Jump to content

User talk:Look2See1/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Reversion of edits

HI

I think you may have got your wires crossed - I was not making any mistakes.

The links were not "broken" I removed them on purpose using AWB according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Repeated_links

AWB always tries to get the user to reduce to 1 link to other articles as per MoS.

I do not think that your reversion of my edits was a good thing, you may differ in your opinion, however the MoS is clear. There are now 3 Stage lighting links and 3 Daylight harvesting links (and 2 of each of the others).

I would really appreciate it if you reverted your own reversion by restoring it to where I left it. :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


Hi Chaosdruid; — Reversions Done — my mistake as only looked at "compare revision view" from my watchlist link and not entire context. Sorry ! ---Look2See1 t a l k → 02:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
No problems lol
I saw you were doing vandal reversions in the middle of cats and quite a productive workload as well = keep it up :¬) always best off safe than sorry
I know how it gets - I had a list of 8,000+ articles to go through this week and did the last 3,000 of them since 15:00 today so no worries - its people like you that keep the whole thing running.
Chaosdruid (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pre-state history of California

Thanks for helping to populate this category with articles. I like help when I have to wade through 50 states--it gets tiresome after awhile. So far, I have 'finished' the Eastern US and Alaska and done the categories for all states. That still leaves the articles for everything west of the Missisippi (tier from Texes to North Dakota and west). Anything else you can see helping with is very much appreciated! Hmains (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hmains; You are welcome re: "Category:Pre-state history of California" Appreciate your creating it - was envious when 'accidentally' saw east-coast "Cat:Pre-state history of Virginia" beforehand, and so was delighted when some time later 'accidentally' discovered you had Calif. ready too ! - will add to it and other southwest - west - northwest states. Thank you for your important and 'research helpful' efforts! --best---Look2See1 t a l k → 02:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok go for it. Something else I am doing is miminizing the number of bio articles in both the history categories, leaving them in the 'People from foo-state' category or subcats where appropriate. This way, the history categories mostly just have events. Hmains (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Hmains; OK on Bios, have been just "double category-linking" the more significant individuals, but will be more reticent on that. cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 03:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology help

Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. ---kilbad (talk) 23:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kilbad: Thanks for your invite to help by joining the "Dermatology task force", I'm "in" botany-design-history topics focus so not knowledgeable enough "to belong". However will keep alert for linking opportunities to assist readers' access to-awareness of related dermatology articles.---Cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ranchos of Los Angeles

Not that I think it is useful, but seeing as you have created this category, you should finish the job and add all (49?) Los Angeles ranchos (see Category:Geography of Los Angeles County, California for the list). Also, as you seem to have been inspired by MissionJim, you might note that he replaced "geography of RC" with "ranchos of RC", this seems a better idea than adding a new essential duplicate category. Emargie (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Emargie, read your message and do not understand the "category question" - there is a new Category:Ranchos of Los Angeles County, California under parent categories of Category:History of Los Angeles County, California and Category:California ranchos. I chose to leave individual articles also in Category:Geography of Los Angeles County, California at least until completed with new L.A. tags. Was going to ask you if one should leave that tag even after done, since all the statewide ranchos articles are individually in each county's geography category, and some people might always look there for them ? What is the problem please ?
Please try to be kind in tone in your communication. It's because you have done an amazing job of so many articles for L.A. that it is more than one setting to corral them all under the new tag. It will be finished, but meanwhile, per above, none are lost. Do you have questions or issues underlying your sharp tone? Please ask-talk ! - as you have an appreciative and loyal "fan" here. My "good intentions" are only to bring more access to your incredible "ranchos resource". Respectfully, & with thanks---(pasted copy here)---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Emargie, per: your saying "you might note that he replaced" - actually I was the one today that replaced-removed MissionJim's "perhaps over parenting category tags" - including the Category:Geography of Riverside County, California from Category:Ranchos of Riverside County, California, since individual articles were there already (check Category:Ranchos of Riverside County, California edit history to confirm or improve). I do think his and my efforts are useful, different readers access info by very different routes. Currently trying to find a rancho for a specific location, ie: San Rafael Hills & were there any ranchos here ? - is a long scroll of the big List of Ranchos of California. It's wonderful and very interesting when one has the time, but inadequate for efficient research otherwise. Part of why all the L.A. ranchos articles are not tagged to new Category:Ranchos of Los Angeles County, California is the List of Ranchos of California format's difficult search & hunt needs. Please understand the list is fine as an article !, but not as only source - some readers need another route too. As above, please share ideas, criticism, ideas, etc. with compassion.---(pasted copy here)---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
(I added this earlier - but we were both editing your talk page at the same time - and you won. So I am re sending). The category is entirely up to editors like you who are doing the organizing. Some County editors have the ranchos categorized under "County" and others (LA, Orange, Riverside, Marin, ..) have them under "Geography of County". So there is no standard County Category. There is actually no particular reason to list the ranchos by county (it has no real relationship, as many ranchos cross county boundaries, and the boundaries of the counties themselves have changed since the ranchos), but there is a tradition of listing them by county - bit like the California Historic sites. It seemed like a duplication to have LA Ranchos under both "LA County Geography" and "LA County Ranchos". I thought it would be more efficient, while you were at it, to delete "LA County Geography" and add "LA County Ranchos" at the same time (as Riverside County). I was pointing out that some "LA County Ranchos" had not been completed - thought you were finished. Consistency is an important part of organization. (Sorry that you found what I intended as "brief" as "sharp".) Emargie (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Emargie: Does your preceding 02:01-8 July post not respond to my 01:34-8 July one just before it, due to "cross-edit"? Can't find answers to my questions or its reflecting info updates? Your use of wiki-linked County geographic locations in List of Ranchos of California table's right column is simply being replicated and used again to group articles for efficient finding (with Counties as general guide, not for boundaries). Will follow your suggestion to delete Category:Geography of Los Angeles County, California from them, when all are in Category:Ranchos of Los Angeles County, California. Thanks for responding above.--(pasted copy here)--Look2See1 t a l k → 21:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the categories added to some Orange County ranchos today (see Rancho Los Coyotes), I don't know what to say. Perhaps you should leave them as you have them. You are more the Category expert. My only wish is that for consistency, all of the ranchos in each county have the same Categories.Emargie (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Emargie, had overlooked your question on Rancho Los Coyotes, I'd mis-added the [Cat:L.A. County-Ranchos] to it & will remove it, & leave [Cat:Orange-Geography].---thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey Look2See1, I finally understand what you were doing. Good work. Emargie (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Style consistency & Civility

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in Jewellery, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You changed "BC" and "AD" to BCE/CE in the article Jewellery for the reason "(globalize & npov - Common Era)". This is entirely unacceptable and goes against the Manual of Style. As well as being completely irrelevant, your reasoning is totally wrong anyway. (Huey45 (talk) 06:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC))

