Category talk:Objects

Content respectively sub-categories within Category:Objects

>>> moved from Category talk:Organisms: Categorizing of Organisms as Objects <<<

Are there any objections against my categorizing Category:Organisms under Category:Objects by type, implicating analogous treatment of subcategories (e. g. Category:Animals of India<Category:Objects of India) I recently carried out? And if so, for what reasons? --Abderitestatos (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, as reported to Abderitestatos on his talk page 19:59, 24. Jan. 2013‎ in his mother tongue, his 'effort' in re-categorisation of the sub-categories of Category:Objects is (as of January 23, 2013) was not the result of a discussion respectively consense by the Wikimedians interested in that topic. As re-categorized by Abderitestatos, imho it's a very personal 'definition', p.e. to categorize 'Animals' and 'Fungi' in addition as a 'object' (they imho are not) respectively to remove existing categories and to re-categorize some former sub-categories (on country level) p.e. as 'Culture of Switzerland' etc.etc.etc.

As also pointed without any doubt in our commen mother tongue, it's not a problem related to p.e. 'Objects in India', pointed to that we have to find a consense in general and not for 'organismn' etc.

Regards, Roland

As Category:Objects is placed near the top of the Commons categories tree, it must be considered as quite comprehensive, so organisms certainly belong therein. Following some documents defining organisms as objects: [1] [2] [3]. --Abderitestatos (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Taxonizing animals as objects is at the least an incorrect practice that has most probably not yet gained acceptance on Commons and should thus be avoided or forwarded to somewhere along Village Pump or equivalent. Orrlingtalk 00:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)