So, uh, there must be some 100,000 named genera. This is going to get to be a very large category. Even for individual kingdoms, there will be a lot. While I think there is some value in slicing at families and orders, genera seem too fine-grained for that. User:Stan Shebs 19:12, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
== CfD discussion ==
The following discussion comes from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The consensus was to keep the category, but the general impression was that this needs some work. -User:Aranel_(\"Sarah\")">User:Aranel|User:Aranel (\"Sarah\") 00:58, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
===:Category:Genera===
*Is it really a good idea to list all genera, regardless of how closely related (or not) they are? - User:UtherSRG 20:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
**'''Keep'' I think having a list of all the genera in one place organizes them better. User:NeoJustin 22:37 Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
***If it is kept, then they should atleast make sure it's subcategoried by phylum . (or ''kingdom'' or ''domain'' (ie. Virii, Archea, Mimivirii, Prokaryota, Eukaryota) )User:132.205.15.42 17:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
*** seems backward to me to have Phyla be a subcategory of genus... but it would be useful to be able to look up a genus without knowing what class or order etc. it was in, so I think each specific genus should be a member of the category, and nothing but genus names should go in it IMO. Would be handy for reference use. KeepUser:Pedant 02:19, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)
*Keep, and then subcategorize by phylum--User:Yoshiah ap 22:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)