Category talk:Biota by country

message: I have reorganised the chat into separate problems, can new problems and further discussion be added to the Category talk:Biota by country#Separate problems section GameKeeper 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: According to the List of ecoregions article, there are 867 ecoregions on the list. As the ecoregions appear to be structured in levels, perhaps we could limit usage to a specific level. For example, here is a breakdown of the "Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests" ecoregion, a "subregion" of "Terrestrial Ecoregions":
; TERRESTRIAL ECOREGIONS
Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests
Afrotropical
*1.Guinean Moist Forests - Benin, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Togo
*2.Congolian Coastal Forests - Angola, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Nigeria, São Tomé & Príncipe, Republic of Congo
*3.Cameroon Highlands Forests - Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria
*4.Northeastern Congo Basin Moist Forests - Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo
*5.Central Congo Basin Moist Forests - Democratic Republic of Congo
*6.Western Congo Basin Moist Forests - Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Republic of Congo
*7.Albertine Rift Montane Forests - Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda
*8.East African Coastal Forests - Kenya, Somalia, Tanzania
*9.Eastern Arc Montane Forests - Kenya, Tanzania
*10.Madagascar Forests and Shrublands - Madagascar
*11.Seychelles and Mascarenes Moist Forests - Mauritius, Reunion (France), Seychelles
Australasia
*12.Sulawesi Moist Forests - Indonesia
*13.Moluccas Moist Forests - Indonesia
*14.Southern New Guinea Lowland Forests - Indonesia, Papua New Guinea
*15.New Guinea Montane Forests - Indonesia, Papua New Guinea
*16.Solomons-Vanuatu-Bismarck Moist Forests - Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu
*17.Queensland Tropical Forests - Australia
*18.New Caledonia Moist Forests - New Caledonia (France)
*19.Lord Howe-Norfolk Islands Forests - Australia
Indo-Malayan
*20.Southwestern Ghats Moist Forests - India
*21.Sri Lankan Moist Forests - Sri Lanka
*22.Northern Indochina Subtropical Moist Forests - China, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam
*23.Southeast China-Hainan Moist Forests - China, Vietnam	
 	
*24.Taiwan Montane Forests - China
*25.Annamite Range Moist Forests - Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam
*26.Sumatran Islands Lowland and Montane Forests - Indonesia
*27.Philippines Moist Forests - Philippines
*28.Palawan Moist Forests - Philippines
*29.Kayah-Karen / Tenasserim Moist Forests - Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand
*30.Peninsular Malaysian Lowland and Mountain Forests - Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand
*31.Borneo Lowland and Montane Forests - Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia
*32.Nansei Shoto Archipelago Forests - Japan
*33.Eastern Deccan Plateau Moist Forests - India
*34.Naga-Manupuri-Chin Hills Moist Forests - Bangladesh, India, Myanmar
*35.Cardamom Mountains Moist Forests - Cambodia, Thailand
*36.Western Java Mountain Forests - Indonesia
Neotropical
*37.Greater Antillean Moist Forests - Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica, Puerto Rico (United States)
*38.Talamancan and Isthmian Pacific Forests - Costa Rica, Panama
*39.Chocó-Darién Moist Forests - Colombia, Ecuador, Panama
*40.Northern Andean Montane Forests - Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru
*41.Coastal Venezuela Montane Forests - Venezuela
*42.Guianan Moist Forests - Brazil, French Guiana (France), Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela
*43.Napo Moist Forests - Colombia, Ecuador, Peru
*44.Río Negro-Juruá Moist Forests - Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela
*45.Guayanan Highlands Forests - Brazil, Colombia, Guayana, Suriname, Venezuela
*46.Central Andean Yungas - Argentina, Bolivia, Peru
*47.Southwestern Amazonian Moist Forests - Bolivia, Brazil, Peru
*48.Atlantic Forests - Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay
Oceania
*49.South Pacific Islands Forests - American Samoa (United States), Cook Islands (New Zealand), Fiji, French Polynesia (France), Niue (New Zealand), Samoa, Tonga, Wallis and Futuna Islands (France)
*50.Hawaii Moist Foresst - Hawaii (United States)
As you can see, there are 50 categories for "Tropical and Subtropical Moist Broadleaf Forests" alone. The entire list to this level numbers 238 ecoregions; some of which we likely would never use (Tropical Upwelling?).
The list also defines which countries are "members" of the region; that could possibly solve the issue of categorization by country.
The entire list (at least as far as this level) is at the World Wildlife Fund website.
I'd be very inclined to use this—it makes sense, could accommodate country-based divisions, and most importantly, is already created; we don't have to reinvent this particular wheel.
Assuming we want to put this out there as a proposal (and I certainly don't think we have consensus on that at this time, I'm just thinking ahead), what would be the next steps? (Besides getting consensus to proceed along these lines to start with.)—Chidom talk  21:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorizing by ecoregions 

message: Whatever else is done, it would helpful/polite if the mass deletion of categories were halted until alternatives are discussed, agreed upon and implemented.  The final part of implementation would be deletion. WP is not going to suffer irreparable harm by having some extra categories around for a bit longer; on the other hand, editors get discouraged from further efforts by wholesale deletions.  Thanks Hmains 16:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass deletion of categories 

