One of my reasons for this is the ambiguousness surrounding common names. I'd prefer categories to be just the opposite - always using the scientific name because it will always exist (although it might not be unique and will need to be disambiguated). Article names are preferred to be common, when one exists. So that gets us into whether using common names for categories is preferred over scientific. A dump of all the articles in the Category:Mammalia should give every mammal species article, but should also include all the intermediary taxon articles (cetaceans, primates, carnivores, etc). The point of categories isn't only for navigating up and down the category hierarchy, It's for creating lists and dump off all the children of a certain category. However, if they are, I'd prefer they very closely mimic the taxonomy hierarchy. hike395 14:53, (UTC) Actually, I'm still not certain I want to have categories used for ToL articles.
#Tree it archive how to#
Not sure how to resolve this, but I would still urge common categories names. There already is a Category:Trees, which does not map easily into taxonomy. I realize that there are sticky points in using the common names. There doesn't seem to be much point to just replicating the taxonomy in categories like Category:Cupressaceae, is there? People can always browse up and down easily through the taxoboxes. In fact, one could argue that the only reason to use the MW categorization system for the tree of life is to make a common name scaffolding around the strict scientific hierarchy already expressed in the taxoboxes. For me, I know the taxonomic names of a few families and orders (like Mustelidae), but I would like to browse the Tree of Life with common names, like Category:Weasels.
I would urge participants to consider common names for categories, for reader-friendliness. So, we can go ahead and start to categorize species, if we wish. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:39, (UTC) Looks like the category layout bug in MonoBook has been circumvented by having categories display at the bottom of the page. It would be good to discuss what categories people would find most useful, however I don't think we can use them yet. Add a category to an article causes the taxobox to be forced into the centre of the page (with lots of whitespace to its right) rather than left right-aligned as it should be. Unfortunately categories are useless with respect to ToL articles at the moment. I was going to suggest we add categories at the order and class level (and perhaps family/genus for large classes) so that we have auto-generated lists of articles.
#Tree it archive update#
12 Update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny GroupĪlso new in 1.3 are categories.10 Modifying Taxobox_section_subdivision.
0 kommentar(er)
