User talk:Look2See1/Archive 7

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Hi, Look2See1. Could I ask that you please keep an eye on some of your recent edits? You seem to be adding Category:Orobanchaceae to genus articles when a genus category is already present, like you did at Pedicularis. There's no need for the genus to be categorized in both a parent and a child category, it just adds an unnecessary category to the article. I have cleaned up a few, but perhaps you can go back through some recent edits and fix the others? I'd appreciate that. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• I do not think Category:Eudicot genera is overcategorization. Thanks, Look2See1 t a l k → 02:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• Neither do I. I was talking about edits like this on the genus article Castilleja, where Category:Castilleja is already present and is a subcategory of Category:Orobanchaceae. Adding the family category places that article in the taxonomy category tree twice -- in the genus and in the family categories. Having both on a single article is not recommended. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are also making edits like [1] that are adding an article to categories for geographical regions that are not even mentioned in the article. PLEASE STOP RIGHT NOW. DexDor ^(talk) 06:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• DexDor, PLEASE LOOK AT THE REFERENCES before you misjudge geographical regions categories. They are from distribution maps, clearly identified as specific regions with documented specimens collected. Thank you, Look2See1 t a l k → 06:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

But the categories you are adding are not for WP:DEFINING characteristics. At WP:CFD there have been many discussions that have deleted categories that are categorizing species etc by smallish geographical regions (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories). This shows that categorization a species by small geographical areas is inappropriate. 06:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:DexDor above. Please stop doing edits like this. That's far too many categories, especially when the regional categories already present accurately included the plant's distribution. Please note, also, that there's only to be one name in the name parameter. See WP:TX#Name: The name parameter should not be used to incorporate more than one name. Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Rkitko, Orchids are a subcategory of Flora, of course. My 'category focusing edits' for Asian Dendrobium orchid species from (e.g.) Category: Flora of Burma to Category: Orchids of Burma, and the same for the other states/countries, from 'Cat:Flora of' to 'Cat:Orchids of' is not Overcategorization! Why do you revert my edit work that's focusing the Asian orchids into orchid categories? Please stop doing this. Thanks, Look2See1 t a l k → 00:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You're adding unnecessary categories. Just because a species is present in some location does not mean it needs to be categorized in every category that exists. For example, in the link above for Dendrobium falconeri, you added Category:Flora of Hunan, Category:Flora of Tibet, and Category:Flora of Yunnan, but the article was already in a better subcategory of Category:Flora of China, namely Category:Orchids of China. It doesn't need to also be in any subdivisions of China. Work down from the broadest possible categories that accurately describe the distribution of the species without adding unnecessary or overlapping categories. You also added many "Orchids of X" categories for countries under Category:Flora of Indo-China, which the article was already in. The species is widely distributed throughout the peninsula and doesn't need to be categorized in every country category. Adding this many categories is absolutely overcategorization, especially when you're adding child categories of a regional parent category that was already present. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Orchids of China is for the entire and huge country, Category:Flora of Tibet indicates which part. Category:Orchids of Tibet would eliminate that, but probably does not have enough articles to populate it. Since Category:Flora of Tibet has no parent category link to Category:Flora of the Himalayas, or the subcategories Category:Flora of East Himalayas / Category:Flora of West Himalayas — due to the WGSRPD scheme's narrow definitions, Tibet's Himalayan montane flora is only served by Category:Flora of Tibet. — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The WGSRPD is the best system to use as it represents a compromise between overlapping hierarchies with poorly-defined boundaries and others that strictly use political boundaries and affiliations (e.g., Category:Flora of Greenland is not a subcategory of Category:Flora of Denmark). It still brings together associated flora into regional categories. Beyond that, have you looked at any recent deletion or merging discussions at WP:CFD for organism distribution categories? Discussions always cite some egregious example of an article with dozens of categories. It's jarring to most editors, which is why your efforts are undermining any effort to keep some reasonable number of categories. The trend appears to be toward deletion of country categories, though I think I may have been able to persuade some editors that regional categories (e.g. Indo-China, Malesia, Southwestern Europe) are a better target for upmerging than entire continents. If you want all of your edits to be the reason why more flora categories disappear, then by all means continue your edits, however futile. I imagine they'll be undone at some point in the future. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

• World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions (WGSRPD)

I do not think the WGSRPD is the best system to use exclusively. The WGSRPD system is an excellent one for the primary wikipedia categorization tree, but not the best nor the only one needed here to understand flora, phytogeography, biodiversity hotspots, distribution & conservation, and other important foci of information. It's wikipedia categorization tree has some illogical/non-intuitive and "too esoteric for non-botanists to use" failures — such as when it was applied to elimination of any [Category:Flora of the United States connection] for the Category:Flora of the Northeastern United States and 5 other WGSRPD sanctioned U.S. flora regions subcategories on 9 May 2014 and subsequently. Every wikipedia user had to know to go only to Category:Flora of North America to find the articles on U.S. region specific flora. Not until I created [Category:Flora of the United States by region on 8 October 2014] was the regional Flora of the United States again logically accesable to non-WGSRPD speaking devotees. There are no poorly-defined national boundaries of the United States of America, that needed a compromise to the North American continental scale to resolve.

• Re: upmerging to continent only categories.

With ever increasing botanical discoveries of native species, almost exclusively at specific ecoregion/ecosystem scales; and climate change, urbanization and development pressures, and resource extraction endangering/decreasing species at those same ecoregion/ecosystem scales; a trend to wiki Flora by continent seems unwise scale for meaningful botanical research/learning uses by readers. Very sad to disinherit natural diversity. Recalls the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia trying to disavow the "dozens (hundreds) of categories" of regional and cultural diversity, to create an unsustainable psuedo-minimalistic system.

Plants, being predominantly rooted/attached, without actual natural mobility besides reproduction, need a different 'organism distribution category scale criteria' than animals. To my awareness, climate change is causing flora species migration measured in inches/cm to miles/km, usually in elevation/micro-latitude parameters. Continental scale is, so far, meaningless. Subcategories upmerged to Category:Flora by continents can't be more than a most vague indication of distribution, with tens of thousands of plant species 'needles' in a few mega-haystacks.

Thank you, Look2See1 t a l k → 03:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To my understanding, only if the Wikipedia servers need to significantly reduce data loads, would radical upmerging make sense. — Look2See1 t a l k → 03:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you in part. The trend of discussions at CfD is concerning, but every single discussion always links to a few examples intended to shock other editors. And it is troubling, sometimes, how many categories there are on some articles. So I agree with you -- upmerging to continent categories is the wrong way to go. Let's make it easier on ourselves to keep a system we like rather than end up with one that's unusable by not providing any horrible examples of overcategorization. (By the way, upmerging wouldn't save any server space -- that will never be a reason to upmerge.)