Hi Huey45, Thank you for your efforts. Please share the introduction links with a newcomer instead. I respectfully disagree with your posted opinion to me, wikipedia is known for a global and a NPOV content, not a "western culture-Christianity exclusivity." In addition pieces of the jewelry pictured or discussed in Jewellery are not from Christian cultures, but were measured by the birth of their religious icon's date. Many other wiki-articles use the BCE-before current era & CE-current era; -or even BP-before present date nomenclature with an international trans-cultural respect. Those are a consistent global encyclopaedic style and standard. Please do not attempt to use Christ, however wise he was in other matters, to dominate global creativity. cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 07:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you think; everyone has to obey the rules. (Huey45 (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC))
Concur with Huey45. I don't like several parts of the MoS myself, but it's important to have consistency across the encyclopedia on basic stylistic issues and reserve the big battles for the content issues. Your incompetent edits to central reservation that violated numerous MoS rules (starting with the rule that the title of the article is normally in lowercase unless it is actually always written in all contexts in uppercase) have all been reverted. Also, you don't exactly write well. I recommend a remedial English course. --, and others have expressing warnings to your talk page on that before me. (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
To Huey45 Re: edit comments (above) on User:Look2See1 talk page: — the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith guides for writing respectfully and well are at lower levels by Huey45-jewellery posted comments. Your thoughts and guidance are welcome, but attacking is not, and others have expressing warnings to your talk page on that before me. Sorry about date issues, they are only in good faith. On this date nomenclature, if the current wikipedia standard-rule is for BC and AD, and I was ignorant of that, then it will be honored in my future edits.--Best----Look2See1 t a l k → 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
To Coolcaesar Re: edit comments (above) on User:Look2See1 talk page: — the Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith guides for writing respectfully and well are at lower levels by Coolcaesar-central reservation posted comments. Your thoughts and guidance are welcome, but attacking and ridicule are not, and others have expressing warnings to your talk page on that before me. Sorry about capitalization mistakes, they are only a good faith mistake and not the pejoratively expressed "incompetentce". The english language is used globally in different styles, without one superior form.--Best----Look2See1 t a l k → 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Overcategorisation

Hi Look2See1, I'm about to revert all your category edits, which I first noticed at the bocce article. Bocce is a game, not a garden feature; a bocce court might be a garden feature but the article is about the game, not the court. Similarly, bowls is not a type of park or a type of lawn, so this edit is not valid]. Graham87 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

However I think the categories you added to list of rural sports and games were a good idea. Graham87 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Graham, please consider leaving Bocce article &/or Category:Lawn games in Category:Garden features, and a few other articles if acceptable, so landscape designers will know how to properly design and install the courts. In general, some articles need a cross reference of categories, even though the primary article focus-intention is weighted to one of them.
Sorry for the over-categorizing with tags though; the articles are excellent ! and I "just wanted" other readers to find them too. There was a NPR-U.S. radio story on the topic today that got me going. Again, apologies, and Thanks-----(paste in copy)----Look2See1 t a l k → 04:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Landscape designers should not be using Wikipedia as a primary point of reference for anything. It is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and I would not hire any landscape designer who admitted to using Wikipedia exclusively. Our categorisation system should not be bent to suit landscape designers or any other profession; it is used to classify articles into categories that are *directly* related to their subjects. Graham87 07:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Graham87, exclusivity and bent suits was never my intent; for some of us any encyclopedia is a starting point - for anyone to use- for any topic. It can introduce broad subjects-specific topics-nomenclature terms-events-etc previously unknown to the reader; and so initiate research using other in depth resources. Your view is narrower and you are entitled to it; however, regretfully now readers will miss some good articles by you and other editors .----Look2See1 t a l k → 07:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Honey plants, Yuma AZ, northeast Sonoran Desert

I've been here in the desert awhile, and in recent years have watched the plants more (have made the local articles). Desert Lavender-Hyptis emoryi-(cool years, it blooms a long time) is very high on the list, as is the Palo Verde tree when in bloom (the birds go after the sweet flowers, too). I think Desert Ironwood-Olneya tesota is popular, too when in bloom; the Bebbia which can bloom almost continuously, depending on its sheltered location, and it is an omnipresent plant, it is literally everywhere, and not noticed by many, always some honeybees, or butterflies, or other insects, doing there thing. I'm writing this note because you put Encelia farinosa in the Honey plant category. You might ask some plant guys if it should be included. I don't think I've ever seen honeybees around it. (It is a very xeric plant), that is why it has silver-(white)-bluish color, and often looks like a "white" flowered plant, when they're really just the leaves...(Smoketree (Psorothamnus), Psorothamnus spinosus is the only other one that comes to mind, It blooms multiple times, but in short duration)... (from the HOTdesert- SonoranArizonaUSA)... Mmcannis (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Invasive plant species in the United States

I note that you have been adding individual species to Category:Invasive plant species in the United States. There probably is no policy or guideline on this but I don't think it is a good idea. Some plants species are invasive in may countries and some countries have many invasive plant species (such as here in New Zealand). This will clutter up article and categories making them less navigable. The individual invasive species categories for the different countries should be reserved for other stuff. As an example see Category:Invasive plant species in New Zealand. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alan Liefting, You have a good point on cluttered "Parent Page - Category:Invasive plant species in the United States" being less navigable now. There is a need for a ""Child Page" - [Category:---?--in U.S.---?--] to collect the individual invasive plant species articles however, to be reached through the "Parent." Do you have any ideas how to title it, both for clarity and wiki category naming conformity ? It would be for invasive plants from anywhere that are a documented problem in the U.S. - not plants from here invasive elsewhere (such as the California Monterey pine in New Zealand I've heard). Thank You !--Cheers----Look2See1 t a l k → 02:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello Look2See1, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings, Look2See1! Hope you're having a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Categorization of Category:Trails

Re your revert: it depends what you mean by Trail. For some people, trails include footpaths, for other people (I suspect including you), footpaths include trails (or maybe trails, hiking trails and footpaths are synonymous). The problem is that your edit has resulted in a closed loop: Category:Footpaths is a parent of Category:Trails, which is a parent of Category:Footpaths, which is a parent of.....etc. WP:SUBCAT tells us we should avoid such loops. I have added a headnote to make it clear that this is a category of trails, not a category of hiking trails, which are adequately categorized in Category:Hiking trails. If you can agree with that, hopefully you can agree that your new parent categories should be removed. --Mhockey (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Since there seem to be no objections, I have gone ahead. --Mhockey (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Mhockey, that I didn't respond before, re: Category:Trails--Category:Footpaths--Category:Hiking trails. Thank you for followup notice today. I do agree with your idea and actions, to edit out the category-parent looping. Thanks, --Look2See1 t a l k → 19:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Tussle bunched over a tussock

Hi George2001hi, Could you please recreate your 'Tussock and Bunch grasses' title for the Tussock (grass) article ? It has been changed back recently, since yours. That editor cited "a long name & odd caps" - I disagree and appreciated your solution that ended the title-terms globalization issues so simply. Perhaps they didn't read the articles discussion page to understand history ? I've tried to undo -revert that newest one, and the two redirects, but my skills didn't work. Would be glad to learn 'how to re-title' if you know of 'wiki-help' link to info. Will paste this into article's talk. Thanks----Look2See1 t a l k → 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

[pasted in from Tussock and Bunch grasses article's talk page]
Could George2001hi or another editor please recreate the Tussock and Bunch grasses title for the Tussock (grass) article, and the 2 redirects ? It has been reverted recently by Rkitko, loosing the Tussock and Bunch grasses international botanical usage parity-access. The editor cited "odd capitalization and long title that is not succinct" - I disagree, it's just 3 nouns with &, and appreciated the solution that ended the title-terms- globalization issues so simply. Assuming good faith, perhaps the editor didn't read or didn't comprehend the article's discussion page to understand history? I do not know how to re-title, that needs the skill of another editor please.---Cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → → 19:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk Back

