| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Split Category:Reptiles and Amphibians to {{fake link|Category:Reptiles}} and {{fake link|Category:Amphibians}}== | | ==Split Category:Reptiles and Amphibians to {{fake link|Category:Reptiles}} and {{fake link|Category:Amphibians}}== |
| {{SettledTPP}} | | {{SettledTPP}} |
| {{ProposalOutcome|failed|4-14|No Split}}
| | |
| | <span style="color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS;font-size:150%">No Split 4-14</span> |
|
| |
|
| Amphibians are completely different animals from reptiles. I suggest that we should split this category into two separate categories. And if you say the category is too minor to be warranted into separate categories, Squid has its own category. | | Amphibians are completely different animals from reptiles. I suggest that we should split this category into two separate categories. And if you say the category is too minor to be warranted into separate categories, Squid has its own category. |
| Line 45: |
Line 46: |
| == Split {{fake link|Category:Snakes}} == | | == Split {{fake link|Category:Snakes}} == |
|
| |
|
| {{SettledTPP}} | | {{TPP}} |
| {{ProposalOutcome|passed|9-0|split}}
| |
| Considering the sheer number of snakes in the Mario series, I don't see why there isn't a subcategory for them, especially considering that there's a subcategory for [[:Category:Frogs|frogs]]. | | Considering the sheer number of snakes in the Mario series, I don't see why there isn't a subcategory for them, especially considering that there's a subcategory for [[:Category:Frogs|frogs]]. |
|
| |
|
| Line 52: |
Line 52: |
|
| |
|
| '''Proposer''': {{User|Niiue}}<br> | | '''Proposer''': {{User|Niiue}}<br> |
| '''Deadline''': August 26, 2017, 23:59 GMT | | '''Deadline''': August 25, 2017, 23:59 GMT |
|
| |
|
| ===Support=== | | ===Support=== |
| Line 61: |
Line 61: |
| #{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per all. | | #{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per all. |
| #{{User|LuigiMaster123}} Per all. | | #{{User|LuigiMaster123}} Per all. |
| #{{User|Skuchi037}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Alex95}} - Per all.
| |
| #{{User|BBQ Turtle}} Per all.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Oppose=== | | ===Oppose=== |
| Line 84: |
Line 81: |
| * [[Slippa]] | | * [[Slippa]] |
| * [[Snake (enemy)]] | | * [[Snake (enemy)]] |
| * [[Snake (Yoshi's Story)]] | | * [[Snake (species)]] |
| * [[Tryclyde]] | | * [[Tryclyde]] |
|
| |
|
| Line 90: |
Line 87: |
| :Is this an all-inclusive list? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 20:12, 15 August 2017 (EDT) | | :Is this an all-inclusive list? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 20:12, 15 August 2017 (EDT) |
| ::It is, as far as I know. Note that there are [[:Category:Rays|multiple]] [[:Category:Eels|viable]] [[:Category:Sharks|subcategories]] with less pages. [[User:Niiue|Niiue]] ([[User talk:Niiue|talk]]) 20:19, 15 August 2017 (EDT) | | ::It is, as far as I know. Note that there are [[:Category:Rays|multiple]] [[:Category:Eels|viable]] [[:Category:Sharks|subcategories]] with less pages. [[User:Niiue|Niiue]] ([[User talk:Niiue|talk]]) 20:19, 15 August 2017 (EDT) |
| :::[[Snivy]] and [[Onix]] from Pokemon, which appear in Smash Bros., also qualify. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 19:11, 26 August 2017 (CT)
| |
| ::::I know Onix is the "Rock Snake" Pokémon, but I think it would be a step too far to call it a literal snake just because of that. Arcanine isn't a [[bulbapedia:Legendary Pokémon|Legendary Pokémon]] in the traditional sense just because it's titled the "Legendary Pokémon". {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 20:19, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::Sure, it's a golem-creature with no scales, but it looks like a snake and is called a snake. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 19:22, 26 August 2017 (CT)
| |
| ::::::How many ducks are composed of individual boulders and quack by throwing more boulders? I know, weirdness is a moot point for the ''Mario'' franchise, but it's a step too far for my liking. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 20:26, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::Combine the weirdness of the Mario franchise with the weirdness of the Pokemon franchise, which has ducks that have headache-induced psychic powers, many electric rodents (and similar small mammals), towns staffed with identical nurses and police officers, and my personal hero James. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 19:43, 26 August 2017 (CT)
| |
