Talk:Domesticated outsider taxa

I've just coined a nonce term, which i will here

1. explain my definition of, and
2. explain my desire for.

Definition of outsider taxa

Adapting here the text that i just edited into Domestication and Domesticated outsider taxa, it is part of a lay taxonomy like this:

• animals
• plants
• outsider taxa - "outsider" kingdoms and domains
  • one outsider kingdom
    • fungi
  • microorganisms
    • other outsider kingdom
      • protists
    • two outsider domains
      • arachae
      • bacteria

And the lay reader is intended not to think about the part of the structure that is shown in italics.

Note this is almost the old two-kingdom model revived & supplemented; what departs from that is the fungi (which a lot of us were already pretty vague about) going into almost the same dark closet with the microorganisms.

Desire for term "outsider taxa"

The whole point is that the cladistics per se don't come into play in the discussion of domestication, and refactoring the tree in this way keeps a better perspective and an animal-and-plant-centric view, that still has branches (but much further from the root) for these "outsiders", thereby doing the job of providing an exhaustive framework embracing all domesticatable species.

(But the real need for "outsider taxa" is to have a term to put in the article title that isn't as long as "Domesticated non-animal, non-plant species and larger groups"

My question

I don't think there should be an outsider taxa page, bcz this is a convention that is convenient for these few pages, not a documentation of an established concept outside WP. But is there a problem with using it at all, in the way i have?

I think of it as a lot like inventing the terminology that you need to prove a geometry theorem, but perhaps the problem is that i want the terminology bcz i've just approached the problem from the wrong angle. --Jerzy 09:20, 2003 Oct 27 (UTC)

Master list

I am wondering if the section from the article on Domestication called “Categories of domesticated organisms” should be moved into a separate master list that would be merged with the “List of domesticated animals,” the “List of domesticated plants” and the list of “Domesticated outsider taxa.” There are so many organisms with complete lifecycles under the care and direction of humans that the list in this article is starting to look like a full taxonomical chart of all living things. It is an interesting and valuable list, but I think that it should all be consolidated into one list that is organized into the three main categories of animals, plants, and outsider taxa. I also think that there should be some standardized way of specifying the degree of domestication for a species or a simple explanation of why it should be included on the list. The article on domestication should contain a clear link to this master list, but I think that the article and the master list should be separate projects. What do others think? --[[User:Jjhake|Jjhake (talk)]] 21:34, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)