A lot of the rest of your message here seems to indicate you want to use categories to reproduce lists of flora of any given region. Categories are not nor should they be used to recreate list articles. Much of what you desire can and should be achieved by List of flora of X or Flora of X articles. I created one not too long ago at Flora of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and as there are no endemics and very few species not found nearly everywhere else in the region, I will not create a corresponding category -- even though the WGSRPD hierarchy suggests there should be! Those articles don't need an additional category. The list has the added advantage of being able to include links to articles we don't yet have, but will one day have. There are other editors doing commendable work on articles like List of flora of the Mojave Desert region. Rkitko ^(talk) 04:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, list articles can work well to understand the flora of a region. However, I never suggested nor would want to use categories to reproduce list articles of flora of any given region. In the other direction, whether list articles can replace a category may depend on the number of articles. Some time back I created List of plants of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.) to supplement Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.), using a habitat based outline format. With 976 articles in that category, that list article could not absorb them all to replace the category, and still be very usable.

Smaller categories can transition well to list articles, and will think more about creating some.

Thanks Look2See1 t a l k → 06:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, large lists can be a problem, but there are ways to arrange them, a few of which I've seen were quite effective. Perhaps conferring with User:FloraWilde may be useful if you ever choose to make another list article as that editor has some decent experience with the difficulties.

So if the goal is not to recreate accurate lists of plants in a category for a given region, what is the point of insisting an article on a widespread species should be included in every possible flora category of its distribution? I do appreciate the desire to do so and even used to do the same in the past when I was creating Utricularia stubs (and never have gotten around to cleaning them up... perhaps that should be next on my to do list). And unlike the editors who want to upmerge all country categories to regional or continent ones, I still think there's a need for smaller categories for plants with restricted ranges. For example, plants with distributions in more than one country but much less than what could accurately be described as the entire parent region could be placed in just those few country categories (e.g. a plant in Albania, Bulgaria, and Greece, but nowhere else in Southeastern Europe). Smaller categories are also useful when the distribution extends beyond a single region -- say the plant is native to nearly all of Southeastern Europe but also extends into Turkey in Western Asia so that just the SE Europe and Turkey categories would be appropriate. Anyway, I've attempted to describe that advice at WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD at the very top. A few others have agreed with that and that page by no means represents policy or guideline, just my attempt to organize part of the project. I'd appreciate your thoughts on it. Does it represent a decent compromise for those who cry "too many categories!" and ask for all to be upmerged? Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 16:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

...use the names "Las Californias province" and "Alta California Province". Those names are not used by reliable sources, so we can't use them in WP. Plus, Alta California was officially only a "province" from 1804 to 1822 - after that it became a "territory" of Mexico. To avoid confusion, just leave off "province". WCCasey (talk) 01:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the corrected information WCCasey, will not use those Spanish era province names. How about usage of the Mexican era Alta California Territory, regarding reliable sources?

I do suggest that The Californias article title be returned to its original Spanish [Las Californias] title (as Santa Fe de Nuevo México does), & that Category: The Californias be either:

1.) returned to [Category:Colonial California], as Category:Colonial New Mexico uses, or

2.) changed to [Category:Spanish California], as Category:Spanish Texas & Category:Spanish Florida use, which also makes a much clearer pairing with Category: Mexican California.

The term 'The Californias' sounds too much like a chamber of commerce/state tourism campaign or a geography topic, and the Category:The Californias (or a [:Category:Las Californias]) 'hides' the distinct Spanish Alta California period from 1804-1822. — Look2See1 t a l k → 20:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the edit summary, see WP:PLANTS/Categorization, specifically WP:PLANTS/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories. Please also note the bold, revert, discuss cycle. You made an edit, I reverted with an explanation, as I included in my edit summary the first time I removed that category. Rkitko ^(talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify further, if the link is insufficient, if you place a genus category containing articles on species in a category titled "Taxon genera", the species articles become part of that category tree. Those articles are not articles on genera. A lot of thought has gone into the taxonomic category hierarchy and rather than knee-jerk reverts, you could have read the link I provided or asked before continuing. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You may understand, but you certainly have not explained this to me yet, though I appreciate your trying. If I'm incorrect I would like to learn why, and correct my misunderstanding.

The linked WP:PLANTS/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories does not explain why Category:Laeliinae genera for a Laeliinae genus subcategory is not more specific/correct than Category:Laeliinae.

NOTE: There were many other Laeliinae genus subcategories under Category:Laeliinae genera before my recent editing, so other editors also thought that was correct categorization.

Perhaps WP:PLANTS/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories can be refined to address this specific quandary for all editors' benefit?

Thank you, Look2See1 t a l k → 05:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree the project page could use a bit of work. Feel free to edit it to improve its clarity. I know that User:Peter coxhead was the primary author of that particular section and has a pretty good understanding of it. Maybe he'd be able to explain it better than I can. Yes, there were other genus subcats in Category:Laeliinae genera. I began clearing them out on 8 June but got sidetracked before I finished. As I noted above, any articles in a genus category are going to be on species. Those species articles should not be included in the category tree such as Category:Laeliinae genera → Category:Encyclia. This erroneously indicates that anything contained within Category:Encyclia is a "Laeliinae genus". I hope that helps. If this makes sense now and if you're amenable, I'd appreciate you perhaps reverting yourself on Category:Encyclia. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 05:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this makes sense now, thanks. I understand why Category:Laeliinae genera is incorrect for genera categories and is only for genera articles. Will correct Category:Encyclia to Category:Laeliinae.

