User talk:Look2See1/Archive 8

"Scientific name"
Hi - just a note: please don't add "scientific name" to the lede of species articles named for the common name. The standard format is "bold common name, followed by scientific name in brackets and italics" - see Manual_of_Style/Organisms. Also, the IUCN link (if there is one) should by preference go into the taxobox (see e.g. current Valley and ridge salamander) and not under 'external links'. Cheers! -- Elmidae  (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for animals' Manual of Style requirements Elmidae, I won't do scientific name on fauna articles.


 * Sorry I don't know how to do the IUCN template in a taxo box. Almost all the IUCN listed fauna species articles I've come across have the IUCN link(s) under 'external links' and not in preferable taxo box nor even as an inline reference. I have been cleaning them up there (leaving under external links) with current 'accessed date' (if I checked) & adding missing 'IUCN Red List' as ref. source for the specific species link, but am not including IUCN's 'species last revised/reviewed' status dates as see no precedent. Am also correcting the 'IUCN general homepage/search engine' link (all flora/fauna) that are usually mislabeled, with an old year's dates misused as 'accessed/downloaded dates,' and do seem to belong under 'external links'…? My understanding is that the general flora/fauna IUCN homepage/searchpage is defacto in the current month/year. Thanks — Look2See1   t a l k →  19:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, look at the source of Valley and ridge salamander . Fifth line from the top, "| status_ref " - that's the IUCN link as an inline reference, using the "cite journal" template, as is current usage. This goes to the species' individual entry on the IUCN page - sending the reader to the front page is not very useful :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry Elmidae, you have lost me. I have been clarifying the IUCN specific species' individual entry link from the front search engine page. The numerous circa 2006-2009 references (non-inline) misidentify the "ever-current" 'front page/IUCN general homepage/search engine' as a "2006/09 IUCN" species specific webpage, which is not useful and is misleading. Thanks —  Look2See1   t a l k →  09:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to point out that Manual of Style/Organisms, linked to above re how to start an article titled at an English name, is an essay, and is not agreed policy or guidance, and there's no need to follow it. Style varies among WikiProjects; personally I find the advice at Manual_of_Style/Organisms inconsistent and unhelpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Melaleucas not trees
Hello Look2See1,

Thanks for your edit to List of Melaleuca species. You appear to know more about categories than I do - however, it does not seem correct to include List of Melaleuca species in a "List of Trees". You originally added that category in September 2010 when few of the Melaleuca articles were written. I removed it a few weeks ago because only a (fairly small) percentage of melaleucas can be classified as "trees". Perhaps the ones you're familiar with (maybe the U.S. or Canada?) are trees but most are actually shrubs - some very low shrubs at that. Melaleuca apodocephala, for example, grows to a height of 2 inches (4cm) max! As I said, perhaps you know more about categories than I do - maybe if one in a list of 500 plants is a tree then it's okay to include all in a list of trees. Seems strange to me though. Gderrin (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Botanical authorities do not follow the pattern used in zoology
Hi, you have been adding categories such as Category:Taxa named by John Torrey, Category:Taxa named by Augustin Pyramus de Candolle when that is not considered to be the case in botanical nomenclature. For example, Purshia DC. ex Poir. was named by Poiret in 1816, and although De Candolle named it again in an 1818 publication, his name is illegitimate. There was an earlier manuscript of De Candolle's which Poiret used as a basis, but that is not a validly published name. Purshia stansburyana (Torr.) Henrickson was called Cowania stansburyana by John Torrey. In zoology there is a pattern similar to what you have done, that the person who first gave a name, any name, to a taxon, is listed ever after, even if they blundered badly on the taxonomy, but that is not how botanical nomenclature works. If the species name is wrong, then the taxon assignment is wrong, so it cannot be said that the person named the taxon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I endorse Sminthopsis84's point. Actually, I'm not sure of the value of these categories; is the idea to have one for every person who named a taxon? Or just the "major" people? If so, how are they selected?
 * If these categories are to be used, it would be better to name them as per the "Taxa described in" categories. Firstly, "first scientifically described by", which seems to be the meaning of a category like Plants described in 1753, works for both the botanical and zoological codes, which treat names somewhat differently; secondly, it's better to separate names under different codes, as per "Animals described in ..." and "Plants described in ..." Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a comment that if only "major people" are to be so treated, the notion that certain people's opinions count more than those of others is inflammatory in botanical nomenclature, which has fought long and hard against it in, for example, overturning the Kew Rule. I would oppose such an approach to categorization. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. Wherever you are getting this information from, it is way off the mark. I can't even begin to imagine a source that could produce this edit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And after looking at the genus Calliandra generally, I conclude that you are tossing all the species in that genus into Category:Taxa named by George Bentham. No, George Bentham did not name all of the species in the genus!! Please remind yourself of what taxon means. (Bentham also didn't claim that he himself was a taxon, as this edit suggests; in fact, I'm quite sure that he would have been horrified by the suggestion.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Neither did John Torrey name Torreya after himself as suggested here. Gderrin (talk)

