Jump to content

User talk:Look2See1/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Look2See1

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 07:48, 21 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Natural environment edits

Hi, I just reverted your good-faith edit because I felt that the two categories you added didn't fit the article's subject matter. As an article about natural environments, environmental design didn't seem relevant, and since the article's focus is not on environmental conservation (in fact it barely makes reference to it), the Conservation category didn't seem to be appropriate either. If you believe that these categories are relevant to the article, please discuss their inclusion in the article on the Talk:Natural environment before readding them. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:01, 26 May 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)
--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)

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)

Death Valley region and Great Basin

A lot of questions there. First, I think that not creating new categories in these areas may be the best moves for a while. Give the system a chance to catch up. Re the Death Valley stuff. I don't like the using region in a category name since it is ambiguous. Category names and the contents should allow for objective inclusion criteria and not be subjective. If there is an article Death Valley Region that defined the area, then a category probably would be OK. Without that article, I would question the category. Re: Category:Great Basin landforms. I was not planning on deleting this. I agree with you that the naming might be backwards. The need for the category is questionable. I'm not sure if grouping landforms by geographic areas is right. If I'm recalling correctly, large parts of Nevada are in multiple geologic and geographic areas. If we create a category tree for one, do we need to do so for all? We probably need to concentrate on cleanup right now. BTW, the is a WikiProject Geography but I'm not sure how active they are. I posted a request there for help with the Searchlight triple point and got no response. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Populated places

Aren't all 'unincorporated communities' 'populated places'? If so the articles should not be in the populated places category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

---pasted in---
Hi Vegaswikian, cleaning up my earlier [this year] mistake of putting all Clark County pop. places in a then new [Cat:Cities of C.Cty], including non-incorporated & CDP entities. So now my misplaced ones are getting [Cat:pop. place in Clark.Cty] & [Cat:CDP in Nevada] or [Cat:Uninc. com./town in Nevada]. Not clear on your question & want to be, seems one cat. at county and different one at state is standard ? Please let me know if otherwise.---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
If Category:Unincorporated places in Clark County, Nevada has Category:Populated places in Clark County, Nevada as a parent, articles in Category:Unincorporated places in Clark County, Nevada would not need to directly contain Category:Populated places in Clark County, Nevada. Since we have Category:Cities in Clark County, Nevada we probably need a similar category for unincorporated communities. Note that planned communities like Mountains Edge and Summerlin are not communities in this sense but are populated places or neighborhoods. Summerlin is also odd in that it is in the city and a CDP and the county. So yes, a cleanup in this area is needed. We also need to add Category:Neighborhoods in Nevada where Category:Planned communities in Nevada is a subcategory. See Category:Populated places in Washington (U.S. state) for a more complete category.
One take here is to create the top level categories and then split them when you see how they are populated. The other is to create the top categories as parent categories and fill them from below. Hope this does not confuse you. But as I said this are does need a good cleanup and additional categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
---pasted in---
Still confused, sorry, it seems that Category:Populated places in Washington (U.S. state) is similar to Category:Populated places in Nevada, with NV missing some like cat:neighborhoods & cat:planned communities. Washington does have the 1 specific Category:Populated places in King County, Washington in [Category:Populated places in Washington (U.S. state)], I can similarly put Category:Populated places in Clark County, Nevada in [Category:Populated places in Nevada] ? Are you advising that new [Category:Unincorporated communities in Clark County, Nevada], & same with [Category:Census-designated places in CC, NV] - [Category:Unincorporated towns in CC, NV] are needed-ok ?
I'm reluctant currently to create any new 'desert located anything' cat.s - after the other editor's recent plethora of micro-G.B ones, and questioning enough of mine too. I did today's new [Cat:Pop. places CC] only in response to an editor's [yours ?] very valid point in Sept. that with [Cat:Cities CC] I had put non-inc. communities in it, otherwise would not have.---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 19:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was just looking at creating one for planned communities. Any others to consider? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure how to deal with Category:Populated places in King County, Washington since that is an odd ball. It really belongs in Category:Populated places in Washington (U.S. state) by county not sure that is needed there yet. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
---'pasted in---
Hi Vegaswikian, with [Cat:Planned communities in NV], or [Cat:Plan.cmm. in C.C., NV], it's yours [and any other local editors] place to decide, as I'm not a NV resident. I had typed & saved a Category:Populated places in Nevada by county earlier today, but with only Category:Populated places in Clark County, Nevada & an unorganized Category:Reno–Sparks metropolitan area & Category:Washoe County, Nevada without any Category:Populated places in Washoe County, Nevada, [along with my "no new desert cats." timeout], - I didn't set it up. Perhaps for states like WA & NV with only 1-2 major metropolitan areas/counties it can wait ?
The Category:Populated places in California by county is only 'populated' with 18 of its 55+ counties. I have created a few of those to clean up the parent [Cat:County, CA] or sub-cat. [Cat:Geography of county, CA] pages - when one couldn't see the 'big trees' articles for all the 'little sapling settlements' ones. The motivation was actually the same when did hasty [Category:Cities in Clark County, Nevada] in Sept., though that was for settlement sub-cats "clutter."
Have finished cat. tagging all the Clark non-incorp. settlements' articles & their sub-cats. Will now [to not startle your watchlist] take quick pass to make sure both articles & sub-cats. for the Clark inc.-cities all have their tags ensembles too; & unless hear otherwise will put Category:Populated places in Clark County, Nevada in Category:Populated places in Nevada, .....and then will quickly depart Great Basin-Mojave territory......
With our favorite G.Basin editor reverting your good Lake Mojave cleanup with [cat:state boundaries] back, upon reflection realized need to get busy and put that cat. on every Calif. beach, town, city, county, surf spot, lighthouse, etc. within tsunami zone of Pacific O. state boundary line - & then on to China and back.... Anyway, please advise as needed, want to learn---best---Look2See1 t a l k → 21:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Borders

Any editor is free to undo changes that they believe are not correct. Just remember to avoid the WP:3RR issue. I'm going to copy the introduction from the parent category which should make the reason for removals clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

History of Clark County

When a category like Category:History of Clark County, Nevada is in another category like Category:National Register of Historic Places in Clark County, Nevada then it is already applied to all of the articles in Category:National Register of Historic Places in Clark County, Nevada and it should not be added separately to the articles. Aren't categories fun! Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