message: Perhaps the best example of what's wrong with the present categories lies in:
:Category:Fauna by country
:>:Category:Fauna of the United States
::>:Category:Fauna of the United States by state
:::>:Category:Fauna of Texas
::::>:Category:Avifauna of Eastern Texas
::::>:Category:Avifauna of Northern Texas
::::>:Category:Avifauna of Southwestern Texas
::::>:Category:Avifauna of Western Texas
Given that birds, of all the fauna, are more likely to disrespect political boundaries (countries, states, territories, etc.), this is overcategorization at its best (worst)? An alternative would be to listify such things and include the list(s) in a more general category.
I've listed a possible alternative to what exists presently; it is an extensive list of categories/subcats. It can be found at User:Chidom/Biota.—Chidom talk  20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possible way to organize these categories 

message: Generally, categorization should be based on the content of an articles.  If the articles fail to mention to bio geographic areas in which a plant/animal exists, how can anyone properly categorize an article even if a category structure is agreed upon?  We need some biology expertize here. I am just an interested helper. Hmains 20:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: problem is in the articles

message: *Is by country valid for biota? List of ecoregions
:List of ecoregions suggested in the orginal discussion GameKeeper 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Organisation by country is useful GameKeeper 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: No, because as a general rule this is not a defining characteristic of a species.  Taken to its logical extreme, this approach leads to widespread species being placed in tens or hundreds of categories.  See for example Boar, which is currently in 30 categories and could probably be in 300.  IMO, the only things that should be in "Fauna/Flora of X" categories are a) species which are endemic to X, and b) lists of species found in X.  -- Visviva 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This wouldn't be a problem, because that would be a mis-categorization under the current rules.  Basic categorization principles are placement in the most specific applicable category. If something belongs to all of the subcategories of a category, it doesn't get each & every subcategory name; it gets the category name.  For example, a "finger" isn't listed as "part of the hand", "part of the arm", "part of the upper body", and "part of the body"; it's listed as "part of the hand.  Similarly, say, "Pigeons" wouldn't get listed in every single ecoregion they're found in; just the broadest -- say, Eurasia and North America.  If they're found literally in every ecoregion of the world they would only get placed in "Worldwide X".  Does that make sense? --lquilter 16:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Another deletion debate here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_31#Fauna_of_the_United_States_by_state —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GameKeeper (talk • contribs) 23:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is organising by country valid for biota/flora/fauna

message: *Are Lists of Categories (or any other method) the best way to organise this?
====Should individual species be added to categories like :Category:Fauna of Scotland====
:These Categories are accessible from the species page which makes them easy to find.
:Huge numbers of categories on a species page looks untidy, as do large number of 'See also' lists . Is tidyness an issue. GameKeeper 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could we link the countries List of Biota or List of Fauna etc where the species are found within a hideable info box (see Template:North_America example of hidable list box). This would mean that it was possible to find the relevant county links without having to have a large untidy list GameKeeper 09:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Fauna of the Scottish Highlands has been now been deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_20#Category:Fauna_of_the_Scottish_Highlands. There are a some good comments in there. If I have time I will try again with :Category:Fauna of Scotland. GameKeeper 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the best mechanism to organise

message: :These Categories are accessible from the species page which makes them easy to find.
:Huge numbers of categories on a species page looks untidy, as do large number of 'See also' lists . Is tidyness an issue. GameKeeper 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could we link the countries List of Biota or List of Fauna etc where the species are found within a hideable info box (see Template:North_America example of hidable list box). This would mean that it was possible to find the relevant county links without having to have a large untidy list GameKeeper 09:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Fauna of the Scottish Highlands has been now been deleted, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_20#Category:Fauna_of_the_Scottish_Highlands. There are a some good comments in there. If I have time I will try again with :Category:Fauna of Scotland. GameKeeper 19:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should individual species be added to categories like [[:Category:Fauna of Scotland]]

message: : I have listified :Category:Fauna of the Scottish Highlands , I think lisifying then deleting of categories is the way to change. 
: It is suggested above that mass deletions of categories do not occur until information in them is preserved GameKeeper 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanisms to change

message: :Would any reorganisation be made easier/redundant by upcoming changes to MediaWiki
::I heard a few months back that a change to the mediawiki software will make categorisation obsolete. I can't remember where it was writen though. Does anyone know if this is still going to occur, and what the mechanisms of it are? Thanks --liquidGhoul 09:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but I would be inetrested in details of what the replacement would look like. TeunSpaans 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thinks the enhancement is Wikipedia:Category intersection, it had a lot of buzz about a month ago but seems have gone quite now. --Salix alba (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future enhancements of MediaWiki

message: #Floras are written by country.
::Also applies to lists. —JerryFriedman 04:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pluses

message: #Cosmopolitan Widespread species wind up with large category sections on their pages.  (Changed by JerryFriedman 04:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minuses

message: #Can't just write a stub about a single species.
::Certainly you can.
#Making the list requires commitment to writing a large article.
::Not at all.   A list can be a work in progress just as a category can.  It takes exactly as much work to make the list by adding one species at a time as it does to make a category by categorizing one article at a time.  Or, if someone is willing to make that commitment, a list can have red links so it will be more complete than the present coverage by means of articles.  You can't do that with a category.  —JerryFriedman 04:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can stick the red-links on the actual category page so they appear at the top above the category index of articles. Not very pretty, but you can have the list on top and the category below. Then work on them both at the same time and see which method works best. Carcharoth 10:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minuses

message: The seemingly intractable "biota by country" debate is rumbling on. Here is a radical suggestion. Make the editable part of a category a list for that category. Annotate it and illustrate it just like you would with a list, while keeping eveything categorised as well. As the work progresses, decide which method works best, and go for that, or keep both if the dual method works well. Carcharoth 10:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combine lists and categories on the same page 

message: You can find here how we deal with the issue for the moment. Thierry Caro 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The French Wikipedia