User talk:Look2See1/Archive 1

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 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.



Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Look2See1!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

I add a signature here to archive the welcome too, later, I remove this comment from the archive. Penyulap 21:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


Category discussion notification Category:Water_reflections_of_lights has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

ELEKHHT 03:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Paste in from Commons - Categories for discussion
Would [Cat:Water reflections of natural light sources] with lede delineating 'sunsets, moonlight, aurora, etc.' — and [Cat:Water reflections of artificial lights] with lede delineating 'illuminated structures, lamps, illuminated signs, illuminated landscape elements, etc.' be appropriate and a balance of conciseness and clarity? The splitting is clearly needed. —Look2See1 (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


Hint: when doing this, this becomes a spamy overcategorisation, unless duplication is removed. --ELEKHHT 10:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've read the Commons:Categories#Why_is_over-categorization_a_problem regularly over the last year and again with its linking here, even have a question about one of its examples that can't understand, and am not able to be helped by it here. I sincerely do not see the problem with the 'Tomb of Unknown Soldier in Cairo' images' cats. Egypt is a bit depauperate in examples in those categories so a notable example can get called to serve multiple example duties. I understand there is a problem there, want to share my specific reasonings, learn which to drop, and carry that education into future edits. I am sorry that the information so far does not show what the problem actually is in this specific situation.
ELEKHH, I will unknowingly repeat it with no intention to do harm, upset you to the point of putting me on the firing squad page anew, get so upset myself that I freeze up in confusion and terror while still ignorant about how not to repeat whatever triggered you. Please know that talking at me repeatedly using wiki-brevity jargon with 'spamy' repetition in an accusing temperament, without calmly talking with me and if needed asking "what is unclear" even if it's plainly obvious to you - is doomed to fail. At this point I simply feel bullied Elekhh, which is a problem blocking understanding, learning, and being of service to wiki-pedia/media.---Look2See1 (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please review Commons:Categories#Why_is_over-categorization_a_problem for guidance on categorization. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, same problem referring to Category:Architecture of India, that's why your over-categorisations have been partially reverted. Regards, Roland zh 12:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for message Roland zh, I've reviewed my findable Category:Architecture of India, Category:Architectural elements in India, Category:Landscape architecture in India, Category:Buildings in India, Category:Structures in India, and Category:Gardens in India edits and had constructive discussions with 'Elekhh' about them (in sections below this one), so hereon will not repeat those mistakes. I learn best from specific 'why ?' questions-examples now, as finally understand as edit-tool the overall principle of "do not dilute" any category. Sorry you needed to take time to correct my mistakes. Best—Look2See1 (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, again, and as mentioned before, please avoid over-categorization, p.e. is there no need to add "Farms in India" to a media already categorized as "Farm buildings in India". btw: imho avoid 'individual sorting' by adding suffixes to cateries, p.e. " A2", " TN" etc. Thx & regards, Roland 19:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Roland, You are welcome re: my creating the new Category:Fields in India, easy to do, but nice you appreciate it. I'm surprised this major agricultural nation never got this parent cat long ago, perhaps just oversight by those that monitor the country.
Some images have a/a few farm buildings and an equal or greater percentage of farm fields - and so "Farms in India" and "Farm buildings in India" would not be overcat. Only one used disregards the other content. Please be careful to avoid reactionary-categorization. Best—Look2See1 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi. If you add Category:Renaissance doors in Poland, do not add Category:Doors in Poland. Please read carefully the instruction that Walter Siegmund has recommended you yet, beceause now you make a mess. Thanks, Cancre (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm unaware I did that, and would not intentionally do so. Without knowing which article - I hazard a guess that I did not see whichever one was there already, and mistakenly thought a notable 'door' was without its cat. I'm sorry.---Look2See1 (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, trying to help you out. Here you added both categories in one go. --ELEKHHT 00:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for help ELEKHH, It was my oversight on cat:Doors & cat:Renaissance doors double add at [File:Kanonicza 18.JPG], sorry for mistake. Could you please help me learn about 'type examples' criteria, in general and with the remaining Category:Renaissance portals in Poland and Category:Renaissance portals on image? If there is an image that clearly represents an arch. element cat's term, especially if a more specific-less known one, is it acceptable to (rarely) place the second parent cat. with cat. sort as 1st image (ie:-[Category:Renaissance portals| 01]-) ? If not I will remove it.
With another topic, when coming across a country's cat:buildings tree I've been moving non-buildings to structures and/or arch. elements, per wikipedia Nonbuilding structure and studying other long established countries' precedents. An editor was concerned about some done on the Category:Architecture of India & Category:Buildings in India tree, and posted that here today (without examples & none on my watchlist). The revert I could find was Category:Bell towers in India, often under both 'cat:arch. elements' & 'cat:towers' - but reverted to towers alone. What is correct please? I never do edit using 'nonsense' - but want to get 'my common sense' aligned with senior editors' common sensibility. Thank you for any help you may have time for.—Look2See1 (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