---pasted in---
Hi, hear you on cat:history not to join a cat:NRHP on articles, and will not repeat that hereon. Did set up some other NV county history cat.s where mining was-landmarks are significant. [alas have double done it on them too, & for months on other states/counties.....] Will undo as come across them all again. I'm learning from your approach and comments on edits too, such as on Topock Gorge & Lake Mojave - with your actual deletes and beyond to the criteria behind them that's widely usable elsewhere. Thanks anew.---Look2See1 t a l k → 06:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Functionalism architecture

Category:Functionalism architecture, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Death Valley region

I'm likely going to propose this for deletion since the inclusion criteria is really ambiguous. Also it seems to require meeting multiple criteria which is also frowned upon by the guideline. Any ideas for a better name or a simpler set of inclusion criteria? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

---pasted in---
Death Valley region #2
Hi Vegaswikian, Thanks for asking about Category:Death Valley region, and clarifying-improving it by delete/rename. After reading many wiki-articles on various "region" types lately, to improve my understanding and future usage, and as a first pass here, it seems very broadly that regions tend to be in one of four groups:
  • 1.) physical geography group - with scientifically determined, generally agreed, clearly delineated boundaries
  • 2.) geopolitical group - with legislation-treaty established precise boundaries
  • 3.) historical-political, visual-aesthetic, and socio-cultural region group - with defined, or generally agreed upon, or established over time boundaries; that range from 'clear'/singular; to 'fuzzy'/overlapping; to opinionated variable options, to [weasel term] edges
  • 4.) natural history group - with determation by biota presence/range, &/or averaged climate and elevations, &/or visual landform boundaries that are: clear-simple, orr transitional-ecotone-intergrade, or stop & start, or have significant exceptions
To possibly apply above to our locale: "d.v. group" 1.) Category:Death Valley basin itself, drainage basin-watershed, features & places; "d.v. group" 2.) Category:Death Valley National Park, removing "visitor interest filter," for articles on anything within the park boundaries, & child [cat.D.V.]; "d.v.group" 3.) outside DV and DVNP - ie: Amargosa Desert-Amargosa River-Amargosa Valley, mining-ghost towns-old RR lines-stops, Timbisha homelands; "d.v. group" 4.) convert old "Category:Death Valley region with the "ill disciplined" plants, animals - to possibility below.
Possible solution: a new Category:Natural history of Death Valley region, only for "d.v. group 4" natural history biota-ecosystems articles, and "d.v. group 3" selected 'non-human history' landforms and natural places articles. It could be a sub-cat. in Category:Death Valley National Park and Category:Natural history of the Mojave Desert. "It" is not defined by Great Basin water movement or Mojave Desert history. If a plant [article] is endemic to the valley floor, the Eureka Valley, or the Panamint Range it can be found here. The 'D.V. region' is so rich from the unique extremes of its location and being a large transition zone from M.Desert. ecoregion to G.B. ecoregion, that one valley nor artificial park boundaries can contain it. Another option is just use existing cat:D.V, cat:DVNP, & cat:N.h.of.M.D.
Shared in spirit of early discussion, not final standpoint. Your question's final solution can be a wiki-precedent for consistency.---Thanks---Look2See1 t a l k → 23:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
My primary concern is that the use of region is completely ambiguous and the introduction does not help. Category:Natural history of the Mojave Desert or Category:Natural history of Death Valley might be better targets for this as you suggested. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
---pasted in---
With a bit more reflection, perhaps just deleting & not renaming [D.V. region] cat. - and moving articles to one of 4 existing [DV], [DVNP], [M.D.nat.hist.], & [M.D.human.hist.] cats. is most succinct. Later I or another editor can do a list article [Native plants of the Death Valley region] with plant articles. I've started a list for Sierra Nevada, as some editors strongly disliked [cat:Flora of S.N./cat:Fauna S.N.] in Yosemite-Sequoia-parks etc. cats. or as "see also" link in their articles, and other editors suggested list as peaceable solution with easy reader access. If delete the cat. & move articles is acceptable I'd be glad to figure out what goes where and do it.
Not certain on wiki-protocol, but if ok could do that soon & 1.) also remove "region tag" & empty cat., or 2.) leave "region tag" for later en-mass removal if approved? Was glad to see 'my' [Cat:Basins in the Great Basin that are endorheic basins or lakes and are in California too] quickly deleted due my posting Approve as cat. creator. Could this be same, also for delete [cat:M.D. Lakes in Calif]? Sorry for more questions.---Thank you---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Let me nominate it for deletion with the note that anything that needs to be categorized in that area is in the right tree, or will be shortly. You can comment at the CfD discussion. This way it is done in the open. With you being the creator, there should be few if any objections. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for solution with transparency! Will get articles in the right trees over weekend, and comment on CfD page. Please just ask if my cat:Mojave Desert relinks need help. I'm self-banned from any watershed-basin edits/cats. currently, but noticed a large edit on List of Great Basin watersheds, seems maybe a number of endorheic basins went out with the bathwater? ---best---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, nominated. I'm really buried right now with the HUC cleanup and what is the beginning of a cleanup of the architecture categories. So I can answer a specific question, but not a lot of research. As to List of Great Basin watersheds, that whole area needs work. So I guess the question is where the removals really wrong? I have a feeling that as some others start cleanup, there will be some items removed and later re-added as the dust settles. So maybe just watch and see what happens over time. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Archaic/Woodland period/Mississippian culture/ of North America

  • Redundant, unrelated, unnecessary links
  • Go read the WP:MoS about overlinking and what not to link. That list of unrelated, redundant links does NOT need to be added to all of those pages. Please revert your self. Keep it up, and I'll ask more experienced editors to comment and we'll see how consensus goes on this issue. Heiro 05:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the LSU campus mounds, are not Mississippian culture, they are from the Archaic period, many THOUSANDS of years earlier. Do not revert my removal of factually incorrect information from that article again. If you dont trust me, follow the links used as cites for the article. Heiro 05:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Heironymous Rowe-iro - I was going by the information already in the articles when adding the cat. links. It was part of putting Category:Mounds in the United States and the state cats. from Category:Native American history by state on 'semi-orphan' articles for average readers, those not experts in the field-region as you are, to find/come upon these good articles. Ironically, re: your harsh criticism this way, 'Your' articles and wonderful colored maps-diagrams-art for the Gulf to Great Lakes cultures, traditions, groups, and sites inspired the effort (overdone I understand now, with apologies) to facilitate their find-ability. Being unfamiliar with that region's prehistoric legacy, whenever any article opened with one of your 'watercolor' maps I felt gratitude and could sense its place in time period and locale. Was just about to write 'thank you' for them on your talk page on 23rd when the above 2 posted here, so some cool down time, and the appreciation is sincerely shared now.---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 23:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

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)

-

Hi Binksternet, Thank you for the California Star, it was (in August) and continually is (by moving down...) very appreciated, and so kind and thoughtful of you.---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 04:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

-

Moved List of Sierra Plants into article namespace

The list article looks pretty good! I used the "move" feature in WP to move it to become a real article. Thanks for your efforts on the article!

