User:DexDor/Categorization of organisms by geography


 * This essay is still under development.



Wikipedia contains many thousands of articles about organisms (e.g. articles about species of plants and animals). Each such article should be categorized by the position of the organism in the tree of life (e.g. articles about birds should be in Category:Birds).

Many organism articles have also been categorized by characteristics such as when the organism was first described. There are also characteristics such as being extinct or being edible that apply to some organisms and for which there are corresponding categories.

There are also categories based on the distribution (range) of the organism (i.e. which countries, continents etc the organism is/was found in). This categorization (e.g. putting articles in a category titled "Birds of Luxembourg") is the subject of this essay.

Definingness
Many species articles mention prominently (e.g. in the first sentence of the lede) the distribution of the species (e.g. "Foobaris foobaris is a species of foobar found across much of Africa." or "... found only in north west Barfooistan").

Thus, placing such an article in a geographical category does not necessarily always break the WP:NON-DEFINING guidelines. However, unlike characteristics such as position in the tree of life, the distribution of an organism can not always easily be categorized.

What does "... of " actually mean?
One cause of problems with organisms-of-place categories is that different editors (often with different backgrounds) interpret the "of " part of the category name differently; possible meanings of "Category:Foobars of Barfoo" include: This disagreement means (1) we get one editor adding a category tag to an article and then another editor (or sometimes even the same editor ) removing it (a waste of editor time), (2) the categories are less useful (to readers/editors) than they could be (and may be very misleading). This essay supports the first of these meanings, but only for large regions (e.g. continents) or, possibly, the phasing out of this categorization altogether.
 * 1) It's for any foobars found anywhere in Barfoo.  This interpretation could mean that the category contained the same species etc as are listed in an article named "List of foobars of Barfoo" except that the list can also include species for which en wp does not (yet) have an article.  This interpretation can lead editors (often working from off-wiki lists/databases) to categorize articles about organisms for small regions (countries or smaller) that are not mentioned in the article.
 * 2) It's for foobars found anywhere in Barfoo, but excluding foobars that would be "better categorized" in a category for a wider region.
 * 3) It's only for foobars found throughout Barfoo. Difficulties with this interpretation include: (1) This leads to difficulties in defining "throughout" (or similar). (2) This isn't the way most editors interpret these categories. (3) Under this interpretation a category titled "Category:Endemic foobars of Barfoo" would not belong under a category titled "Category:Foobars of Barfoo" (which would probably be confusing to readers/editors).
 * 4) It's for foobars found only in Barfoo.  However, the usual convention in en wp is that such categories use the word "endemic" (e.g. "Category:Endemic foobars of Barfoo").
 * 5) A combination of several of the above -different inclusion criteria would apply at different levels (county/country/continent etc). This would almost certainly be too complex to be maintainable.
 * 6) A combination of several of the above - different inclusion criteria would apply to different types of organisms.

The category structure can be confusing / convoluted
For example, the Chamois article was (via other categories) in Category:Marine organisms.

For example, (as of October 2020) animals found in Metropolitan France are categorized below Category:Fauna of France, but plants found in Metropolitan France are categorized above Category:Flora of France (due to different parts of the category structure interpreting "France" differently).

Other problems

 * Where species-of-region categories have been created for small (on a global scale) regions (e.g. countries in Europe) articles are placed in these categories even though it is not a defining characteristic.


 * A CFD of fauna categories in 2008 resulted in merge, but many of the categories have since been re-created.


 * Re categorization of species by area (e.g. refer to User_talk:Couiros22).


 * This is an example of an article in 18 country categories for countries that are not mentioned in the text.


 * Here 88 edits were made to a single article (in 6 months) that just change categories.


 * There's a particular problem of editors working from off-wiki databases and categorizing organism articles for countries (or other regions) regardless of the article text.


