Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Category:Invasive plants biological control insects[edit]

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: Rename Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarity and closer to the format of e.g. Category:Diptera used as pest control agents.  Other wording (e.g. Category:Insects used as invasive plants control agents) could also be considered - or even deletion (as this may not always be a defining characteristic). DexDor (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I picked 5 or 6 at random and they all mentioned plant control in the first para. Oculi (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.


Category:Mononymous people[edit]

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 as a copy of an existing article (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Mononymous people to article List of mononymous people
Nominator's rationale: Page was created as a category, but is structured as a list article. PohranicniStraze (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes much more sense as a list (or series of lists). Grutness...wha? 03:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - it is a fine list but an empty category. Oculi (talk) 11:23, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is not how you create a list: you create a list in mainspace, with a title that begins with "List of...", not in categoryspace. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articlise -- This is an article sitting in category space. There seem to be so many of them that I would counsel against allowing re-creation as a category, as it would not be an aid to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support makes sense as a sourced list. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a copy of List of one-word stage names so it should just be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 13:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Leptotyphlopidae by new taxa[edit]

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With one parent category and one child article this category is unnecessary. It categorizes things for not yet being in a database (which isn't a permanent characteristic). DexDor (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom, absolutely. If there was a massive task then a temporary category might make some sense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Category:Conceptual species roles[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 23:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone can find a more coherent replacement, the diffs showing the former members are here. – Fayenatic London 08:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two "main articles" Keystone species and Umbrella species don't use the term "conceptual species"; the supposed ling to "General species concepts" goes to a section "general zoology concepts" in an outline article, not a useful link to help us here. No source at all uses the combination "conceptual species roles"[1][2]. Without any indication whatsoever of what the category means and that it is a commonly used grouping or designation, it seems like some kind of WP:OR, grouping things like Species inquirenda and Scavenger together, and not the kind of category we should have. Fram (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (or upmerge if necessary) and drag the disruptive editor back to ANI. DexDor (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was just starting a discussion on the same theme with the category's creator at User_talk:Sm8900#"Conceptual_species_roles", having brought some of the categorised articles to GA without ever having heard of the category or its real-life antecedents (if any). However, I basically agree with nom and DexDor that this category is not well-founded, either in reality or in the literature. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Rename to: Category:Ecosystem niche roles
If the consensus is to delete this category, then I would yield to that. if possible I would like to suggest that I could rename this category to something like "Species concepts." it is self-evident that the term "Umbrella species" and "keystone species" are mere concepts for describing individual species; in other words, they are not taxonomic categorizations, and they are defined purely in relation to their environment, and their impact on the surrounding biosphere. so based upon that, I can rename this category, and indicates that these are concepts in themselves.
if that is not acceptable here, then I will accept the community consensus to delete this category.
if you wish, perhaps the other names might be other options as well. Please feel free to let me know if any of these might seem feasible. I'm not trying to emphasize any of these as options, based upon my own opinions; I'm simply trying to figure out what is the clearest way to elucidate this idea. so feel free to express any comments or feedback. thanks!!
  • Current suggestion: Ecosystem niche roles