Thank you, Look2See1 t a l k → 05:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad we could work that out. On a related category note, I would ask that you consider not adding "flora of" type of categories to genus articles that are not endemic to that region or monotypic, e.g. in this edit to Barbosella. I think you did the same to Bromheadia which is almost endemic to Asia, but has at least one species extend into Australia. In previous discussions on the use of the flora categories for genus articles, it was usually agreed that applying those categories implies that all species of that genus can be found in all those locations. We usually only categorize the taxa of the lowest rank and only categorize a genus if it's endemic or monotypic. Let me know if that doesn't make sense and I'll take another stab at explaining or dredging up links to old discussions where that consensus was developed. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Your explanation makes it clear, re: the Barbosella/Bromheadia genera articles not having any [Cat:Orchids of a continent], since not endemic to just one. Thanks — Look2See1 t a l k → 20:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:18th-century in Venezuela 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 four 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 "Click here to 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. Redrose64 (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support speedy deletion. — Look2See1 t a l k → 09:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed in your edits in Trilobozoa and Category:Trilobozoa, you've amended them as being Cambrian animals in addition to being Precambrian animals... With the divorce of Trilobozoa from Conulariida, the only trilobozoans, at least the ones I know of, are restricted to Late Precambrian. Have there been Cambrian-aged trilobozoans found?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, must have read it as Late Cambrian, so will correct that now. Thank you for noticing and sharing your expertise. — Look2See1 t a l k → 09:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Happy to help.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Australian pastoralists do not think of themselves, nor do they wear the appelation Ranchers - it is quite a foreign term, in all fairness, I though the category tree as it stood was adequate, I am not sure why there is a need to equate a non-australian term into the category tree as it is already JarrahTree 02:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the accurate Australian usage of the term pastoralist. Have just removed Category:Ranchers from Category:Australian pastoralists. — Look2See1 t a l k → 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

however in the case where this occurs, I see no problem at all as a see also - it allows the reader to understand synonymic terms and possibly related subjects they didnt know were connected...

It can get complicated, some australian academic agriculturalists and bureaucrats use the term range lands and other not commonly used terms in the general agricultural press here in Australia - so there is no easy answer when you go into the detail. JarrahTree 02:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi JarrahTree, The term pastoralist, used in this specific Australian jargon, was unfamiliar to me before July 2015. If I hadn't arrived at Category:Australian pastoralists via an Australian agricultural cat tree, I would have thought it an Australian plein air art style or an Australian environmentalist movement. Since a new [Category:Australian ranchers] is clearly wrong, it seems placing [Category:Australian pastoralists] under international parent Category:Ranchers would be appropriate per synonymic terms for the same/related subject. Ranchers & pastoralists both being terms for people working on very large parcels of uncultivated land for (non−plant crop) agricultural products (sheep, livestock, goats…) — regardless of whether in local vernaculars the large parcels are called ranches, ranch lands, range lands, stations, pastoral leases, ranchos, or estancias, et al. The parent Category:Pastoralists only has the Australian subcat, and so that is not currently an international parent category.

There is an Australian precedent for a synonymic termed category being used: Category: Australian stockmen is placed under international parent Category:Cattlemen by nationality

Shall I put back Category:Australian pastoralists under international parent Category:Ranchers, so non−Australians can find them and Australians can find the same/related subject in other countries? — or not? Thanks for the discussion.—Look2See1 t a l k → 02:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Just letting you know - I removed the category because it's depreciated; it's been replaced by Category:19th-century American sculptors and Category:20th-century American sculptors, among others. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Got it now, thank you for explaining.—Look2See1 t a l k → 06:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Any time. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you have been trying to recategorize Bronze Age pages. But I am not clear about everything you are doing. In this edit [2] for example, you have removed * for the main category and re-added Category:Bronze Age again. Can you explain what you are trying to do? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I was simply adding articles about the Bronze Age in India & other Asian locations at the parent Category:Bronze Age to the more specific & new Category:Bronze Age Asia. I'd found the existing Category:Bronze Age Europe subcategory helpful to continentally place Bronze Age cultures and events, as the cultures/places names et al are often quite unfamiliar (to me).

Per the 'cat/article same name' category sort, usually I see it sorted by an empty space, e.g. [Category:Indus Valley Civilization| ]. That way if there is a major 'topic organizing/list article,' e.g. [Timeline of Indus Valley Civilization] '* sorted' e.g. [Category:Indus Valley Civilization|*], it places it next one down, preceding all the articles only organized alphabetically. I learned it from other editor/mentors many years ago, it's not my invention or style.

The re-adding Category:Bronze Age after Category:Bronze Age Asia was because: 1.) I'm so ignorant of how Bronze Age experts expect to find articles; 2.) Since ~1 year ago I've keep coming across articles (usually landform/settlement related) that have both the child & a primary parent subdivison cat used: e.g. Category:Owens River with [Cat:Rivers of xyz] for 2 counties & also the counties' same state. May have been an editors' discussion/new rule decision I missed, but since it affects hundreds+ of articles I'm leaving them, though those seem to be primo Overcat examples (done by others).

Back here, what do you think, re: Indus Valley Civilization with sorted [Cat:Bronze Age Asia] & non-sorted [Cat:Bronze Age] also? Please advise. — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

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 and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes.

Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with this suggestion - adding edit summaries would make it easier to follow some of your reasoning. I see you've been doing a great deal of recategorization related to the Bronze Age and similar matters; while this is, in and of itself, not problematic, adding an edit summary to each of your edits would help people get a better picture of what you're doing. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thanks for pointing out the many places it helps readers. Please see my reply below regarding the Bronze Age recategorizations question. Thanks, Look2See1 t a l k → 00:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In the English-language Wikipedia block quotes are not italicized, and neither do they take quotation marks. See your changes at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eulogio_F._de_Celis&type=revision&diff=674045400&oldid=619247561, which I have had to revert. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Orderic Vitalis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Category:People from Shropshire]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coalinga, California may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Coalinga''' ({{IPAc-en|ˌ|k|oʊ|.|ə|ˈ|l|ɪ|ŋ|ɡ|ə}} or {{IPAc-en|k|ə|ˈ|l|ɪ|ŋ|ɡ|ə}}) is a city in [[Fresno County, California|[Fresno County]] and the eastern [[San Joaquin Valley]], in central [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a minor update for your use for Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. On September 18, 2015 it started rumbling, reported by the Hawaii Volcanoes Institute that for at least the previous year the seismic network at Mauna Loa detected elevated seismicity beneath the summit, upper Southwest Rift Zone, and W flank; the rate of these shallow earthquakes varied but overall had remained above the long-term average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.56.34 (talk) 06:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been adding geologic time templates to a lot of articles and categories where I don't feel they are very relevant. This results in a lot of clutter that doesn't add much value to the article. Please choose templates and the pages you add them to more judiciously. Abyssal (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree, and see much value added to understanding the formations articles' place in the geologic time scale from the templates. For myself and other non-geologists, the numerous eras/periods/epochs/sub-epochs chronology and subdivision hierarchies are exceptionally difficult to remember correctly. I appreciate that you may have an adroit handle on them. After a month of actively editing more specificity into the geologic formation articles' info & their categories, and despite having a layperson's long backround in geology, I still need to refer to the geologic time templates for epoch/sub-epoch accuracy. I'd expect other average wikipedia users are also aided by their presence. Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 05:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Abyssal. Just today, you've added geological time navigation boxes ({{Geological history}}) to a bunch of volcanoes, including the Hawaii volcanoes. It's a large number of links, the vast majority of which aren't relevant to the article, because the volcanoes are so geologically young.