Final warning
As you've been warned numerous times before, this is your final warning: if you persist in edits like this one, both adding irrelevant categories and replacing English descriptions with bulleted bits lacking article links, you will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Tubificina
You added smth to the article which breaks the markup, and I can not figure out what it should have been. Could you please have a look. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I do not understand your question. The Tubificina article appears correct to me. — Look2See1   t a l k →  09:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The markup was corrected by another editor. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Mindanao island group
Hi. Just so you know, Mindanao is NOT a region. As there is no separate article on Mindanao (region), and there will never be, those will be undone as we dont have Luzon (region) and Visayas (region) either.--RioHondo (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The Mindanao island group IS a valid administrative designation, per the wikipedia article Island groups of the Philippines and parent Category:Island groups of the Philippines. The Mindanao island group is 1 of the 3 administrative Philippine island group divisions, for those islands located in the southern Philippines, including its main one, Mindanao Island.
 * The other 2 other island group divisions are Luzon (northern Philippines) and Visayas (central Philippines).
 * The history of the 'Mindanao island group' has notable distinctions from the rest of the country in the Luzon & Visayas island groups, including successfully resisting incorporation into the colonial era Spanish East Indies, and having strong and meaningful Islamic influences within its historical traditions and contemporary politics.
 * Please see more information, my thoughts on this, and possible category renaming options at Category talk:History of Mindanao (region). Please assume good faith —  Look2See1   t a l k →  07:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Administrative divisions? You are wrong from the get go. We only have regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays and sitios/puroks as administrative divisions. Island groups are just geographic divisions. The problem is you dont consult, and you dont pay attention to edit summaries, or to your talk page. Its just only now.--RioHondo (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * So it is clear:
 * Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions: Provinces of the Philippines
 * Category:Second-level administrative country subdivisions: Cities of the Philippines and Municipalities of the Philippines
 * Category:Third-level administrative country subdivisions: Barangays of the Philippines
 * The Regions of the Philippines actually are more geographic than actual administrative (except for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The island groups certainly are no administrative jurisdictions.--RioHondo (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Add: So if you wish to carry out your categories: it should be per province (1st level) or at most per region (especially for ARMM). Island group-wide categories are very superficial and pointless.--RioHondo (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are mistaken RioHondo, Island group-wide categories can be very meaningful and useful to wikipedia users not residing on the country's islands nor experts in Philippine subdivisions and nomenclature. On other continents we hear the 'region name' used, as news reports on the inauguration of President Rodrigo Duterte today have always included "he is the first president from from the country's southern region of Mindanao." Perhaps superficially imprecise for you, but a very meaningful heritage placemaking phrase for some of us elsewhere. Alas, Davao City and its 182 barangays are placeless from abroad. This is an international online encyclopedia, and users who are interested in the Philippines, but will probably never become adept (such as myself) at first/second/third-level administrative country subdivisions, in my opinion deserve a 'workable on ramp' to begin exploring the country beyond Manilla.
 * Respectfully — Look2See1   t a l k →  08:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Dschslava Δx  parlez moi  06:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Dschslava, my posting/reply at the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page:
 * " Vandalism on Mindanao Philippine history-related categories and subcategories.
 * They repeatedly removed original Category:History of Mindanao and 'focused' Category:History of Mindanao (region) from the same relevant articles and categories repeatedly, and then proposing to speedily delete it because it was empty has neither integrity nor validity. RioHondo removed over 20 categories from it 1-3 times between ~22:20, 30 June 2016 and ~23:07, 30 June 2016 (so far) ( & ‎; and a third time ~an hour later.
 * The Mindanao island group/region is a valid administrative designation, per the wikipedia article Island groups of the Philippines and parent Category:Island groups of the Philippines. The Mindanao island group/region is 1 of the 3 administrative Philippine island group divisions, for those islands located in the southern Philippines, including its main one, Mindanao Island.  The other 2 other island group divisions are Luzon (northern Philippines) and Visayas (central Philippines). :::The history of the 'Mindanao island group' has notable distinctions from the rest of the country in the Luzon & Visayas island groups, including successfully resisting incorporation into the colonial era Spanish East Indies, and having strong and meaningful Islamic influences within its historical traditions and contemporary politics.
 * Please see more information at Category talk:History of Mindanao (region), including category's original naming (Category:History of Mindanao), current name (Category:History of Mindanao (region)), and potential renaming (e.g. Category:History of Mindanao (island group) or Category:History of Mindanao), & other options. — Look2See1   t a l k →  07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)"


 * It was replaced there by you with:
 * "Note: both parties appear to be involved in multiple edit wars. Will try to resolve. Dschslava  Δx  parlez moi  06:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)"


 * Thank you for that post Dschslava. I have no investment in the category's final name, but do find the history of that "whole" (administrative) 'island group' and (casual) geographic 'region' very interesting and complex. With the Philippines' new President Rodrigo Duterte being the first ever from the Mindanao island group, and with his own complex local political history on the island of Mindanao, wikipedia users may become more interested/curious about the area's history & politics. I am distressed that RioHondo appears to need to destroy and 'disappear' good will efforts, instead of working to improve the categorization nomenclature. The intention of my reverts was to keep interim placemarkers on the articles/subcategories until there is a new revision consensus. —  Look2See1   t a l k →  07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That is because you insist that Mindanao (region) is an administrative region. And that Occidental Mindoro and Oriental Mindoro belong to Mindanao. Thats pure vandalism but you still kept on reverting.--RioHondo (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * You are very wrong and quite ignorant about my thoughts and motivations RioHondo. I am insisting nothing. There's no vandalism, just protecting information categorization until this situation is resolved. Please stop deleting Category:History of Mindanao (region) until the editing community reaches consensus. —  Look2See1   t a l k →  09:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

♠== Seriously, where are you getting this information about botanical authorities from? ==

Please tell me how you come up with edits such as this one that ascribe a taxon named by Frits Johansen to Reid Venable Moran? If there is a database somewhere that has such tangled information in it, then the administrators need to be made aware of the problem, or the database should be listed here as one to avoid. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.

If you persist in the disruption that has prompted this warning and all of others on your talk page, or persist in brushing them off as "rude/unconstructive provocations", longer blocks will be imposed, and an indefinite block will be likely. Nyttend (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The International Plant Names Index

 * Sminthopsis84, the edits were sourced from here: The International Plant Names Index: Reid Venable Moran search. Seriously, is there a problem with IPNI? My understanding is its a highly respected taxonomy database. If that is not true for wikipedia usage please let me know.


