Category talk:Animals
I suppose it would be helpfull to have only phyla (and some special) categories as subcategories in Animalia. However, sometimes it ist easier to navigate directly to classes. The alternative would be to have only classes as subcategories in animals, which of course would mean that we loose every hierarchical information about phyla.
To combine both, I propose to have a navigational context, that displays all classes (maybe even with the english name). This has to be done by hand, but is feasable, since there are only so many classes.
If there are any objections, I would like to have some feedback before the edit ist reverted. Petwoe 17:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Rename to Animalia
[edit]Since we're using the name plantae for plants, I suggest that we change the name of this category it's latin equivalent also. --Groucho 05:15, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This would also give us the chance to leave all the non-latin categories, which do not belong into the Animalia tree, behind. They are responsible for a lot of circular references inside the tree and make maintainance and navigation difficult. Peter_Aut 05:11, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- They make navigation possible. I'm not a Roman, priest, lawyer, doctor, botanist, or biologist. I still need to find images. Actually, I could use names like "mutton" and "pork". AlbertCahalan 04:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with AlbertCahalan, but the common names should be a supplement to the scientific names. A previous consensus was reached on the use of Latin names and dual use of categories such as Animals and Animalia have the potential to be more confusing than helpful. I think we need to be merging these entirely and (if they are working) use redirects from common to Latin names. (And continue supplementation with common names within galleries and category headers.) LeaMaimone 03:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The purpose of the Latin is that it's in common use among non-English speakers too. "Animals" may not mean much to a Romanian, but they use "Animalia" there too. Stan Shebs July 3, 2005 04:53 (UTC)
CFDs
[edit]What should be the scope of this category? Should it cover all the species of Category:Animalia or exclude Category:Homo sapiens (humans)? Although humans are also animals in biology, for legal, practical, and religious reasons, animals are considered separate (e.g. Category:Animal rights don't include human rights). So my proposal is to use Category:Animalia for the biological definition of "animals" (which includes humans), while Category:Animals for Animalia sine Homo sapiens. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:07, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The category structure should be as follows (2024-11-10: no longer supported):
Category:Animalia — for the biological definition of "animal" as a kingdom- Category:Animals — Animalia sine Homo sapiens
Category:Homo sapiens (under Category:Hominidae)
- Taxonomic categories like Category:Aves, Category:Mammalia should be categorized under the appropriate categories of Category:Animalia, while non-taxonomic categories like Category:Birds, Category:Mammals should be categorized under Category:Animals. Again, humans should be excluded in the definition of Category:Mammals. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also, Category:Taxonomic ranks should be categorized under Category:Organisms, while categories like Category:Animals, Category:People, Category:Plants etc. would be categorized under Category:Organisms by common name. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
| This category discussion has been closed. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | ||||
| Actions | Categorize humans separately from animals, and make a distinction between taxonomic and non-taxonomic categories. | |||
| Participants | ||||
| Closed by | Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 06:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
There is now an edit war at Category:People using computers on whether humans are animals. Prototyperspective points to this "discussion", which has zero comments since my proposal. My implementation of this proposal was unilateral, and the overturning this proposal was also unilateral. I now propose the following category structure for dispute resolution:
- Category:Animals — for the biological definition of "animal" as a kingdom
- Category:Animalia — a category redirect to Category:Animals
- Category:Homo sapiens — keep as it is
- Category:Non-human animals — for the common usage of the word "animal"
As per the Universality Principle, Category:Homo sapiens (humans) must belong to Category:Animals (or its subcats), either in top-level categories or subcats. Even if we consider that the term "animals" exclude humans, the fact that humans evolve from animals doesn't change, thus rightfully belonging to Category:Animals as products, akin to Category:Technology under Category:Science. --Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 14:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's not an edit war. You made a revert without explanation and put category People using computers into the categories Animals in human culture and World upside down. Find better methods for doing what you do, e.g. don't disrupt Commons to make a point. There was also another discussion about this, just forgot where, and you shouldn't close discussions if there are no other participants. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)