Hello, Look2See1. You have new messages at George2001hi's talk page.
Message added 20:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sure I'll change it, although I don't know if it'll stay like that for long. :)
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 19:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, sorry didn't see the end bit - if want to change the title of a page - click 'move', which is on the right-hand side of 'history' on 'the edit this page' line. Hope this helps :)
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 19:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you George2001hi, for your efforts with the 'grasses and international peace movement,' and the 'back' info help for title restorations.---Cheers--[pasted in]---Look2See1 t a l k → → 19:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Please review WP:CAT on how we categorize things. If article A is in a category, it belongs to that category and every parent category up the category tree. For instance, mayor Michael Bloomberg is in Category:Mayors of New York City, and because he is in that category, he thus is in every category that Category:Mayors of New York City is part of: Citywide elected offices of New York City, Mayors of places in New York, Mayors by city in the United States, and New York City politicians. We do not add him to all those categories individually, we just place him in the lowest level category we can. Otherwise we end up with overcategorization, which somewhat defeats the purpose of categories. Basically, we move articles down to the lowest, most specific category we have, and remove them from any categories they already belong to via parent cats. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Aboutmovies, time to re-review the Cat. info here. cheers----Look2See1 t a l k → 16:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

NRHP categorizing

Why don't we just add Category:National Register of Historic Places in California to Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in California? It seems to make more sense (as in not overcategorizing articles, but making the tree a bit better). Killiondude (talk) 23:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Killiondude, Good questions on simplifying the Category: & NRHP & California tree. Usually any "Category:Lists of xyz" are only for list articles, so perhaps Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in California is best under Category:National Register of Historic Places in California ? In interim spirit have temporarily done that, and then moved Category:National Register of Historic Places by County in California under Category:Lists of National Register of Historic Places in California as they are lists. Ideally "Cat:NRHP by County" title would be renamed to "Cat.:List of NRHP by County in CA" - but it gets very long ?
Also in good faith interim spirit, for your and other editors review—revert, took out "Cat:NH Sites" and "Cat:NH Districts" from "Cat:NRHP" and into parent Category:History of California to simplify tree.
What do you think ? Thanks for noticing over-categorization developing, cheers---[paste in copy]---Look2See1 t a l k → 16:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hello, I was just wondering why don't you make the corrections to the article yourself, instead of putting a tag on everything. cheers! --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

[pasted in]
Which article are you referring to please?---Look2See1 t a l k → 21:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I am referring to the Tussock (grass) article in which you indicated that it was not globalized. I was plainly suggesting that you take the time to fix the article. --Monterey Bay (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not know how to do that - yet - is there a "wiki-help" link you can share please?---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 00:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

California star editor

The California Star
Awarded for your doggedly dedicated yeoman work in organizing California categories. Thanks for rolling up your sleeves and digging in! Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


Category:Palladian Revival architecture

Category Palladian Revival architecture is unnecessary; Palladianism is in itself a revival and evolution of Palladio's original. Such work is not a revival as it has never gone away. I have not listed the category for deletion as I'm sure we can sort this out, and it's too complicated to do so. All that is needed is Category: Palladian architecture.  Giacomo  07:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

---pasted in reply---
Hi GiacomoReturned, your message on Palladian Revival architecture vs. Palladian architecture is clear in architectural concept but I'm confused on your intent, the Category:Palladian Revival architecture and Category:Palladian Revival architecture in the United States was created by an editor at some point - right or wrong - and is being used as a cat. tag, as I did recently. Perhaps anything not designed by the master Andrea Palladio himself is but humble revivalism ?... How to remedy ?
A very separate "issue"- question, if you have thoughts, is that Category:Neoclassical architecture and Category:Classical Revival architecture overlap-coexist, and seem to duplicate. I'm ignorant on the difference, is it U.K. vs. U.S. term usage, a real distinction, a merge opportunity, or too silly to think about ?
Thanks for your attention to design clarity, cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 00:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography of X

Hey there again. :-) I noticed you have done some categorizing work for articles adding "Category:Geography of X" where it's applicable. Nicely done! However, when you're adding those categories, could you make sure you're not overcategorizing by leaving the "Category:X" intact? For example, in this edit, you added "Geography of Yolo County, CA" and left "Yolo County, CA". Because we have the former category, we no longer need the latter because it would be in the parent AND child category. Thanks for all the categorizing work you do. It really helps when people try to get lists of articles and such. Killiondude (talk) 04:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

-paste-in reply
Hi Killiondude, Thanks for the category work appreciation. The 'wiki-gardener goal' is for good "about places-history" articles to be findable through an 'expected' cat. in wiki's country-state-county system. With parent-child cat. duplication I understand your point and wiki-policy, and predominantly do replace a parent with the new child cat.. Sometimes if an article seems [to me] about a significant enough element in a jurisdiction, and there aren't "Cat:Parks of X" or "Cat:History of X" yet, I occasionally leave parent cat. 'temporarily' too, as did with Yolo Bypass Wildlife Area-park & Yolo Bypass-history. It is done as 'just one editor's opinion' with openness for others to reevaluate-remove. I will be more reticent to make those exceptions hereon though, per your message. Thanks for your care in categories being direct-correct and not over-applied. cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 16:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, as long as you're aware that you were doing that. I see so many categorizing edits in your contribs that I thought perhaps you didn't notice. Thanks for the response. Killiondude (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cities in Clark County, Nevada

I see you have been inserting this into several categories. There are a few issues with this. Firstly most of the categories are not for cities. Secondly this is not appropriate for most of those categories since the categories are about more then the populated places. Wikipedia:Categorization is useful here, but some of the examples are inaccurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

----pasted in----
Hi, I understand your point with Category:Cities in Clark County, Nevada, it was just a first 'single pass' to clean up the Category:Clark County, Nevada page to only grouped topics, they were hard to see with the dozen or so CDPs, Unincorporated communities, and chartered Cities cats. mixed in. It needs a local person to do the correct parent and child cats. Thanks for your attention noticing the refining needed.---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

GNIS listing

I removed a bit about a peak name being added to GNIS in one of your recent edits. I hope you do not mind. In an email it was mentioned the previous exclusion was due to an oversight. I don't think that the correction of a minor error is worth mention in an encyclopedia. –droll [chat] 00:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

---paste in---
Hi Droll, no problem, thanks for note. however I was not the editor involved so someone else deserves your kind message.---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 00:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Then it must have been me. I'll mention it to myself:) Thanks. –droll [chat] 01:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Plant names

Hi Look2See1, I've removed several names you've added to plant taxoboxes for a couple of reasons. One is that common names are typically very unhelpful to put in plant taxoboxes because one plant usually has many 'common' names depending on where you live. Also, many plants will often share the same common name. The plant naming guideline solves this by placing the various common names in bold at the beginning of the article—without any sense that the first one is really the most commonly used. The other reason is that if the plant parameter is removed altogether from the taxobox, it does two wonderful things: it automatically italicizes the article's title, and it automatically puts the more widely used binomial name in the taxobox. Thanks for all your work with adding categories! First Light (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi First Light, I'm sorry to be late in replying to your 19 September 2010 "Plant names" post here, I read this first in midst of 'edit flow' last week, and now in reviewing all my talk page plant posts am reminded have used your input and wanted to share update. Posting it as new talkpage entry below as it responds to the subsequent discussions posted here also.
with best intentions and good will—respectfully—Look2See1 t a l k → 16:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Requested list articles

Hi, Look2See1. I think there may be a compromise to make User:Rkitko happy about the category links in Sequoia National Park. It would take some effort -- I'm hoping that you would be willing to do it.