 * Will an administrator please remove the block that Nyttend applied here? Unfortunately, they appear misinformed or under-informed about the full discussions on topics (e.g. Mindanao history), where only partial sections were posted on this talk page, with much more on the former Category talk:History of Mindanao (region) (archived ?, or lost in rename to Category:History of Mindanao?) and talkpage of administrator User talk:Dschslava. Please note that my polite and constructive suggestion of [Category:History of Mindanao] for a potential and non-provocative renaming, done at end of 07:44, 1 July 2016 post above, was the final resolution used at 04:40, 2 July 2016‎.
 * Thank you — Look2See1   t a l k →  22:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't see anything in IPNI about Dudleya brittonii being described by Moran, not in the online view, nor in any of the delimited data formats. IPNI is indeed a highly respected database, it just doesn't say what you seem to be seeing in it. IPNI has the limitation that it cannot be used to compile a species list because many of the names are synonyms, but that is not the problem here. I don't understand how you came up with that edit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The IPNI entry for Dudleya brittonii is here. "Moran" isn't mentioned. Using the advanced search to look for names in the genus Dudleya and abbreviation "Moran" gives a long list of names, but not Dudleya brittonii. I too fail to understand how you can claim that you got the information from IPNI. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Images of Gardens and Landscape design has been nominated for discussion
Category:Images of Gardens and Landscape design, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. DexDor(talk) 18:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Petroleum in California has been nominated for discussion
Category:Petroleum in California, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. PanchoS (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Wildfire
Hello! I have recently started a new WikiProject and am trying to recruit new members. The project, WikiProject Wildfire, focuses on articles that relate to wildfires. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. From updating templates, to classifying and improving articles. Any level of commitment is welcome! If you care to just add some input on the founding of the new project, awesome. If you would like to take an active role in editing articles, that is awesome as well! Knowledge of wildfires is NOT a prerequisite for joining the project. In fact, it would be great to have some members of the project who are NOT fire-buffs. That way we make sure that articles aren't just written by and for people in the fire community. If this is something you have any interest in, I would love to have you join the project! Please feel free to join the discussion or leave me a message on my talk page. (Note that you are receiving this message from me because I saw you made multiple edits on a wildfire related page, specifically Old Fire. Not just spamming you at random.) Hope you have a great day! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 22:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Bluecut Fire in the new
Heyo! I wanted to let you know that I nominated Bluecut Fire to be features "In the news". Since you contributed to the article I thought you might want to voice your opinion on whether or not you think it should be featured. You can do so here: In the news candidates. Thanks!! -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Church of Ireland, Wales categories
Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:19th-century Church of Ireland church buildings etc Hugo999 (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Northern South America has been nominated for discussion
Category:Northern South America, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Prevan (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References and external links
Hi L2S1, thank you for all your edits enhancing and cleaning up references and links. It would be helpful if you could add a short edit summary of the change. You may be able to set up your browser so it memorizes the common changes and then the comments can be added with just a click or two. Cheers. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Geology cats
Please note that geology project talk page specifically has a complaint about my placing see also wikiproject geology on main space, I have taken that in hand and so I am in process of removing or changing to other things. The designation of the item (subject) on main space as an unexplained link I am changing to 'see also', so thought I should explain as such JarrahTree 02:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do not play with or reformat my mistaken usage of project on main space - the formattting you are using on main space is very out of date, however I shall not modify your sentences of links... JarrahTree 13:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Per
 * ::: - I have asked you once, please do not play with that, it has been identified as not wanted, and I am removing - thank you for your understanding JarrahTree 23:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks JarrahTree, for informing me that your links are to be removed hereon. I was unaware of the discussion/decision and had been mistakenly leaving them on my geology category edits. —  Look2See1   t a l k →  19:35, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Location of Cal State LA
Please stop trying to use an undated LA Times map to force Cal State LA's location as El Sereno into its article. The map appears to be old, it's inaccurate, it doesn't agree with the Cal State LA website (El Sereno is north of Valley Blvd.) and Cal State LA isn't marked on it. You're too experienced an editor not to be sufficiently well versed in WP:RS and to know how iffy a map that vague and with no date is going to be. Moreover, community/neighborhood designations change; University Hills took its name from the presence of the university in the neighborhood. Instead of edit warring, please use the talk page if you feel a vague LA Times map is a more reliable source for Cal State LA's location than the university itself. --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Drmargi, mapping/defining neighborhoods within the City/County of Los Angeles is an inaccurate objective. Unlike some other cities (e.g. Chicago), neither the city or county have any officially defined neighborhood/district boundaries. LA Neighborhood council districts have stated boundaries, but they are not officially defined and the city has never drawn legal boundaries of them. Cal State LA is not a city institution, and their preferred locale name is not officially sanctioned either. University Hills, Los Angeles is a Public Works Dept. generated designation, initiated by residents and their HOA for real estate value but not geographically definitive.


 * My only intention in including Category:El Sereno, Los Angeles (& re−including it) on the California State University, Los Angeles article was findability for wiki-readers. There is no [Category:University Hills, Los Angeles], nor enough articles to create it. In the CSULA text I added El Sereno, Los Angeles as it's also valid, and more familiar for non-ultralocals. In addition, University Hills is defined by some as a community within the larger El Sereno neighborhood, there is not (official) consensus. What is the harm in using the El Sereno category, when some serious criteria places the university in it, and in general it simply assists readers navigation regarding CSULA? Let's just use both, there is no single nor official placename to righteously feud about.


 * The accurate Mapping L.A. definition states that "El Sereno is a neighborhood in the city of Los Angeles in the Eastside region of Los Angeles County. It contains Hillside Village and University Hills" — please see Los Angeles Times, Mapping L.A. — El Sereno Profile. Its map shows Cal State LA within El Sereno.
 * FYI — "Mapping L.A. is the Los Angeles Times' growing resource about the neighborhoods that make up Los Angeles County. It provides maps and information about demographics, crime and schools in 272 neighborhoods across the county" — please see LA Times—About Mapping L.A. (with Questions about boundaries links) & LA Times—Mapping L.A. Homepage. I think it may be ignorant to call it a "vague LA Times map", this is an ongoing serious project of the Times staff and community members. It's neither official nor definitive, but currently the most inclusive regarding diverse & transparent input I'm aware of. Perhaps your experiences are different?