 * "A large number of fungi are global in their distribution - placing them in such a category would obviate the need to laboriously list individual countries by name"(comment on a user talk page)

Quotes
"There are numerous cases where the categories are added in a very slipshod way, difficult to evaluate if the categorization is correct." (User:Shyamal at a CFD in 2009)

"As an entomologist and participant in WikiProject Insects, I have reservations about how useful these by-continent or by-country categories are as the vast majority of articles are not categorized at all. However, keeping it at the continent level (with major islands like Madegascar and New Zealand retained due to their specialized biota), should simplify Wikipedia's categorization issues. Should the tens of thousands of insect articles ever be categorized by place, more subcategories would be needed, but this is unlikely to happen in the near future due to the lack of editors and scientific data." (User:M. A. Broussard at a CFD in 2016)

"The only geographic categorys, which make sense are such like "category:mammals of Africa" or better "category: mammals of the Afrotropic ecozone". (User:Altaileopard at Talk:Leopard in 2007)

"At times the number of categories some animal articles are included in borders on the ludicrous." (User:Johnpacklambert at a CFD in 2014)

"For flora [of place] categories to be complete lists, every plant article would have to be categorized with every appropriate lowest rank in the WGSRPD hierarchy (with a resulting ridiculous level of category clutter)." (User:Plantdrew at WT:WGSRPD in 2014)

"Red Deer exist on several continents, so their presence in the Scottish Highlands may be of note to the topic of the Scottish Highlands, but not to the topic of Red Deer. Many animal articles, such as Rat, would have more category tags (or see also links) than article text if every country and region got its own fauna category. List articles are the way to go for such highly localized divisions of flora and fauna." (User:Postdlf at a CFD in 2006)

"Much as it grieves me, as a biologist, to remove the ability to look up species from any region, large or small, the reality for a world encyclopaedia is to work on larger units, or we'll have unmanageable numbers of categories for ubiquitous taxa. That shouldn't prevent Categories for endemics from these smaller areas, or 'List of native species from...' pages' if relevant." (User:Nick Moyes at a CFD in 2018)

"These are some of the silliest categories on Wikipedia. Probably better to merge all categories of this type, including Category:Fish of Europe, to Category:Fish of the World, and then delete that category." (User:Epipelagic at a CFD in 2014)

"We don't have enough editors who gnome this kind of material to keep it under control." (User:Rkitko at a CFD in 2015)

"... the fact a bird is found in any particular place does not make that fact WP:DEFINING." (User:Animalparty at a CFD in 2018)

"Wikipedia is not a relational database and we should not use categories to try to replicate same. ... We would be much better served by having a good complete list, and directly linking the reader to off-site databases which are specialized in this topic. Having a woefully and only partially populated set of state categories that don't do what they say on the label is bad for Wikipedia." (User:Obiwankenobi at a CFD in 2014)

Endemic
Even if an article is categorized only for regions where the species is endemic the article may still be in several geographic categories - e.g. Phrynobatrachus vogti is in Category:Frogs of Africa, Category:Amphibians of West Africa and Category:Endemic fauna of Ghana (as well as the non-geographic Category:Phrynobatrachus).

In some cases an article about a species is (also) placed in a purely geographic category - e.g., Killarney shad is in Category:Killarney. This is reasonable if the species is endemic to a region that does not have an "Endemic biota of " category.

See

Many articles say something like "This species is found in ." rather than saying whether or not the species is endemic to that region (which may not be known). Some articles use terms such as "nearly endemic".

Introduced / invasive
Example CFD: 2014 re fish

Example CFD: 2014 re Everglades

As of May 2018 the Coypu article ("Native to ... South America, ... introduced to North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa, primarily by fur ranchers.") is in categories for Africa, Asia, Europe and the US.

Flora
See WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions.