You may know about stand-alone list articles: they are sort of like categories, except they are editable and can contain more prose than a category page. I think that, if you created List of Sierra Nevada (U.S.) plants, List of Sierra Nevada (U.S.) animals, and List of giant sequoia trees, then we could link to them from many of the Sierran national park and national forest articles. Would you be willing to make a first draft of those lists? You've invested a lot of time in placing Sierran articles into categories: this would be similar. The list articles don't have to be perfect: there's no deadline for Wikipedia.

If you'd like to do this, you can read about generic guidelines for list articles at WP:STAND. You can also see specific Sierra Nevada examples at List of Sierra Nevada topics, List of books about the Sierra Nevada (U.S.), and List of giant sequoia groves.

Thanks for your consideration! —hike395 (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

---pasted in---
Hi hike395, I just read your idea on Sequoia National Park cat. links and stand-alone list articles instead, a very good solution. My only goal was/is for readers to find articles related by a subject. The Sequoia groves & list of groves, and all those individual trees, parks, etc. were rather dispersed - and since some are ~2,000 years old do deserve some respect..... With the Cat:Sierra Flora in 'see also' - it seemed only a wiki-detective could track the route to it from the Seq. park's article, putting in a stand alone will stop a needless wiki-rules debate and retain the access. I can put it in Yosemite & Sierra's Nat. Forests too. As seems User:Rkitko's concern, the available cat. options may not be precisely 'proper' to use, even if logical. I have never created a new wiki article yet, so appreciate your wiki-help links too. If can master doing this one I'll continue and clean up my cat. act in some other link-topic areas too.--Thank you---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to help. I can even start them. —hike395 (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC) P.S. You can find out more at WP:Your first article. —hike395 (talk)
---pasted in---
Hi Hike395 - Yes please, a bit of help starting the first Sierra 'list article' would be great. I'm sensing a wall of overwhelm with my lower computer skill set than most wiki-editors. How is the best way to do this? - without actually looking over your shoulder to learn by watching and duplicating as most my 'tech learning' has been absorbed. Rkitko is clear on enforcing one set of rules, and I need to minimize my 'edit overlap' for his and my well being, this stand alone articles mode seems to honor his limits and my 'wiki-gardener' info accessibility work.
The "3 seasons in a 100 feet walk" I mentioned on R's talkpage today was with the late master Sierras Botanist - former living legend Carl Sharsmith, an insightfull experience and person I was so fortunate to have shared in, maybe you have heard of him too ? A bit tired so will close this ramble - with openness to the best way to proceed. Your 'big view' and calm help is so appreciated.—cheers—Look2See1 t a l k → 02:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Look2See1. You don't need to post both here and my talk page. Just communicate here, and I'll keep it on my watchlist. You can use the {{tb}} template on my talk page to notify me of new material here.
I start to work on List of plants of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.), but then I stopped, because I started to sort them by biotic zone, and it started to look very much like the first part of the article Ecology of the Sierra Nevada. So, now I'm not sure whether we should start the article or not.
One trick that some WP editors do when experimenting or drafting is to create a subpage off their own user talk page. You can do that like this: /List of Sierra plants. Then, you (and I) can noodle around and see if we think the page is worthwhile before moving it into the article namespace.
I've heard of Carl Sharsmith (esp. the Merced River quote), but since I have only been around the Sierra for 20 years or so, I never met him. —hike395 (talk) 03:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Later: I've start the subpage to experiment with. You can see that the link, above, is now blue. For your future reference, you can type a wikilink like this: List of obscure mushrooms in Lyell Canyon, and it will be red. You click on it and start a writing new article (that's just an example, I'm not proposing a real article like that).

I'm starting to wonder whether we want a combined flora and fauna list. Feel free to edit it, too! It's purely an experiment: you can't do any harm. —hike395 (talk) 03:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

What a great surprise and start, thank you ! Did a few adds, more experimenting tomorrow. With much appreciation ! — Look2See1 t a l k → 05:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Your edits related to Sequoioideae - Sequoia National Park

Hi there! I noticed you doing some editing on these related articles and wanted to stop by with some helpful suggestions I noted:

  • Sequoioideae is a subfamily and is therefore never italicized. Only taxa at the rank of genus and below are given italics.
  • Please be careful with heading levels (WP:HEAD). I saw you skipping the third level going straight from == Heading == to ==== Heading ====. Our guidelines specifically state that you should not skip heading levels. And please remember when you write headings to only capitalize proper nouns.
  • Also note that you preferred style of link, e.g. Sequoiadendron giganteum - giant sequoia is not helpful to the reader, especially if you repeat it throughout the article. Typically we repeat only the title of an article after it's linked once. Or, if you already mentioned and linked Sequoiadendron giganteum (using the text ''[[Sequoiadendron|Sequoiadendron giganteum]]'' to link directly to the article instead of through a redirect), you can later just style the species as S. giganteum (making sure to include a no-break-space using   to avoid word-wrap cutting off the abbreviation from the species epithet.
  • On categories, please include only the most relevant category to each article. For example, not all of the extinct species of Sequoia would fit into Category:Flora of China. This is why we don't include such categories on genus articles very often, unless it's true for all species. We typically only categorize the lowest taxon, whether that be subspecies, variety, or species.