 * The book LAtitudes: An Angeleno's Atlas is an in-depth anthology on mapping LA, that especially in Chapter 1 explores the vagaries and perennial changeability of city/county neigborhood names/boundaries, and the numerous & sometimes humorous causes of that. You may enjoy it.
 * With good will — Look2See1   t a l k →  21:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename categories
Please see my proposal to speedily rename :Category:Lists of protected areas in Canada to Category: Lists of protected areas of Canada and Category:Lists of protected areas in the United States to Category: Lists of protected areas of the United States (most of the articles in Category:Lists of protected areas by country use "of" rather than "in") Hugo999 (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hugo999, for letting me know of discussion. My response is pasted in below. As I said there, if there is a preponderant precedent I'm fine going with that flow, begrudgingly with smile. — Look2See1   t a l k →  08:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Pasted in from their Speedy renaming Categories for discussion page:
 * Oppose change for both US & Canada. Currently under Category:Lists of protected areas by country 3 subcats use "in" & 3 use "of." It's subtle, but to me "of" implies protected by the named nation's federal agencies only; whereas "in" gives space/possibilities for state, county, city, non-profit, & privately protected areas (e.g. city parks, cemeteries, nature preserves, reservoirs).
 * It's a personal preference that many diverse cats already using "of" that I come across rub against. That may indicate there have been oodles of discussions about "in/of" that I'm unaware of, for 100s/1000s of other cats, with "of" always deemed paramount. If that's so please change my 'oppose' to 'begrudgingly support.' — Look2See1 t a l k → 07:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * After receiving data on "of" superceeding "in", Support renaming to [Category:Lists of protected areas of ____ ]. Look2See1   t a l k →  23:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I am alerting editors
that I think (or is it a feeling?) might be interested in the discussion going on here based on their past insolvent with this category. Category talk:Sculptures by artist. Stop by and see what you. . . . well. . .... think or feel. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Arts organizations categories
This is all very time wasting and unnecessary. As you say yourself in your edit summary, arts=arts (i.e. not "art", which is a subcategory of "arts"). Music, literature, theatre, art etc. are components of the arts, not the other way around. I don't have the time to waste reverting your edits again, unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Sionk, I do not understand your complaints nor comprehensive reverts, because I think we are on the very same track. Are you looking carefully at the categories I've always used? They are all the plural [Category:time period in arts], not the singular [Category:time period in art].


 * As I think you said above, Arts organizations include all the arts, including the performing arts, literature & poetry, and architecture & design — not just the visual arts ("art" — e.g. painting, sculpture, drawing, printmaking). Therefore (e.g.) Category:Arts organizations established in the 2000s is a subcategory of Category:2000s in arts, and not Category:2000s in art. Perhaps if the "arts by century/decade/year" categories had "the" added, e.g. [Category:1990s in the arts], it would distinguish them more clearly from the visual centuries/decades/years "in art"?


 * Meanwhile, your total reverts also unnecessarily delete the {CatPair} preceding/succeeding links, and the improved lede. Please stop, they are very time wasting for me to recorrect. If I've misunderstood your point, and you care to take the time, please try explaining again. Thank you — Look2See1   t a l k →  05:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Glad to see common sense has prevailed. Sionk (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are welcome Sionk. I appreciate your confirming "arts" has always been the appropriate parent category. Look2See1   t a l k →  18:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Pacific Coast Borax Company
Hi, you undid my change in Pacific Coast Borax Company]] without comment. I removed the major part of the section because the information it contained is evidently wrong and I explained on the talk page why. So, could you please tell me why the revert has been done? Thank you. -- Bahnwärter (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Bahnwärter, thanks for noticing incorrect information. Please see corrections & new references on Pacific Coast Borax Company. — Look2See1   t a l k →  16:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to rename category
Please see my proposal to speedily rename Category:Food companies established in 2012 to Category:Food and drink companies established in 2012 Hugo999 (talk) 07:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, + just posted that on speedily renaming page. Look2See1   t a l k →  16:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

First Transcontinental Railroad
Hi, your input on the editorial quality of the First Transcontinental Railroad article which you contributed to in the past is needed  here. Thanks. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 22:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

What does "by country" mean?
I'm inclined to agree with your edit [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AEndemic_flora_of_Galápagos&type=revision&diff=738495501&oldid=678586709 here], but it does raise the question of what "by country" means, since the Galápagos islands are not a country but part of Ecuador. Should the category have a different name? Or does it just need a note explaining that not all entries are countries? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Good question. As you certainly well know but for others that may not, the Category: Flora of Galápagos is not a subcategory of Category: Flora of Ecuador (its political jurisdiction) under WGSRPD (its under Category:Flora of western South America), and so Category: Endemic flora of Galápagos does not belong under Category: Endemic flora of Ecuador.


 * However, I just noticed Category: Endemic flora of Borneo is under parent Category: Endemic flora, and will change this from Category:Endemic flora by country to that. Will do same for Category: Endemic flora of Socotra.