Intersection of low level type of biota and region
Several editors have expressed dislike of low level intersection categories, for example:


 * "We don't need Category:Rosaceae of China when we have Category:Rosaceae and Category:Flora of China" (User:Plantdrew in a CFD in 2018)


 * "Personally, I would also get rid of intersectional categories like Category:Wolf spiders of Europe; they are unnecessary, confusing and inconsistently used." (User:Peter coxhead in a CFD in 2018)

Category:Angiosperms of Asia has been deleted at CFD, but there are other categories like this - e.g. Category:Rosales of Australia (as of 2018). Note: angiosperms is above rosales.

Articles about specific areas
E.g. Feral parakeets in Great Britain

Appendix A - World regions
There are several schemes of dividing the world's land area into regions. These include the following:


 * World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD)


 * Biogeographic realms or ecozones


 * United Nations geoscheme. Note: this uses a different definition of Western Asia to the definition used by the WGSRPD.


 * Oceans

Appendix B - Regions that are used
The table below shows some of the larger regions that are used to categorize organisms.

The abbreviations defined in the right hand column of this table are used in Appendix C.

Note 1: The WGSRPD region is named "Northern Africa".

Note 2: The WGSRPD region is named "Middle Asia".

Note 3: Was emptied and then deleted as empty.

Note 4: This is the WGSRPD region of Western Asia. "Western Asia" is sometimes interpreted as a wider area.

Note 5: Any linked article may not use exactly the same definition of the region as that used in the table.

Note 6: There may be some overlap between Oceania and Southeast Asia.

Note 7: See notes at Category:Flora of Oceania.

See: Locator maps of oceans

Appendix C - High level organism-of-region categories
The table below shows (by means of redlinks and bluelinks) which high-level categories exist. In some cases a redlink is because there are few, if any, organisms of that type native to that region. The abbreviations used (e.g. "Af" means Africa) are defined in the table above.

Note: The above analysis uses User:DexDor/treg2.

Note: Each type of organism (row) only appears once in the above table even if it could be placed in several positions.

Note: The above analysis uses User:DexDor/treg.

Note: A bluelink can indicate a redirect rather than a category, but that only occurs rarely (if at all) at this level.

Note: The aim is to fix any anomalies highlighted by this analysis.

Note: Some of the categories listed above (e.g. those for vertebrates) are virtually container categories as most articles can be placed in a more specific subcategory (e.g. for birds).

Appendix D - Who has created/populated these categories?
Many of the editors who have created categories for inappropriate small/political regions or have placed articles in such categories have been acting in good faith. However, there have been some problem editors very prolific in this area. For example, the editors listed below have all been blocked indefinitely (indeffed).


 * Special:Contributions/George_cowie (2006-2008) indeffed as a sockpuppet - created many categories for small areas of political geography (example CFD). This edit, for example, adds category tags for dozens of countries to an article which doesn't mention any of those countries.


 * User:Look2See1 (2010-2017) - indeffed for category edits (had previously been indeffed on Commons).


 * User:Nono64/User:NotWith (2006-2014) - e.g. creating more categories whilst CFDs were ongoing. On French Wikipedia there are comments such as "... has brought nothing but trouble since he arrived in ... 2006.", "... persistence despite warnings and discussions disrupt the encyclopedic work" and "does not respond ... and continues". This user often created a category, put one article in it, created another category.... (rather than fully populating categories).


 * Special:Contributions/Wwikix (2015-2016) - indeffed whilst being discussed at ANI. E.g. see User talk:Wwikix.


 * User:R567 (2017-2017) - indeffed as a sockpuppet of Wwikix.


 * User:Caftaric (2015-2018) - indeffed as a sockpuppet of R567.

In some cases most of the edits to a organisms-by-geography category page are by editors who were indeffed.

Some categories were created because they were listed at Special:WantedCategories where a better option might have been to remove the redlink category tag.

See also: WikiProject Tree of Life/Nono64

Appendix E - Process for doing upmerges

 * Select categories to be upmerged ...


 * Consider whether lists should be created - i.e. if the lists don't exist already (possibly at a higher level) and the category looks suitable for listifying (e.g. most of the articles in it contain a referenced statement that the animal is found in that country etc). However, generally it would be better to create such lists directly from a RS than from listifying a category.