Let me repeat what I said before: I appreciate the time and energy you spend on WP categorization. I think if you spent the same energy on creating list articles for the same material, then more people would see them and you would end up helping our readers more. Just something to consider.

Thanks again! —hike395 (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi Hike395, am startled to see your message about my "Sierra plants" draft now an 'out there' wiki-article. I really appreciate your regarding it good enough for that.
At a lower level of importance: I'm surprised to not be asked first; there were some final collected adds for filling out slim areas; the intro lede was unfinished; the working title was too vague 'for public use' and wanted to discuss with you) options and how to change it; and lastly had some minor corrections to do. I also wanted to learn how to transform/release a draft article into the wiki.world, still have no ? idea. I am unable to find it in Category:Sierra Nevada (U.S.) and sub-cats./park articles and quite confused?
Please help me with this. Your insights, ideas, and support have been so 'calmingly valuable-meaningful' since the Sierra/plants fracas-learning opportunity first appeared. Again, thank you for considering it good enough for a wikipedia article.---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 17:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry -- I should have asked you first. Articles certainly don't need to be anywhere near finished to be put up as an article: Wikipedia is never finished: people will continue to improve articles through the years. Feel free to keep improving it!
The article is at List of plants of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.). You can add categories to it like any other article. You can move articles around by clicking on the "Move" tab, and giving it a different name. I just gave it a name that didn't start with "User talk:", and *poof* it became an article. Quite easy. No bureaucracy or anything: anyone can make or move one. —hike395 (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, was just startled earlier and no problems now. Did a 'send off tune up' and then put it in the 3 parks' "See also" lineups. Will see how it floats. Much appreciation to you---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 03:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Contemporary architecture

Category:Contemporary architecture, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Elekhh (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Zaha Hadid

Hi!

You have added Category:Zaha Hadid buildings to the Zaha Hadid article twice. The first time I reverted it and created a See also section with a listing of the category, with an edit summary explaining that as she is not a building she shouldn't be included in the cat. Today you added it again and I have reverted it again, as you gave no indication that you had seen my edit summary. Per WP:BRD, I would be happy to discuss with you on the article talk page if you still think it should be included. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you've also added the Libeskind buildings cat to Daniel Libeskind, and can only assume you've done similar to other architects. I would suggest you undo this, as the architects do not fit in the description given in the categories. Bigger digger (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Bigger digger, re: Category:Zaha Hadid buildings, a quick acknowledgement of seeing your message, and will not add other archs. to their buildings until have time to read your edit summary and carefully discuss on article's talk page. The intention was for readers to easily and directly find more about a given architect, and some use the cat. bar more than other means for navigation. These cat. adds were in good faith as I had forgotten doing them before, and was not knowingly reverting your efforts-(re)adding links without listening-talking first, nonetheless my apologies.---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 16:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Adding Zaha Hadid to Category:Zaha Hadid buildings does not enhance navigation without creating confusion – creating a See also section with a link to the category gives interested readers a simple link to see buildings designed by the architect, which is what I did after your first effort. Readers already at the cat page have a link to ZH immediately at the top of the paragraph. And adding it results in mis-categorisations, architects are not buildings! Are there any benefits to adding it? Bigger digger (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

North America

Since you're an expert on some things, I want to run this by you. (And you have been a Busy Beaver on all the plants... so your efforts are deservedly awarded-(Barnstars!) (and maybe you can tell me how you know so much about Genus-species (and the flora).. I am writing to see if You might want to recreate the (removed) cat: "[:Category:Flora of the Mojave Desert]"... since you are the author of the cat: Category:Flora of the California desert regions (& the numerous others that you've created, here's what I want to explain, as my personal history)... I started with the Natural history, Trees, Flora, and some Fauna Cats, years ago.... When I created "Cat:North American desert flora".. (it went along with Cat:Trees and Birds of the Great Basin desert region... (I have a Govt, Dept of Agriculture, Vol 3 (((correct title: Atlas of United States Trees, Vol 3 Minor Western Hardwoods)))---Minor Hardwards of Western North American, (vol 3 of 4, being the Major Trees of Western, Eastern, then Minor of Western & Eastern...).. (I've made some articles out of the Vol 3, I live in the west, ARIZ, and there are some wonderful plants, tho some I may never get to see in my lifetime....)

After I created "cat:North American desert flora", others immediately consolidated the Flora of the Sonoran, Chihuahuan into it.. (subcats), but erased the Cat:Flora of the Mojave Desert (i guess thinking it could be covered by the Great Basin)

As a listing of North American Deserts, we both know that the major ones are: Chihuahuan, Sonoran(including Colorado Des., and the Bajas), and the Great Basin (and the Mojave).. (any others are minor or local).

Since you've been putting so many plants, flora (trees as well) into the categories, (Can you recreate "Category:Flora of the Mojave Desert"... or will you just get Flak from other Wikipedians-? (I DO NOT believe in the wikipedia cabals; they are just that... and they are also on a timeline of evolution.. (I recently recreated the cat: Category:Trees of Kansas-(I just looked, made it 21May2010-there are 12 species)

(There are even categories I created, but had to wait a year, becawz there weren't enough articles to put in the cat: (example: Category:Fossil trackways... I also had to make a disambiguation page to "Trackway".. in England, there are so many articles on the Roman Tracks-"Trackways", made as troop road trackways.. (I was only interested in the fossil types... (all a learning adventure as I populated the cat)....)

But like i say, the list of "North American desert flora", as subcats... I see the Cacti, subcats listed together, the Desert Subcats, and the others...