 * If you think otherwise, please change them back and/or advise me. Perhaps if enough geographic endemic locations "ineligible by country per WGSRPD" are created, an [Category:Endemic flora by location] or [Category:Endemic flora by continent] could assist in the future? Sorry to be slow in responding. Thanks for noticing and asking. — Look2See1   t a l k →  17:13, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm really unsure as to the best approach. Unfortunately not many editors seem interested in discussing this kind of categorization.
 * As things stand, the entries in Category:Endemic flora are problematic. If the subcat Category:Endemic flora by country really means "country", then Category:Endemic flora of Borneo contains part of the "Endemic flora of Indonesia" and part of the "Endemic flora of Malaysia" (assuming that Brunei has no endemic flora), which violates the principles of categorization. If e.g. the "Endemic flora of Malaysia" excludes Borneo, the categorization is correct, but the category names aren't; it's not "Malaysia" and it's not a "country".
 * Whatever is done seems to lead to problems, in my view. Take Ecuador as an example. The geographical hierarchy is
 * Ecuador (as a complete political unit)
 * Continental Ecuador
 * the Galápagos
 * So one arrangement would be to have "Category:Flora of Continental Ecuador" (i.e. "Category:Flora of Ecuador excluding the Galápagos") and "Category:Flora of the Galápagos", with "Category:Flora of Ecuador" containing only these two categories as subcategories, with the same arrangement for the endemic flora cats. The subcategories follow the WGSRPD, their parent does not. This gets more complicated in the case of the US, for example. The division seems to be:
 * United States (as a complete political unit)
 * Contiguous United States
 * Alaska
 * Hawaii
 * If the flora categories were divided in this way, the subcategories would again fit with the WGSRPD, whereas the parent category, empty apart from the subcats, would not. However, I'm doubtful that editors would actually follow such a scheme, i.e. never put articles into Category:Flora of the United States, even if there were a consensus to use this approach.
 * So I remain unsure of what to do. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * My 2 cents Country is country. You take it all. WGSRPD doesn't come into it. WGSRPD would not be the commonly understood definition of country. So you get all of Ecuador (both Continental Ecuador and the Galápagos). And you get all of the USA. For Borneo, why not create a "by island" or "by region" category to cater for it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Category: Middle East
It seems that today, "Near East" has been subsumed into "Middle East". Should the scope say that this has occurred? Otherwise it might look like an error. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * A good question Laurel Lodged, that I'm not qualified to answer. In my personal wikipedia readings, it generally seems the Near East has been subsumed into & renamed the Middle East for the region's modern era history and contemporary geography/geopolitical articles. However, sometimes the Middle East is also used for a larger region than the Ancient Near East and "colloquial" Near East usually are, and is more similar to Western Asia. The Near East has an intrinsic Eurocentric "geo-bias" as it is only "nearer" to Europe than the Western world's "Far East" is. — Look2See1   t a l k →  19:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You both have quite valid concerns about the usages - there is a literature that lies side by side this with orientalism about the usages, it would be an interesting article if someone bothered... JarrahTree 06:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Southeast Asia and Malay Peninsula
Thanks for your edits in this area - there is a dearth of editing inter-country features for the whole region these days JarrahTree 06:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already experienced your very telling ignoring talk messages to date, but is there a reason for combining parent and child cats in southeast asian peninsulae? if there was some specific explanation or reason why given - it might actually help other editors to understand why you did that? JarrahTree 06:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * JarrahTree — Per your 6:38, you are welcome. Per your 6:55, please try to assume good faith & be constructive, and not unpleasant, on my talk page. You did not express what your actual concerns are, and so I cannot answer them yet. Thank you. — Look2See1   t a l k →  07:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * My apology - I hadnt seen you have spent close to the last 8 hours identifying Thailand in 'Asia'. The thing is there are two parallel universes - Thailand in some categories in Asia and some in Southeast Asia - so I am not sure there is anything to answer in the end - either someone or some process at some stage (and it does not necessarily need to be either of us) needs to resolve the issue of southeast asia - whether it exists or not in categories, or not. Apologies for not being clear enough, I hope that sufficiently explains enough. JarrahTree 07:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi JarrahTree, thank you for explaining. Per Thailand subcategories, if there is a Southeast Asia parent category (found under Category: Southeast Asia) they should be used, and when not then an Asia parent category.
 * I recategorized Category: Peninsular Malaysia (the mainland region of Malaysia) under Category: Malay Peninsula (the entire peninsula in Southeast Asia). It was after your edit on [Cat:Peninsular Malaysia], & understand the 2 names are easily confused. Please ask if you need any clarifications. — Look2See1   t a l k →  07:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining - that is a major part of clarifying and making things work. I am not sure I would follow your guideline of defaulting to asia when there is nothing at southeast asia - seeing that I created most of the southeast asia categories :| - I would probably try to expand the range of southeast asia category range !!  Thanks again, I appreciate your response. JarrahTree 08:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:1st millennium in Thailand has been nominated for discussion
Category:1st millennium in Thailand, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Paul_012 (talk) 09:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Balla categories
Thank you so much for adding categories to the articles on Balla's paintings and list of his works. I've removed a couple of the categories you added to List of works by Giacomo Balla, because they are set categories that contain artists, not lists of their works. Otherwise, nicely done! — swpb T 12:49, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Official website links
Why are you adding bold emphasis to 'Official website' links?

Is this per WP:MoS?

Why are you not using Official website?

81.158.171.21 (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * PLEASE STOP adding the article subject's name to 'Official website' links, as you did here and in many other articles.


 * Please see Official website, which states that the title of 'Official website' links ... should succinctly and accurately describe the external link in relation to the subject. In particular, it should not include the article subject's name as the reader reasonably expects that all external links pertain to the subject.


 * Thank you. 81.158.171.21 (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are not a registered editor. Please sign up, so you can be accountable and have a talk page. Look2See1   t a l k →  17:25, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Appreciation
Thank you very much for removing the WikiProject links I had put on the main pages of the geological items you are currently editing. Thank you JarrahTree 02:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Thanks JarrahTree, for letting me know their removal was ok. Perhaps you have noticed, around a ¼ or ⅓ of the new Epoch level subcats are orphans, with only 1 of their 3 standard cats present. A generic e.g. - [Cat:"Olde Epoch" insects of Asia] was created with only [Cat:"Olde Epoch" insects], usually without [Cat:"Olde Epoch" Asia] or  parent [Cat:"Olde Age" insects of Asia]. Have you noticed them?  When I stumble across them via an interesting article, I do try to remedy their orphan-ness. —  Look2See1   t a l k →  17:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Category pages
Hi. I see you've been working on category pages. Please note that Categorization advises that in most cases, category pages need only be appropriately categorised and don't need to have textual content. Only in cases where the scope of the category isn't clear from the title should a description be added: "The category description should make direct statements about the criteria by which pages should be selected for inclusion in (or exclusion from) the category." Also, the guideline suggests, "The description can also contain links to other Wikipedia pages, in particular to other related categories which do not appear directly as subcategories or parent categories, and to relevant categories at sister projects, such as Commons." It does not recommend adding a lot of contextual links to articles. Those should be done in article lead sections, not category description pages. Navbox templates are also appropriately placed on article and not category description pages. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again. I appreciate your efforts on improving category structures, but I'm afraid that instead of making the category pages easier to navigate, your edits may be making them more confusing by introducing too many links to articles, navboxes, and making arbitrary indentations. Has there been discussion with with the wider community regarding the format you're using? --Paul_012 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Computer companies disestablished in 1929


