This category was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This category was nominated for deletion on 28 April 2011. The result of the discussion was rename.

Animals Category‑class

Individual animals is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles Category This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

I noticed the CfD moves relating to this Category tree when certain articles on my watchlist were moved. Let me stress at the outset that I approve of the move in principle and have no problem with the way the CfD was conducted or closed, but I am concerned that the target name is a poor choice.

Many of the animals in this category tree are or were parts of notable partnerships or groups. I understand that the term "individual" was applied to differentiate from "species". Yet the name has a serious downside: an ambiguity. The word "individual" also implies they are notable as individuals or live/d as such - which may not be accurate.

An example: in Category:Individual lions is the article about the Tsavo maneaters.

Going from a POV Cat name to an ambiguous and in instances incorrect Cat name seems a bit of a shame.

I don't have a better suggestion for now, but with some discussion we can hopefully come up with a good alternative. I'll invite the CfD participants to come here, but everyone is welcome to chime in. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When handling this CfD, I found one relevant with a name out of pattern, and that is Category:Named turtles. I think that this may be a possibility for a solution to this problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does "Named pigs" cover Tamworth Two -? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC) actually, I think it does... sounds worth considering[reply]

Yes. The second paragraph there starts with the sentence: "Butch (a sow) and Sundance (a boar) were sister and brother Tamworth pigs." So aparetnly their names are/were Butch and Sundance. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Named works for me. Miyagawa (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Another reason why this was a bad decision. Increasing matters that received long debate with many arguments expressed in the "good old days" when CFD was better attended, are now nodded through with no real discussion, & often closed rather too quickly. In 2007 at least 10 people commented, reaching no consensus. The old name was totally clear, & I have no problem with the idea that any notable animal can fairly be called famous. "Individual" is ambiguous in various ways, & probably suggests a single species to many. "Named" solves one problem, but is less clear than "famous". Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it's definitely an improvement, are we confident that all the animals in the tree are/were indeed actually "named"? I'm not sure those maneating lions I mention above were named.They weren't even maned

I'd accept this as a suboptimal solution, but could we do better? What's wrong with "notable"? By definition, any animal/group of animals with its own article is "notable", so the term is NPOV.--Dweller (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I favor "notable" over individual. For example, a team of horses, the Budweiser Clydesdales aren't individuals, precisely, but they are quite notable. To contradict myself, "notable individual animals" might also be workable. I do think "individual" sounds a little silly -- even "named" would be preferable. Montanabw^(talk) 15:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typically "notable" categories get shot down quickly on the grounds that all article subjects have to be notable by definition. Also its a bit of a WP-insider term. but its a possibility. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, we'd be using "notable" as an NPOV disambiguator over the species, so, say Category:Notable clownfish to differentiate it from the category Category:Clownfish. Yeah, Yeah, I know... Seems a sensible option to me. One would expect to see Wikipedia articles about (say) notable architects, and the species of marmosets, but one wouldn't expect notable marmosets. So, it's a redundant term for people, but not for animals. --Dweller (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like "famous" then, although I agree it claims less. CFD regulars are set in their ways & I'm doubtful this will fly, as it would be thought a dangerous precedent. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the CfD regulars could be prevailed upon to join the discussion? They may have a useful idea that's worked elsewhere... or might be persuaded that this exception won't bring the place crashing down around their ears? --Dweller (talk) 16:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are so few left we might be able to rush them! Or you could ask on their talk pages. They're unlikely to pick this up from their watchlists. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