I hope you find this helpful. Please don't hesitate to reply or ask any questions of me. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I also just noticed this: you may find WP:SORTKEY helpful in figuring out what the best kind of sortkey is for categories. For example, a sortkey on one of the individual tree articles should not be "Sequoiadendron" since that doesn't sort the article in the appropriate location. A reader browsing the article will not know why Franklin (tree) was sorted under "S" in Category:Trees of California. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Stopping by again. I've had to undo quite a few of your edits on categories. Could you please respond so I know you have read and acknowledged my suggestions and links to guidelines above? You continue to skip the third level headings and it seems you might not entirely understand DEFAULTSORT, e.g. at [1] you use the defaultsort "Squirrel, Douglas" which would be incorrect. Commas and the form last, first is only used for people's names to sort by last name. There is absolutely no consensus to use defaultsort in this way for animals or plants. In fact, on taxa articles, we don't typically use the defaultsort, especially for articles titled at the scientific name. Sortkeys usually use a lowercase for binomials, e.g. [[Category:Pseudotsuga|menziesii]]. I also noticed you adding links to categories in the see also section, which are not "articles" and therefore not permitted in that section (WP:SEEALSO). Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rkitko, I'm sorry I didn't pause to respond right away. Good questions and points, and I need fresher energy to answer them carefully. Thank you---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I look forward to your replies when you get a chance. I'm sorry if the above seems pushy, I just don't want the project to spend a lot of time cleaning up common errors. I remember making a lot of mistakes I had to clean up later when I was first starting out! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Look2See1. You have new messages at Hike395's talk page.
Message added 03:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
---pasted in---
Hi Rkitko, please see my talk page heading "Requested list articles" begun by hike395 and my response to his good idea to solve this. I'll give creating a new stand-alone list article a try, I've never started an article before.
Please note I did put a link to Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.) — Not Category:Flora of California chaparral and woodlands or Category:Flora of the California desert regions; let alone Category:Flora of California in Sequoia National Park's "see also," even though some of their plants are in the park, as that would not be sensible, so your Category:Flora of New Jersey & Pine Barrens example above seems distant or perhaps provocative and not helpful to this issue's clarification. As hike395 said, it is the vertical distance-elevation far more than horizontal distance that determines the Sierra flora one finds. I've gone from summer through spring to winter foliage emergence in just 100 foot upgrade talus walk in 'summer' at timberline, with the same species in SNP & YNP - except for the endemics.
My cat. linking intentions are on my talk page's "Requested list articles" entry too. Please try to assume reasonably 'intelligent and natural history astute' good faith efforts on my part. Thank you—cheers—Look2See1 t a l k → 20:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I still see no clear reason why links to categories in the see also section should exist. Certainly a few folks at the discussion agreed with me, though there's certainly no consensus. A link to the Sequoiadendron category is unnecessary, as Sequoiadendron is already linked to if people want to know more, and the two Sierra Nevada articles are less relevant since SNP < Sierra Nevada. Despite your assertions, links to those categories would be far less relevant than, say, a List of flora and fauna of Sequoia National Park, but you'd need to find good references for such a list since we can't use original research. Good luck on creating such an article! Writing articles is very rewarding, though challenging.
I've also still been cleaning up after your edits. Thank you for paying attention to the above comments. I hope you don't mind me listing a few more pointers with specific links:
  1. On Type species, you added a link to Type genus in the see also section (diff). Since a link to type genus was already in the article, this link addition was unnecessary.
  2. On Sarracenia flava and many other articles, you added Category:Carnivorous plants of North America (diff), which was unnecessary as that category is a "parent" of Category:Sarracenia (all Sarracenia are "carnivorous plants of North America"). Also, your addition of broader "Flora of" categories, such as Category:Flora of the Southeastern United States to these and other articles is imprecise when existing state flora categories are on the article. Two reasons for this: 1) State flora categories are daughter categories of the broader geographical region flora categories (e.g. Category:Flora of Alabama is a daughter of Category:Flora of the Southeastern United States and the most precise category is the only necessary one and 2) Plants found in Alabama may not be found in every state commonly considered to be in the Southeastern United States, so a broader geographical category does not make sense. Essentially, we only include the most precise categories and typically only use the broader category when the plant's range includes all the daughter categories. See WP:OVERCAT.
  3. Again, with edits like diff where you added [[Category:Carnivorous plants|Nepenthes]] to List of Nepenthes cultivars: this article already is categorized in Category:Nepenthes cultivars, which itself is a member of Category:Nepenthes, a member of Category:Carnivorous plants. You don't want to include an article in both categories when it doesn't make sense to do so.
  4. Ah yes, and here on Plumbago europaea, be careful. Carnivory (or protocarnivory) has only been discussed or confirmed for a few Plumbago species. It would not be correct to include this species in the carnivorous plant categories.
  5. Ah, also, please stop capitalizing vernacular names like you did at Drosera linearis (diff). Common names are typically lowercase. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Animals, plants, and other organisms.
That's all I caught for now. I appreciate your attention to these details. Categorization schemes can be difficult to build so that they make sense. Taking some time to understand how different categories are related would prevent mistakes like the above. You may benefit from using WP:HOTCAT, a tool that automatically suggests categories and (I think) prevents unwanted overcategorization. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
One more I noticed: this edit created a reciprocal category link, which should be avoided. Category:Poaceae should only be a subcat of Category:Grasses; Category:Grasses should not be a subcat of Category:Poaceae. Also, you seem to still be abusing the heading levels diff, by skipping directly from h2 (==Heading==) to h4 (====Heading====). See WP:LAYOUT and WP:HEAD. Rkitko (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Look2See1, I'm also seeing some extreme over-categorization, such as at Aquilegia formosa. I think as you spend more time editing plant articles, you'll start seeing that Rkitko's advice and interpretation of guidelines are not 'his', but are the voice of one of the most experienced plant editors on Wikipedia. Rather than "enforcing one set of rules", he is suggesting what many other plant editors would also suggest if they had as much patience to work with you as Rkitko does. You would do well to learn from him. Regards, First Light (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


Re: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout)#See also include links to categories? & Sequoia National Park article links thread:
==pasted in==
The Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.) was recently created and [to-date] populated by me. I also did the edit, that is being discussed here, placing it and the Category:Fauna of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) links under ==See also== in the Sequoia National Park article. I've seen this cat. > link done for the readers' benefit in other Protected areas' articles, in the U.S and abroad, that have a meager or non-existent natural history section or are without any directly specific independent flora/fauna articles.
To date the flora/fauna sections in the present Sequoia National Park article are very under-developed for readers interested in learning more.
Regarding the links' sufficient specificity to Sequoia National Park questions:
If one opens the specific [plant species] articles in Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.) and then under ==External links== opens the " Jepson" or "USDA" links there are: range maps - Jepson very detailed by ecoregion-habitat and USDA [after second click on CA state in U.S. map] by counties; and descriptive geographic text. To not rely on the original research of personal experiences I opened those before adding [Cat:Flora of the Sierras] to those articles when populating the cat. and a preponderance have ranges including Sequoia National Park's various elevation determined plant habitats. These Cat:links do not go to a species Easter egg hunt in a mega-category. This is specifically why, for the readers' benefit which surmounts the editors' general category link and style standards-preferences, that these two "see also" links do belong in this park's article.
I respect the many editors' time to consider and express their views, insights, and [far superior to mine] knowledge of wiki-style and policy resources on this topic. If I'm understanding correctly, a See also > category link is to be used only with reticence after deliberate consideration.--Thank you--Look2See1 t a l k → 18:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wildflowers of the Great Smoky Mountains

Why do you keep adding parent categories to the above article? Is there a Wiki MOS or policy that says to do so? My understanding is that the correct procedure is to categorize by lowest hierarchy possible. Thanks, Gjs238 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---pasted in---
Hi Gjs238, occasionally with a very good introductory article with regional use, such as Wildflowers of the Great Smoky Mountains, I'll cat. link it for readers to come across that might not be aware of the parent article-cat. If any are too much to you though, please just remove them. thanks---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the several other comments here regarding your practice of over-categorization. These comments aren't just "too much to you" (Gjs238) and to other editors such as Rkitko (see my comment above under "Your edits related to Sequoioideae - Sequoia National Park"). This view seems to be consensus among several long-time plant editors. Thanks, First Light (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for pointing out your considerations on cat. protocols here. Please see under the =Plant species - names and categories discussion= heading below for some of my current thoughts on this. I am re-evaluating and renovating my understanding of cat. uses, from reading yours and others posts on this topic's policies.--Thanks--Look2See1 t a l k → 19:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for plant articles