With examples?
 * If necessary (?) create a subcategory for endemic species and move articles down into it. For some articles this allows 2 or 3 category tags to be replaced by a single category tag (example?). It is not always obvious from the article text whether or not the article belongs in the endemic category - the following is provided for guidance:
 * Found in X   no?
 * Found only in X   yes
 * Found only in X and Y  yes but higher level
 * Endemic to X  yes
 * Endemic in X  no


 * Prepare list of categories (User:DexDor/test mcfd may assist) and CFD rationale.


 * CFD ... Note: (As of January 2018) most of the categories that have been upmerged have been fully deleted (i.e. any reference to them is a redlink) however some categories have been replaced by a category redirect (to the category for the larger region).


 * After a category upmerge (e.g. from country categories to region categories) there may be some articles that contain redundant category tags (e.g. multiple copies of the same category tag - or has this now been fixed in the merge tool?), or where the article is already in a subcat of the region category). Thus some tidying up may be desirable.


 * Where the areas don't align. - Russia, Egypt, Turkey ... example CFD...


 * After some country-level categories have been deleted (upmerged) the parent by-country category may just contain a few categories (e.g. for large countries such as Australia) - it may then be possible to delete (upmerge) the by-country category (example CFDs).


 * Consider (especially if the categories have been emptied but not deleted several days after the closure of the CFD discussion) replacing the categories by category redirects (e.g. ).
 * Note:This CFD made Category:Freshwater fish of Ghana a redlink, but this CFD made Category:Fish of Togo a redirect.  Is a redlink or a redirect better? See Category redirects that should be kept?

Introduction
These guidelines are about categorization of organisms by geographical regions (e.g. continents). Note:
 * These guidelines do not apply to categorization by habitat - e.g. Category:Freshwater organisms and Category:Cave animals.
 * These guidelines do not apply to categorization by biogeographic realm - e.g. Category:Holarctic fauna.

These guidelines are intended to be consistent with, but more specific than, the general guidelines for categorization in Wikipedia. Even more specific guidelines may be drawn up for categorization of particular types of organisms.

These guidelines are divided into 3 parts; guidelines about the category structure, guidelines about placing articles in the categories and guidelines about specific types of organisms.

Guidelines for organisms-of-region category pages
1. If a type of organism is not currently categorized by location then don't create such categories without at least getting agreement at relevant wikiproject(s). For example, Category:Annelids, Category:Bacteria and Category:Polychaetes do not have by-location subcats.

2. The category name should be in the format " of " - i.e. do not use demonyms (such as "Asian") in names of organisms-of-region categories. Note: Category:Holarctic fauna etc are not covered by these guidelines.


 * E.g. Category:Antelopes of Asia, not Category:Asian antelopes(CFD)., Category:Southern jaguars or Category:Northern jaguars of South America(CFD).

3. In the category name use a term for the type of organism that is consistent with other similar categories. In particular, the terms "biota", "flora" and "fauna" should be used instead of alternatives (except for some categories for extinct / prehistoric life).


 * E.g. Category:Biota of Rajasthan, not Category:Fauna and flora of Rajasthan(CFD), Category:Organisms of Foobar.


 * E.g. Category:Fauna of Africa, not Category:Wildlife of Africa, Category:Animals of Foobar.


 * E.g. Category:Flora of Japan, not Category:Plants of Japan.


 * E.g. Category:Extinct biota of Asia, but Category:Extinct animals of Asia.


 * E.g. Category:Prehistoric life of Europe, not Category:Fossil taxa of Europe.


 * E.g. Category:Prehistoric animals of Europe, not Category:Prehistoric fauna of Europe.

4. Organisms-of-region categories should generally have names that are meaningful to (well-educated) readers. They should not use terms for types of organisms that are known only to specialists. E.g. the terms "fauna" and "mammals" are ok, but not, for example, "protostomes" and "deuterostomes". I.e. not every level in the tree of life needs geographical categorization.