<-No idea who they are, but I'll trawl some recent CfDs tomorrow and drop some messages. I presume this won't be construed as canvassing, as I'm actually going to be inviting people here who are likely to oppose my preferred option :-) Night all, --Dweller (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• In this case we are using the term "individual" to differentiate from species cats. Thus, even if the article covers a group of animals they are still being treated as individual animals, and not as a species group which is the norm for such categories. The fact that some of these articles cover multiple animals does not detract from the fact that they are being covered as individuals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think "individual" is fine. We are using the word to mean "these are specific individuals," not "this is one animal."--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment These articles, weather they discuss more than one animal, will ultimately discuss each animal individually.Curb Chain (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like this article including 2 dogs is causing problems for the word "individual". I would say "notable" would be a better word than "famous" if "individual" is not acceptable.Curb Chain (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "Notable" is barely a change from "famous". An argument against "famous" was that particular breeds etc. of particular animals are famous. "Notable" has the same problem although I'm not sure I agree that it really is a problem. "Individual" seems fine to me. A pair of pigs are both individual pigs. "Named" seems like the best choice. The named animals don't have to have personal names like John but The Tamworth Cow (fictional example) is still a name. An individual animal or pair of animals etc. can't have an article without having some sort of name. Another suggestion: we could separate the category tree into Category:Individual animals and Category:Multiple animals (or something similar) in the same way the human category kind of is. Also, humans are animals and so people really should be in these categories. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are notr animals according to WP categorization, or indeed most legal uses, or normal English usage. A split seems a pointless excercise. Johnbod (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I'm not going into that debate! But assuming that we are discussing non-human animals here, perhaps "named" is better than famous or notable or individual. But it's also not really a moral issue, "individual" just sounds odd. Montanabw^(talk) 23:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed that "individual" sounds odd. One cannot assume that editors will understand the above rationale at a glance. If "famous" and "notable" are nonviable, then "memorable" might work, and "named" is an acceptable choice, as well. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  10:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note- I have just invited contributors from an other relevant CfD discuission - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 4#Category:Famous animals and subcats. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• It is clear to me why this category exists. If there is a propose rename, I would evaluate it. I don't have a better name. There are lots of mentions of alternative names using adjectives like famous, notable and the like. Until there is a requested move nomination, there is not much for me to say here. I will throw this out. How about "Category:Individually notable animals".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that. I'd also be happy with "notable". I also think "named" is better than the current version, which is ambiguous and confusing to the majority of users, who are not CfD regulars. --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I prefer named first then notable second. Though both terms are unwieldy, I think named would cause less confusion/contention as notable seems to be a controversial term in CfD.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the note left on my talk page about this discussion. A few comments:
  • (1) A link to the most recent renaming discussion would help. I would have expected to find it at the top of this page, but the link there is to the discussion four years ago.Note: I have done this now. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (2) In cases where there is no obvious way to name a category, I fear that Wikipedians are doomed to engage in perennial discussion, with the name changing according to who is active at CfD at the time and what the current fashion is. I wouldn't be at all surprised if another discussion in another four years came up with "consensus" for a third rename (those who have been active at CfD all the time doubtless know of actual examples of category names that are endlessly being changed or tweaked).
  • (3) For the record, I would have opposed the rename if I had been around, but would not be opposed to something like "named animals" or even the more cumbersome "named animals and groups of animals" (with the subcategories dropping the "groups" bit for ease of naming).
  • (4) Note the statement made by the closing admin four years ago. I was pleasantly surprised when re-reading that. Even though the results of that discussion has been seemingly overturned four years later. Which made me laugh a bit at the irony.
• It is noticeable that this discussion has more participants than the recent renaming discussion... Carcharoth (talk) 01:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

Consensus seems to be emerging that the current name is not a good option, and it feels like "Named animals" is emerging as the preferred option (or least bad option). If that is so, do we need the formality of a repeat CfD? It seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"individually named" isn't too bad, actually. But I'll go with the consensus on what is "least bad" unless I have an epiphany of the perfect name! Montanabw^(talk) 22:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "Notable non-human animals," "Notable animals," or "notable non-humans" would all work for me. "Individual animals" suggests there are some animals who aren't individuals. SlimVirgin ^TALKCONTRIBS 22:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, "Individual animals" suggests there are categories for articles about non-individual animals, which is exactly the point. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine what a non-individual animal would be. SlimVirgin ^TALKCONTRIBS 22:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll support anything that does not have "notable" in it. "Named non-human animals" or just "Named animals" seem the best bets. McLerristarr | Mclay1 01:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to include "non-human" in the category name. According to Wiktionary, the second definition (the first one for non-scientific use), the "non-human" is already included. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still not being technical though. Category:People is a subcategory of Category:Humans which is a subcategory (eventually) of Category:Animals. I see no reason why we should take the traditional stance of pretending we're not animals. There's Category:Individual non-human primates. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Human beings are animals too. SlimVirgin ^TALKCONTRIBS 22:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I agree that consensus appears to be favoring "Named animals", but I remain uncertain as to the renaming of a very, very bad name to a very bad name to a bad name. If we work a little harder and spend a little more time on it, we may actually come up with a very good name, or at least a good one. Since some of the subjects are renowned for their tenacity and their ability to thwart all human efforts to get rid of them, and others are famous for kinder and sweeter reasons, that might be what makes this naming process so difficult. When I browse synonyms, words like noted (which is hardly better than "notable"), recognized and well-known, or simply known pop out. Also, distinctive and prominent— whatever descriptor is finally chosen, the thing to keep in mind is that these are animals that "stand out from the crowd". – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - I have made a complete list (or so I believe) of all relevant categories here. It can be found at User:Od Mishehu/individual organisms. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I would prefer to rename, especially to something like individually named animals, I think there may be a relevant naming convention to consider. Since one of these was on the main page on the 23rd (Paltrow's), I recently noticed the category Category:Individual dresses. Should we consider what other categories are named by the convention using individual outside of the animal kingdom?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pretty much every other category about individual things uses "individual". There really isn't anything wrong with "individual" other than the fact that some of the articles are about multiple animals. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that works well for those other Categories (does it?), great, but that's still not a reason to apply it here, where it doesn't work well. Consistency is lovely, but our readers being baffled or misled is a stiff price to pay for neatness. --Dweller (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would "notable non-humans" work? SlimVirgin ^TALKCONTRIBS 22:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm going to repeat here part of what I said four years ago:

"The real problem here is that the category should be called Category:Animals - as that category should contain articles about individual animals. Similarly, Category:People (or rather its subcategories) contains articles about individual people. The history, biology, and sociology of humans is found in different categories. Similarly, the generic animal articles, such as lion, zebra, cat and so on, should be in a category other than Category:Animals, something like Category:Zoology (ie. the study of animals, as opposed to biographical articles about individual animals)."

And I will now make a note in my calendar to come back in another four years and see where this discussion has got to... Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, except I wish we would refer to "animals" as "non-human animals." Wikipedians may assume the former implies the latter, but academics don't, and we should be aiming for an intelligent vocabulary. "Non-humans" may refer either to "non-human animals" or "non-human actors," which can include machines (though it usually doesn't). Examples from Google Scholar. [1] SlimVirgin ^TALKCONTRIBS 01:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we move this category to Category:Non-human animals and create Category:Animalia for the zoological hierarchy? Both will be subcategories of Category:Animals, which contains topics about animals in general. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that. SlimVirgin ^TALKCONTRIBS 18:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be find with this too, but note that when we use headlines such as ==Non-human animals==, we get reverted.Curb Chain (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see consensus here. I see three editors saying "individual" is the preferred option, and some more editors liking "named," and some saying to blow up the whole tree and move everything. So I wouldn't make any changes based on this discussion. Also, I'd say that moving an established category without a CfD nomination seems a clear violation of the process, since most editors there have no idea this discussion is going on.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phooey to the second point - this discussion has had several times more commenters than the original AFD. But I don't think anyone is suggesting by-passing the process. Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Category:Individual xxx" appears to be in common usage, so any proposed move probably wouldn't survive a Cfd, and I think the idea here is to go over what might be better names for the category. So how is such a pre-discussion on a cat's Talk page construed to be a violation of the process? It's actually an important part of the process, isn't it? We see all the time those avid editors who tromp around looking for things to delete. And many of them violate the process by not following the guidelines for deletion. They just nominate, nominate, nominate; they raise flags to see who salutes. While the weeding out process is important, I shudder to think how many good, viable things have been trashed because editors weren't informed in time. They go to use an important tool and... it's gone! So a group discussion to prepare for a potential Cfd proposal can be a very important part of the process, don't you think? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think the idea is to brainstorm a name that actually works, and only then go back to CfD. I suspect this is one of those cases where there is no obvious name for the category (other than 'Animals'), and the problem lies with the failure of this area of the category structure to distinguish between 'type' articles (e.g. dog) and 'specific' articles (article about a specific animal). The same is seen in things like hurricane versus specific named hurricanes, and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly didn't mean to imply that the discussion here wasn't a good idea. I was responding to the thought that this discussion might result in a rename without going to CfD. Sorry if I misread the intent.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  How are categories for humans handled, say "famous baseball players" or whatever... I really don't see what the beef is with "notable," which would be my preferred option, ("named" being something that just gets rid of "individual" which really, really is annoying) but if that discussion is bigger than here, I get it. But personally, I'm almost ready to go back to "famous." Montanabw^(talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What he said. "non human animals" is impenetrable and worse than the status quo, IMO. We need to think about the reader. --Dweller (talk) 08:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any human categories that contain "famous" or "notable". The point of Wikipedia is that every article is notable. I don't see what's wrong with "non-human animals" – it cannot be misinterpreted, it's completely correct scientifically and it's a name without "famous", "notable", "individual" or "named", which people are complaining about. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Terriers are non human animals and do and should have an article on Wikipedia. Barney (dog) is a dog that has particular notability and does and should have an article on Wikipedia. "Non human animals" applies to both, but they are very different and need different categories. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like Dweller said. What the issue is here is what to name the categories for specific critters who have notability separate from their breed or "job"; it's just that in some cases, we need to include groups of animals (my example being the Budweiser Clydesdales) that are not individually recognizable, but are as a group, distinct. Named, notable, specific, whatever... just not "individual," let's keep to the topic. While there might be a place to debate the use of "non-human animal," this isn't the place for that particular discussion, IMHO. Montanabw^(talk) 19:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aww. Budweiser Clydesdales - not cute like the Andrex puppy, but a nice article. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just plump for "famous"? "Famous animals," or "Famous non-human animals," or "Famous non-humans"? (Or per Montana "Famous critters"). :) SlimVirgin ^TALKCONTRIBS 19:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem but as Carcharoth said above, this category should be at Category:Animals; however, I think it should be a subcategory of it. Any articles about a species etc. of an animal can be located elsewhere. Just because Scottish Terriers are non-human animals, doesn't mean that Scottish Terrier has to be a subcategory of Category:Non-human animals, if we define the scope of the category. Category:Non-human animals would be the non-human equivalent of Category:People. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose rename Upon further reflection, I oppose a rename unless all categories, including those such as Category:Individual dresses are renamed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who came up with that atrocious category name? Category:Individual dresses?? If category names like this are being copied in this way, then this is a problem. What next? 'Individual hurricanes'? There is no need for qualifiers before the obvious part of the name. Articles about types of dresses can go in Category:Dress types and individual dresses can go in Category:Dresses. Or something. Carcharoth (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was me actually. "Dress types" would be really silly - we could apply that to almost every head category here - & I don't see a problem with "Individual dresses", but I do with "Individual animals". Johnbod (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any perfect way of doing it. Categories like Category:Dresses and Category:Animals could contain types of those things and individual things. I don't see anything wrong with "individual" other than it not being completely compatible with multiple animals. I still think creating Category:Multiple animals would work and is the same as Category:Articles about multiple people (which has a horrible name). McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every dress, hurricane, human being, and non-human animal is an individual, in the sense of being an instance of the genre, so adding "individual" in front of any of these nouns is not a good idea. SlimVirgin ^TALKCONTRIBS 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good idea if we're doing it to disambiguate the category, which is exactly what we're doing. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm giving up. I really had no kick with "famous," and if it didn't work, I DO think it's silly to not allow the blatently obvious alternative of "notable." And if those two options are off the table, then talk amongst yourselves, do whatever, and when the dust settles, two years from now, we'll just have the same discussion and probably change it back again. But "individual" sounds really dumb for any number of reasons, and that's really my only point. Sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Your comment makes me wanna put the tips of my thumb and index finger together, roll them around each other, and say, "This is the world's smallest record player playing 'My Heart Bleeds For You, Baby'!" Moral: Never question the gods, become one. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  06:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• PS. Here's one you reeeally might want to consider: A club for true gods