And I see the problem, too of "the Baja California's", the south (Sur) being somewhat more desert like, but both have the mountain range species, but the north: Baja California has all the species that just range southwards into the north of the state, (which are more non-desert like species)... and I know the Great Basin extends south with the Salton trough, & Salton Sea to the Mexico border.

Any way, if I had my way, I'd recreate the "Cat:Flora of the Mojave Desert,... then under the subcats list the following unders "Deserts"

Category:Flora of the California desert regions
Category:Flora of the Chihuahuan Desert
Category:Flora of the Great Basin desert region
Category:Flora of the Mojave Desert
Category:Flora of the Sonoran Deserts

You don't even need to reply... I added a categorytree to Cat:North American desert flora, so that one doesn't have to go to a second Page 2 to find subcat: Cat:Flora of the Sonoran Deserts... (there's also a few species that could be included in smaller weirder cat: "Cat:Endemic flora of the Lower Colorado River Valley"..(the Flora cat for the LColor.River Valley got deleted, (as it should have)...) Hesperocallis undulata, Desert fir, Nolina bigelovii, and one or two species of the Buckhorn Cholla... ..(and Psorothamnus spinosus-a wonderful tree)Mmcannis (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Your idea for recreating Category:Flora of the Mojave Desert seems a good one. I must have bumped into the 'deleted cat. notice' when creating/naming Category:Flora of the California desert regions, as otherwise that is too vague. Currently some of the Mojave endemic plants are in Category:Natural history of the Mojave Desert. I'm slow to recreate old one until find out why it was deleted. The Jepson Manual is my main Calif. flora research resource.---cheers---Look2See1 t a l k → 18:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hint

Hi. If you are creating articles which have a lot of text between the opening and closing <ref></ref> tags, it could be confusing to anyone editing the text later; There is a work around for this. See how a copy editor has done it at Tussock (grass). Note the special use of the ==References== section. Cheers, --Kudpung (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Near threatened animals

How is your newly created Category:Near threatened animals useful, given the existence of Category:IUCN Red List near threatened species? Do you plan to stop automated category listing through the taxobox status parameter? Has this change been discussed anywhere? --Stemonitis (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stemonitis, No stopping of the automated ICUN listing was intended or is appropriate, that is the definitive category listing. The new Category:Near threatened animals, under Category:Animals by conservation status, is only joining other fauna classification subcategories, such as Category:Endangered animals, with the geographically and fauna based sub-subcategories Category:Endangered fauna of Australia & Category:Endangered fauna of the United States. The new one and the three others under Category:Animals by conservation status are only parent categories for ICUN and NatureServe classification articles, with an added location and fauna (not flora) defined category currently for Australia or the U.S. This new Category:Near threatened animals is also under Category:Near Threatened species, where the readers find Category:IUCN Red List near threatened species (flora and fauna combined, sans location). The Category:Plants by conservation status has been much more developed with subcategories, and may help illustrate. Please ask about any further questions, concerns, improvements, or changes.---Thank you---Look2See1 t a l k → 18:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Look2See1. You have new messages at Hike395's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Categorizing architecture by style (2)

See also: User talk:Look2See1/Archive 3 § Architecture categories by style

Please try to understand that categorizations of architecture articles by style as you are doing are not constructive. Much of what you're doing is completely wrong and I can't cope with reverting poor edits at the paste you are doing them. I understand you act in good faith, but I believe your edits in this area demonstrate serious lack of competence and are counter-productive to this project. I am saddened to have to bring to your attention this issue again and again while you continue to ignore my previous comments. Some general remarks:

  • (1) "Architectural styles" are defined by critics, and therefore subjective. Often architects repudiate such categories to be applied to their buildings or them-self. Thus categorizing architects in particular by style can be highly contentious;
  • (2) While there might be some level of consensus regarding "styles" in history, there is no consensus definition of recent architectural styles and there are many different style names and categorizations which do overlap as they were defined by different critics. So one either would have to decide for one critic or another (which would be subjective) or overlap all categorizations (which is what you appear to be intending to do) and which creates total confusion, is contentious and leads to over-categorization;
  • (3) Styles are useful concepts in order to analyse architectural design, but applied as labels they detract from deeper understanding of architecture and therefore the educational value of their excessive use is negative IMO;

Beyond these general remarks, I wish to bring to your attention a number of typical problematic edits you are making:

  • Not reading the content of the article you are categorizing. For example here you categorized all Campaniles as Italian Renaissance Revival architecture, while obviously Campanile stands for a type of bell towers, i.e. from any historic period and any architectural design.
  • Adding all possible categories even when mutually exclusive. If there is one clear line between the many 20th and 21st century architecture styles ever named by critics, than it is between modernism and post-modernism. This is semanticly obvious (i.e. post stands for after). However you sometimes add both to the same article or category, as here.
  • non-NPOV categorization, without any reference and I assume based on you own judgement you add categories to buildings, which are completely wrong, even contradicting the content of the article. For example here you labelled an icon of deconstructivism as modernism, despite the fact that in the infobox it was written deconstructivism and the article explained that the building is notable for its rupture from modernism.

While I appreciate your intention to help, please try to work through what you're doing more methodically, carefully and seeking consensus. If there is no reference in an article that a building would be representative for an architectural style, better don't categorize it. --Elekhh (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. note that you missed one paragraph when archiving our previous discussion. A ≠ A see archive, not talk page

Regarding your most recent edits: note that contemporary architecture, stands for "present day" architecture, thus its meaning is not precise and shifting. In 1920, modernism was contemporary, today it is 21st century architecture contemporary, aso. Is useless to categorize articles under a relative and imprecise term, when clear and neutral category already exists: Category:Years in architecture. --Elekhh (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC) -

