respective continents; and island countries (e.g the UK, Australia, Madagascar), which are likely to have their own animal life. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- For what's it's worth, I would also be in favor of reducing country tree.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge the articles. The subcats need individual thought (eg Category:Endemic fauna of Arizona is already in a suitable US tree but should be placed in an Arizona cat such as Category:Biota of Arizona - present for some states - or Category:Natural history of Arizona). Oculi ( talk) 17:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge/listify as appropriate Fauna by American state is very useful information, but categories are a disruptive way to gather this information ( brown rat anyone?). I believe fauna are better categorised by landmasses or bodies of water, where appropriate, as that better follows how animal territories are formed (i.e. not on a human border basis). SFB 22:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as container categories, and either purge individual species or move them into an "Endemic" sub-cat where appropriate. Otherwise, if not kept, selectively upmerge sub-cats and lists to appropriate parents by state e.g. "Biota/Natural history of Foo". The nomination would remove the sub-cats of the nominated categories from the state hierarchies, e.g. Category:Endemic fauna of Arizona from Category:Natural history of Arizona, which is presumably not intended. (The latter category also needs to be converted to a container category, but that's another matter.) – Fayenatic L ondon 17:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Merge per nom -- There may be some merit in creating subcategories for broad regions by habitat type. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose merge — State subcats under Category:Fauna of the United States by state are very useful when species are only in several adjacent states, but not an entire region such as Category:Fauna of the Eastern United States. With climate change, it could be a long range data tool for wikipedia users.
- If deleting fauna by state categories does become the consensus, then please merge their articles into their parent subregion's cat, such as Category:Fauna of the Southwestern United States, and not just into Category:Fauna of the United States as nominated here. The United States is too large, and too diverse in ecoregions/subecoregions, to dump every regionally distributed animal into the cross−continental scale Category:Fauna of the United States and have the articles be useful or findable, beyond biologists' "by genera/familia" searches.
- If a consensus to merge does occur, please exempt Category:Fauna of Hawaii and Category:Fauna of California from extinction by merges, as both are biodiveristy hotspots with numerous species beyond their endemic fauna crucial to their ecology (and often endangered/threatened), making research at the geopolitical state level most useful.
- Lastly, the suggestion by Oculi (12 Nov.) above, to transfer a state's articles to their natural history cat. under Category:Natural history of the United States by state is another method for the average wiki user to not loose the ability to discover some of what is living in a state. Thank you— Look2See1 t a l k → 23:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
- Upmerge This leads to over categorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 05:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.