Forum:Reworking our biological taxonomy system

Forums → Archive index → The Panopticon → Reworking our biological taxonomy system

This thread has been archived.

Please create a new thread on the new forums if you want to talk about this topic some more.
Please DO NOT add to this discussion.

Opening post

This forum is for discussing the improvement of our categorisation of life on this wiki, particularly with regards to species taxonomy. This is a continuation of a discussion which was ongoing when we lost the old forums. Therefore, the following post is adapted from my original post, with updates based on the consensus viewpoint presented at Thread:279580 (Temporarily at User:Danochy/Thread:279580).

The wiki's current categorisation of life at the species level is confusing and in desperate need of an overhaul. While I encourage anyone reading this to have a quick glance at the categories in question, the main categories involved are as follows:

• Category:Species: "Sentient/sapient species from around the universe."

This definition of species is wrong, as all life can be divided into species, regardless of intellect. It would be better named Category:Sapient species. In addition, categories which collect pages pertaining to a particular species have crept onto this page (e.g. Category:Stenza, Category:Tractites). These should be moved elsewhere.

• Category:Creatures: "Unintelligent creatures that do not exist in the real world."

The dictionary definition of creatures is simply "an animal, as distinct from a human being", so the use of the word here to cover non-sapient beings sort of holds up, but as Scrooge mentioned in the original thread, has also been used to refer to some obviously sapient beings. I therefore propose a rename to Category:Non-sapient species, as this is a much clearer description which still fulfils the desired purpose.

• Category:Sentient organic life - no description given.

This is a strange category, as it holds both individuals and species, is nested within Category:Species by biology and inexplicably discounts sapient silicon-based life or similar. I propose its outright deletion, making sure the individuals are placed within subcategories of Category:Individuals, and the species within the proposed Category:Sapient species.

So with that sorted, here is what a category tree would look like, with pre-existing and new subcategories fitting within.

• Category:Lifeforms

This should contain just three categories: Category:Species, Category:Individuals, and Category:Artificial beings (Potentially Category:Conceptual entities too, although I'm not sure all of its members can be defined as lifeforms). On top of that, it should contain any individual pages that don't fit into those three pages, but can still be classed as lifeforms.

• Category:Species - should contain all species, either directly or through its subcategories. There should be several subcategories (which already exist) such as Category:Species by ability, Category:Species by appearance, Category:Species by biology. Furthermore, Category:Species by taxon, Category:Sapient species, and Category:Non-sapient species should be created and will house the following:

• Category:Animal species (nested within Category:Species by taxon)

• Category:Sapient animal species (also nested within Category:Sapient species)
• Category:Non-sapient animal species (also nested within Category:Non-sapient species)

• Category:Plant species - Same subcategories as animals. One of which is currently known as Category:Sentient vegetation for some unfathomable reason.
• Category:Fungus species - Ditto. One of which is currently known as Category:Sentient fungi
• Category:Silicon-based species - Subcategories depend on Tardis:Rule of three
• Category:Crystalline species - Ditto
• Category:Gaseous species - Ditto
• Category: Bacterial species - Perhaps nested in Category:Microorganisms. I'm unsure if there have been any sapient microbes in Doctor Who fiction, but it seems likely.
• Category: Viral species - Ditto, ideally avoiding the debate of whether they can be defined as "lifeforms"; they can certainly be defined as species.

Finally, and this section is new to this thread, I would like to discuss what to do with Category:Species by biology. The scope of this category is vast and, I feel, somewhat unhelpful.

• Pages like Category:Silicon-based species and Category:Gaseous species would be better placed in Category:Species by taxon, as they really represent taxa as much as animals and plants do. Sure, they may not be evolutionary taxa, but neither are animals and plants, when it comes to the entire DWU, where they all seem to evolve a multitude of times.
• With the remaining subcategories, this category should be renamed to Category:Species by trait, which is more specific to categories such as Category:Parasitic species and Category:Binary-sex species. Category:Species by ability is also inexact, and should be merged into this new category, while Category:Species by appearance should be placed within it.

To summarise: I propose that 1. Category:Species is opened up to non-sapient lifeforms, 2. The creation/conversion of categories which house sapient and non-sapient lifeforms, 3. Category:Sentient organic life's deletion. 4. the deconvolution of Category:Species by biology.

Danochy ☎ 08:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

I support this proposal. It is a lot more sensible and intuitive than the current one. With regards to sentient bacteria, possibly The Culture? Not sure. Aquanafrahudy 📢 13:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Why would (some) conceptual entities not fit under Lifeforms off hand, do you think? Najawin ☎ 14:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Najawin asks a good question, but otherwise I support this proposal, It seems a lot better than what we have at the moment. Time God Eon ☎ 17:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I was thrown by the definition of a conceptual entities as "a being or weapon (sometimes both)", but I wasn't sure, so I was wanting to get the opinion of those more knowledgeable on the subject. Danochy ☎ 21:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

At the very least Gargoyles, Celestis, Shifts and Anarchitects are all beings(ish), iirc, and those are the four in the category. Najawin ☎ 21:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'll grant you that. But you can see how future category members might not conform to higher sets. This is a minor point though and probably uncontroversial-enough to be solved off-forum, if it ever becomes an issue. Danochy ☎ 22:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Fully support this proposed restructure. And I'd like to put it on record that I support Conceptual Beings' Rights! (Yes, put it in Category:Lifeforms). Cousin Ettolrahc ☎ 06:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion

On the whole, this thread was non-controversial. As such, the proposal as put forward by Danochy passes. On the issue of conceptual entities, Category:Conceptual entities should go in Category:Lifeforms as consensus seems to lean this way. Having read the previous thread, I think switching to "sapient" instead of "sentient" was a good idea. The Cambridge Dictionary gives one of the definitions of "sapient" as "intelligent; able to think" and I think that this sums up the category's purpose well. One small thing not bought up here is that Category:Creatures (which will now be Category:Non-sapient species) is defined as "Unintelligent creatures that do not exist in the real world". I'm ruling that the "that do not exist in the real world" bit should be removed as this does not seem to be how the category is now intended to be used. If anyone would like to discuss this further, please do so at Forum talk:Reworking our biological taxonomy system. Any other issues may also be bought up there.

I'm going to leave the actual implementation of these changes to anyone who's up for it. For renaming categories with (say) more than 10 members, I can assisit via bot from Friday. Thanks to those who particpated. Bongo50 ☎ 19:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)