I have a suggestion: let's start a discussion at WT:WikiProject Geology, and see if we can find a consensus for what sort of articles should have the {{Geological history}} template. Would you like to start the discussion, to explain your view? —hike395 (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Taxa articles already should have a geologic timescale included in the taxobox, with click-able links. There is no real use to dropping the timeline template on a myriad of articles that already have wikified age links. If you feel that is may be needed, take this suggestion to the appropriate wikiprojects (WP:Paleontology, WP:Geology, WP:Dinosaurs) Please stop till a consensus has been reached.--Kevmin § 02:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and started the discussion at WT:WikiProject Geology —hike395 (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

PhantMall.COM is the biggest online-based shop that is developed with the intent to narrow the gap between products and its potential buyers. Our aim is to reduce the stress of searching for producers and thinking where and at what price you will have a particular product. To reduce this uncertainty, PhantMall.COM team understood after a long-lasted customer/products research that there must be a platform that binds customers/products together, making it easier to access a product with a more friendly price, then we concluded that it should be; Portable Easily accessible Always available Reliable; and User-friendly. To this wise, PhantMall.COM became a better platform to solve the long-lasted problem in Nigeria and the world.   We are here to satisfy your shopping needs at comforts with just a few clicks. We just do not get a product and sell, rather we access the shop or company's operations to ensure that their services and products meets our quality standard and fit for consumption thereby reducing the amounts of fake products in circulation. We have our Quality Accessing Agents (QAA) and there are just up to their job, to assure you a smile at the end of your purchase with us.   Our desire is to ensure everyone is free from money or product theft. We saw it rampant and we came out with PhantMall.COM after a careful planning. Now, with just your money at your home, office you can buy any product without the stress of carrying the money or product around and exposing yourself to every fear, risk, etc.   We hope you will find it comfortable to have PhantMall.COM as your daily shopping website and we look forward to satisfying all your shopping needs. How can I search for products? We have carefully designed our website to be user-friendly. To search for products, you can use the search box at the top of the page, type the name of the product you are searching for, a drop down list will appear with suggestions based on the name you typed. Select the product you want to buy and add it to your cart. It's that simple. Alternatively, select the category you are searching for at the top left corner, of the website and search from there. We have added features that let you search for products according to your size and the amount. You will find this website very friendly for your shopping needs. How do I make an order or buy on your website? Once you have found your preferred product, just follow the steps below to get going: Add the item to your cart. (Just incase this is the only item you want to order), you will be redirected to your cart where you will see the details of everything you have in the cart including your total. If you wish to increase the quantity, make the changes there and click "Update" Click "Proceed to checkout" If you are not logged it, you will be prompted to log in. This is to enable us serve you better and customize your shopping experience. If you do not have an account with us, then you sign up there and log in. Fill your shipping address and proceed. Don't bother about payment, we will get it on delivery. If you by peradventure encounter any problems while placing your order or during the process or on the website, please feel comfortable and do not hesitate to contact us on; 08028903803 or [email protected]. Remember it’s your right to be served better at PhantMall.COM. How do I register? Click "Sign up" at the top of the page. A screen pop-up will ask you to login if you are an existing customer or to continue if you are a new customer. Once you click on continue, you will be required to fill in some personal information. After updating the required fields, click the "Sign Up" button to create your account. Do you sell used or fairly used products? No we don't sell any used or fairly used products on our website. All the products on our website are brand new. We assure you (our customers) quality and originality. How do I sell my products on PhantMall.COM? To become our affiliate (a business partner), kindly click here to fill our affiliate application form. When we receive your application, our Quality Accessing Agents will access your shop. If your are qualified, "Welcome to PhantMall." What if I cannot find my particular product on Phantmall.COM? If we can't satisfy you at the moment, please feel free to inform us by participating on our review page. You can either way contact us on 08028903803 or [email protected] as our dream remains to have every need met. But you can feel free to pick anything similar to what you needed if need be. Can you deliver outside Akwa Ibom and Port Harcourt? We are sorry as we can't deliver outside Akwa Ibom and Port Harcourt for now due to one thing or the other. But be encouraged to always check back on our homepage for updates regarding this as we expect to broaden our sales beyond Akwa Ibom and Port Harcourt very soon. Can you deliver outside Nigeria? Currently, PhantMall.COM does not deliver outside Nigeria. However, you are always encouraged to check back our website for updates as with no time we will broaden our coast beyond Nigeria and Africa. When will I get my product after making an order (delivery period)? Our standard delivery timeline is 1-3 days (24hrs-72hrs). As soon as your order is dispatched from our affiliates, you will receive an email to confirm that your package is on its way. You will also be contacted by our dispatch personnel on the day of delivery. Do you have a physical office address? Yes we do. Our corporate office is located in Port Harcourt. However, since phantmall is an online store, we do not have physical showrooms. Once we receive your order, we will deliver it at your doorstep. Can I pick up my item instead of having it delivered? PhantMall.COM offers delivery services because of the goal of convenience. We do not encourage our customers to come to our office since products can be brought to their door steps. All we need from you is to lazy at home while we do the work freely. How do you charge for shipping? We currently do not charge for shipping. No hidden charges applied. If for any reason we will have to charge for shipping, we shall make it known to you. What if I am not home at the time of delivery? Our dispatch personnel will call you before making the delivery. If you are unavailable to receive your item, a re-delivery will be scheduled within 3 days. Please note that your order will be cancelled after 2 re-delivery attempts. Can my parcel be delivered to an office address? Yes. Your parcel can be delivered to any address convenient for you. To make this possible, you must enter your preferred address as your "shipping address" before you checkout. My items haven't arrived yet. What can I do? If you haven’t received your items after the 3rd day, kindly contact us on +23408028903803, +23407066919687 or send an email to [email protected] (quoting your tracking ID and name). How do I track my order? Click here and supply your Tracking ID to track your order. It's that simple. Will I receive all my orders in a single package? We endeavour to send out products readily available as most of our customers appreciate prompt deliveries. If your orders do not come in a single package, be rest assured that the remaining item(s) will also be delivered to you within the delivery timeline. How do I make payment? For now, we accept only pay on delivery. Do you offer instalment payments? PhantMall.COM works hard to fulfil all online shopping needs but unfortunately, we don't have the facilities to accommodate instalment payments. Are your prices negotiable? Our prices have already been discounted to make them as competitive as possible. The prices are not negotiable. Will my card details be safe? For now we do not have any card payment facility, so you don’t have anything to bother about card payment. Lordmogul (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

https://wikimedia.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9mNQICjn6DibxNr

This survey is intended to gauge community satisfaction with the technical support provided by the Wikimedia Foundation to Wikipedia, especially focusing on the needs of the core community. To learn more about this survey, please visit Research:Tech support satisfaction poll.

