Category talk:Orchid taxonomy

Excessive categorization?
There are quite a few categories in here that seem unnecessary, but I'm not sure of the appropriate hierarchies/policy. Should these types of categories remain or should they be deleted?

...etc.
 * Category:Cypripedioideae genera
 * Category:Cypripedioideae species
 * Category:Apostasioideae genera
 * Category:Apostasioideae species
 * Category:Epidendroideae genera
 * Category:Epidendroideae species
 * Category:Arethuseae genera
 * Category:Arethuseae species
 * Category:Arethusinae nothogenera

Thanks, Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The "species" categories are typical creation of the now banned User:NotWith, one of a number of now banned editors (or their sock-puppets) who left the category system in an utter mess. The system that should be in use is explained at WikiProject Plants/Categorization.
 * Species articles are just placed directly in the relevant taxonomic category: genus if large enough, otherwise work upwards until there's a large enough category. Opinions differ on what "large enough" means; 50-100 used to be thought to be the minimum for splitting up into smaller categories, but smaller ones seem more common now. I would say at least 10 and preferably 20 potential entries.
 * Genus articles are placed directly in the relevant taxonomic category, but are also placed in a "genera" category.
 * So Cypripedium fasciculatum should only be placed in Category:Cypripedium (with the category key "fasciculatum"); Category:Cypripedioideae species needs to be emptied and deleted. Cypripedium is correctly categorized in Category:Cypripedium, but as Cypripedioideae contains only five genera, Category:Cypripedioideae genera is too small, and should be merged upwards into Category:Orchid genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "Species" categories are very much non-standard. The only somewhat populated species categories aside from the orchid ones are Category:Bee species and Category:Bamboo species. NotWith didn't start these (or Category:Orchid species), but is responsible for creating various parent categories (Category:Amorphea species??? Sheesh.), and making a minimal effort to place a handful of pages in most of the categories they created. Bamboo species is a relatively recent non-Notwith creation, but it was created to diffuse species out of Category:Bamboo taxa, which is a marginal improvement in my opinion (I don't think Bamboo taxa should've existed in the first place). Species categories should be emptied and deleted.
 * The nothogenera subcategories aren't NotWith creations. I'm not sure how I feel about breaking nothogenera down by subtribes, rather than starting with subfamilies; I suppose the logic is that nothogenera will generally be hybrids between genera in the same subtribe. At any rate, I don't think we have articles on enough orchid nothogenera at present to make subcategories warranted.
 * "Subfamily genera" categories are fine in principle. They're not really appropriate for the smaller subfamilies, and I think "Tribe genera" categories are barely, if at all, warranted here. Plantdrew (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I missed two big species categories Category:Fern species and Category:Lycophyte species. Not NotWith creations. Plantdrew (talk) 18:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * However, I see User:Look2See1 and User:Caftaric, also banned users or sockpuppets, have played a substantial role in the development of these two as well.  has done a great job sorting out the malign effects of these editors (or this editor if they actually sockpuppets) on the "described in year" categories, but these taxonomic categories are another major mess. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I did notice Category:Taxa while cleaning up the described-in cats, and stared blankly at it while shaking my head, half surprised, but also not really. This looks worse though, because they created a much higher percentage of this large structure, building it wobbling into the clouds on their own instead of adding onto/following an existing structure. I'm glad it's been brought up more broadly (i.e. Category talk:Eukaryote type species via WT:TREE).
 * I can definitely empty out the '&lt;Genus or higher&gt; species' and '&lt;X&gt; type species' cats under Category:Orchid species, and similar that fall under plants, making sure they are in their genus cats (or higher, if need be). Can move on to non-plants after some time (both as an opportunity for more discussion, and since plants will take a non-trivial amount of time to clean up).  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

To standardize the heading for the "plant taxa" categories, I've created Plant taxa category which can be placed on the legitimate examples of such categories (see e.g. Category:Orchidoideae genera or Category:Asparagales families). I think it's important always to provide a link to the WP:PLANTS guidance on taxonomic categorization. Please feel free to edit the note it adds. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)