Category talk:Biota by country
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)
Contents |
[edit] Orginal discussion
[edit] Problems with the usage of sub-categories
I do not like the use of some of the sub-categories of Category:Biota by country to categorise individual species.
I object on the basis that :-
- It will cause over-categorisation of articles (see what wild cat used to look like ).
- Most of the articles included , for example Category:Fauna of Scotland, do not furfil the Wikipedia:Categorization#Some general guidelines test Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?.
However preserving the information in these categories is important as it is useful.
I propose conversion of the species in categories into lists or articles, and the deletion of the categories.
An exception I can think of is endemic species (ie native ONLY to that country]]. This would be better served by a subcategory of [[:Category:Fauna of country]], [[:Category:Endemic fauna of country]] in which these species can be placed. (suggested by User:Bogdangiusca in deletion log below)
Discussions of the usages of these categories here
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_22#Category:Fauna by country and subcats
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_14#Category:Fauna by country
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_13#Category:Fauna of the United States by state and its subcategories
Wikipedia guidelines
Examples
- Fauna in Azerbaijan example of use of an article
- List of British mammals example of use of a list.
GameKeeper 13:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I am using this as a test case to see if listfying is approved of. GameKeeper 14:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's a bad idea to limit country species lists to only endemics. If you're going to go that way you might as well delete them.
- Biota by country (or by subnational unit) is useful. Species distributions are recorded not at the level of ecoregions or biomes, but at the country level. While it's an imperfect system, it's usually the best level of resolution that exists.
- The main argument against these categories seems to be the fear of overcategorisation. This "danger" has been hugely overplayed - most species are not cosmopolitan, and it makes far more sense to make exceptions for these species than it does to remove the information.
- It has been suggested that lists are more useful than categories. This isn't the case unless you add a "see also: List of Birds of Foo" to every bird in Foo. That would produce even more clutter than would the categories.
- I don't see what the benefit of limiting "Biota by country" articles to endemics. To begin with, for many species, endemic only means "hasn't been discovered elsewhere yet". Since catgories lack references, it would be impossible to determine one whose authority the species is considered to be an endemic. A species can easily go from being endemic to a country, to no longer being endemic (when it is discovered in another country), and then go back to being endemic when a third authority splits the new record into another species. "Endemic" is a stronger assertion than "present" and is more likely to be disputed. In addition, calling something "biota by country" and only listing endemics would create an inaccurately titled category, which would be difficult to maintain.
- "Biota by country" is a useful category. It contains real information of a sort which is used in fields like biogeography and macroecology. It isn't, as some people keep insisting, "useless" information.
- I strongly oppose the deletion of useful information from Wikipedia, especially when the main argument seems to be that people find such information "untidy". Guettarda 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is a tricky one. Knowing the native range of an organism is important information, but there are problems with having 200+ categories for cosmopolitian organisms like Rattus rattus. At one point I though of adding distribution information to the taxobox but didn't persue it very far. I think this is a case where we begin pushing the envelope of MediaWiki software, to do distribution well really requires a proper database or GIS system.
- One solution might be to create higher level categories Category:Flora of Africa and Category:Cosmopolitian plants where biota which exist in many countries might be listed. --Salix alba (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- That is a great idea, and would solve this problem. It would take a hell of a lot of coding though. Anyone have ideas of the specifics for something like this? If we can get specifics of how we would like it to work, then someone with knowledge of submitting this through the MediaWiki system could do so. It is about time the biologists got something specific for them, damn mathmeticians :). Thanks --liquidGhoul 15:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I've done something like this on a demo wiki at http://82.138.219.137/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page (on my home PC so its sporadically available) it uses a combination of DPL and some custom extensions. Chances of getting these into the main namespace are unfortunatly vanishinly small (us mathematicians have spent a year trying to get a better mathematical typsetting). --Salix alba (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- The use of biogeographical borders are just as useful as political boundaries, but much easier to maintain. Using the US states as an example. It would take forever to categorise every US native species into their respective states. This is how the categories become useless. People create them for an endemic species, and they never get filled out (look at Category:Fauna of New York). Say you were looking for a species of frog from a state in eastern US (lets use Green Frog). It is much easier to categorise this article in Fauna of eastern United States. However, if it is categorised into all the states, there is a good chance it won't be categorised into all the categories (as it is). The person looking for that article is left in the dark because it is impossible for people to keep up with the number of categories. Seriously, how many US state articles have 0-1 articles? Also, if we use states as categories, when does it stop. Should we have Fauna of Gloucester? There are publications which use townships in rural Australia for fauna/flora. We don't have to follow every convention that is out there. Hell, we don't already!