5. When defining the region, physical geography should take precedence over political geography. E.g. For categorizing biota Cyprus should be considered part of Asia rather than part of Europe.


 * 5a. Regions used for categorization of biota can be defined using political boundaries. For example, Category:Biota of Central Asia defines a region consisting of several countries.

6. Only create categories for contiguous regions.

7. The category page should make clear what the region covered by the category is.


 * 7a. An organisms-of-region category can contain a thumbnail map indicating the region.


 * 7b. A organisms-of-region category can contain links to the corresponding categories for neighboring regions.

8. Only place an of-region category in another of-region category if the child category's region is completely within the parent category's region. E.g. an of-Russia category should not be placed in an of-Europe category as that might cause organisms found only in the far East of Russia to be categorized under Europe.


 * In such cases it can be useful to include an explanation (including a link to the other category) in the text of one/both of the category pages.

9. Do not create categories based on the time of year that animals (e.g. birds) are found in a region - e.g. there should not be categories such as "Wintering birds of Africa" (see CFD in 2018).

10. Do not create categories for regions that partly overlap regions for which we already have categories. For example, the Indo-Pacific region covers part, but not all, of the Indian and Pacific oceans (for which we already have categories). Indo-Pacific may be a good description of the distribution of some species, but it's not good categorization to divide the World up into multiple overlapping areas (it would result in more effort spent on categorization and less complete categories).

11. Do not create a category unless you intend to fully populate it yourself (at least by re-categorizing articles that are in the parent categories).

Guidelines for placing articles in organisms-of-region categories etc
1. Not every article about a type of organism should be categorized by which region(s) it is found in. For example, bacteria are not placed in geographical categories (there is no by-location category below Category:Bacteria).

2. Obey normal categorization guidelines (e.g. WP:SUBCAT) - e.g. an article shouldn't be placed directly in both Category:Fauna of Africa and Category:Fauna of North Africa.

3. Categorize by where the plant/animal is or was native. E.g. xxxxxx


 * Note: A species does not have to be distributed throughout a region to be categorized for that region.

4. Do not categorize non-geographical categories for groups of plants/animals under geographical categories - e.g. xxxxxxxx  Reason: xxx xxx

5. Do not categorize a species in a region if that species is just an occasional visitor (e.g. a vagrant).

...

6. There are many categories that are about a particular region, but are not specifically about biota - for example, Category:Natural history of California (which covers geology etc as well as biota). An article about an organism should only be placed directly in such a category if that organism is endemic to that area. For example, Killarney shad can be placed directly in Category:Killarney, but Osmia xanthomelana ("widely distributed throughout the Palearctic ...") should not be in Category:Llŷn Peninsula (even if that location is mentioned in the article about the species).

7. Articles about taxa at the rank of genus or higher should only be placed in a category for a region if the organism is endemic to that region.

Guidelines for particular types of organisms
The following guidelines apply to particular types of organisms:


 * 1. Microorganisms should not be categorized by region.


 * 2. Marine organisms (e.g. salt water fish) should be categorized by the seas/oceans they are native to and not by the land areas (e.g. continents) that they are found off the coasts of.


 * A category page for fauna of a land area can contain a link to categories for fauna of the neighboring seas/oceans.


 * 3. Land organisms (including freshwater fish) should be categorized by the land masses (e.g. continents) they are native to.


 * 4. Fish that can live in both sea and fresh water can be categorized in both the relevant terrestrial and marine regions.


 * 5. Birds should be categorized by the land masses (e.g. continents or groups of islands) they are native to and not by any oceans/seas they may spend part of their life in.


 * 6. Prehistoric lifeforms (i.e. known from fossils) can be placed in categories such as Category:Prehistoric reptiles of North America and (where appropriate) placed in categories under Category:Fossils, but should not be placed in the same categories as current species.
 * ???what's the readon for the last rule? See e.g. Archimyrmex in


 * 7. For recently extinct species ....