LOL! But what happens when you are both anal-retentive AND DGAF??  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parting with the stick up one's arse is such sweet sorrow!>) – Ox Y. Moron ( CLIMAX ) 11:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we did have a cfd renaming this category and all of its subcategories to remove the prefix "famous", I've noticed some categories have not yet been renamed. I also note we have a discussion above about the prefix "individual".

In any case, we should standardize our categories and hopefully soon, so an example of our not yet renamed category is Category:Individual non-human primates.Curb Chain (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Individual non-human primates has the correct name but I assume you are referring to its subcategories. I requested that these be speedily renamed but they were opposed because there is still on-going discussion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am referring to that category, but another (sub) category is category:Individual horses. There are probably other categories as well.Curb Chain (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there's considerable debate here. Some support for renaming, some opposition. Among the support there's dissent over what the best option is. And it seems that a CfD will be needed. How can a CfD best be formatted, given that the target name is undecided? --Dweller (talk) 10:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and I know I said I'm done, but I say go with "notable," and let everyone argue over if there is anything better. Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the responses, it seems the most meritable argument would be moving to "Category:Named -".Curb Chain (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about whoever opens the CfD does so using his or her preference, mentioning the other one (and including a link here... and vice versa)? --Dweller (talk) 23:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a a nomination for the leftover categories that were originally nominated to be changed from "famous" to "individual" here. I expect that either these will be renamed to complete that process, or a new format involving "named" or "notable" or something will emerge. Feel free to comment there, or start a new nomination for changing the current "individual" ones to something else, or both.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_6#More_famous_animals.

I'd welcome some of the participants from this page to come and join in. --Dweller (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The present name is not optimal (vide supra). It was slightly counterbalanced by the explaining text on the category page, which made it clear that it is intended for 'famous' or 'notable' (non-human) animals, without using either of these seemingly controversial terms. However, this change replaced this explanation with a non-committant text. According to the new text, any pet house animal, which has received a name by its owners, should be a suitable item for this category.

Therefore, I've reverted the edit. I'm not saying that the old text was optimal, either, but it should cause less confusion than the new one. JoergenB (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how many people are watching a cat talk page, but here it is: I see Category:Individual animals being applied to small groups (2 or 3) of animals. But is there an existing cat to cover things like Bats at 37 Military Hospital or the Cape Cross Cape fur seal colony? --Pgallert (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]