Hi, just a note to let you know that, for plant articles, categories are not applied to genus articles unless the category applies to all the species within that genus. Melburnian (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Melburnian, sorry I mis-assumed species comprehensiveness on that genera link, I do understand the classification system very well. Looking from California I figure you deserve claim to all species in those wonderful native Australian genera. But - back to science... Thank You---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
In terms of the genus article Canna (plant) and Category:Phytoremediation plants, I've had a quick look through Google scholar and the Canna species/varieties most usually mentioned are Canna indica and Canna x generalis (needs an article!) so they would be the articles most suited for adding this category to. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, we rarely have plant categories that are comprehensive because we have thousands of missing articles. A better approach to being comprehensive (in some cases) is to create list articles. Melburnian (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
---pasted in---
Hi Melburnian, thanks for your post on my talkpage on an 'interim' list article for the phytoremediation plants. I'm working on one for the Sierra Nevada-Sequoia National Park flora-fauna to remedy that debate and benefit all the other parks in the range. With Category:Phytoremediation plants and Canna (plant), where it is specifically mentioned and linked in the Phytoremediation article [without species], I am still baffled why a link is not sensible and want to understand. Meanwhile it is your decision, until the list article is done an issue is mute.---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the link from Phytoremediation to Canna (plant), this could be addressed under "Uses" in Canna (plant)) by adding that the species or varieties x, y and z are used in photoremediation, and then add the category to the linked articles (where they exist) on x, y and z. Putting the category on Canna (plant), which is an article on the genus, is not advisable because it implies that all species and varieties in the genus are suitable for photoremediation, which as far as I can see in a brief investigation, is not supported by the literature.Melburnian (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Your reply completely clarifies the Canna-Phyto cat. question completely, thank you so much for taking the time. It is furthermore a good step applicable in my general cat. use education. - with appreciation---Look2See1 t a l k → 05:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Plant species - names and categories discussion

Hi First Light, I'm sorry to be late in replying to your 19 September 2010 "Plant names" post above, I read this first in midst of 'edit flow' last week, and now in reviewing all my talk page plant posts am reminded have used your input and wanted to share update. Posting it as new talkpage entry here as it responds to the subsequent discussions posted here by your, Rkitko, and hike395 also.

taxoboxes
Per your clarification on taxoboxes, since then I've only added bot.names in them when just a common name was there [whether article title is com. or bot. name] and otherwise leave them alone. I am often adding bot. name into body of articles, instead of "it" or com. name, and in the USDA-Jepson external links, [ie: Aquilegia formosa - compare edit before my first and that one per bot. name]

Parent and child category applications thoughts:

with best intentions and good will to you each—respectfully—Look2See1 t a l k → 16:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


Here's a good explanation of how Wikipedia handles categories that cross over between each other, along with subcategories: WP:DUPCAT. It shows exceptions "to the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory". The exceptions are not as plentiful as your edits would presume, but they are there, and learning how Wikipedia approaches these things will help you in your editing. I'm sure your intentions are good, and that you are quite informed about California plants. The editors who have been offering advice also have good intentions, are extremely informed about plants and categorization, and are exceptionally knowledgable about Wikipedia common practices and guidelines. I've learned quite a lot from approaching those editors and asking questions. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants is also a good place to learn and ask questions. Best to you, First Light (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I've noticed that in addition to the four editors on the current talk page who have kindly asked you to reduce your tendency to overcategorize, at least eight other long-standing editors have pointed this out to you previously.[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] I really think you need to read and understand Wikipedia guidelines on applying, and not applying, categories. Cheers, First Light (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


update & questions — from look2see1
Thank you First Light for these constructive ideas and links to continue learning from. I'm so sorry, but I find the wiki-categories-learning links so brief I'm still just as confused. Please note: I do want to understand this and cat.-edit accordingly-properly.
Some updates, acknowledgments, and questions from hearing-reading-learning for you and the other patient senior editors.
capital letters & (-)
Have read and digested Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Animals, plants, and other organisms and am retraining four decades of using an alternate respected standard, primarily from landscape architecture and [horticulture]] conventions. Have ceased that capitalization system to be consistent with wiki-policy. I apologize for delayed understanding and compliance, and your need for correct time then. Is there one supreme policy on using a parenthesis or not with common names? First Light uses (them) and reverts my removals, while most articles I see do not have them - but should they?
categories cont....
Sorry Rkitko on Category:Carnivorous plants of North America mis-cats, see I'm to ignorant of them to be editing there and will be a reader only. :::Related via them is your questioning Category:Flora of the Southeastern United States and Category:Flora of Alabama on one of them. Some thoughts: First please check to see if the child cat. was there before my edit. When the species range is beyond an existing cat. the parent is added but I do not remove the child. Wouldn't know how important a plant is in a particular state's environs, culture, local botany research, etc. Secondly, if the article says it is found from [ie:] Virginia to Alabama I usually add the [Cat:Flora of S.E. U.S.], and often those states' [Cat:Flora of state] as it is simple and accurate to paste them in; but not every other unmentioned state between them. I trust 'plant editors there' will add their states if important. Enough explaining, what do you veteran wiki-editors think and do in these cases? I appreciate your link First Light, to WP:DUPCAT but do not find answers to most of what seems to be causing the cat. problems.
Do understand now that genera cats. do not get biogeography [Cat:Flora of] links - that is for species only. I do ask question on endemic monotypic genera without a species article. I did revert one by "Melbourne" earlier, it would be 'unfindable' to most readers otherwise. If consensus says that ranks less, will gently drop doing it.
outline cascade
Rkitko, you are heard with outlines, the guideline is seen, the topic is a work in progress due to graphic design clarity concerns. Some small articles appear dominated by an == > ===, and a == > ==== seems to give the total page more clarity. Some 'small subjects' in any size article seem to need a header to be distinguished from the body of text, but a === type size 'over-rates' them. If wikipedia used a classic Harvard outline; I.- A. - 1. - a. - 1.).... then I would 'be a terror' enforcing it as have a minor addiction for that clear system. However since wiki indicates outlines only by type size and contents box indents, I occasionally opt for this skip a '===' method for clarity and flow and readers potential benefit. If there is no room for editor discretion in wiki-policy on this, retraining will commence.
progress
Reason for so much 'productivity' is illness-surgery recuperation period, and pain management by wiki-focus. Point of that is copious amounts of open time for a lot of good, constructive, and non-debated wiki-work. It is so much easier for anyone to express a complaint or criticism, especially online. This talkpage, and probably those of many editors and articles attest to that. With last First Light posting just above of all the additional 'cat. complaints' dug out - I sincerely take in the kernal of that about this being a very serious issue to understand and learn the best policies, but I dismiss the bulk of it as yet more 'talking at' complaints presuming 'wrong' and not 'communicating with' to ask why done that way. Please note again: I do want to understand this and edit accordingly.
Meanwhile, there has been a tremendous amount of effort done on thousands of articles here. In throw away speculation only: perhaps at least 50% [75% ?] are totally ok, 25% need minor reverts [ie: my mis-caps phase], and 5%-10% are a real edit-cat. mess. That leaves a majority of my efforts adding positively to the gradual improvement of wikipedia. A specific example of article text change portioning is Aquilegia formosa - posted above as a 'bad Look2See1' edit: compare the preceding editor's version to mine - my 6 letters of caps mistake [sorry] are literally minor compared to all the bot. latin letters-words of improvement - there is a big picture view with minor critique option]. Speaking subjectively, a wall of criticism helps no one's learning curve, and swamps mine. A bit of appreciation or even cold acknowledgement to balance the pejorative and dismissive expressions, while never necessary, would be welcomed too. Speaking non-subjectively, there is much good info and effort shared in everyones posts here. Thank you for your patience.----Look2See1 t a l k → 23:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It seems you still do not understand many of the above comments on overcategorization. Perhaps a show of good faith would be to cease editing categories until you're sure you understand our objections. A perfect example is your edit I just reverted at Drosera linearis (see the diff). From your edit summary, I assume you believe that because the article says it's in the Great Lakes region that it's a good thing to edit the article and add Category:Flora of the Great Lakes region (North America). Is this accurate? If so, I would point you again to WP:OVERCAT. This article in particular (and many others you edit) are already categorized in the most-specific categories, e.g. state flora categories. Take a look at the categories at Drosera linearis. It is already in most of the subcats of Category:Flora of the Great Lakes region (North America). Therefore it is already a member of this Great Lakes region category by way of its subcategories. Is that clear enough of an explanation? Further, this plant is not found in all of the states or provinces included in the "Great Lakes region" and it is therefore not accurate to include it in this regional category where the individual state categories will suffice. I will offer something other than constructive criticism (aimed at helping your edits improve, I hope you understand) when you demonstrate you understand our categorization structure. This is a quick comment on one issue and I may respond later to your other comments above. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for explicitly explaining why that cat. was not accurate. This time I made no cat.-mistake and was simply honoring the article's information. Since the article has the [Great Lakes region] link within its text, it is average, reasonable, and basic to have the [Cat.:Flora Great Lakes region] there also - before your clarity was shared this time around. Please do not just auto-revert on me heron. Your brief "it's not in all the states" is what stops the cat. problem and gives a usable lesson. WP:OVERCAT has been studied but is too general, without the specific needed usable lessons. Your awareness of actual Drosera linearis distribution is really great. ---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 02:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's a start, but I shouldn't have to explain everything to you here. If I'm unsure of something, I usually don't edit it. Perhaps the broad WP:CAT would be more helpful? Specifically, the section on subcats. I'm also completely baffled by your other edits today, which include adding pipes (|) to certain categories, e.g. diff. Without the pipe, the species sorts in the categories under its article title. With the pipe and space after the category name, it sorts above everything else. This is usually only done for one or two key articles, usually the subject of the category or maybe an important list that is strongly connected with the category subject. Could you explain what you were trying to accomplish with that edit? I would also like to echo First Light's comments below and hope your recovery is swift. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Rkitko, The precedent was set by others in this cat.-pipes, and I am complying. The pipes just added are to position those habit-plant community articles in that region along with the others also in that cat. & already preceding the A-Z species articles. There is no [Flora-Trees of the NE] article being de-emphasized. Please see the Category:Flora of the Eastern United States, the few edits you question will be visually explained, there is no need to be baffled. I've come across this in other states'-regions' [Cat:flora] also, such as Category:Flora of Appalachia (United States). Is this a problem now?
With Drosera linearis, I was Not "unsure of something" so I made No cat.-mistake at that time, due to the info clearly presented there. The article text even links to [Great Lakes region] article, why hasn't that been deleted yet if it is as incorrect as the repeatedly deleted cat.? Enough of this please---Look2See1 t a l k → 03:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC).
Look2See1, I hope you understand that my reason for bringing out the many other comments about your over-categorizing was simply to point out that there is general consensus on this. From your earlier comments, you implied that it was just the personal views of Gjs238 and Rkitko. I won't say anything else on the matter, since it's been said enough. I do appreciate all the work you are doing on Wikipedia (as I said in my very first post to you), and wish you a speedy recovery and the best of health. regards, First Light (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
[time-out]