Appendix G - Guidance pages for particular types of organisms
The pages identified below provide guidance about geographical categorization for some types of organisms.


 * Flora - WP:WGSRPD


 * Gastropods - WikiProject Gastropods/Categories


 * Spiders - Category:Spiders by location (as of 2018)

It will make categorization more consistent (and hence better for readers and editors) if the guidance for different types of organisms can be brought more into alignment. However, getting complete alignment between, for example, flora and fauna may not be achievable.

Appendix H - Country etc to region mapping
The table below lists the countries of the World plus some other land (or land and sea) regions (e.g. regions for which categories have been created).

NP = Number of pages (including subcategory pages) directly in the category

C = From a list of 205 countries in 2018 (link), E = Other categories that exist or have existed, O = Other.

Appendix J - How organisms are categorized
See User:DexDor/BioCat

Procedural objections

 * I fully agree that "[Animals] of [Country]" is lists, not categories. But this needs to be done for the group, not one at a time. (CFD in 2017)


 * The desirability of the fauna-of-country category system is a much bigger question that should not be discussed and demolished piecemeal in a place where few relevant editors see it, as is now happening ... CFD in 2018


 * Response: A CFD for all countries (and all types of flora/fauna) would be too large to be manageable - especially where are cases (e.g. Turkey) where an upmerge needs to be done carefully.


 * When categories are upmerged sometimes a redundant category tag is left on an article (example edit to fix). Doing upmerges in chunks means that this can be fixed sooner than if hundreds/thousands of categories were upmerged in one go.


 * "Comment There are 100 vertebrates of a country categories, which are listed as subcategories of Category:Vertebrates by country. It makes no sense to single out the West African countries and not do mergers for other regions. Given that there are many categories of animals by country (e.g. Mammals by ..., Amphibia by ..., Birds by ..., etc) as well as the less used animals by region categories (e.g. Category:Vertebrates by region), the proposal only makes sense as part of a major reorganisation of the category system." (CFD in 2018)
 * Response: Wikipedia has never had a comprehensive set of vertebrates-by-country categories - e.g. there has never been such a category for Italy. Less than half of the 200+ countries have a vertebrates-of- category.  Where it makes more sense to categorize things by country (e.g. Category:Buildings and structures by country) there is a much more comprehensive set of sub-categories.
 * There is no intention to delete categories for regions/countries such as Australia. It could equally well be argued that the CFD is singling out vertebrates (rather than, for example, insects or plants) and to do everything in one CFD would be too big a job.  The intention is that each CFD makes an improvement to the category structure.

"Countries deserve these categories"

 * "North Korea and South Korea are separate states and each deserves a "Fauna of " category. You are not supreme deity in some computer fame to decide merging countries. (CFD in 2018)
 * Response: The CFD is not "merging countries" (whatever that means); it is changing how some articles are categorized.


 * I do not see why some countries should be discriminated just because they are small. The interest for these categories comes from the fact that the world is organized in sovereign states, not that countries are natural biogeographic units by themselves (with few exceptions). Recognizing "Fauna of Luxembourg" does not logically imply that "Moths-of-Vatican-City" should be recognized. (CFD in 2018)


 * Response: That, for example, Fauna of Australia is a more appropriate category than Fauna of Liechtenstein is simply a consequence of that being found in Australia is usually/always defining for a species whereas being found in Liechtenstein is rarely/never defining. It does not imply that Liechtenstein is any less of a country (e.g. less important, less interesting, less independent ...) than Australia; it's simply about the most appropriate way to categorize animals (i.e. whether or not the country corresponds to a region that is suitable for such categorization).

"Readers want to know what animals they may encounter where they are"

 * It is routine for works intended for the general public to divide things this way [(by US state)]. people reasonably enough want to see what animals [they] are likely to encounter where they are. (a CFD in 2009)
 * Response: Use a list - see fuller response at the CFD.