- On the use of countries, I also agree with GameKeeper. Splitting up Europe or New Guinea by their countries just doesn't make sense. We should use boundaries which the fauna/flora chose, not some arbitrary borders created by humans. --liquidGhoul 15:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Countries have their uses as that what people know best. An alternative would be to use List of ecoregions a fairly well established division. --Salix alba (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Categorising by List of ecoregions may be the most valid. Then the Category:Fauna of Andorra like pages could become redirects or disambiguation pages. Suggested regions as Western/Northern/Eastern/Southern/Central {Europe|Afrika|Asia|...} should not be used unless it is proper classification biology. If Wikipedia implements online database features then it would make sense to provide SELECT * from FAUNA where COUNTRY = '...' but per country categories are not the right tool here and now. Pavel Vozenilek 14:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Categorisation by List of ecoregions seems a good one to me. The Ecoregion classification seems ideal for this problem. See also the (now inactive) Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecoregions. Organising by ecoregion does not mean that organisation by countries must cease to exist, there will be at least some overlap. It is useful to be able to find Biota/Fauna/Flora bsed on country. GameKeeper 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- IMO the categorisation by ecoregion should be primary and expected. Information about country should be provided only if the animal is endemic and gets frequently associated with the country. e.g. Panda. This should keep "fauna in XYZ country" reasonably small and maintainable. Pavel Vozenilek 14:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Categorising by List of ecoregions may be the most valid. Then the Category:Fauna of Andorra like pages could become redirects or disambiguation pages. Suggested regions as Western/Northern/Eastern/Southern/Central {Europe|Afrika|Asia|...} should not be used unless it is proper classification biology. If Wikipedia implements online database features then it would make sense to provide SELECT * from FAUNA where COUNTRY = '...' but per country categories are not the right tool here and now. Pavel Vozenilek 14:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Countries have their uses as that what people know best. An alternative would be to use List of ecoregions a fairly well established division. --Salix alba (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Categorizing by ecoregions
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
Australasia
Indo-Malayan
|
|
Neotropical
Oceania
|
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)
[edit] mass deletion of categories
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)
[edit] Another possible way to organize these categories
Perhaps the best example of what's wrong with the present categories lies in:
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)
[edit] problem is in the articles
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)
[edit] Separate problems
[edit] Is organising by country valid for biota/flora/fauna
- Is by country valid for biota? List of ecoregions
- List of ecoregions suggested in the orginal discussion GameKeeper 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Organisation by country is useful GameKeeper 09:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What is the best mechanism to organise
- Are Lists of Categories (or any other method) the best way to organise this?
[edit] 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Mechanisms to change
- 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)
[edit] Future enhancements of MediaWiki
- 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)
- No, but I would be inetrested in details of what the replacement would look like. TeunSpaans 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
- No, but I would be inetrested in details of what the replacement would look like. TeunSpaans 17:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
[edit] Using maps
This is copied from WT:TOL. Please reply here.
It might not be a bad idea to have a map which links to all the ecoregions of the world. I don't know if it is entirely possible, but have a map on the text/explanatory section of Category:Fauna by continent, which has overlaid links to all the continent categories. Then, when you go to Category:Wildlife of Oceania (by clicking the map or the text), there is a map of Oceania, with links to all the subcategories (New Zealand, Australia, New Guinea etc.), and it goes down the line. This way, we can get rid of the political boundary categories, which have the disadvantage of getting out of hand, and get rid of the confusion caused by ecoregions, as well as the confusion caused by US states etc., as not many people know them.