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • Stand-alone list articles

Hi, Look2See1. Here's my 2¢ about categorization. As a WP reader, I personally find that stand-alone list articles are far more informative and interesting than a categorization. This is just my personal opinion: WP:CLN says that both are valuable and complementary. My advice for you is this: if you took your boundless enthusiasm and energy about flora and aimed it at making list articles (sort of like we are starting to do at /List of Sierra plants), then you would be making a large contribution to Wikipedia and would not be getting all of this negative feedback.

I can sense that you're reluctant to start articles. Don't worry: editors will correct flawed articles. To me, that's a lot of the advantage of list articles. If an editor wants to improve on an article that you write, he or she simply edits one article. If he or she disagrees or wants to improve on your categorization, then they have to edit tens or hundreds or thousands of articles. That's a painful process for anyone, so editors then come to your page and point out flaws in your edits, and want you to fix things.

So, I would encourage you to start some articles. Give it a try! The other nice thing about list articles is that you can add words to your list entries. If there is something particularly interesting (say, a plant is endemic to a specific area), you can add it. Looking at the discussion, above, here are some redlinks you may want to start to edit:

Try these out and see how things go! Happy editing! —hike395 (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


---pasted in---'
Thanks hike395 for suggesting the overall focus shift onto list articles, an insightful and good idea. The posted cat.-dialogues tone, while predominantly well intentioned, is resulting in the cat. confusion getting worse. The BBC just reported that one in five plants face extinction now in a Kew Gardens study, so being worried about whether three or five categories per plant article are wiki-legal becomes so stupid and silly in comparison.
Getting out of the 'cat. hell' negativity resulted in thinking it may be wisest to just stop all these WP efforts. That has died down now with this redirection option of developing list articles instead for main articles accessibility-findability. I'll give it a try.
Thank you for your kindness and actual constructive help.---best---Look2See1 t a l k → 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rosa pages

Hi, while I think that the changes that you are making have all been fine, could you try to list a bit more of the reasons for each? You seem to be rearranging quite a bit under small headings about categories. Actually, it would be easier to follow (and check for typos, etc.) if you could break up your edits into several small ones. Thanks. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nadiatalent, sorry to not have detailed more on Rosa species edits. Primarily my goal was to link articles to the specific cats. for "Cat:Flora of country/region" - "Cat:Garden plants of continent" - & "Cat:Vines," as appropriate. Was especially focusing on semi-orphan articles & native plants of western North America. Please let me know of any mistakes. Thank you---Look2See1 t a l k → 23:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Probably most of the pages that you are looking at are on my watch list, and I'll let you know if I spot any errors. Best regards, Nadiatalent (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


