![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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]. Graham 87 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Greetings, Look2See1! Hope you're having a good day! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
Hi there! I noticed you doing some editing on these related articles and wanted to stop by with some helpful suggestions I noted:
to avoid word-wrap cutting off the abbreviation from the species epithet.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)
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)
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
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:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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)
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 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)
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)
I don't understand this edit: the two links point to the same place (via redirect). -- Macrakis ( talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for your changes to the Robert Allerton Park article. Bigturtle ( talk) 14:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Greetings, Look2See1! Hope you're having a good day! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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]. Graham 87 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Greetings, Look2See1! Hope you're having a good day! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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)
Hi there! I noticed you doing some editing on these related articles and wanted to stop by with some helpful suggestions I noted:
to avoid word-wrap cutting off the abbreviation from the species epithet.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)
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)
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
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:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
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)
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 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)
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)
I don't understand this edit: the two links point to the same place (via redirect). -- Macrakis ( talk) 23:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Thanks for your changes to the Robert Allerton Park article. Bigturtle ( talk) 14:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Greetings, Look2See1! Hope you're having a good day! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
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)