I know this idea would take a long time, but would those opposed deleting the politcal categories be willing to use this alternative (which would involve the eventual deleting of political categories)? I would be willing to put a lot of work into this, but only if it eventually results in the cleaning up of the categories. We would need to vote on deleting political categories upon the completion of this project before anyone starts creating maps, as it could waste time otherwise. Just to make clear, the political categories wouldn't be deleted till after the maps are all created, but the decision to delete them would be voted on prior to the maps. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 14:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- There is a useful map showing ecorgeions online here [1]. it is mainly good but unfortunately some of the colors used for different adjacent eco-regions look identical (see the UK) but otherwise a useful resource. If you are going down this line I would recommend starting with Commons:Category:SVG_world_maps and using inkscape to slice it up. I know clickable maps are now possible , see 2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Venues. GameKeeper 14:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- We would need to agree on which set of ecoregions to use, that would be part of the voting process prior to beginning the project. I know about superimposing text over images, I have seen it here. I remember a technology in which you could superimpose a link over an area on pixels. I don't know if that would be feasable over different browsers, or in mediawiki. If we can use it, that would be the best way. If we cant, I would go with the text over images solution. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 14:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I found what I was thinking of here, and it seems it is not compatable with all browsers. Looks like I will use text. I will create a prototype for the continents some time after next Friday. People can decide whether I should continue or not then. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 13:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- We would need to agree on which set of ecoregions to use, that would be part of the voting process prior to beginning the project. I know about superimposing text over images, I have seen it here. I remember a technology in which you could superimpose a link over an area on pixels. I don't know if that would be feasable over different browsers, or in mediawiki. If we can use it, that would be the best way. If we cant, I would go with the text over images solution. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 14:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I'd like to help somehow, but the last language I learned was C (no extensions). I'm willing to learn if this does move forward, however. -- Donald Albury 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- You should only need wiki markup, unless of course you have a better idea in mind? Check out Psychoactive drug to see how the syntax works, it isn't too hard, just takes some trial and error to get the positions right. Thanks --liquidGhoul 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to help somehow, but the last language I learned was C (no extensions). I'm willing to learn if this does move forward, however. -- Donald Albury 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks, I'll take a look at it. -- Donald Albury 15:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Species distribution data is collected at points. Range data is generally little more than an educated guess. Anything more than point data is difficult to come up with.
- Unless you want to actually go and hunt down the original surveys (many of which are not published) it's rarely possible to determine what's real in a range map and what's extrapolated/interpolated. And that is if you are lucky enough to have a range map. For plant you tend to have the specimens that someone bothered to cite in a flora - depending on the scale of the flora it might just be one collection per country.
- If you have locational data, converting that to ecoregion is neither simple nor trivial. Ecoregions are not real biological entities - they're opinions, which are themselves based on underlying "local" vegetation classifications. The authors of the system came up with broad categories, to which they attempted to assign existing categories of vegetation. Why these categories? And are they meaningful? The one attempt I have seen to evaluate ecoregions (for the US) found that there was no evidence that the boundaries between ecoregions reflected meaningful changes in species distributions.
- If you have your species distribution data and you trust the ecoregion map for your country of interest, now you have to assign a species to an ecoregion. How do you do that? If you are lucky enough have a range map and an ecoregion map, and you see that the range map intersects with two ecoregions, do you assign the species to both ecoregions? If you don't know the quality of data used to construct both maps, you really can't.
Obviously this ignores the OR and NPOV problems. Guettarda 14:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Obviously"? I don't see it. I am yet to find an ecoregion system I am happy with, but flat out rejecting them is ridiculous. I don't want one that is very specific, as that has the same problems as US states. What I want is something that is really broad. I would like to keep Australia as one (maybe three) regions, and if we split up New Guinea, it isn't based on a longitudinal line, as that is extremely stupid in my eyes. I don't want to make the system more complicated, I want to simplify it, so as to not have the problems that are occuring in the US and European categories.
- You say that the range maps are just an extrapolation of point references. I know that, and what I am trying to do is remedy this. The problem with political lines is that they do exactly this. There are very small countries in Europe and very small states in the US. A range map may go through these countries/states, even though there is no proof of the animal existing there. If we make the areas much larger, and based on geographical differences (like a mountain range or ocean) we have much less chance of doing this.