Architecture categories by style

Hi Look2See1, I see you took on the job of categorising 20th and 21st century architecture based on style. Please be aware that the wiki articles on the subject are not yet well developed, and cannot be taken as a comprehensive guide for such categorization. The distinctions between architectural styles of the second half of the 20th century and contemporary architecture are often ambiguous, with different critics drawing the lines differently. Most importantly, "modernist" is commonly used only for early 20th century architecture. There are also clear cut cases such as the Neue Staatsgalerie which is a prime example of postmodernism or designs by Peter Eisenman which most critics consider a prime representant of deconstructivism. Other terms such as "critical regionalsm" have been proposed but not yet in world-wide use. Please be aware that labelling everything contemporary as "modernist" could create confusion and controversy. For this reason I would rather leave alone buildings built after 1990, as their categorasitaion will remain object of dispute among critics. --Elekhh (talk) 05:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain of categorizing buildings as "modernist" only because they were built in the 20th or 21st century or based on personal judgement. I've undone a number of your recent edits where there was no evidence that such categorization would be appropriate, or there is evidence of the contrary. I opened a tread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture#Categorizing late 20th and 21st century architecture by style in order to seek community consensus regarding the best way to categorize contemporary architecture. --Elekhh (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Please stop categorization of architecture articles based on style. From your numerous edits including [the most recent one] is obvious that you are doing your own categorization, and not based on references. This is against Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Please seek consensus prior to continuing any work on this. --Elekhh (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
--pasted in---
Hi Elekhh, Have stopped the modern & contemporary [Cat:Architecture] adds, while it is clarified by editor group. Apologize for not addressing your concerns earlier. Not ignoring, but trying to clarify thoughts. Will be brief for here. Was using Category:Modernist architecture in very broad way, as a post 'Classical and regional vernacular Revivalisms & Victoriana' and post early 20th century to present category. Defining "Modernist" in an encompassing manner - the way Romanesque, Renaissance, Baroque, and Neoclassical each hold many subtly diverse to quite loosely related styles.
Got my undergraduate degree when Modern architecture was in sole reign, and so am aware of 'can of worms' - from Chicago school to Federal Modernism - let alone all the "contemporary but not modern" styles since. Will read editors' discussions, and share more later. Was not trying to impose 'my taste' but allow some wonderful project's articles be less obtuse to find. Will wait for consensus clarity here-on. Thanks for your patience.---best---Look2See1 t a l k → 22:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my previous harsh wording, I recognise your edits are in good faith. I hope there will be some fruitful discussion on this at WikiProject Architecture. I think some of the disagreement also comes from a distinction critics often make between "modern architecture" and "modernist architecture", the first being a more integrative term. However as mentioned, some critics, like Charles Jencks would trace a clear line to where modern architecture ends, and not use it for anything post-1980s. --Elekhh (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


Classification of ecoregions

Hi Look2See1 and thanks for your work on classifying ecoregions. I wonder why ecoregions of Borneo is included in Oceania given that, the WWF (which defined these ecoregions) classifies it as Indomalaya ecozone, as it is explained comprehensively in all related articles. --Elekhh (talk) 21:25, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

---pasted in---
Hi Elekhh, my mistake - I'm sorry and will correct Borneo lowland rain forest now to Indomalaya ecozone. Thanks for noticing and kindly mentioning it.---Look2See1 t a l k → 21:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
---pasted in---
Hi Elekhh, just now in fixing above I saw-recalled my thinking at time, that the Borneo lowland rain forest is in Oceania as an geographic 'continent' district of ecoregions, per that article's boundaries including Borneo - and in the Indomalaya ecozone of biogeographic or phytogeographic ecoregions. If I'm understanding correctly..... Have been trying to 'corral' ecoregions by mega-continents as a quick way for readers to find them, while they might be learning about biomes, floristic provinces, etc. that organize them scientifically. --cheers--Look2See1 t a l k → 21:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Borneo is in Oceania geographically, but than again it is in (South-east) Asia politically... Given that the article is about the ecoregion I think is fair to categorize it primarily by global ecoregion categories. Maybe this needs to be clarified in the category description as well. To what you're trying to do maybe the best solution is to categorize Category:Ecoregions of Indonesia as a subcategory of Category:Geography of Oceania. --Elekhh (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Gillette

I don't understand this edit: the two links point to the same place (via redirect). --Macrakis (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

---pasted in---
Hi Macrakis, here was my reason for revert to keep two 'see also' links:
cheers--Look2See1 t a l k → 23:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with Gillette (brand); but why keep both
and
especially since the first of the two has a direct in-text link? --Macrakis (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
---pasted in---
Hi Macrakis, didn't understand Freebie marketing was a duplicated 'end point' - sorry. Perhaps Razor and blades business model is best 'see also' as gives 'Razor' intro to 'Freebie' article ?--Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 2:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Robert Allerton Park & Allerton Estate

Thanks for your changes to the Robert Allerton Park article. Bigturtle (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thank you for creating Robert Allerton Park article. It fills in sparse book info sources on the two Allertons' work in Illinois.--Look2See1 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; Correction to consonant chart - Ventureño

Thanks very much for cleaning up the citations and for adding the diacritics indicating glottalization to the Ventureño language article. May I ask that you please remake separate columns for palatal and post-alveolar places of articulation? Every Chumashist (including myself) treats the places of articulation as non-interchangeable. I've been studying the language over 5 years now at a major research university, and I agree with the other Chumashists: different columns.

I'll apologize in advance if this seems overly-detailed, but it is important to accurately represent the language. And I do appreciate all the help in cleaning things up and making the article look just spectacular. I would like to include orthographic symbols next to the IPA characters, and would very much welcome help with that.

Alaquwel (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alaquwel, thanks for posting appreciation for "Correction to consonant chart - Ventureño language" on my talk page, however all I did was fix the broken link to Chumash people. Another editor deserves your kind attention much more. Thanks---(pasted copy here)---Look2See1 t a l k → 22:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Low-flow irrigation systems [ & Thanks ]

I was happy to see this article grow so much after such a long drought! Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

PS What source is this all from? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 06:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Andrew Gradman, Thanks for your message, and your getting a great topic going with your article. Today's edit was just putting some new-expanded info in from a lot of experience with topic. Know that's not good enough for wiki; and certainly have phase 2 etc. to get verifiable citations "re-found in my library" & in the article, and some non-commercial ext. links too.
Am so appreciative for your work on this environmentally important topic-resource site ! cheers---[User:Look2See1|Look2See1]] t a l k → 06:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)-----(pasted in copy)----Look2See1 t a l k → 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!

Hello Look2See1, Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Greetings, Look2See1! Hope you're having a good day! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fauna by state categories

Hi, I just noticed you created and populated Category:Fauna of California. There have been numerous community decisions at Categories for Discussion not to keep such categories (e.g., here), because it just creates a big mess on species articles to have unrestricted categorization of their distribution within subnational entities such as states, and such small slivers of an animal's distribution are better handled by list articles. Articles such as the brown rat otherwise would end up in hundreds of categories. This is why all the existing categories were drawn narrowly (Lists of fauna of California, Endemic fauna of California), or described broader geographic regions that actually correlated to different fauna and environments and are not limited to states (Category:Fauna of the Lower Colorado River Valley, Category:Fauna of the Sonoran Desert). Most of what you have populated Category:Fauna of California with are just list articles that are already in the "lists of fauna" category and so their presence in an unrestricted category is redundant, and all of it was already otherwise properly categorized (including by its relationship with California). So given all of that (primarily the fact that it's a recreation of deleted material), I'm going to depopulate it and speedy delete it. postdlf (talk) 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fauna of California - closed category consensus
Hi Postdlf, just read your message - 1. Sorry ! 2. Promptly stopped adds to "Category:Fauna of California." I now understand that I plowed into a topic previously well discussed and decided upon. What happened; I was trying to find some Calif. desert info, had difficulty as it wasn't in list form/title so not in the "Category:Lists of fauna of California" options. When found articles of a list but not titled as such, it seemed inappropriate to add them to the 'list of lists' category, - is that ok occasionally? I'm in botany so the Calif. article finding/access is a bit different (not better) for the flora. I'm so sorry to have caused you a batch of revert work. Thank you for keeping a system that works monitored. Best----Look2See1 t a l k → 23:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding! You're right that not all articles that are lists in substance are titled as lists. Fishes of Sespe Creek, California is pretty clearly a list, and even when fully fleshed out will be nothing but an annotated list. When categorizing, it's better to weigh the content of the article more heavily than the title, and it's possible that many articles should be renamed to better match their content. Cheers, postdlf (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Look2See1/Archive_2&oldid=1143139587"