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.
Nominator's rationale: merge as an unnecessary category layer for these countries, all the above container categories contain only between 1 and 4 subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
dividing countries by city is generally not useful. These categories are already divided by district/region/state. the city categories make sense at that level, but dividing religions between those in cities and those in rural areas is not helpful at all. Rathfelder (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2018 (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.
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 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.
Nominator's rationale: For large countries (e.g. Australia) a fauna-of-country category may make sense. However, for small countries that a species is found in the country is usually non-defining (the only species article in these categories is a spider that is "widespread in Europe, ...") and such categories are so incomplete that they don't work as lists of species. Only the eponymous articles need upmerging as the spider article is already in Category:Spiders of Europe and the list articles in these categories are already suitably categorized. Note: Previous CFDs (example) have deleted subcats. Note: these categories were deleted in 2007 and since re-created (afaics without discussion, by a now-blocked editor) so I recommend salting. Note: That a country is a sovereign state doesn't mean it needs (or "deserves") a set of biota-of categories - otherwise we'd have categories such as Moths-of-Vatican-City. DexDor(talk)19:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The desirability of the fauna-of-country category system is a much bigger question that should not be discussed and demolished piecemeal in a place where few relevant editors see it, as is now happening (a discussion I would not like to have during the coming holiday season...). I do not see why some countries should be discriminated just because they are small. The interest for these categories comes from the fact that the world is organized in sovereign states, not that countries are natural biogeographic units by themselves (with few exceptions). Recognizing "Fauna of Luxembourg" does not logically imply that "Moths-of-Vatican-City" should be recognized. Micromesistius (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is confounding the question whether there should be a category "Fauna of ...", and what should be included in such category. For Europe, there is currently not much tradition of including single species in "Fauna of ..." categories, regardless of whether that is desirable or not (the situation is different for different regions and animal groups). However, these categories form a natural and intuitive tree, and are good places to place list articles, "Fauna of ..." articles, as well as eventual "Endemic fauna of ..." categories. Micromesistius (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree it's not defining? So what do you think the inclusion criteria for categories like this should be? Your "not much tradition" statement is incorrect/misleading; there were many articles about species below these fauna-of categories (e.g. in birds-of categories) that have been deleted (see link in nom). DexDor(talk)19:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Defining" is not a binary character. I agree that it is not particularly defining for the spider species in question. I also do not like that a species is included in a rather random subset of possible categories at the same geographic level, so for this species I would remove the country categories. However, how a single spider is categorized is rather irrelevant. The most "appropriate" system will probably differ between organismal groups, and likely also between geographic areas. This might not seem quite ideal, but at the same time, we are dealing with a vast array of different organisms. What works for amphibians may not work for springtails. The Plant project seems to be doing fine with a system that allows for different levels of geographic resolution, depending on how widespread species are. One difference between animals and plants is that animals have more high-level taxonomic structure that is obvious for a non-specialist and that is correlated with their dispersal ability. To me this suggests that different Tree of Life projects should be able to decide what works best for them (as the Plant project has done). Micromesistius (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re "these categories form a natural and intuitive tree" - that ignores that different editors interpret these categories in different ways. Re these categories being a good way to group together lists and endemic categories - I partly agree, however I don't think that grouping is necessary (especially as the categories can be linked in the category text) and it would result in some organisms-of-place categories being just for lists/endemics and other categories with similar names (for larger regions) being intended to include articles about organisms; that would be confusing for editors/readers. DexDor(talk)07:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that agreeing on some principles would be good, but as stated above, I do not believe that a fully unified system for all animals is possible, nor desirable. Micromesistius (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for small areas like this don't work as lists of fauna because they are so massively incomplete; most animals that are found in (for example) Liechtenstein will not mention that country in the article text (instead saying something like "found across Europe") and hence haven't been categorized for that country. DexDor(talk)06:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That will depend on the type of organism in question. For groups with typically wide distributions, I would agree. For groups with typically restricted distributions, I disagree. Micromesistius (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So, once again, what would the inclusion criteria for such a category be? You appear to be suggesting that Category:Fauna_of_Fooland would be for animals found in Fooland, but excluding animals with a "wide distribution" (however that's defined) - and that's in addition to any Category:Endemic_fauna_of_Fooland. Or would the inclusion criteria depend on the type of animal (spider, bird etc)? DexDor(talk)19:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to achieve uniform criteria within major groups of animals, with typical range being an important criterion. Also practical issues matter, i.e., whether list articles are available and maintained. Micromesistius (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Fauna of Australia is a more appropriate category than Fauna of Liechtenstein is a statement of fact (being found in Australia is usually/always defining for a species; being found in Liechtenstein is rarely/never defining). It does not imply that Liechtenstein is any less of a country (e.g. less important, less interesting ...) than Australia; it's simply about the most appropriate way to categorize animals (i.e. whether or not the country corresponds to a region that is suitable for such categorization). DexDor(talk)06:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Fauna of Australia is a more appropriate category than Fauna of Liechtenstein is a statement of opinion. "Appropriate" and "fact" do not go well together. Micromesistius (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Australia covers a larger area and is more geographically isolated than Liechtenstein. That an animal is native to Australia is usually (if not always) more defining (e.g. mentioned more prominently in the article text) than for Liechtenstein. Do you consider those to be facts or opinions? DexDor(talk)20:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have had the discussion that DexDor calls for many times, with the result that we have merged to a wider category. Australia is a completely different case, as there is a major boundary in the fauna at the Wallace line, between the indigenous species of Asia and those of Australasia. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but to the extent to which I have seen these discussions, they do not involve editors whom I have seen contributing to animal articles, other than modifying/removing categories (of course, I follow only a tiny fraction of animal articles, so they might be active in areas I do not see). I suspect that many editors do not know that they would need to visit CFD pages on nearly daily basis, or start following category pages themselves. Following discussions here requires extra effort and dedication, and most of the time I become aware of them it is already too late. As I see it, deleting categories for big countries like Saudi Arabia and Yemen was a major step backward, but I missed the discussion. Micromesistius (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categories like this lead to overcategorizing animals by all the countries in their range. This is the type of thing better covered by lists than categories. Categories have to have some clear connection to the articles they are applied to, this like award cats and performer by performance categories is a clear violation of that guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"better covered by lists than categories" — perhaps in principle, but where are those lists? With the exception of birds and mammals, even major vertebrate groups are very patchily covered by fauna of country lists, and where they exist, are often incomplete or not maintained. It also strikes me as odd to imply that a species' distribution is unimportant. Micromesistius (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2019 (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.
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.
An alternative to the proposed merge would be a rename (e.g. to "Birds by ocean") and removal from Category:Seabirds. Another option would be to change the subcats so that they are just for seabirds.
For info: Most/all of this seabirds-by-location structure was created by an editor who has since been blocked for disruptive categorization. I'd be interested in other editor's thoughts about whether seabirds should be categorized by oceans (as well as by continents). DexDor(talk)18:56, 19 December 2018 (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.
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 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 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.