| ::::::::At the very least, Psyduck vaguely looks like a real duck, with its duck bill and webbed feet. Would you say that Onix and Ekans look the same? {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 20:46, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::::::::No, but Ekans, Arbok, Seviper, and Serperior don't look any more similar, and they're all snakes. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 19:54, 26 August 2017 (CT)
| |
| ::::::::::Do you ever end up in a situation where you don't like something but you have no logical or rational explanation as to why you don't like it? I'll bow out now. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 20:56, 26 August 2017 (EDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Split Category:Reptiles and Category:Amphibians== | | ==Split Category:Reptiles and Category:Amphibians== |
| {{SettledTPP}} | | {{TPP}} |
| {{ProposalOutcome|passed|12-0|split}}
| |
| OK, this is ''completely'' ridiculous. ''Anyone'' who has even looked at a zoology textbook for 3 seconds knows that Reptiles and Amphibians are classified ''completely'' separately, and Birds are closer to Reptiles than Amphibians are. The loss of the last proposal regarding this seems to have been to a serious lack of understanding of taxonomy, and these need to be split. In science, they are ''never'' classified together, period, except for that they're both Vertebrates. The 5 main groups of Vertebrates are Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals, none of which are classified within each other. This ''needs'' reversed. It's just confusing. | | OK, this is ''completely'' ridiculous. ''Anyone'' who has even looked at a zoology textbook for 3 seconds knows that Reptiles and Amphibians are classified ''completely'' separately, and Birds are closer to Reptiles than Amphibians are. The loss of the last proposal regarding this seems to have been to a serious lack of understanding of taxonomy, and these need to be split. In science, they are ''never'' classified together, period, except for that they're both Vertebrates. The 5 main groups of Vertebrates are Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals, none of which are classified within each other. This ''needs'' reversed. It's just confusing. |
| If this goes through, the two categories will be split, and each article and subcategory on the current "Reptiles and Amphibians" category will be moved to the respective category that they belong to. If it doesn't, this won't change, but I'll probably have my faith in this site damaged immensely. | | If this goes through, the two categories will be split, and each article and subcategory on the current "Reptiles and Amphibians" category will be moved to the respective category that they belong to. If it doesn't, this won't change, but I'll probably have my faith in this site damaged immensely. |
| Line 110: |
Line 98: |
| ===Support=== | | ===Support=== |
| #{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} Per proposal | | #{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} Per proposal |
| #{{User|Chester Alan Arthur}} Per proposal. | | #{{User|Niiue}} Per proposal. |
| #{{User|LinkTheLefty}} It always confused me that this category broadly groups together reptiles and amphibians based on herpetology (a field of science on cold-blooded vertebrates excepting fish) rather than taxonomy (scientific classification of biological organisms, which I imagine that categories should adhere to if anything). Per proposal.
| |
| #{{User|Baby Luigi}} Oh, this proposal being reenacted from my failed one 6 years ago. Personally, for the same reasons stated in this proposal, I was never completely comfortable with haphazardly lumping two completely separate taxonomical groups of animals together like this. I think having two types of animals grouped as one messes up navigation, as now everything related to snakes, lizards, dinosaurs, frogs, toads, salamanders, etc are now mixed in this one giant category and thus making just browsing for a type of animal difficult to find. Doc von Schmeltwick worded my thoughts far better than I ever could 6 years ago, so mostly per him.
| |
| #{{User|Time Turner}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Niiue}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Alex95}} - Per all.
| |
| #{{User|TheFlameChomp}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Ultimate Mr. L}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|Yoshi the SSM}} Per all.
| |
| #{{User|BBQ Turtle}} Per all. At the end of the day they are completely different types of animals, I reckon the only reason they were lumped together is because some of them look similar and there were a couple of cases where no-one could tell which one it was.
| |
| #{{User|Toadette the Achiever}} Difference ''is'' enough to split something, so per all!
