Talk:Ichthyosaurus anningae
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Micromesistius in topic Animal species
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ichthyosaurus anningae redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Animal species edit
Te category "Animal species ", which indisputably applies to Ichthyosaurus anningae, has twice been removed from this article. Without it, we have no category to indicate that this was a species, and not some other taxon rank. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am sorry if I appeared rude by removing the category twice, but I fail to see why this should be shown by inclusion to the "Category:Animal species". That the page title is a Latin binomial already indicates just that, and also that it belongs to "Category:Animals described in 2015". More generally, Wikipedia already contains tens of thousands of animal species articles (just a conservative guess, and could contain millions), almost all of which do not belong to "species" categories other than the moderately used "Animals described in XXXX". The category "Animal species" is absurdly incomplete at the moment, but if it ever were complete, it would be too big to be useful. If there really is an additional need to show that Ichthyosaurus anningae was a species and not something else, there should be a better way. Micromesistius (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- The page title is irrelevant to the issue of categories. Categories "Animals described in..." include genus and higher levels of taxa (see the 2014 category for examples). Other species articles may be in categories that indicate the taxon rank; or may simply not yet have had a relevant category added. And how can a supposedly "absurdly incomplete" category ever move towards completeness, if that incompleteness is used as a reason to remove things from it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I still fail to see the need or gain, and the unpopularity of "Animal species" suggests that many would agree, but if you are convinced please go ahead. I suggest adding a clarification to that category page regarding when it should be used. Micromesistius (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- The page title is irrelevant to the issue of categories. Categories "Animals described in..." include genus and higher levels of taxa (see the 2014 category for examples). Other species articles may be in categories that indicate the taxon rank; or may simply not yet have had a relevant category added. And how can a supposedly "absurdly incomplete" category ever move towards completeness, if that incompleteness is used as a reason to remove things from it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)