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan (WMF) (talk • contribs) 19:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 340 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

Buster Seven Talk 19:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Look2See1. Thanks for recently adding those two categories to Kosovo. What I was thinking was, do we really need them on that particular article? At Category:2010s in Kosovo you only have the basketball seasons plus the Kosovo article. As the article is about the region/republic, it is not telling of a specific time but generalising in all periods. Would you be all right with the removal of these categories? --OJ (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi OJ, Sorry I missed your questions until today. I'm not sure if you mean the categories themselves, or their categorizing the articles, should be removed/deleted, so will answer for both possibilities. Regarding Category:2000s in Kosovo and Category:2010s in Kosovo, they both have numerous subcategories (years, establishments, disestablishments) and non-sports articles. They are standard for any country, whether historical, current, disputed, or colonial. Regarding articles, the basketball season articles (each covering 2 years) could certainly be refiled under their respective years (e.g. Category:2012 in Kosovo & Category:2013 in Kosovo), if you and/or other editors see an improvement. I've removed the decade categories from the Kosovo article, thanks for pointing out its generalized scope. — Look2See1 t a l k → 22:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that only 340 editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

Buster Seven Talk 

Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 22:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Greetings Look2See1, do you have any suggestions for me to follow up what you're doing on the Great War articles you've been editing (wiki advice pages etc), I find the links at the bottom are a bit of a mystery. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Keith-264, I've been connecting articles with specific date and place-name categories, from information in the articles themselves. The links on Portal:World War I may be of help to you. Thanks for your interest. — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your edit categorizing the Bernina range under the Friuli-Venice Alps, as this is incorrect. Regards, Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain why you are removing Category:National Register of Historic Places in San Francisco, California from this article, which is for a building on the NRHP? BMK (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am removing Category:National Register of Historic Places in San Francisco, California because that is OVERCAT. It already has Category:Government buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in San Francisco, California which is quite sufficient. Please look more carefully. Also, please explain why you put me on the WikiProject National Register of Historic Places talkpage. Look2See1 t a l k → 05:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) stepping in here. Category:Government buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in San Francisco, California should have been a child of Category:National Register of Historic Places in San Francisco, California, but was not. I just fixed it. Therefore, I believe that Look2See1 is now correct about the WP:OVERCAT.

Both of you should be careful --- you are both at the daily 3-revert limit for the article. I would recommend discussing at Talk:Old Federal Reserve Bank Building (San Francisco) before editing further. —hike395 (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Hike395, for seeing and remedying the missing parent cat. I have no need to revert, because the most specific cat. is currently on the article, as was my original edit intention. May Beyond My Ken heed your caution and not continue with more needless reverting. — Look2See1 t a l k → 06:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places discussion on this issue. Look2See1 t a l k → 00:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Look2See1. When you substitute {{Commonscat}} for {{Commons+cat}}, you are removing a link to Commons gallery. Please stop this substitution: many of us work very hard on those Commons galleries, and they deserve to be linked from the corresponding wikipedia article. —hike395 (talk) 12:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hike 395, the only edit I'm aware of recently was on the Death Valley article, when the commons category for Death Valley was not primary, and it linked to the entire Death Valley National Park instead. There is no Commons page for Death Valley, just for the whole park. As I'm sure you appreciate, the valley is one of 4−5 major ones within the park boundaries, and while the namesake and predominant, it is only one of many notable features within the park, and it's only ~20% of the total park's area. Having a primary link to Death Valley National Park and secondary link "(category)" to Media related to Death Valley at Wikimedia Commons on the Death Valley article is incorrect. The Media related to Death Valley National Park at Wikimedia Commons page does not even have a subheading for Death Valley. The Death Valley National Park article & Category:Death Valley National Park are the places for {Commons+cat|Death Valley National Park} linking to the images of the whole wonderful park. The National Park Service has striven to encourage visitors to see more that the Stovepipe Wells/Furnace Creek/Scotty's Castle triad & only the 1 valley for half a century in my experiences. Can we support that too? Thank you— Look2See1 t a l k →

Please, tell me you copy everything command and places where the controls should preserve that would nominate any item to delete. I know two commands but I think there are more commands that are needed. I have tried recently to nominate one item to delete but I could not because he braked hard at making items for deletion specifically Pometenik. Thank you in advance. Philipsontheevil (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Philipsontheevil, I have never nominated an article for deletion (or to propose a merge), and so don't know how, sorry. Perhaps if you "activated" your talk page other editors/administrators could post help there for you.

In my opinion the Pometenik article is worth keeping, however I'm fond of mountain & mountain range articles. Please note the current version with more information & links. Do you know if the peak is in the Serbian Carpathians, or if not which mountain range it is in ?

Good luck. — Look2See1 t a l k → 06:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Look2See1 Wishing you a joyous Christmas and a prosperous new year! BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Theatres in Los Angeles County, California, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:OVERLINK, The names of major geographic features and locations should not generally be linked. WP:OVERLINK provides an example for this France should not normally be linked, clearly demonstrating that country names should not be linked and this is accepted throughout Wikipedia, so could you please explain why you insist on linking Australia at Sydney Opera House[3][4] --AussieLegend (✉) 23:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Really AussieLegend, linking Australia once in the Sydney Opera House article's lede line is overlinking ? Highlighting/linking the nation (once) that a UNESCO World Heritage Site is located within supports readers who do not have an "average" handle on global geography (no judgement, I'm sub−average on Chinese subdivision placenames); &/or those whose first language is not English. The latter may not be a concern within Australia, but it is in major English speaking countries elsewhere in the world. What is the point to being so stingy, when education is a goal ? — Look2See1 t a l k → 18:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Australia isn't a subdivision name, it's the name of a major English speaking country on the English Wikipedia. The aim of of WP:OVERLINK is to minimise unnecessary linking. We don't link words like "sky", "ground", "United States", "England" etc. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course Australia isn't a subdivision name, its a nation and continent, why would you think it is perceived as one and reply as such? My questions remain unanswered. — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