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Oppose=== | | ===Oppose=== |
| <s>{{User|Time Turner}} Still waiting on that list. Since it's been brought up in the comments, I'll also ask about what are your plans for the resulting amphibian category and its subcategories.</s>
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Comments=== | | ===Comments=== |
| Considering that Walkazo (the first opposer of the original proposer) was literally studying to be an {{wp|Ornithology|ornithologist}} and reptiles and amphibians are grouped together to this day under {{wp|herpetology}} ''and'' searching for "study of amphibians" and "study of reptiles" both entirely display results relating to herpetology, saying that the other users have a "serious lack of understanding of taxonomy" is rather insulting. Separately, I would like to see a list of each of the categories; it won't be much help if one of them has very few entries. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 09:24, 21 August 2017 (EDT) | | Considering that Walkazo (the first opposer of the original proposer) was literally studying to be an {{wp|Ornithology|ornithologist}} and reptiles and amphibians are grouped together to this day under {{wp|herpetology}} ''and'' searching for "study of amphibians" and "study of reptiles" both entirely display results relating to herpetology, saying that the other users have a "serious lack of understanding of taxonomy" is rather insulting. Separately, I would like to see a list of each of the categories; it won't be much help if one of them has very few entries. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 09:24, 21 August 2017 (EDT) |
| :My view on that was that Walkazo had a lapse in judgement, as normally I trust and support Walkazo's opinions. But this is different, no textbook I have ever read has ''ever'' grouped them together except as vertebrates, ''period''. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 15:38, 21 August 2017 (CT) | | :My view on that was that Walkazo had a lapse in judgement, as normally I trust and support Walkazo's opinions. But this is different, no textbook I have ever read has ''ever'' grouped them together except as vertebrates, ''period''. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 15:38, 21 August 2017 (CT) |
| ::Again, herpetology is a real thing studied by real people (out of curiosity, how many textbooks have you read?). {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 16:50, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :::Plenty of Biology textbooks throughout my years, I'd say at least 5 or 6, most of which have been released since 2005, all of which always pointed Herpetology as primarily being the study of Reptiles, and often specifically snakes. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 16:21, 21 August 2017 (CT)
| |
| ::::The "Study of" terms here are irrelevant. We are referring solely to Class when we refer to how things are split taxonomically on this level, with smaller clades added in as subcategories as needed. The main classes of vertebrates are Fish (Cartilaginous and Bony), Amphibians, Reptiles, Mammals, and Birds. This wiki template ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Chordata ) shows how Chordates are currently classified, and with it, it shows that both Mammals and Birds are actually closer to Reptiles than Amphibians are. Yes, it's Wikipedia, but I'm sure it can be found in other places. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 17:51, 21 August 2017 (CT)
| |
| :::::You clearly know more about the subject than me, so I'll defer to your judgment. Still, I'd like to see separate lists of the reptiles and amphibians. {{User:Time Turner/sig}} 21:09, 21 August 2017 (EDT)
| |
| @{{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} I think you misunderstood what Walkazo was saying. She said that the categories had to be grouped in order not to create too many categories with few elements that are then of little use for navigation, she also added that grouping said categories wasn't as anti-scientific as it sounds, as there are indeed people who study both amphibians and reptiles named herpetologists, said name coming from the ''herpetile'' class which is now not in use anymore because of the differences between these classes that you mentioned but also because there's plenty of amphibians and reptiles discovered. Is it the same case here?--[[User:Mister Wu|Mister Wu]] ([[User talk:Mister Wu|talk]]) 01:17, 22 August 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :Honestly, I think that the "Amphibians" category should just be renamed from the "Frogs" category, with the addition of the salamander [[Muddee]] and any other salamanders I don't know about. That would also solve the problem of whether tadpoles should go under the same category as frogs, since it would just be Category:Amphibians. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 00:34, 22 August 2017 (CT)
| |
| ::Personally, I think the mixing of two different types of animals worsens navigation far more than two separate, smaller categories. {{User:Baby Luigi/sig}} 23:01, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
| |
| @Time Turner I already said, we would just rename the Frogs category and add [[Muddee]] and any other Salamanders to it, which would also solve any uneasiness about tadpoles. Ergo: <br>
| |
| *[[Bopping Toady]]
| |
| *[[Frog]] (which is splittable into the ones from Yoshi's Story, Dark Moon, and Odyssey)
| |
| *[[Frog Pirate]]
| |
| *[[Frogfucius]]
| |
| *[[Frogfucius' Student]]
| |
| *[[Frogog]]
| |
| *[[Frogoon]]
| |
| *[[Greninja]]
| |
| *[[Hopgoon]]
| |
| *[[Horned Toady]]
| |
| *[[Jumper]]
| |
| *[[Kleptoad]]
| |
| *[[Korogaeru]]
| |
| *[[Lightfish]] (which as I explained in an edit summary, does indeed appear to be a tadpole and not a fish)
| |
| *[[Lumpy (enemy)]] (Which is potentially splittable due to Prince Froggy and Red Froggy)
| |
| *[[Madpole]]
| |
| *[[Muddee]]
| |
| *[[Prince Froggy]]
| |
| *[[Puchigaeru]]
| |
| *[[Ribbite]]
| |
| *[[Soundfrog]]
| |
| *[[Tad Rock]]
| |
| *[[Tadpole]]
| |
| *[[Tadpole (Wario Land 3)]]
| |
| *[[Wart]]
| |
| *[[Waterfall Climber]]
| |
| *[[Winky the Frog]] <br>
| |
| {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 22:31, 23 August 2017 (CT)
| |
|
| |
| Before I vote, I want to know if any of the points mentioned in the previous proposal, specifically Walkazo's, are still valid to take into account. {{User:Alex95/sig}} 23:41, 23 August 2017 (EDT)
| |
| :Not really, I've subdivided the category enough that the amount of pages that would need changing the tags is currently at 52, which isn't a particularly massive feat. So the "too much work for too little gain" argument is no longer valid. As for her other arguments, I've already explained above. And there's certainly enough entries if we do it the way I suggested. EDIT: OK, there's more than 52, everything mentioned above as well due to renaming the Frogs category. Give or take 1 or 2 due to overlap in my counting. {{User|Doc von Schmeltwick}} 22:50, 23 August 2017 (CT)
| |
