Category talk:Human-animal relationships

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Category scope

Discussion on new category being continued from Talk:Cindy the Dolphin#Category:Zoosexuality

As kappa says, a new category? I've just created Category:Human-animal relationships, which I can see many notable human-animal bonds being categorized under. Let's go and find some..... FT2 (Talk) 08:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Zoosexuality then becomes one kind of relationship, a subcategory. And the site quoted above, marryyourpet.com, is probably a decent example of non-sexual zoophilia, or Animal love, nice one! FT2 (Talk) 10:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the new category. Should we add all famous human-animal contacts there, from Elsa the lioness to Lassie? Or might it make more sense to link it to categories like Category:Famous dogs, Category:Famous cats, etc.? --Elonka 15:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Theres thousands of fictional relationships. I kind of had in mind, real ones, which were notable or recognized as such. There's a thousand Lassi's, but compare that to the deep enduring bond of Jane Goodall for gorillas, its not even close. I was thinking "bonds which exemplify human-animal relationships. Thus, michael jackson is very attached to bubbles, but its not a notable relationship in the same way, its not "the notable thing" about MJ, its not "why he's famous". Elsa might be though.

Is anything along those lines workable? What do you reckon? FT2 (Talk) 23:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It might help if we listed specific examples of articles which should and shouldn't be included in this category. For example, I agree that Elsa the lioness would be appropriate, because part of the interest of the story was an unusual relationship between a lion and a human. Whereas, an article on Socks (cat) (imho) would not be appropriate for this category, as it's more of a standard human/pet relationship, notable simply because the human is quite famous (President Clinton). In terms of Jackson/Bubbles, I could go either way, since it's a bit on the unusual side. If Bubbles was at times Jackson's primary companion, then I would say yes, it would qualify. But if Bubbles was just one member of a larger menagerie, then no, unless there's another article that concentrated on "Jackson's relationship with his pets." Another example of an article which I think should be included is Free Willy. One I'm iffy on is: Moby-Dick.

Categories I recommend to make subcategories of this one, or at least add as a "See also": Anthropomorphism, Fictional animals, Famous amimals.

Just brainstorming here, but perhaps one way of defining it would be to say, "This category is for articles which describe a relationship between a human and an animal which went beyond simple owner/pet to something newsworthy or notable. To qualify, a relationship should be something that could be considered a primary emotional relationship on the part of the human." --Elonka 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)