My point was that, unlike the Chinese subdivision placenames that you referred to, which would be mostly unknown to readers of the English Wikipedia, names of English speaking nations don't need to be linked because they're well known, like "sky" and "ground". I thought I answered your question when I said we minimise unnecessary linking. I also provided you with a link to WP:OVERLINK, which explains why overlinking is undesirable. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Do as your interpretation commands, Australia is not important, the Sydney Opera House article is. — Look2See1 t a l k → 22:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, don't mind if you like to change vehicles to cars but I do mind when you make other changes that are quite wrong. Please take more care. You seem to be off into what is to you seriously unfamiliar territory. Eddaido (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Eddaido, Category:Vehicles by year of introduction includes ships launched and trucks introduced in the year, so Category:Cars by year of introduction is far more accurate and supports dates smaller than decades regarding the history of automobiles. Sorry about Category:Roadsters not being applicable on 1 article. Otherwise, you are incorrect, it is familiar territory. Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you like categories. Two questions, (you being familiar will know the answer) why cars introduced 1931, 1930s automobiles?? And how about the vehicles, the vans and light trucks you have now classified as cars? Eddaido (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your questions. — Look2See1 t a l k → 02:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Ha ha ha.

• Why do you change vehicles to cars and then you add another cat automobiles?
• Why reclassify trucks and vans as cars?

Can I make my questions simpler? Eddaido (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You are being snide Eddaido, and not communicating in good faith. I will not continue communicating here if you maintain that attitude.

As above − "Sorry, I do not understand your questions" − as the categories are accurate. — Look2See1 t a l k → 02:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I think you are on unfamiliar territory. Cars is deprecated, automobiles favoured. Most of the manufacturers you are working through provide van and truck versions of their cars. Perhaps you are not old enough to recall? Reason for my saying unfamiliar territory. I do not believe I am being snide. I do believe you are in some respects foolhardy or do I mean prone to good faith mistakes. Eddaido (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Accidental (talk page stalker) (stumbler)... as I understand it (for example) Category:Cars introduced in 1963 is a sub-cat of Category:Vehicles introduced in 1963 which is itself a sub cat of Category:1960s automobiles. Slightly odd "lineage" but true... (just checked the category pages). Regards, Eagleash (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

<--I'm working with car/automobile model articles only, not their manufacturing companies (that can make other vehicle types) − unless the article is for both those & they made the one model.

I use (example) Category:Cars introduced in 1923 for the model debut & Category:1920s automobiles for the period of production. Does that help? — Look2See1 t a l k → 03:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

You still don't understand. See the van in the picture above it is a Bantam Singer 9 and part of the article (which you have not yet changed). Do you now follow? Eddaido (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed with Category:Vehicles introduced in 1936 for the 1 panel van image in the Bantam Singer 9 article you have pointed out, thank you. The other 5 Bantam Singer 9 automobile body images are already covered by the existing Category:Cars introduced in 1936. Furthermore, the lede says "a car which was produced by Singer" and only car models are discussed in the article's text. Is that a custom "carriage works" body for the van, and not a production model?

Since it's indicated the Singer 9 was produced until 1939, Category:1930s automobiles was also added. Do you understand now? Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 18:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Even your own US manufacturers made truck and delivery van versions of their cars. Just cars with a changed rear portion so there is nothing gained by creating a separate article. The Singer is just a classic example, not the least special. Why try so hard to fail to take on board such a simple fact? Eddaido (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Eddaido, sorry but I comprehend no point in your comment directly above, nor see a question, nor understand "why (you) try so hard to fail to take on board such a simple fact" that [Category:Vehicles introduced in year] covers trucks, pickup trucks, cab forward trucks, vans, panel vans, camper vans, tanks, tractors, motorcycles, ships et el that are NOT cars/automobiles, which themselves are covered separately by [Category:Cars introduced in year]. My 18:44 5 January 2016 comment clearly addressed that already it seems.

Of course Eddaido, some "US manufacturers (sometimes) made truck and delivery van versions of their cars" − as did some manufacturers in other countries. Could you have space for us both (& other editors) to clearly understand that obvious fact, or you on unfamiliar territory doing so?

Regarding using car vs. automobile, I'm using "pre-formatted" categories (originated by other editors) with only a new year, and inventing/advocating nothing. If you wish to see automobile used, submit to the rename procedure. "You still don't understand" I have nothing to do with car vs. automobile issues. "Do you now follow?" − please cease that absurd hassling here.

In summary, despite my best and patient efforts, I still do not understand what your remaining concerns and problems are. This is English language WP, and your syntax is sometimes odd, perhaps you need the assistance of a translator to more clearly express your thoughts here? Respectfully, I will not continue in this discussion if we cannot understand each other. Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 22:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please take a moment to consider this: Your problem is your replacement of "vehicles introduced" in a certain year with "cars introduced" that year. Surely a car is a vehicle. By doing that you categorise car derived vehicles as cars which I expect is why car articles generally went into category vehicles and now you are going through changing them.

If on appropriate articles you simply added cars introduced . . . etc to vehicles introduced . . . (not deleting vehicles introduced) then that would cover the problem.

Where should we take this discussion for mediation? Eddaido (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll stick my two-pennorth in here again FWIW hoping to clarify. Parent category = Category:19X0s automobiles; sub-category = Category:Vehicles introduced in 19XX: further sub-category = Category:Cars introduced in 19XX. Always add just the 'last' subcat; if necessary check the category pages for confirmation of parent / subcats. Further reading at WP:SUBCAT. Eagleash (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

PS if you feel the categories as they stand are anomalous & don't work properly, then that is one for the Cat "Gurus". Perhaps raising the matter at WP:CATP would be a start. Eagleash (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Look2See1: I note you are removing the 1875 date opened category for the Expo line station articles. Please note that while the Expo line did indeed open in 2012, the stations themselves have been used on two other lines, having originally opened in 1875. Since the each article is about the station, and not the current line running through it, the original opening date of 1875 would still apply and is supported through references and wikilinks. There is a section for date rebuilt which is being noted in most articles. Is this your understanding? Lexlex (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lexlex, those statements are not my understanding. The Expo Line stations' articles are clearly titled with "[Placename (Los Angeles Metro station)]" not Pacific Electric station. They are 21st century building construction projects, for a 21st century transport line currently/soon running through them. These station buildings were not used on two other lines, and to indicate they opened 125 years earlier (e.g. using Category:Railway stations opened in 1875) is bizarre. I suggest [:Category:Railway stations established in 1875] and Category:Railway stations opened in 2012/2016… would cover a present day structure & its site's transport history.