Otherstuff arguments

 * Volga River is in a dozen "Rivers of X" categories, but [you have] no problem with that. (a CFD in 2014)
 * Response (1) WP:OTHERSTUFF.

"Commons has categories for small areas"

 * When we categorize images [on Commons] [we] usually use a country/region/district stucture so ... if it's in the Kruger Park [Category] Birds of Kruger National Park as a sub-category of Birds of South Africa. (a CFD in 2018)
 * Response: Categories such as Birds of Kruger National Park might work well on Wikimedia Commons where you are categorizing the location of photographs, but when categorizing an article about a species that might put the article in a lot of categories - see discussions such as CFD for Birds of Nairobi.

"Categories are better than lists"

 * "Oppose Categories are meant to help readers to find articles. Many readers will be interested in what creatures live in a country. "Organisms of countryX"-type categories are also useful for editors to monitor progress and to see what is wrong/outdated/missing. That some countries are small and that some creatures occur in many countries (and hence might be judged as leading to WP:NON-DEFINING) should not used to decimate a very useful system that is not dependent of dedicated editors. Readers could be satisfied with lists instead of categories, but (1) lists and categories are complementary systems and (2) suitable lists are often missing, incomplete, or outdated. The category approach is easy to maintain, whereas the list approach is not. At least for groups of organisms where editor base is small, categories are much more practical solution than lists. (CFD in 2018)
 * Response: tbd The "system" has never been more than very sparsley populated (many lists for birds/insects show dozens/hundreds of species in a country but the corresponding category has only a handful of articles).
 * The list is easier to maintain as each entry can be referenced, the list page can be watchlisted, notes can be included ...


 * The trouble is that for groups with fluid taxonomy and relatively high rate of species discovery, such as amphibians, list articles are difficult to maintain, requiring effort from dedicated editors. The beauty of categories is that they are easy to maintain, which is an important consideration for groups with few dedicated editors. E.g., for a widely distributed species, a simple taxonomic change like assigning a species to another genus may necessitate updates in tens of list pages, whereas the categories would simply follow when the page is moved. (CFD in 2018)
 * Response: Categories do have an advantage over list articles that if the species is renamed (how common is that?), and hence the article is renamed, then the category automatically shows the new name.  However, a list showing an old name (that links, via a redirect, to the new name) is less of a problem for readers than an incomplete  list.  A category that attempts to list all the species found in a small (on a global scale) country may never be complete because editors may remove the category tags (example) if there are a lot of them (and especially if the article makes no mention of that country).  Some amphibians (e.g. European green toad which has also previously been categorized for Spain) are found across lots of countries (and of course things like birds even more so).  Lists also have other advantages over categories (e.g. showing latin names in italics).  In my experience the editors/bots who create new species articles (not specifically amphibians) don't put a lot of effort into seeing which countries (and smaller regions) that the species occurs in have categories (which can be pretty random); they often choose to categorize just at the continent level. Hence, a fauna-of-country category won't "automatically" update.
 * Some examples of edits that remove country / state category tags: moth bat leopard spider plant

Other objections

 * "Listing what fish are in what location is important, ..." (CFD 6 Feb 2014)
 * Response: tbd


 * "I do oppose these mergers. Country-specific organism categories may not satisfy WP:Defining, but they have great practical value because they allow easy overviews of species per country. ...."(User talk page)
 * Response: tbd

Appendix V - Example CFD discussions

 * 2020 - Street trees of New York City


 * 2015 - Wildflowers of the Great Smoky Mountains


 * 2015 - Levant


 * 2008 Land birds - rename/merge
 * 2007 Avifauna by region of the US - rename to "Endemic ..."
 * 2006 Fauna of the Scottish Highlands - delete

Appendix W - Questions as yet unresolved
The following questions have not yet been resolved:


 * What should be done with categories such as ... See related CFD.