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Category:Computer companies disestablished in 1929, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — swpb T 13:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely you know is not a new user? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * So? Twinkle automatically notifies creators of speedy-tagged pages, and I think that's a good thing. Even an old editor should be notified that they made the mistake of leaving a test page. — swpb T 14:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support speedy deletion, & sorry for the need to correct my mistake. I was creating Category:Manufacturing companies disestablished in 1929, and pasted in a cat with computer for setup, copied a disest. cat from decades later. Thanks Twinkle, for the notification. Look2See1   t a l k →  17:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, notifying as many editors as possible is a good thing. I don’t use wp:twinkle myself but is there no choice which canned message to use? The one here starts so: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia which is not ideal when notifying a user who has been around for over 6 years and has contributed 162,411 edits (51,001 to category space) to Wikipedia. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me


 * No, Twinkle does not allow a custom message (at least currently). It allows leaving no automated message, allowing a custom message to be placed manually, if an editor is so inclined. I agree it's not ideal for veteran editors to get "welcome" messages, but when they do, they should take it in stride as Look2See did admirably. — swpb T 15:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Constructed strait
Perhaps You like to answer here with ping to Sca. Sincerely, --Mapsed (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Mapsed, I'm unfamiliar with the Strait of Baltiysk, but the use of "constructed" in the article indicates that the natural gat through the Vistula Spit has been deepened &/or widened for shipping needs. Look2See1   t a l k →  17:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand very well, but perhaps Sca does not. Sincerely, --Mapsed (talk) 18:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Category:Mississippian geology has been nominated for discussion
Category:Mississippian geology, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Category Caribbean Netherlands
This category which you created is a duplicate of Category:Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and ought to be deleted. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Laurel Lodged, Please see article Caribbean Netherlands, a new designation in 2010 for only 3 small islands, after the dissolution of the larger Netherlands Antilles. Please note that Category: Caribbean part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands also has former colonial entities as subcategories, and is neither synonymous nor duplicative with Category: Caribbean Netherlands. Thank you —  Look2See1   t a l k →  02:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

From Anna


Hello, my friend. I know, totally know, you are here to help build this encyclopedia. You have made 173,817 edits! Thank you! You are appreciated. I want you to make another 173,817 edits but worry a little.

I see from your talk archives that you sometimes do things the way you think is right even when others object. You may be right. But you know how it is here. Even when you are right, if a bunch of others object, you simply must abide by community wishes. That is a good thing, right? I want to replace the top-left Wikipedia globe in all articles with a picture of meerkats, but the community (including you, probably) disagrees. Are they and you wrong? Yes! Obviously! But I have to listen to you. Your voice matters.

So please, please, just omit the ::::: and  and observe the other issues pointed out. Using edit summaries would be great too. Please just stick with whatever is conventional.

And please communicate, if you can. I am friendly. My best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

edit summary
An edit summary is a brief explanation of an edit to a Wikipedia page. When you edit a page, there is a small text entry field labeled Edit summary located under the main edit box and above the Save page button:

It is good practice to fill in the Edit summary field, or add to it in the case of section editing, as this helps others to understand the intention of your edit. Edit summaries are displayed in lists of changes (such as page histories and watchlists), and at the top of diff pages. --Moxy (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Category query
Hi there. I've seen many of your category edits over a number of months. There are some features of the edits that I see recurring, the purpose of which I'm really not sure of, so I thought I'd ask. The easiest way to ask about some of these might be through an example, so I've just chosen [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Cuban_Missile_Crisis&diff=prev&oldid=751853164 this edit] more or less at random because it has some of the features I am wondering about: I appreciate that the reason for these types of edits might be because you subjectively feel that it just looks good. If that's the case, I would suggest that maybe we need to remember that what looks good on Wikipedia on the monitor/device that we use to access the website may not look very good at all when others access the same content on their monitor or device. In particular, I have noticed that the excessive indention can cause problems when users access content on the mobile Wikipedia site. Or maybe there's another reason for these types of edits? I don't know, so I just thought I'd ask. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Indentation of content. For the line that begins, "It occurred and was peacefully resolved ...", there is not one colon mark added for indentation, not two, not three or four, but ten indenting colons added. What is the purpose of this? Why does it need to be intented at all(The same question could be made regarding the four colons added before the later on.)
 * 2) White space. Your category definition/commentary is then followed by two blank lines and then a, adding a considerable amount of white space at the head of the category. This is perhaps not the best example for this particular query. In the past, I have seen you add up to eight or nine blank lines of whitespace in this fashion. What is the purpose of this? Why do we need whitespace at all in the category header? Why do we need to insert a  ?
 * Hi. I also share Good Ol’factory's above concerns, and would very much appreciate your consideration of the issue. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope our inquiries didn't scare you away. I think we both look forward to hearing from you whenever you're back. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I see you are editing again. When you get a moment, I'd appreciate a response regarding this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not in the business of demanding that users answer me, and I'm not going to do so here. However, it is starting to look like you're ignoring my questions. It would be polite to let me know whether you are going to respond. But if you don't say anything, what option do I have than to involve other users in this issue? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, see here if you decide you'd like to respond. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would like to add my voice with those above and Anna F. below in saying that it's in your best interests to have this conversation. It's clear you're a veteran here and understand that this is fundamentally a collaborative project, that communication is essential. Ignoring your fellow editors is impolite and highly unconstructive. No one is out to get you, but don't be surprised if your behavior starts to draw more curious onlookers here. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice
There is a Request for Comment posted at Talk:New York Daily News. You are being notified as one of every registered editor who has edited that article in that past year. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Update
Hello, Look2See1. Considering that you do not discuss things much here, I hope you do not mind my using your talk to discuss you with others. You are welcome to join in.

Our friend, Look2See1 took a break 29 December 2016. I posted at his talk then and asked him to please follow community wishes. It was ignored then auto-archived. He resumed editing 27 January 2017. He has been busy.

Spot-checking shows the following:


 * He continued to use clr from time to time:
 * Introduction of image into cat page (not sure if we do that)
 * No more multi-indents
 * Removal of commonscat (probably accidental)
 * Still no edit summaries
 * Tons and tons of very good, valuable edits

Ignoring our discussions is an annoyance, and so is not using edit summaries. However, I see him as an easy net positive. I hope nobody is in a hurry to block him.