Instead of the still unopened Palms (Los Angeles Metro station) oddly transported back to opened in the 1870s, it is accurate now under Category:Future Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations & Category:Railway stations scheduled to open in 2016, and upon opening later this year - under Category:Los Angeles County Metro Rail stations & Category:Railway stations opened in 2016 (or 2019 for Crenshaw/LAX Line stations). The historic/LAHCM Palms-Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, formerly on the Palms Metro staton's site until relocated in 1976, is the "Palms RR station" accurate under Category:Railway stations opened in 1888.

The new stations' site histories are wonderful in the articles, but as we know the Red Cars/Yellow Cars sadly died out and their stations/platforms have been defunct for 50−80 years, with most demolished. Another example regarding category:opening dating: the Sherman Way (Los Angeles Metro station) is in the vicinity of the Sherman Way "end of line" stop on the Owensmouth (Pacific Electric) Line, and across the street from the LAHCM/demolished Owensmouth Southern Pacific Station site. The historical adjacencies are wonderful for those of us into transport history, but using a [Category:Railway stations opened in 1888] (SP) or [Category:Railway stations opened in 1912] (PE) would be incorrect for the Rapid bus station: by dates, built site, and mode (not rail). Meanwhile, the North Hollywood (Los Angeles Metro station)/Orange Line station is perplexing date-wise, not even with Category:Railway stations opened in 2000 (until my edit today). The underground Red Line station opened in 2000, a "Red" to "Orange" pedestrian tunnel under the street will open this year, and the wooden 1896 Toluca Southern Pacific Train Depot is across the street at the physical Orange Line terminus but is not now nor will be used for transport services (restored 2014). Using a wooden shed's Category:Railway stations opened in 1896 would be misleading for a massive above/below grade late 20th/21st century subway complex.

Using another bldg. type, if a bank's 21st century headquarters skyscraper is built on their former 19th century bank building's site we use (e.g.) Category:Banks established in 1890 and Category:Office buildings completed in 2012. Each Expo Metro station article is about the station/platform recently built & opened specifically for the current line. I re-suggest sub-categories under a new parent [:Category:Railway stations established by year] for demolished station sites receiving construction of totally new stations. Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Categories like Category:Asparagaceae genera are only for articles about the genera, not categories. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Categorization#Taxonomic rank categories and the description of the category. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Peter beat me to it, but I came here to comment on your reversions of my edits. I'm not sure how useful the genera categories are, but the other day I did actually have an occasion to use them. I was curious how many plant genera were monotypic. As taxonomic databases don't note monotypy explicitly, Wikipedia seemed like the best place to research this. Obviously Wikipedia is somewhat limited in that we don't have article for all genera yet, but at least I could get an idea of the proportion of monotypic genera (I don't see any reason to suspect that monotypic genera are significantly over or under represented on Wikipedia compared to non-monotypic genera). The biggest problem I encountered doing a recursive search of the genus categories was that I was pulling up species pages as well due to the inclusion of some genus categories in the genera categories. That's why I started removing the genus categories from the genera categories; we shouldn't have species pages nested in the genera category tree. And in case your curious, ~2100 of ~8000 plant genera on Wikipedia are monotypic. Plantdrew (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want to, please take a look at the article about Jovan Radomir. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw you reorganized the categories in the Rubik's cube page. I am not saying it's right or wrong, but looking at it, I don't see an improvement. Since there was no explanation in the Edit summary, I don't know WHY it was done. I had to look at your other edits to see if it was a constructive edit or vandalism. It would really help in the future if you can explain your changes in the edit summary. Considering that you haven't been doing it, I am not surprised to found out that you have been involved in some edit wars which could have been avoided. Thanks in advance. Dhrm77 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dhrm77, putting the eponymous category first, which is Category:Rubik's Cube here, is standard practice. The "what it is" categories in alphabetized order follow, then date cats (with Category:Products introduced in 1974 added), & then awards/credit cats. Hope that helps. Thank you for asking. — Look2See1 t a l k → 22:25, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying.Dhrm77 (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Look2See1. I removed the handful of categories from the article Bishop, California, because I had put them on Category:Bishop, California. Adding them back to the article violates WP:OVERCAT. Thanks in advance for not re-adding them to the article. —hike395 (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hike395, in my experiences I've only seen those "secondary information" categories used on a populated place's article, not on its category. For example, all the other cities also with categories only have their articles in Category:Populated places in the Sierra Nevada (U.S.), not their categories. The same is my experience for [Category:Populated places established in year] and [Category:Year establishments in California]. There is no OVERCAT occurring by using the prevailing standard. In good faith and for consistency with the model other populated places use, I have again returned the categories to the article Bishop, California, and removed them from Category: Bishop, California. — Thanks Look2See1 t a l k → 01:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, i noticed your edit to a page or two on my watchlist. And then once here I am startled to see a pic of poppies that I snapped when i was in the area a few years ago; glad you like it! About the edits, why not go further and improve the articles? Perhaps just be bold and go ahead and merge 4 into 1? And use and cite the source now available? I'm not editing in that area myself anymore, and don't want to get into any involved discussion, but I'd be happy to see those improved. Anyhow, keep up your good work! --doncram 00:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Doncram, thanks for sharing the wonderful California poppies photograph with Commons. It is delightful on my talkpage. — Look2See1 t a l k → 01:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Aren't they supposed to be listed alphabetical? I don't see the point in randomly shuffling them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Dissident93, please stop your repeated comprehensive reverts on FromSoftware, where you seemingly are not looking at the actual details of my edits. Category:Video game companies established in 2011 is quite more specific than Category:Companies established in 2011, and so preferable to most editors. Why have you reverted that focused one 3 times in under 24 hours? Please consider looking closely first.

Regarding your alphabetical order question, with company articles' categories, I most often see it done as solo/primary what kind of company & country, then alphabetical more detailed what kind, more detailed where located (e.g. state/county/city), when established/disestablished, & where established/disestablished. My experiences stem from seeing 1,000s of company articles in the last several months while in the process of focusing them from [Category:Companies established in year] to [Category:Specific type of companies established in year]. That is not randomly shuffling them, please assume good faith of another editor's efforts.