I endorse my efforts to help late 20th century and contemporary architecture. No one else had made it a priority ever. There was no response by anyone else to your discussion post months ago. No action for the many wonderful articles-projects in the "post-classic modernism" four and a half decades orphan zone. My effort was an educated good faith start to get the process moving, knowing it would definitely need minor tune-ups by others, and most likely a few major remodelings, which would tend to be easier for most of the other editors than a cold start.
Please drop the "personal taste" - "don't know architecture" agendas, this was just a first start on the post '65 architecture articles that have primarily been abandoned to homelessness since wikipedia began. Instead of posting column inches of criticism and a legal case of locked links, please try peaceful discussion and constructive collaboration. With no disrespect, I may never entirely read your large declarative post on my talk page, in my world concerns the probable upset is not worth it. My efforts had no authoritarian intentions, just good will and good faith in getting the ball rolling. Neither you nor I are the designated expert here, and the position does not exist in wiki-editing. Please, if it is important to you, try a different way of communicating so I may listen, learn, and help.---Look2See1 t a l k → 04:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
No, articles are not "orphaned" by not being overcategorized. And confusing building structures with architectural styles is not helpful by any ways. I tried to help in numerous ways (including in over a dozen edit summaries) and you did not seem to listen, and now you state that you'll be ignoring what I am going to say in the future as well, and continue on the same path. You also stroke out a valid statement above. That's not a way forward. --Elekhh (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
What is not architectural style

Hi, this is just a friendly note explaining a couple of edits I did, for better mutual understanding:

Thanks. --Elekhh (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


Hi Elekhh,—Thank you for kind note with helpful information, I will study it. Been mulling over a proper message for days to write you, a bit late tonight to express it well, so briefly for now: I'm so sorry for my message above. Thank you for your ongoing efforts to help correct understanding. I'm stepping back to observe and learn while you and others hone an "after modernism" approach-system, however much time that needs. Thanks again—Look2See1 t a l k → 07:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Mono Lake

Hi hike395, Really good rewrite improving Mono Lake introduction and organizing cultural balance. The lede gives a well rounded sense of place. Interesting to see the 24 hour arsenic news cycle reflected in its daily readership chart.
Have wanted to clarify and correct the recent "my" to "our" in List of Sierra Plants talking, you contributed a lot and it is appreciated. Thanks for recent reminder of 'shift to list articles' - and will, but do not understand the process to start a Talk page/List article. Know it must be simple...help please? Also, where is the 'move button' you mentioned using to launch Sierra Plants from talk into wikipedia please? ---Best---Look2See1 t a l k → 22:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I wish I had cleaned up Mono Lake, before 100K+ people read the article! Oh, well.
You can start a page either by clicking on a red link and starting to type, or by moving an existing page. I'm not sure if everyone is using the updated UI that I use, or if it is still in beta. At the top of any page, there may be a tab-like thing that says "Move", or perhaps a little black downarrow that when you click on it, it reveals a menu, one of which says "Move". If you click on "Move", it takes you to a special page where you can type the new page name, and a reason for the move. This special page will allow you to move pages between "namespaces", too.. Normal articles don't have a namespace. User pages start with "User:", Article talk pages start with "Talk:", User talk pages start with "User talk:".. It's just a string --- there's nothing magic. Normally, you don't move things between name spaces, but when you create a temporary article in your own user talk, it's fine to move it out to the main name space by getting rid of the "User talk:" in the article title.
It's easy to create an article discussion page: up at the top, there should be a Discussion tab-like thing, and it should be red. Click on the red link, and it takes you to a place where you can create the Discussion page.
Hope this helps! —hike395 (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi hike395—Must be the arsenic in brain for missed editing of Mono Lake line that elicited: birds do not walk underwater encased in small air bubbles :-)) |-Your comment caused a funny visual image of birds drifting and rolling in clear spheres around the lake bed....
Thanks for "start a new list article" info above, it helps. Did find the move tab. Does one create the initial red link on their talk page ?
Did a lot of work in eastern/southern Sierra articles yesterday: 1) anything incongruous with the cat's clear sensibility (that you monitor so well) ? 2) realize now that I'd added [Cat:S.N. (U.S.)] to some that had [Cat:Seq.N.P.] already, and will remove parent cat.---Thank you---Look2See1 t a l k → 21:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled

Hi, can you explain how is this both romanesque and modernist? On what are these assumption based? --Elekhh (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Beurs van Berlage, that's why the <---?---> marks after the 2 cats, I will promptly remove both if you advise to. Should OUB Centre be removed/changed from Category:Modernist architecture? Have been trying to find and 'clean up'/remove my previous [Cat:Mod] mistakes. thanks—Look2See1 t a l k → 00:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
update: reverted the cats.---Look2See1 t a l k → 01:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw you question marks, but readers don't see those. While the article is an unreferenced stub it clearly states "constructed between 1896 and 1903", which pretty much excludes any conventional categorization as Romanesque architecture (6th/10th to 12th century). I understand you meant Romanesque revival, but again no reader would have seen that. The article also states that "it influenced many modernist architects", which makes one think is not yet modernist. The Dutch article which is much more comprehensive, also explains that "in terms of style is hard to categorize" which I read as "no historian/critic attempted to do so" or maybe "no consensus". Therefore I see it better not to categorize it in ways which would mislead readers. --Elekhh (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Same with this. I never heard of this building being described as gothic revival or modernist. All historians I read call it "brick expressionism", as it stands in the article's lead section. Yes, it might have been "inspired by Gothic architecture" but that's not a basis for categorizing it as gothic, the same way art nouveaux is not a subcategory of flamingo or elephant just because it uses animal figures as decorative motifs, to put it in a funny way. --Elekhh (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, meant to ask you above about Grundtvig's Church, its 2 cats. are removed, sorry to be a bother. Removed all the [Cat:Mod] tagged "non-mod" articles I put in there over last months. Moved "true-mods" to country sub-cat. when available, including a new Dutch one, to simplify main cat. page. Will continue "non-mod" exorcisms within [Cat:Mod in Countries] next.—thanks for patience—Look2See1 t a l k → 02:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled, re: Crataegus

Hi, I don't understand why you would want to duplicated references on pages such as Crataegus annosa and Crataegus ambitiosa ... Nadiatalent (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm puzzled too on "what was I thinking ?" with the Crataegus reference edits. Probably mistakenly just looked at 'differences view' and not entire article, and apologize for the problem.—thanks—Look2See1 t a l k → 15:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so we'll carry on in tandem then. By the way, I haven't been doing very much to the Crataegus entries because the Flora of North America volume is expected soon, which will probably change things quite a bit. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, glad to defer to your Crataegus expertise. My primary goal was linking those N.Am. species listed in Crataegus without any location categories, using the USDA native distribution map. Is that helpful, or is it better to wait until after new Flora publication is out?—thank you—Look2See1 t a l k → 19:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what will happen about ranges with the FNA treatment, but I do expect some changes of nomenclature as Dr Phipps continues to track down synonymy. Probably USDA will pick up what his treatment says fairly quickly. If you are keen to add some location info we can always change it later. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