 * Afghanistan - which region does it belong in?


 * How should political geography and physical geography interact? E.g. if Socotra is considered part of Africa, but politically is part of Asia ... then does Category:Endemic fauna of Socotra ...


 * If a region (Foobaria) (e.g. a continent) is divided into 2 sub-regions (North Foobaria and South Foobaria) and an organism is native to both sub-regions then how should that organism's article be categorized?
 * Option 0. Inconsistency ...
 * Option 1. The article belongs in the category for Foobaria, but not the categories for the sub-regions.
 * Option 3. The article belongs in the categories for the sub-regions.
 * Option 1 has been proposed as a way to reduce the number of category tags on articles, but would have several problems: (1) It's not how categorization normally works in wp; it would make the inclusion criteria on the South Foobaria category something like "Fauna native to South Foobaria, but excluding fauna also found in North Foobaria" which is not how many editors would expect the category to be used. The scheme would also not cope if there is more than one way of grouping sub-regions. (2) If the number of sub-regions is greater, e.g. 5 and the organism is native to most, but not all of the sub-regions ...

Appendix X - Notes re improvements to this essay

 * Plants / insects / freshwater fish ...
 * Missiles-by-operator etc (example CFD)
 * Example CFD nomination - template for substitution?
 * Category:Cosmopolitan species
 * How many countries have fauna-of etc categories? - see BHG's analysis in a 2018 CFD.
 * Mention sortkey - as non-geo cats, use dagger?
 * Mention "animals" etc used on prehistoric cats.
 * Mention wildlife/lists - no clear distinction?
 * Many articles in Category:Coral reefs are categorized both as an organism and as a place.
 * In the table show which are (probably) redirs using

Strategy

 * 1. Define a scheme of continent level regions for fauna that cover whole world without overlaps. Explain reasons for any deviations from flora. Get agreement/acceptance.
 * 2. Define a scheme of subcontinent regions for fauna that cover each continent region without overlaps. Explain reasons for any deviations from flora. Get agreement/acceptance.
 * 3. Define a scheme for oceans/seas. Get agreement/acceptance.
 * 4. Modify the category pages to align with the regions defined - e.g. add maps.
 * 5. Delete (upmerge) categories for other regions.
 * 6. Define the type-of-organism categories that every continent/subcontinent is expected to have (subject to organisms of that type being native to that region). Get agreement/acceptance.
 * 7. Define guidelines. Get agreement/acceptance.

...
 * Note: Many of the above can be progressed in parallel.

Middle East

 * Category:Fauna of Lebanon to Category:Fauna of the Middle East
 * Category:Endemic fauna of Lebanon‎ should be upmerged to Category:Biota of Lebanon
 * Category:Important Bird Areas of Lebanon should be upmerged to Category:Biota of Lebanon
 * Note: the 3 lists are in Category:Lists of biota of Lebanon.

Africa

 * Category:Fauna of Bioko Fauna of Equatorial Guinea
 * Category:Fauna of Annobón

Other
Other NotWith/Nono64 categories - link?
 * Category:Diptera of Scandinavia e.g. Empis planetica

Appendix Z - Proposed Endemic CFD

 * Propose rename Category:Endemic of to (A) Category: endemic to, (B) Category: found only in  or (C) Category:Fauna native only to

The word "endemic" has (at least) two meanings that can be confused - e.g. at CFD, a talk page discussion, edits adding incompatible endemic categories. Either of the renames proposed here should make it clearer. Options B/C are clearer than Option A, but Option A may be more "professional" language.

Note: no categories have been tagged for this CFD. At this stage I'm looking for the opinion of other editors on whether we should (0) leave these categories as is, (1) proceed to a "real" CFD to rename a sample batch of these categories and then (if the CFD succeeds) do the rest speedily, (2) something else. Note: (for the moment) I am not looking at the corresponding flora categories.

See also CFD discussion in July 2020