Please just choose your personal order for FromSoftware categories and change them, and stop the total reverts Dissident93, as I did instead of a revert on my last edit you've since reverted, your #3 which brings you to edit warring status, which is not "supposed to be." Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

In what way should the lead sentence of articles dealing with railway stations or train stations be fashioned? See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks BeenAroundAWhile, for opening the "station" discussion at Manual of Style, and the notification here about it. I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to it. — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:42, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You categorised JENSEN-GROUP as Danish. But as far as I know the head quarter of the company is in Gent, Belgium [5]. Donar Reiskoffer (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, the Category:Multinational companies headquartered in Denmark & Category:1937 establishments in Denmark came from the article's telling us "The JENSEN-GROUP traces its origins back to a servicing and manufacturing company that was founded in 1937 on Bornholm, a Danish Island in the Baltic Sea." If it is headquartered elsewhere now, &/or is among Category:Conglomerate companies of Denmark or another country, please let me know & I will correct the categories. — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I see you have moved this business to "defunct" categories. Please would you tell me how you know this is correct. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The Daimler Company article states Ford stopped using the name in 2007, sold the brand with Jaguar, it it has not been in use since. If I misinterpreted that as being "defunct" please let me know, and I will remove the defunct & disestablished categories. Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lead carefully leaves the matter open, your reclassification is wrong. I'd be grateful if you would revert your edit. Thank you, Eddaido (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Will remove them now, thanks for noticing and the correct information. — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

...Here: Talk:Church_of_the_Firstborn_of_the_Fulness_of_Times#Merger_proposal.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey Look2See1, a question; shouldn't Category:Caspian littoral states also have Category:Eastern Europe? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, since the Southern Russia region is only a part of massive Euro−Asian Russia and not a 'state/country' on the Caspian Sea, in my 'layperson' opinion it seems over−categorizing to add Category:Eastern Europe to Category:Caspian littoral states, and there is no [Category:Eastern European countries] unlike the Category:Central Asian countries & Category:Western Asian countries I used for the littoral states.

I did just add Category:Geography of Southern Russia (of Category:Southern Russia in Category:Eastern Europe) to Caspian Sea + Category:Caspian Sea; and Category:Lakes of Astrakhan Oblast, Category:Lakes of Kalmykia republic, and Category:Landforms of Dagestan republic to Category:Caspian Sea. Does that help your concerns? Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 04:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Perfecto! Thank you. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Wilshire Park, Los Angeles —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Federation of Malaya may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *{{commonscat-inline|{Federation of Malaya}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Carpathian Mountains may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], where the highest peaks exceed {{convert|2600|m|ft|0|abbr=on}}. The second-highest range is the [[Southern Carpathians in Romania, where the highest peaks exceed {{convert|2500|m|ft|0|abbr=on}}.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Greetings! I noticed that you've contributed to articles on Broadcom Corporation, Avago Technology, and/or the new merged entity Broadcom Limited in the past. I'm pinging you to see if you wanted to add an opinion to a deletion debate on a disambiguation page (Broadcom (disambiguation)). If so, the debate is here. Thanks! ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 23:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because…

• I have no idea why this deletion template was posted on my talk page. There is no explanation given within the template. I certainly do not vandalize Wikipedia, but instead periodically restore/repair vandalization by others. Was my talk page vandalized by another editor? — Look2See1 t a l k → 07:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because…

• I have no idea why this deletion template was posted on my talk page. There is no explanation given within the template. I certainly do not do "cross-wiki vandalism" on Wikipedia, but instead periodically restore/repair vandalization by others. Was my talk page vandalized by another editor? — Look2See1 t a l k → 07:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please clean up your edit. This is not a populated place, which means it should not have the navigational template for populated places in Yolo County. There's also a mal-formed category link you left. Killiondude (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

• It seems fine now per Cat bracket. Yolo County is unfamiliar to many, and so the 'populated places in Yolo County' template was for geographic context, and for names of 'towns' the Woodland Community College draws students from. If you/other editors disagree, please remove it. Thanks — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your botanical work. Just a reminder that we don't normally link country-names (like "Australia"). Is there a compelling reason to do so in the articles I've seen your work in? Tony (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I'm accustomed to seeing countries linked on most botanical articles worldwide. I respect that the Australasian flora wiki approach in text and categorization is different, and perhaps that is the countries issue source here? Thanks — Look2See1 t a l k → 19:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of anything being "reclassified" into the family Themidaceae. There are alternative taxonomic views as to whether to treat the group as either the subfamily Brodiaeoideae or the family Themidaceae. They are one and the same taxon, but at different names and ranks, so you can't have both categories.

We have agreed to use the APG classification system in the English Wikipedia; APG IV has made no change in the treatment of Brodiaeoideae that I can see, so although of course alternative views should be discussed, the classification should remain that of APG. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Look2See1. Thank you for your work creating and populating oil shale categories. However, there seems to be some confusion between two type of sedimentary rocks. The difference is explained by the International Energy Agency. Oil shale is an organic-rich fine-grained sedimentary rock containing kerogen (a type of solid hydrocarbon). Different story is with oil-bearing shale (also sometimes referred by media as oil shales) which are shale formation which includes tapped oil (tight oil, quite often in American press referred also as shale oil which is an ambiguous term). While Green River Formation contains oil shale (the largest deposit in the world), Marccelus or Bakken shales are oil-bearing shales and not oil shales. Therefore, category:Oil shale in the United States, category:Oil shale in Canada and category:Oil shale geology needs to cleaned-up. If you think it is necessary, I propose to create a separate categories category:Oil-bearing shales in the United States and category:Oil-bearing shales in Canada for inclusions of shale formations which consist of crude oil but which are not oil shales. Beagel (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please check more carefully when you add so many categories, as you did here. Category:Trees of Peru has as an ancestor Category:Trees of South America, so both should not be used for the same article. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Good work on the Brazilian environment categories! giso6150 (talk) 05:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure of your recent edit to this article was proper. The lead contains a summary of cited facts from all sections in the article. Instead you shortened it adding information which I wonder is mentioned in the article. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The lede on Amanita ceciliae appeared too long, and had a detailed description prematurely in the article. I summarized the lede, and began the outline format to distinguish a 'Description' section. In my experiences that is the precedent for flora/fauna articles. I expected fungi articles would be formatted the same as other biota. Thanks — Look2See1 t a l k → 09:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I just saw your edit to the article on my watchlist and, as you had not responded since days, restored the lead to its original form (before I read this response). The lead is not too long, and as per instructions at WP:LEAD it should cover all the major points in the article especially as it is a GA. The lead itself should be a summary, and not too short. I am afraid you may have got it wrong, but leads in flora and fauna articles should have a length and coverage as prescribed in the MOS, pick up any FA to make sure. Cheers, Sainsf (talk · contribs) 09:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)