US volcanic fields

Could u support User:Vsmith suggestion please?
(Support [Category:Volcanism of state XYZ] and parent cat Category:Volcanic fields of the western United States per Category:States of the Western United States)
I'd like to close this never ending listing and sort the US volcanic fields by US state. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chris.urs-o, thanks for followup to get consensus and [Category:Volcanic fields of the Western United States] finally moving to closure. I just posted a 'support' there. Appreciate your creating the original cat, and your recent efforts.—best—Look2See1 t a l k →

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

categorization

I notice you are changing the category structure of various historic register categories. When category 'a' is in category 'b', and category 'b' is is category 'c', then normally one does not place category 'a' directly into category 'c' as it is already indirectly there. Doing so challenges whether category 'b' should exist at all and makes category 'a' more complicated to follow--the exact reason why cateogry 'b' was created in the first place. Please re-consider what you have been doing with various subcats of 'building and structures' and 'government buildings and structures' Thanks Hmains (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See what you mean. Had been creating new parent categories there to simplify, and 'drifted off' into unneeded complexity. Have reverted my mistakes, thanks for note.—Look2See1 t a l k → 03:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
All looks well for now. Hmains (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010

Category:Pest insects

Hi. I noticed you put several insect articles (for example, Argentine ant) into Category:Pest insects as well as one or more subcategories. It seems to me that Category:Pest insects would be most useful as a diffusing category, and therefore the insect articles should be only in the subcategory, not in the parent. Otherwise there would be well over a hundred articles categorized as pest insects. Do you agree?--Brambleshire (talk) 07:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, moved those articles into agriculture pests and ornamental plant pests subcategories. Thanks for pointing out diffusing category.—Look2See1 t a l k → 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Rock Art in Europe category

I appreciate your work in classification of pages on categories, which I also do, but note that articles for Scandinavian runestones and image stones are already collected in there own categories, which are a subcategory of Rock Art in Europe, so re-listing them individually in Rock Art in Europe would violate the policy in Categorization. Thanks Deanlaw (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

speedy renaming ?

Hi Good Olfactory, thank you for so much good 'focusing and cleanup' work that you do. The User:Hike efforts need a new CfD type star... The Category:People in the colonial Southwest of North American could probably benefit from a speedy renaming to drop the last "n" ? I don't know how yet, but just saw your nominating of Category:Traditional Narratives for that speedy need, and wondered if you might help? Best—Look2See1 t a l k → 22:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. If you want to learn how, the template to use is at Template:Cfr-speedy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It's just a two step process: [1] (added simply by adding {{subst:cfr-speedy|People in the colonial Southwest of North America}} to the category text), [2]. Then it will be renamed after 48 hours unless there is an objection to it posted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for posting the "n" - and taking the time for instructions above. I'll paste them to my talk page for reference. Appreciate your help—Look2See1 t a l k → 07:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Over-cat ?

In the case of a melbourne cat - is there really any need to add history of melbourne - when melbourne is already there? (technically melbourne should be removed as it is the parent cat of history of melbourne - having parent child cat combos can be somewhat overdoing it) ON WP en - cases of over-cat do cause consternation on some subjects - also - an authority is not a place - viz if the heritage council of western australia is an authority - why add the places cat? Please take care - as I say - some would be a lot less polite about the issue and simply remove - anyways have a good new year SatuSuro 03:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Look2See1, how many different unconnected editors from different parts of the project have come to you with the identical complaint as the editor above and the one above him? I know I did about a year ago and then about a month or so ago with Native American subjects, plus I've had your talkpage watchlisted and have noticed others showing up with this complaint, over and over. Maybe you should consider not working in this area until reading Categorization and thoroghly understanding it. Heiro 03:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Satu, for mentioning it is ok to take off parent cat:melbourne, was not sure before but its removed now. With 'heritage council of western australia' & its places cat. - seems a natural link from the authority listing the places to the actual places' articles? Thanks again & have a good new year—Look2See1 t a l k → 03:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Natural? to whom? Categories are specifically for the subject of the title - not always by association - by that argument of association - categorisation would be one hell of a mess. When I created a category for Sukarno. or Suharto - that was wide and open for all forms of association with those individuals - so that people, events, and things could be included - when you have specific categories that have specific limiting terms in the title - and are also sitting in categories that the authority is - there is no necessary connection with the specific items that that authority overseees - it could well be another catgeory that deals with that.
you have to see more than one direction - the parent, child, and grandparent, and grandchild categories create a tree - and the linkages have nothing to do with whether there is a perceivable link or association - the tree itself may well have categories that do not accomodate - natural leakage by association - the category title and categories in which it is placed govern a complex issue.
please understand that categorisation requires a good understanding of categorisation - History of Melbourne is a sub cat of Melbourne - as a consequence your comment of was not sure before - is not a good sign - you actually have to look at the cats - and get a hang of it a bit better than that - History is the sub cat of the main location cat - it does not sit next to the parent cat - please if you play with this area of wikipedia - make sure you take note of every message - if you do not - it is a sign of nuisance editing - cheers SatuSuro 04:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Satu and Heironymous Rowe, With around 35,000 edits to date, many involving categories, one would expect receiving the occasional editor feedback. It is a tiny proportion with neither it (nor my efforts) a nuisance. I see them as a natural opportunity to learn from experienced editors, which occurs when constructively worded. Please try to support that process instead of the more aggressive reacting that does not help progress. "Never a master or expert, always learning".—Look2See1 t a l k → 07:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the point the above editors were making is the same I was making, which is that the categorisation drive you are pushing is possibly a net negative for the project given that it dilutes the relevance of categories to the edge of meaninglessness by (1) categorising articles based on a large number of associations, inconsistent with Wikipedia:Categorization, (2) making unverifiable POV categorisations, and (3) excessive use of Non-diffusing subcategories. If you believe the number of your edits with issues is "tiny", you seem to have missed the very large number of your edits being reverted with an edit summary notice only. In terms of collaboration, your sustained ignorance of the messages left on your talk page is shocking: among others you ignored the note of Bigger digger that "architects are not buildings!" and continued to categorise the same way, as also ignored above note by Hmains and continued duplicate categorisations, the same way you many times ignored my messages regarding verifiability. I don't know how much patience other editors have with this attitude, but mine is stretched to the very limit. My most friendly advice is to start listening to what other editors say, and reading the relevant Wikipedia guidelines which have been linked to your talk page. --Elekhh (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And after I wrote this you just did this edit in full ignorance of Satu Suro's explanation at the top of this section. --Elekhh (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Re:Category:Portuguese colonisation in Africa, it is the only cat. with "Portuguese colony" and "Africa" linkage on the article. What is wrong with that? It is done for the colonies of other countries in Africa and on other continents. Please explain the problem with that application here.—Look2See1 t a l k → 01:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Cape Verde is an independent African country and former Portuguese colony as categorised already. Part of its history is part of Portuguese colonisation in Africa however much of Category:Cape Verde is not. Same way as Category:United States is not a subcategory of Category:British colonization of the Americas. As SatuSuro put it, if association alone would be a basis for categorisation than "categorisation would be one hell of a mess". --Elekhh (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that was my mistake, and not intended for including the cat:Cape Verde, just the history article. Thank you for explaining, and please know care was taken all afternoon (before that one) with similar choices of articles/categories for colonisation-Africa, the new Category:European colonisation in Asia, and Category:European colonisation in Oceania - to avoid that specific mistake. Also I cleaned out Category:British North America to specific former Brit. entity (pre-Canada) articles, and not all the Brit. continent activities. With architects and their cat:buildings question, most of those have had a link placed by other editors long ago, I'm just following their precedent. However, if an editor removes the cat. I never knowingly-intentionally replace it. Perhaps a discussion page is needed to set one policy? Please do not be predisposed to seeing nor confuse occasional average human mistakes with intentional disregard. None of us are perfect. — Look2See1 t a l k → 02:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Format in cat main pages