Look2See1, thanks for easing up on the clrs and omitting the indents. Thanks for the great edits. I still wish you'd communicate more. I know you can. I've seen your talk posts and you are intelligent and articulate. Maybe you are just a bit grumpy and anti-social. That's not meant as a personal attack. A lot of my friends are grumpy and anti-social and I tell them so and like them plenty. Best wishes, and again, thanks for the huge amount of good edits. I once again nudge/urge you to follow community wishes more. Or, to use proper English: I nurdge you.

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * From the look of it, the CLR usage has been shifted to article pages rather then categories. See the chages here and .  Its not needed on the article pages at all-- Kev  min  § 03:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I saw that. Well, I see him using it before the stubtag at the bottom. I remember doing a lot of gastropod stubs, and I was advised by User:Invertzoo to add a bunch of line spaces before to make it appear at the bottom of the page. Maybe the clr is a good thing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen them used (or line spaces) for stub articles before and I dont think CLR is something that has typically been used that way at all.-- Kev min  § 03:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I used to do that many years ago. Not sure if others do/did as well. That stubtag looks better way at the bottom, so maybe this clr is useful even though never used that way before. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I do like the stub tag to be at the bottom of the page and personally I like a line break before it so people can see it is not part of the article, but that is just my own preference. Invertzoo (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Stub tag is supposed to be at the very bottom (below categories) per Manual_of_Style/Layout. There are quite a few articles that I've come across using - (which redirects to clr) near the bottom of the page. Frequently it appears on articles that have a totally unnecessary DEFAULTSORT. I assume the -/clr template may have been (thought to be) necessary at some point in Wikipedia's early history and been added by a bot. I don't know that it accomplishes anything useful now. Plantdrew (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

WWF templates
Hi, Look2See1. I see that you're adding templates like Nearctic temperate coniferous forests to various articles, to serve as navigation boxes. But, those templates were not designed to be navboxes: they were designed to be tables that were to be transcluded into various articles. That's why they don't collapse.

I'm happy to convert them into proper navboxes, but that may be controversial. Could you hold off on adding those to articles until I successfully get them converted? Keep an eye on the template edit history and talk pages. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1430s establishments in the Republic of Florence


A tag has been placed on Category:1430s establishments in the Republic of Florence requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Provinces of Roman North Africa
This category, which you recently edited, has been nominated for merger. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1789 disestablishments in Poland


A tag has been placed on Category:1789 disestablishments in Poland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Nav templates
Hi there! May I ask why you are inserting navigational templates to unrelated articles (example)? Navboxes normally should include links to articles in which they are placed (see WP:BIDIRECTIONAL), but that, of course, is normally on the condition that those articles belong in the navbox in the first place. The scope of the "Administrative divisions" navboxes is to cover, well, administrative divisions, yet you are placing these boxes in articles about physical geography features and nature reserves, which makes no sense. Could you please elaborate what you are doing? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 27, 2016 ; 16:39 (UTC)
 * Hello?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 27, 2016 ; 19:55 (UTC)


 * Amakhton Bay is in Magadan Oblast, and since that fact is unmentioned/unlinked in the landform's article the footer gives a quick geography link to the oblast's main article with map. It can be challenging to remember where most of the 85 Federal subjects of Russia are located, across 2 continents. The template gives a quick reference. If it is still offensive to you, please change it.— Look2See1   t a l k →  21:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Adding author to Category reference
Look2See1. You recently edited a page Category:Taxa named by René Martin. You added the author to the category tag: Category:Taxa by author|Martin, Rene. What does this do? John Tann (talk) 08:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It sorts the category alphabetically by taxonomists last name, instead of all cats all being under 'T' for "Taxa", as most of were until circa last summer when I chose to do "wiki gardening work" and sorted them by name. There were maybe only 500-700 cats under Category:Taxa by author then, less than the current 1,133, so I think it's even more important now to maintain practice so wiki users can find the botanist/zoologist/paleontologist one is seeking.
 * Thanks for asking— Look2See1  t a l k →  21:23, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Look2See1. I'll try and remember to follow your practice. John Tann (talk) 06:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Extra spaces
The extra spaces I removed from the category are not needed. Do not add extra or malformed formatting structure to categories.-- Kev min  § 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Commonscat was "malformed" by your previous editing choices/reverts of Category:Chelyocarpus, thank you for finally correcting it.— Look2See1   t a l k →  01:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Does not address the illogical addition of arbitrary empty space into the category, something you have been warned numerous times about across multiple wikiprojects.-- Kev min  § 15:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Kevmin, I do not understand what extra spaces you are talking about, none of the page views of my edits Category:Chelyocarpus have blank space − Category:Chelyocarpus&action=history. Per those 'spaces' comments from Good Ol'factory and other editors, I did listen and learn, and I did not add {clear}, {clr}, {-}, or  on any of these edits, so that smartphone screens will not have a problem. I'm sorry to not see nor understand what your concern is, please try to explain specifically if I am still missing something. Thank you— Look2See1   t a l k →  19:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Revert

 * I had to revert it back, since Sakhalin Oblast and Smolensk Oblast are clearly two very different things.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ymblanter, I'm sorry for putting Sakhalin Oblast's Lake Sapsho into Sakhalin Oblast also. I noticed your current edit put Category:Lakes of Russia back on, in addition to the specific Category:Lakes of Smolensk Oblast. Is that an overcat or the rule for Russian lakes to have both ? Thank you— Look2See1  t a l k →  19:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, Category:Lakes of Smolensk Oblast was already in the article, I now removed two parental cats.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Taxon genera categories
Categories with names of the form "Taxon genera" are meant to be used for articles about the genus (or redirects at the genus name where the article is at the English name or the species name). They should not be used for taxonomic categories named after the taxon, since this means that articles about species end up in the "Taxon genera" category. So for example currently there's the hierarchy:
 * Acanthocereus tetragonus – Category:Acanthocereus – Category:Cactoideae genera – Category:Cactaceae genera, etc.

The last of these correctly says "This category is for articles on each of the genera in the family Cactaceae." So starting from Category:Cactaceae genera and working down the category hierarchy you should find Acanthocereus, because this is a genus. You should not find Acanthocereus tetragonus, because this is not a genus.