- To give an example of the scale I want. If I were to split Australia, it would be split into south-eastern Australia (SE Qld, eastern NSW, Vic and Tasmania), tropical north Australia and arid western Australia. There are animals (like the Desert Tree Frog) which cross into all of these regions, but it is well documented and there isn't much chance of error. If we split Australia up politically, it would be OR as to whether the many species endemic to SE Qld are also native to NSW. --liquidGhoul 09:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- By "obviously" I meant that these reservations were in addition to the (seemingly obvious to me) problems of OR (because it would be OR if we were to carry out the steps I outlined in order to fit species to ecoregions) and NPOV (because it amounts to an endorsement of one particular system). Guettarda
-
-
- Do you seriously think it matters? All we have to do is create a system which makes it easy for people to browse Wikipedia's articles. The current state is terrible, as it is confusing as all hell, too diversified for anyone to fill categories, and the boundaries too small to be accurate. Categories are one of the things which usually stay within Wikipedia. If we were to choose a system, it should be based on ease of use, and not worrying about NPOV or OR. I will try to minimise NPOV and OR with the regional system I choose, but we shouldn't be that worried considering we are only trying to make a browsable index to make Wikipedia acessable. The guidelines for OR and NPOV are based on the Main namespace. It doesn't really apply here.
- Please, read what I have actually said, you have yet to actually respond to my ideas. Can you think of an alternative which doesn't have the problems you are talking about, and the problems I am talking about. The use of large regions basically gets rid of the OR problems. NPOV is not a problem here, we are not using the main namespace, and are just trying to make Wikipedia accessable. We should use whatever system is the most convenient (I don't think it will offend anyone), and there are just too many problems with the political system. --liquidGhoul 20:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do I seriously think it matters? How not? To begin with, NPOV and NOR are core policies - of course they apply to categorisation. But, as I said above, the major problem is accuracy. In most cases the data just doesn't exist to support this system. Coming up with a system like that involves going beyond available data. Even if you aren't concerned about core policies (which, in the case of NPOV, has been described as "non-negotiable" by Jimbo), doesn't the problem with accuracy bother you? Guettarda 13:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
-
(removing indents)This is a quote from WP:NOR, and is also talking about NPOV:
- "Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace."
I obviously think these are extremely important policies, however, categorisation is different. If Wikipedia is ever to be published on hard copy, it will not include categorisation, and when a mirror of Wikipedia is made, it tends not to use categories. I still want to obey these policies as much as possible (and I will do NOR as much as possible). But, the NPOV things doesn't make sense. We are favouring a system which is most convenient for us. This policy was created to create balance within an article. If we take NPOV everywhere, we wouldn't be able to do heaps of the things which improve Wikipedia, like featured content. Also, I could use the same argument for political boundaries. If we use political boundaries, we are favouring the political system over every other system. It is not feasible to use NPOV in every area of Wikipedia. In the articles, it is non-negotiable, but elsewhere it is negotiable.
I have said tonnes of times that I am worried about accuracy. Here is a quote from above, please read it and take it into account:
- "You say that the range maps are just an extrapolation of point references. I know that, and what I am trying to do is remedy this. The problem with political lines is that they do exactly this. There are very small countries in Europe and very small states in the US. A range map may go through these countries/states, even though there is no proof of the animal existing there. If we make the areas much larger, and based on geographical differences (like a mountain range or ocean) we have much less chance of doing this."
- "the current state is terrible, as it is confusing as all hell, too diversified for anyone to fill categories, and the boundaries too small to be accurate."
I have bolded the important bits, please do not ignore them. They apply to your specific concerns. Thanks. --liquidGhoul 23:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The rules that apply to the main namespace apply to the template, portal and category namespaces as well. What these rules don't apply to are the Wikipedia and User namespaces, since they are not part of the "final product". That final product will is generally seen as a hypertext document, not as paper. If you apply the idea that "it wouldn't make a difference in paper" then all hyperlinks are irrelevant.
- "But, the NPOV things doesn't make sense. We are favouring a system which is most convenient for us" - you could make that argument almost anywhere is Wikipedia, and NPOV is widely ignored. That doesn't make it ok. NPOV cannot be defined out of existence. NPOV in category naming and membership is widely discussed. It's silly to say that it doesn't apply to categories, templates and portals.
- "This policy was created to create balance within an article" - no, it wasn't. The NPOV policy exists to prevent Wikipedia from endorsing any particular point of view as true.
- "Also, I could use the same argument for political boundaries" - yes, that's true. You should have a look at the maps of India. They include the borders controlled by India, the areas claimed by India but controlled by China and Pakistan, and the areas controlled by India but claimed by China and Pakistan. While fringe viewpoints cannot be given undue weight, all well-established viewpoints are given equal validity.