Please show me the MOS page for the cat main page - I see no need for the dots or the bolding - viz my change at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:European_colonisation_in_Asia thanks SatuSuro 23:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is fine if you do not use graphics as some other editors do and delete them, I was following precedent of others. The important thing is a major container category was created for an important period of world history. Could you please add any other articles to the category that you know are appropriate (ie: Sri Lanka)? I was in doubt and so didn't, needing an expert's help. Thank you for helping me learn.—Look2See1 t a l k → 23:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

Eucrosia species

Thanks for completing the categorization of these articles, which I should have done as I created most of them. I would only categorize Eucrosia bicolor as a 'garden plant'; it's the only one widely grown. The others are only grown in botanical gardens or by a very few bulb specialists. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Peter coxhead, Thanks for creating the articles, and correcting the garden cultivation categorization. best—Look2See1 t a l k → 20:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Desert chaparral in the New York mountains

I am writing because I noticed you added to an article I created, Desert chaparral. You wrote that there is a New York Mountains chaparral community. I put a “citation needed” tag on, not because I don’t believe you, but because I would like to know more about it and how to find it. I am guessing some kind of Cercocarpus grows there, based on what I have seen on eastern canyon slopes of the Amargosa Ranges east of Death Valley. (Let me guess from rock and vegetation coloration about your small photo at the top of this page. Malibu or Kanan Canyon looking from coastal side, because coastal sage scrub is in the foreground, and from coloration of vegetation. Ceonothus species cismontain chaparral in the background. Plants in foreground are Salvia leucophylla, Mimulus aurantiacus in bloom in yellow, and maybe Ceanothus leucodermis in foreground at left in purple bloom and right. Hard to tell with such a small photo. Late April since Ceanothus and Mimulus are in bloom, but this would mean there should be green Platanus racemosa in the streambed, and the trees other than Quercus agrifolia, Umbellularia californica, and Juglans californica look bare.) HkFnsNGA (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Endemic flora of Ecuador & Category:Pinus

Hi, Look2See1. Remember when we talked about category hierarchy in flora categories? I saw you adding Category:Endemic flora of Ecuador to a couple articles without removing the parent category Category:Flora of Ecuador (e.g. diff). The articles should not be in both categories since the child category (the endemic one) is the most specific. That would be like including an article on a painter in both Category:Painters and its daughter category Category:English painters. Stick with the most specific one. Thanks, Rkitko (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rkitko, Thanks for re-clarifying and reminding me of correct policy on Category:Endemic flora of Ecuador—Category:Flora of Ecuador. Will correct 'more than a few' with dual cats. A question, yesterday came across several Pinus species articles with the [Cat:Flora of Xyz] piped with common name (those articles' titles used same). Replaced with the bot. name on several articles, then stopped as unsure of group policy on this. What is the current 'best editing practices' for this situation please? Thanks, Look2See1 t a l k → 20:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Look2See1, I also noticed this with your additions to Category:Endemic flora of Colombia, regarding leaving the parent category in place. There are many others also, so I'll start removing the extra parent categories where needed. First Light (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you First Light, Cat:Flora of Colombia was on my list to return to and correct my parent cat. mistakes. I will look for any remaining there after your efforts, and correct more in Cat:Flora of Ecuador. — Look2See1 t a l k → 18:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Also cleaned up the same problem with Category:Endemic flora of California, Category:Endemic flora of Chile, Category:Endemic flora of Indonesia, Category:Endemic flora of Mexico, Category:Endemic flora of China, Category:Endemic flora of the Canary Islands, and several other "x of California" child categories that you added, removing the parent category in each case. About 2,000 articles in total. First Light (talk) 05:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Normally there's no need to include the piped sortkey. Current practice for genus categories like Category:Pinus is to use a lowercase sortkey of the species name only when the article is titled at the species name. E.g., I would use [[Category:Pinus|glabra]] on Pinus glabra so it sorts under "g" in the category, but I would not use [[Category:Pinus|heldreichii]] for the Bosnian Pine; we want Bosnian Pine to sort under "B", not "h". This is because when someone is browsing a category, they should not be shocked to find something odd, such as "Bosnian Pine" sorting under a lowercase h. It's confusing and out of place. Likewise for flora categories, you should never have to use a sortkey (no pipe). Articles titled at the scientific name or common name will sort accordingly. Bosnian Pine should sort under "B" in Category:Flora of Bulgaria and Pinus glabra should sort next the other Pinus species in Category:Trees of South Carolina. We don't want to force articles not titled at the scientific name to sort in the wrong place. It would be deceptive to sort articles in flora categories under any other name than the article's title. If it uses a common name, the article should sort under that, e.g. the Bosnian Pine example. So in your case, if you come across sortkeys for flora categories, I would just remove them (with the exception of the lowercase sortkeys for genus categories only). Rkitko (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying Rkitko, really helps and will follow that on Pine-Pinus and any other plant articles. Will correct my and others' mistakes on Pines as find them again. Have been adding (correctly) piped lower case |species] to many [Cat:Genus|] on scientific name titled articles for some time, often pausing to do all in the cat. as appreciate that clarity from others' efforts in other genera. Best — Look2See1 t a l k → 22:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
To add to this discussion: my understanding is that when an article on a species has the common name as the title, then there should be a redirect under the Latin name. Thus Bosnian Pine has a redirect under Pinus heldreichii. This redirect page should be categorized as [[Category:Pinus|heldreichii]], so that if you go to the Pinus category you find all the species names. Is this right? (If it is, it could usefully be added to Wikipedia:Categorizing_redirects.) A side-effect of the convention of italicizing redirects in category pages is that for a genus the page looks very odd to a biologist, since italicization would be expected to distinguish Latin names from common names.Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually the more I look at the categorization of species articles, the more I see a confused, inconsistent mess. Are there guidelines on this? I've tried looking around but can't find anything. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Good questions, Peter. It's rather unusual to come across redirects that are categorized. The only time I've categorized redirects is when I put them into special categories, such as Category:Drosera species by common name and Category:Drosera by synonymy. (And actually, I think we should move Bosnian Pine to Pinus heldreichii per WP:FLORA since the scientific name is more commonly used in reliable sources.) If you'd like to open a discussion someplace like WikiProject Tree of Life, I'd work with you to gain some kind of consensus on categorization, though I'm sure it will be different for each project. I wouldn't worry about the italicization in the category; that was a wiki software decision from a while ago to style redirects that way. It does make it look strange, but categories are meant for browsing, not content, so stylistic rules don't really apply. Rkitko (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've tried to explain the issue at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Categorization_of_species_pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

