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.
- 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:   . --Abderitestatos (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)