- "If we use political boundaries, we are favouring the political system over every other system" - umm, political units and biological units are two distinct systems. While there are minor disputes about borders (and a few major ones, which attract a lot of attention and discussion regarding categorisation). That isn't the case when we talk about biological classification systems - we don't even have a single name for these units. They are totally separate issues.
- "I have said tonnes of times that I am worried about accuracy" - and yet you argue in favour of using a system with huge accuracy.
- "There are very small countries in Europe and very small states in the US. A range map may go through these countries/states, even though there is no proof of the animal existing there. If we make the areas much larger, and based on geographical differences (like a mountain range or ocean) we have much less chance of doing this."
- To begin with the whole "range map" issue isn't meaningful if you are trying to come up with "species by country". No species should be listed in "Species of Foo" unless they have been recorded in Foo. No one should be looking at range maps to determine whether a species should be included in any given country or state. They should be basing it on records from that country. This is not true for "Species by Ecoregion". Since "Species by Ecoregion" records don't exist, you need to look at range maps and guess. Not a good plan.
- Secondly, in general at the country level there are good records. Few mappers will include a species in a country from which it has not been collected, even if they think it should have been collected there. With regards to US states, it's even less true. For well-enough known taxa (I'm not talking about nematodes here) you can get state-level distributions for most species online. They aren't range maps, they are simply an illustration of the states in which a species has been recorded.
- "the current state is terrible, as it is confusing as all hell, too diversified for anyone to fill categories, and the boundaries too small to be accurate" - what is that comment in reference to? I don't know what your point is.
- "I will do NOR as much as possible" - if you avoid NOR, then the project is dead in the water. Species-by-ecoregion data just doesn't exist, not on any large scale. Boundaries of ecoregions are imprecise.
If species-by-ecoregion data don't exist, and if precise boundaries of ecoregions don't exist, how do you propose to create "species-by-ecoregion" categories which are (a) accurate, and (b) not original research? Guettarda 00:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
(I've put a line in to seperate the conversation, it is hard to read)
- "The rules that apply to the main namespace apply to the template, portal and category namespaces as well. What these rules don't apply to are the Wikipedia and User namespaces, since they are not part of the "final product". That final product will is generally seen as a hypertext document, not as paper. If you apply the idea that "it wouldn't make a difference in paper" then all hyperlinks are irrelevant."
- I am yet to find a mirror site which uses our categories.
- "umm, political units and biological units are two distinct systems. While there are minor disputes about borders (and a few major ones, which attract a lot of attention and discussion regarding categorisation). That isn't the case when we talk about biological classification systems - we don't even have a single name for these units. They are totally separate issues."
- You are obviously not understanding me here. Some authors use biogeographical regions when they are describing a distribution, others use political. If we were to use political regions for categorisation, we would be favouring those who use political regions. That is why I think the NPOV argument is irrelevant.
- "no, it wasn't. The NPOV policy exists to prevent Wikipedia from endorsing any particular point of view as true."
- What do you think I was saying? Also, how does categorisation by region do anything like that?
- The political system is encouraging users to create categories based on small regions. After they have created them, no-one wants to do the work to fill them, as it requires one to add multiple categories to lots of articles. This is just too much work. If you want an example, Category:Fauna of Australia is a broad category, and Category:Fauna of New York is a smaller category. There are more English speakers with internet access in the state of New York than there is in Australia, so why the lack of articles?
- Obviously, the political system does not always work. How about we discuss this on a case-by-case basis. Using one system doesn't work for the entire world. It would make more sense to use a system based on 1)What is most convenient for us, and 2)What is commonly used for that region. New Guinea is one that I am very unhappy with. All the books and most the articles I have ever read on New Guinea fauna (and there have been quite a few), have never split it into Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya. It was always kept as New Guinea. Same goes for Australia (now, when little was known it was often split up). However, things I have read about Europe usually split it up politically. Would you be willing to come to a compromise, where the community discusses how we should split up the world based on the above two criteria? Now that I think about it, I am happier with this than one universal system, even if it was mine. --liquidGhoul 03:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
A map has now been created for Category:Fauna by continent. It is obviously not complete, as the categories in that category need to be cleaned up (remove fish from there to start with), and some extra areas such as Pacific Islands etc. need to be added. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
