Revision as of 01:08, 9 March 2007 edit Hesperian (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users 135,249 edits m →Cats and stuff: ? ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:14, 9 March 2007 edit undo Casliber (talk \| contribs) Edit filter managers, Administrators 201,136 edits me too Next edit →
Line 534: :Finally, the question of the size and boundaries of the geographical entities by which we categorise flora is a very thorny one. For botanical purposes, is the flora of Hawaii part of the flora of the U.S.? Should the flora of Macquarie Island be considered part of the flora of Tasmania just because it is politically a part of that state? Fortunately, this can of worms has already been untangled by botanists, resulting in the [[World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions]]. I feel very strongly that the plants by distribution categories should be following that scheme, rather than the current adhoc/political approach. I have already done so for [[:Category:Flora of Australia]] and made a start on New Zealand e.g. [[:Category:Flora of the Chatham Islands]]. But I lack the political ''nous'' to convince the rest of Wikipedia to follow my lead. :[[User talk:Hesperian\|Hesperian]] 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC) ::I can second this - maybe not with eastern states but Flora of Tassie and WA are highliy importnat categories ecologically and quite distinctive. I can't see why they are picking on biology pages, some like [[George W. Bush]] have a helluva lot more categories.cheers, [[User:Casliber\|Casliber]] \| [[User talk:Casliber\|talk]] \| [[Special:Contributions/Casliber\|contribs]] 01:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

PDH