Category talk:Invasive species

This environment-related category is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles

Ecology

This category is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles

Plants

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles

Comment[edit]

I clicked and it says We don't have an article called "Invasive species" I notice that page is now truncated at M.

Should this category exist?[edit]

Given that whether a species is invasive is country dependent - see list of invasive species - is a general category realistic? MikeHobday 11:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many species (but certainly not all) behave as universal invasives, aggressively inhabiting many different areas worldwide. I think these species deserve such a category, albeit perhaps with another, more specific name. Gidip 13:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what you are doing, at the moment, is effectively labelling all species that are sometimes invasive as universally invasive. This seems inaccurate. MikeHobday 13:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was only labeling the very species that are considered "top 100 invasive of the world" by IUCN. All of them cause severe impacts in many places. And I was only doing it since these species were not assigned any invasive species category, either local or universal. Rabbits, for example, were assigned the "Invasive species in Australia" category, therefore I did not edit it. However, I am pretty sure they are invasive in many other places too. If someone has the will and nerve to assign each species to multiple local categories and delist it from the universal one - so be it. Gidip 17:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With 200 entries, the category has clearly gone well beyond your laudable ambition, from the specific to something so general as to be inaccurate. I am therefore more inclined to suggest that the category is deleted. MikeHobday 18:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a fairly extreme solution for a fairly small problem - the fact that there are 200 entries indicates that this is clearly a very significant category, and in need of reorganization (if anything) rather than deletion! True, this category is a sub-category of Category:Introduced_species, and a few things here might be more appropriately categorized as introduced rather than invasive (given that the two are not strictly synonymous), but the fundamental problem is that the easiest type of reorganization into sub-sub-categories - by continent or even smaller geographic divisions - is going to result in massive overlap and redundancy of categories (species X is invasive in South America and Australia, species Y is invasive in South America, Australia, and Africa, etc.). It seems to me that the present categorical hierarchy is a compromise between having articles with too many categories (a cosmopolitan invasive might require a LOT of geography-dependent categories), and not having a useful index to all of the invasive species presently listed in WP. It is not a matter of whether a general category for this is "accurate" or "realistic" - WP is an encyclopedia, and "invasive species" are a topic suitable for encyclopedic treatment, and this category functions as an index to known invasive species, in a manner that does not require readers to constantly browse (or editors to edit) the LIST of invasive species. If you could suggest a way to maintain the indexing feature while deleting the category, then I might be persuaded, but otherwise I think the category is serving an important function and I would oppose any formal call for deletion. Dyanega 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is an important subject already deserving (and receiving) encyclopedic and scholarly treatment. Much of the significance of "invasive species" is not dependent on the particular region it is afflicting, but by common cultural and technological trends. Huangdi 23:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there someone other than IUCN who considers these 200 species as "invasive"? For such an inflammatory label, it'd be nice to have more than one source. Cheers, Lunch 18:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red fox?[edit]

Why is the Red fox in the Invasive species category? What damage has it done to the environment? It says in the article that foxes are vectors of disease. Hey, HUMANS are vectors of disease, too! If the red fox is in this category, than Human being should be in this category. Humans have destroyed the world. The sky could have been bluer, you know. Television has taken over the world. Why? It's not the foxes' fault, you know. Hey, we can't help it if we're 'vectors of disease'. We _might be able to help our being a 'pest' to poultry farmers, but at least we don't fill the sky with smoke! Someone please take the red fox off of this list. I will give you a thank you if you do this. ANNAfoxlover 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You must of course be joking. Red foxes have done enormous damage to the native fauna of Australia, causing the extinction and endangerment of dozens of species. And to top it off they are a major vector for the spread of introduced blackberries. --Michael Johnson 00:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine! IF YOU SAY SO! Fine! But there's nothing in Australia...oh, never mind. You are so...ugh! ANNAfoxlover 19:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Michael Johnson, Anna. Foxes HAVE done much damage to Australian species. And, by the way, Anna, Micheal Johnson owns a zoo! If anyone would know, he would! But humans ARE an invasive species! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.200.212 (talk • contribs)

I don't think adding humans to the list is such a bad idea. :-) 80.178.110.82 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RED FOX: check out the Florida Fish and Wildlife page, it is an invasive species in Florida. Sorry if you don't like it, but Wikipedia has to be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.60.136 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Division[edit]

This category should probably be divided into Category:Invasive plant species and Category:Invasive animal species (and I suppose Category:Invasive fungi species, if needed). Neutrality^talk 22:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done at some stage by someone... -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newly-created categories that violate the explicit stated guidelines[edit]

Today (December 8, 2020), an editor has created multiple new categories: Category:Invasive_plants_by_country, Category:Invasive_species_in_Ukraine, Category:Invasive_plants_in_Ukraine, Category:Invasive fish species in Ukraine, Category:Invasive insect species in Ukraine, and perhaps others I have not yet seen. All of the tagged articles are single-species articles, which are explicitly prohibited by the guidelines. Someone with more time than I have might need to educate this editor before they proceed much farther, since these new categories are all headed for speedy deletion. Dyanega (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]