The category hierarchies should run:
 * Acanthocereus tetragonus – Category:Acanthocereus – Category:Cactoideae – Category:Cactaceae, etc., showing the taxonomic ranks of the species.
 * Acanthocereus  – Category:Acanthocereus – Category:Cactoideae – Category:Cactaceae, etc., showing the taxonomic ranks of the genus.
 * Acanthocereus – Category:Cactoideae genera – Category:Cactaceae genera, etc., showing all the genera at a particular rank.

This is explained at WikiProject Plants/Categorization. "Taxon genera" categories are set categories, designed to include sets and subsets of genera articles. Even if they were topic categories, it would be wrong to find an article about a cactus species ultimately in a category called "Cactaceae genera".

(signed later) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you Peter coxhead, for explaining the categorization scheme and its reasons so well. Your taking the time to show the hierarchy tree/run examples made it especially clear why [Category:genus name] never belongs under [Category:family/order genera]. — Look2See1   t a l k →  19:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No trouble. I know that you do good work on categories. Keep it up! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to rename poetry categories

 * Please see my proposals to rename or merge categories Category:1000s in poetry to Category:1900s in poetry Hugo999 (talk) 10:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support if renamed Category:11th-century poetry, but not if merged 900 years later into Category:1900s in poetry. — Look2See1   t a l k →  22:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Dominican amber
Please do not place Dominican amber taxa into Category:Insects of Haiti. Dominican amber is only found in the Dominican republic, and there is no indication that any of the organisms had ranges reaching the area of Miocene Haiti.-- Kev min  § 23:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Providing edit comments for category changes
Hi, it'd be much appreciated if you could comment your category additions, as at Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, even if it's just "cat", as otherwise it looks as if external links are being added, wasting people's time checking. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Western Sahara
Thanks for your edits. Are you interested in this topic or are you just doing some general maintenance which happens to overlap it? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pre-Islamic North Africa has been nominated for discussion
Category:Pre-Islamic North Africa, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Category:History of Al-Andalus by period has been nominated for discussion
Category:History of Al-Andalus by period, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks!

Hi I apologise for using a template message above on an experienced user, but you have been around a few years now and should really be using edit summaries the majority to all of the time. As you are making 100's edits per day, whilst I am sure are all in good faith, it just is a great help to other uses to get an idea of the purpose of your edits. Tim! (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Autocar
Thanks for updating the Autocar Company page. Suggestion: Move it from Companies founded in 1899 to 1897. It was founded 10/21/1897. http://autocartruck.com/about#history :) Sedimentary (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor league baseball players
Or in fact any athlete who plays for a city's sports teams is not automatically from that city. That is a long held consensus. Notable people sections of city article per consensus are for people who lived in or born in Foo. Not worked, died, gone to school etc....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Cassa di Risparmio di Vignola
Vignola is a city in the Province of Modena, but NOT in the city of Modena. Matthew_hk t  c  14:13, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Western Mining Company
Please stop your mis-categorization. Xining and Xinjiang‎ is two thing. Matthew_hk t  c  14:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Art galleries are not design companies
Hi, I see you are adding "design companies" categories to the art galleries categories, e.g. here. In general, art galleries are not design companies and the category seems incorrect (occasionally, an individual art gallery may be a design company, in which case an appropriate category can be added to the individual article of course). Can you please undo these edits? Fram (talk) 07:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Art galleries are not retail companies either like you edited a page found here. Could you please so down your categorization edits and go back and correct the ones you did wrong like requested above. The complaints are piling up on this talk page and it may become necessary for a community discussion about your edits and possibly restricting your categorizing pages. You do good work but you are also making too many problematic edits that need fixing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I see you're editing again. Are you planning to undo the edits that Fram asked you above to do? If you're not, an WP:ANI thread may have to be started....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Schools in Manchester
As I understand it in the US the word School is used in a very broad sense to include Universities, but that is not the case in the UK. So Universities do not belong in the Category "Schools in Manchester". Perhaps the category needs to be broader, like Educational Institutions in Manchester. Thanks for other Cats thoughBilllion (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd have to add that the wholesale changes to educational categories right across England are a very mixed bag. Sure, there are some excellent additions of missing categories, but many of the edits show an extreme lack of understanding of local geographical and geo-political structures. You are imposing a very particular POV on the category structures. Can I suggest you stop and ask for guidance somewhere, perhaps at WP:ENGLAND for instance? CalzGuy (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi - you may have zero POV intent but that doesn't mean your edits are not POV. They are imposing an American POV on British geography. You do not understand how things are naturally categorised in British society. If you did you would not have made the edits you have. Please engage and explain what each of the changes you have made mean? CalzGuy (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining, will not edit more British education articles until very clear on accurate UK usage of terms. Thanks — Look2See1   t a l k →  19:47, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding User:Look2See1. Would you mind at least reverting the British Universities added to schools categories, as it is probably easier for you to go through the ones you did? Billlion (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

thanks
for all your work on australian items - please note that Australian categories and items in the Northern Territory use the Northern Territory - thanks JarrahTree 03:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * hahah - having created the category I see it is my error in the first place ! JarrahTree 03:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You are welcome JarrahTree, Thanks for your longtime + excellent Australian flora wiki-works. — Look2See1   t a l k →  03:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * not always - I have 2 screens in operation at the moment - one fixing up others mistakes, the other mine - I cannot believe how over time I have done such poor edits in some spaces :(  JarrahTree 03:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Bookstores is a restricted and culturally bound term - and the AKA Book shops is much more valid in the english speaking world! imho JarrahTree 06:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * fundamentally the terms that were created when wikipedia was created - many actually ingrained a very innapropriate US balance towards english usage - the overall wikipedia project has suffered ever since with close to primary school terms for some subjects and topics JarrahTree 06:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries, please
Hello, and thanks for your contributions. Echoing previous requests by other editors, I would ask that you adopt the habit of using edit summaries. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edits, and saves us time. Thanks in advance for considering this. Eric talk 02:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Categorization errors
China Southern Airlines should not under the cat of Air China, as well as China Merchants Property is not a financial services company. Matthew_hk t  c  21:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Matthew_hk, will remove those those cats from those articles now. — Look2See1   t a l k →  21:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)