—thread continues—

Thank you each for discussing the categorization questions, and opening it on the WikiProject Tree of Life. A specific Cat:Pinus question for the interim regarding common name titled articles. The Red Pine article has the [[Category:Pinus|Red Pine]] due to the {{DEFAULTSORT:Pine, Red}} to sort for the Cat:Flora of xyz's, set up by another editor. That does keep all the pines-Pinus species together on flora category pages. Just before seeing that article, when correcting Siberian pine, my first edit changed the piped '|Pinus siberica' from all the flora cats. to '|Pine,' then being unsure I went right back and removed those too. It means this pine will not be with others under 'P' in the flora cats - is that the correct policy for now? Should I remove the default sorts, and the piped common name from Cat:Pinus on common name titled articles, or keep pines with Pinus in flora cats grouped under 'P,' with existing default sorts or (existing/new) '|Pine' pipe? Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 18:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

New wikiproject?

Hi, I'm researching the possibilities of creating a new WikiProject:Indigenous peoples of the Americas because articles about indigenous peoples in the Caribbean, Central, and South America, especially contemporary peoples, are woefully neglected and cross-regional exchanges tend to be ignored. Would you have any interest in such a project if it were created? Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Romanesque revival architecture in Australia

Category:Romanesque revival architecture in Australia, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Proposed deletion of Green Fairway Estates

The article Green Fairway Estates has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable neighborhood in California that has remained long unreferenced

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sadads (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Protected areas are a subcategory of Conservation

So this and similar edits are wrong. --Elekhh (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Most countries have their 'Cat:Biosphere' under 'Cat:Conservation,' so Mexico and 1 or 2 others had that added for congruity. The 'Cat:Protected area' was not removed, for readers accustomed to that variation on those few countries, a senior editor would make that decision. These edits are not WP:DUPCAT-wrong. Please note that most of the 'Cat:Biospheres' had no 2nd cat.-'Cat:Country' link of any type - and could not be found from the country's tree. "Accentuate the positive." — Look2See1 t a l k → 23:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't understand. Are you saying that biosphere reserves are not protected areas? In any case for "'Cat:Protected area' was not removed, for readers accustomed to that variation on those few countries" is definitely not an argument. --Elekhh (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

The Signpost: 4 April 2011

References

Hi again, Look2See1! Just dropping a note here to let you know that I partially reverted your edit here on the Crassula arborescens article. Neither of those references are reliable sources. I certainly wouldn't use the Dave's Garden website as a source in any Wikipedia article. Thanks! Rkitko (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked some of your other edits. A few more comments for you: here at the Crassula falcata article, be sure to only italicize epithets, e.g. you want to make it look like this: Crassula perfoliata var. minor, not this: Crassula perfoliata var. minor. The trinomial rank abbreviations (var., subsp., f., subvar., and so on) are not italicized. Most importantly, unless you expect to greatly expand a section soon, don't create sections like "Distribution", "Description", and "Cultivation" that only have one or two sentences in them. The entire article is only a paragraph right now and it's unreasonable to split that among four sections (including the lead). If I recall correctly, common wisdom and the current advice is that a section isn't viable unless it has at least a solid paragraph or two. Thanks for your attention to these points. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Rkitko, Thanks for taking the time to explain my mistakes and what to learn from them. I do know of var. & subsp. not being italicized, but sure missed it this time, will be more careful. The intent with some articles' section creation was 'to invite' other editors to add more, and not have a large void next to most of the taxo-box on page face. If it is not current practice-standards, I will not continue that. With references, will drop 'Daves' right now. However San Marcos Growers is most reputable in California, with Randall Baldwin, its founder and owner, a leading horticulturalist-botanist for 35-40 years, and part of Jepson Manual advisors team. Ever learning. Thanks again—Look2See1 t a l k → 01:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply! On sections, I found what I was talking about: from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (layout)#Headings and sections, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose." I swear there was more info on this that strongly discouraged short sections, but I can't find it right now. Thanks for dropping Dave's Garden. It's never very clear who writes the information on those pages and if it's reputable. Thanks for mentioning San Marcos Growers and their reliability. Randall Baldwin certainly seems like an expert, but is he responsible for the content? It definitely seems more reliable than Dave's. I'll go back and restore that ref to the articles I edited. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry it took a while, but I finally took the time to put the San Marcos Growers ref back into Crassula arborescens and Crassula falcata. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Look2See1/Archive_3&oldid=1145838913"