Category talk:Pigs
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I think Category:Pig and Category:Pigs could be merged. Mutante 14:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
"Pigs" is not well-defined phylogenetically, whereas the taxonomic names are. Suinae is a smaller group than Suidae, but there is no difference for currently living species because all species of Suidae not in Suinae are now extinct. We certainly can and should have entries for extinct species though, so I think the broader "Suids" would be a better choice. —CodeCat 23:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- So, what do you propose to do with peccaries? I would call them pigs, but they're not in the family Suidae.Chuck Entz (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call peccaries pigs myself. I also favour the existing name, simply because it is normal English rather than biological. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- We have the taxonomic entries for technical terms, so we don't really need to go too crazy departing from common terms in vernacular language categorization. It may be fun to show off one's superior knowledge of taxonomy by insisting that birds are reptiles, that algae aren't a single high-level group, etc, but the English language terms and categorization based on them reflect how normal humans group things. I thought we were a descriptive dictionary, trying to be useful to humans. Shouldn't that also apply to categorization? DCDuring (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that we should prefer common names and common understandings whenever feasible (e.g. using CAT:Fish for all Craniata that aren't tetrapods), but "Pigs" is ambiguous. The WP article Pig refers only to the genus Sus. So should our category also refer only to that level? Are warthogs pigs? Maybe we could have both the narrower CAT:Pigs just for Sus and the wider and more technical CAT:Suina (not Suinae) to include warthogs as well as peccaries. Otherwise peccaries would have no category to go into besides CAT:Mammals. As a parallel, we already have both the broad, technical CAT:Felids and the narrower CAT:Cats just for the genus Felis. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe, but trying to cram all vernacular names of living things into some hierarchical scheme of our own devising using technical-sounding names that are imitative of the fairly changeable structure of taxonomy seems futile. If we had some evidence that users might get some benefit. Otherwise it is just a question of how useful it might be for content-oriented entry maintenance and enhancement, for which even the most technical of category names would be acceptable. DCDuring (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I agree that we should prefer common names and common understandings whenever feasible (e.g. using CAT:Fish for all Craniata that aren't tetrapods), but "Pigs" is ambiguous. The WP article Pig refers only to the genus Sus. So should our category also refer only to that level? Are warthogs pigs? Maybe we could have both the narrower CAT:Pigs just for Sus and the wider and more technical CAT:Suina (not Suinae) to include warthogs as well as peccaries. Otherwise peccaries would have no category to go into besides CAT:Mammals. As a parallel, we already have both the broad, technical CAT:Felids and the narrower CAT:Cats just for the genus Felis. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- We have the taxonomic entries for technical terms, so we don't really need to go too crazy departing from common terms in vernacular language categorization. It may be fun to show off one's superior knowledge of taxonomy by insisting that birds are reptiles, that algae aren't a single high-level group, etc, but the English language terms and categorization based on them reflect how normal humans group things. I thought we were a descriptive dictionary, trying to be useful to humans. Shouldn't that also apply to categorization? DCDuring (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- I wouldn't call peccaries pigs myself. I also favour the existing name, simply because it is normal English rather than biological. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- IMO Category:Pigs is fine, like the Category:Cats Angr mentions. I think it might be easier to just consider "Pigs" to include warthogs, peccaries, etc, but I am also OK with the proposal of adding a higher-level category as Angr proposes to include peccaries, etc. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- Wasn't it Haeckel who said "(en:)Category recapitulates (mul:)Taxonomy"? DCDuring (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
- No action taken. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)