  • Species concepts
  • Ecology species concepts
  • Ecological species concepts
  • Systems ecology species concepts
  • Species ecosystem roles
  • Species ecosystem concepts
I appreciate any feedback on this, and your important and valid points above. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One note; based upon your valid input above, I removed "Predation" and "Scavenger" from this category, as these are not concepts that express something about the species relational impact on other parts of its environment or habitat. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • REVISION to list of suggested names above. I have done some further reading on the articles that pertain to this topical area. Based on that, I would like to suggest this as the new possible category name, and withdraw the other suggestions: Category: Ecosystem species roles, (or else, alternately, "Species ecosystem roles.") this is based on the following passage from Keystone species, Quote: "The role that a keystone species plays in its ecosystem is analogous to the role of a keystone in an arch." So based on the highly valid and important points above, that seems like a much more viable, feasible and practical name for any such category. Again, I am open to and appreciate any feedback on this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no term exists that adequately captures what the articles in this category have in common. Biological interaction perhaps comes the closest to it, but it is broader and vaguer than that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - picking 3 words randomly from a sentence is not the usual way of naming categories. I have no idea what the inclusion criteria might be in plain English for 'Ecosystem species roles'. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. We don't want any new categories of this sort. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • New question. hm, okay, fair enough, point taken. Just one question. is there any category name that you would consider viable for a scaled-down category, to include only the entries listed below? these seem to be the core topic. If not, that's fine. I am not going to create any categories in this subject area, unless and until a sizable group of more knowledgable and more experienced editors than myself indicates their consensus beforehand.
Please note, if you prefer to not reply, that is fine. I will not construe that as agreement with the idea below. Again, I am not planning to create any category in this subject area, unless and until I get extensive discussion and consensus beforehand. thanks.
I am open to any feedback on this. thanks.
I greatly appreciate it. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still can't think of a meaningful way of describing the commonality between these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hm, okay, fair enough, @Marcocapelle:. well, I do appreciate your reply. ok, so as one suggestion perhaps we might try some nomenclature that focuses more upon concepts of ecosystems per se? i.e., perhaps that might enable us to get over any pitfalls of appearing to link this improperly to species as central concepts, since that might be prone to mis-perception?
so how about, perhaps, a Category name of "Ecological niche roles", or else alternately, perhaps "Ecological niche classifications"? or also, possibly ecosystem niche roles?? with those options, we can move away from appearing to classify species themselves in any way. the whole concept of "ecological niche" mainly applies to an entire species, obviously; it doesn't apply to individuals.
so perhaps the inclusion of the phrase "Ecological niche" would let us shift the focus to a different basis for grouping these articles together. how does that sound?? Please feel free to let me know your thoughts on those options. Very glad to have your feedback on this, of course. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
by the way, let's strike "flagship species" from the list. that way, all the remaining items refer purely to actual biological roles. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
section break for comments, if desired[edit]
  • Rename somehow -- There is a genuine category here related to species that have an important role in ecology, but this is not my speciality and I am not certain what the right term would be Category:Species concepts in ecology might answer. This should contain articles on ideas, such as those suggested by Sm8900, together with subcategories related to them. Individual species should not appear here, but possibly in such subcategories, though which should appear there may be too subjective an issue for a valid subcategory to be feasible. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a category is needed for "species that have an important role in ecology" then that wouldn't match the hodgepodge of articles that have been placed in this category. For example, Decomposer isn't (specifically) about species and Ring species isn't about a role in ecology. It would be better to delete this category and then see if anybody starts a discussion (e.g. at an appropriate wikiproject) about creating a new category with a clear scope. DexDor (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor:, thanks for your reply. to answer your points, the new proposed category name pertains to ecosystems, not ecology; i.e. category:Ecosystem niche roles. So Ring species would fit nicely with that.
as far as decomposer, that can be removed. however, I thought that any such scientific role can only apply to an entire species; i.e. since scientific findings apply obviously to the species of any organism, not to any single individual organism. however, obviously that one article can be removed, if necessary. also, thanks for your comment below, Nick Moyes. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The word "role" means the function that something performs (it's a similar meaning to "purpose") so many of the articles (e.g. Species inquirenda and Ring Species) don't really fit - and I doubt that the articles refer to the topic as a role etc.  And those for which the word "role" might fit are a mix of roles benefitting the ecosystem and roles benefitting observers of the ecosystem. WP:TNT applies. DexDor (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep I can genuinely see exactly where the creator of this category is coming from. It's actually a really meritorious attempt to group together a small number of extraordinarily important 'metaphorical' or 'proxy' roles used within ecology and conservation planning. That said, I do feel the original name chosen was a bit of WP:OR, but, my goodness, it does makes very real sense to me, and I'm struggling to find better. I genuinely think that the groupings created by this category is relevant to users like me with ecological interests. Looking around online, I see many of the article role names included in this category have been described as:
Surrogate species ref, ref;
Focal species ref, ref;
and have included such things as EDGE species and proxy species (which really could do with an article about it). I would also add Threatened species and Biodiversity Action Plan species to this category. It would not and should not contain any individual taxa, just the, errm, well, 'conceptual species roles' that Sm8900 has considerately grouped together. Frustratingly, I cannot at this time offer a better or more useful name than the one used here, though would be open to DexDor's suggestion to rename at some point in the future if a better term can be shown to be in common parlance within the ecological community. In taking my time over the last couple of hours to look into this matter, I've also concluded that suggesting links in a See also would not achieve the same result. Thus Invasive species in indeed a 'conceptual species role', just as Umbrella species or Cultural keystone species are, but would not justify a direct link from one page to another. This categorisation works very well here. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have not suggested to rename this category; it should be deleted. My opinion might change if there was a clear proposal for a better name, scope etc. DexDor (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_16&oldid=1015532195"