This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was recategorization proceeds. —Silly Dan(talk) 01:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm also against the idea of Category:Individuals by species being part of the sentient species category (whatever we call it), since it puts people in a nested subcategory of a mother category for species, which is a bit odd to me.
Some obvious problems with my scheme:
We should be prepared for arguments over whether particular "Near-Humans" go in the Human races or Near-Human species category.
Do subspecies/races get to stay in the alphabetical listing? What about the ones which may be species or subspecies, depending on interpretation?
Are some of my second-order categories unneeded?
The biological groupings are kind of arbitrary: should a Mammalian category include the rodents, felines, etc? Should all aquatic species go together?
Lets not forget a rule that we should all go by: Sentience. It states
"A sapient is a being with the ability to think intelligently.
The term sentient, however, is more commonly used and has a similar meaning—a being with the capacity to feel sensations, such as pain.
The term sentient is applied, albeit incorrectly, to both living beings and droids who demonstrate the ability to reason.
Some species that can manipulate tools, language and civilization of very primitive stage, are classified as semi-sentient or semi-sapient.
Non-sentient species are considered beasts, though this term implies that animals are incapable of feeling pain. The correct term would be non-sapient."--ShadowTrooper 01:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Problem being that almost every source uses "sentient" when the correct English term is "sapient". (Unless they're using "sentient" in terms of "can feel emotions", not just "sensations.") —Silly Dan(talk) 02:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well let's try our best to use it the proper engish way like the article says.--ShadowTrooper 02:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, if everyone wants to use it the "improper" way lets vote and change the article.--ShadowTrooper 02:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
And I was just wondering Are we going to put humans under mammals?--ShadowTrooper 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Human and Near-Human species category would go under mammals. As for the sapient/sentient question, that goes at Talk:Sentient or in a separate forum thread. —Silly Dan(talk) 02:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Just so you know Dan I agree with you on your proposal for the revamp.--ShadowTrooper 02:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I also like Mr Dan's proposal. I'd be willing to help with the mass categorizations if its implimented. Lonnyd 10:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to let you know, if you have a list of articles in which categories you want, a bot (such as Whistler) can do a majority of the work for you if you think it'll help. —Xwing328(Talk) 06:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new thread.