Hi Look2See1; You may wish to comment on a discussion of your work at COM:AN/U.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Look2See1; Elekhh has questioned some of your edits. Others agree that his/her concerns have merit. I've suggested that patience and more discussion would be helpful.[2] I encourage you to do the same, and also to provide edit summaries and not to mark category edits as minor. Please avoid reverting the edits of others with no discussion. It is better to explain and attempt to persuade others of your views. If you are unsatisfied, then ask others that may be interested to join your discussion. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Walter Siegmund - for notifying me of that page-place and my being on it. Please see my present response-situation in the 'Interwiki links' entry below. Sorry there is a problem. Sincerely,---Look2See1 (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Look2See1

Greetings friend! Thanks for the fix in the category of the photo Sunset at La Habana (File:Atardecer en La Habana.jpg). Actually, that's not a Palm, is a coconut tree!. They are like 'cousins'! Lol!... Thanks and Have a Great Day!...--cam6112 14:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Greetings my coconut friend, thanks for your note. I was going by the coconut plant's botanical classification of Cocos nucifera, which is in the palm family. The text article Coconut has the names lowdown. Since I've always called them a 'coconut palm' it's real interesting to learn that 'coconut tree' is the common name in some places. Best to you.—Look2See1 (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Hi Look2See1; I partially reverted your recent edits to Category:Epilobium minutum.[3]

  • Formatting is not necessary or desirable in template parameters. {{VN}} may be edited to display bold vernacular names, should there be a consensus to do so. That change will affect all uses of the VN template.
  • Please use interwiki links of the form [[en:Epilobium minutum]] to link to articles on sister projects. These generate links in the sidebar labeled with the name of the sister project. In this case, look for "English" in the left sidebar under the heading "In Wikipedia".

Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Walter Siegmund, Thank you for explaining my mistake so clearly (and calmly). I apologize for the problem, will stop that immediately, and revert any others remembered now or rediscovered later. I'm still not real clear though, is the interwiki [[en:Epilobium minutum]] form for bot. name within an image info box only, or anywhere on the page ? Is the {{w|Epilobium minutum}} form ever appropriate anywhere on a flora page, or just not? I'm sorry about the bold on some of the common names, had meant to just bold bot-name on 'text-full' pages, where link to text w.p.article was elusive to my eyes. If that is out of consensus standards I will certainly halt it.
Per the big issues of former days posted by others and you further above here, thank you for your constructive words. They helped a lot, and am sorry was delayed in sharing that. I was stunned by the content-tone-escalation (with meanness in my experience of it) some others delivered their concerns with. Have been frozen to respond to anyone at any posting location. The very specific core points are most likely very important to see and learn from. When my terror level drops down I will go to the other page and read the discussion. It has not been safe to do so yet, my 'silence' there is not from disregard or disrespect. In general, I try to maintain communication at the 'mutual discussion' level, and when others shift into argumentative modes, I need to pause my contributions into it and step back until clear and calm.
With the my edits that appeared to revert the other editors' work without talking - they all were unintentional in that regard. My mistake was coming across the page again some time later, not recalling doing the same edit action before nor checking page's history, and doing an inadvertently disrespectful repeat. None were on my watchlist and revisited intentionally, as hadn't started that with (the 5k, or is it 50k, on w.pedia sufficed) . In the last few days have started tagging pages to my watchlist, so can be reminded-forewarned and learn. I'm so sorry - to you, the several other specific editors, and the editors community. Each one was an unnecessary startle and understandably upsetting. My intention is to do no harm and edit in good faith to accurately help w.pedia and in quality and accessibility evolution.
Part of my problem is not having anyone to ask 'what is proper-best-consensus procedure' at an unclear decision point — and trying to learn primarily by observing precedents, doing and then learning from 'calm discussion feedback,' and patience when still confused. Is it acceptable-ok to ask you 'focused' procedure-policy questions occasionally on an aspect of editing? I'm unsure if it is appropriate per your time, interest, inclination, et al. If not are there other people within wiki to ask? Meanwhile my appreciation of and to you.—Look2See1 (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Look2See1; I think it is an important part of my role as an administrator to answer questions, so please do ask. COM:VP is good resource for general questions. It is where I go often when I have a question. For biota, Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life is sometimes helpful. At COM:ADMIN, you can find a list of administrators and their languages.
  • We try to remind contributors to assume good faith and to be civil and pleasant. Sometimes it is best to disengage as suggested by COM:MELLOW. But, it is not a good idea to avoid communicating altogether. Thank you for your effort to communicate here.
  • On category or gallery pages, interwiki links ([[en:Epilobium minutum]]) are usually placed at the bottom or just above the categories. They should not be placed within a template, i.e., {{}}. They are not used on file pages much, although there is no rule against their use. Links of the {{w|Epilobium minutum}} sort are not encouraged on gallery and category pages.
  • On file pages, people often use links of the {{w|Epilobium minutum}} within the {{information}} template. I do not. Instead, I navigate using the interwiki link from the file's category page or gallery.
  • For plant galleries and categories, a de facto standard is set by the bot, Liné1bot (talk · contribs). You might look at its edits. If you have questions or concerns about that, User:Liné1 may be helpful.
  • Please consider adding COM:BABEL boxes to your user page. Commons is a multilingual project and babelboxes help others communicate with you.
Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Walter Siegmund, I appreciate your help, useful-usable information, and trustworthy 'ask questions resource' — shared above, thanks.
So... a question or three — First: I realized on re-reading top of your message that I may still be doing interwiki links incorrectly in bot. taxonomy-templates, or when plant species is without one then on its basic text lines. Examples: under Category:Geranium the species sub-cats, ie: Category:Geranium himalayense and Category:Geranium macrorrhizum (without bot-templates, have unboxed info lines). Should it be (if they had bot-templates, and for others that do): in template description box an unlinked {{en|"unlinked title & brief info"}}, and the |vn="the common name/s", and below that box (or unboxed info lines) a second template interwiki box {{On Wikipedia| —&— |en="wikipedia article title" only —&— }}.
Second question — Per your instruction have stopped using inline {{w|"wikipedia article title"}}, and been using [[:w:"wikipedia article title"]] — did I misunderstand, and should the :w: be a :en: - and always use [[:en:"wikipedia article title"]] ?
Third question — Is it also best practices on all non-bot. wikimedia images and categories to also not inline link title within description template on {{en|"Line text" or on informal *Description: "Line text" — and create interwiki template below them ? Glad to do my small wiki-gardener part in wikimedia evolution if using the one/two templates are the recommended standard. Is there a link to the templates for cut and paste use? I am not a 'techie' nor 'wiki jargon-acronym fluent' and sorry don't understand what a 'bot-Liné1bot' and 'de facto standard' might be yet. Thank you and best wishes—Look2See1 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Re: Question three & templates to paste in - I just found Category:Biology templates which answers that.—Look2See1 (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Look2See1; I'm sorry to be slow with my reply, but I wanted to take some time to think about my response. I was not clear earlier and I apologize.
A bot "is an automated program that carries out repetitive tasks that would be tedious to do manually." The Taxonavigation template appears on almost 100,000 pages.[4] The VN template appears on about 30,000 pages.[5] Almost any task related to these templates and biota galleries and categories is tedious because they are so numerous. With 44,000 edits since December 2010, Liné1bot dominates edits to biota galleries and categories.[6] Liné1bot makes many more edits than any human editor.
A typical recent edit is that to Category:Argentina egedii.[7] I think looking at that page may answer your questions about the use of VN and Taxonavigation templates. Also, Liné1's response to my query on this topic may be helpful.[8] Liné1bot is capable of making the biota galleries and categories reasonably uniform and easy to use. An individual human editor is likely to edit only a fraction of the biota pages. I suggest that we try to edit in a manner consistent with Liné1bot. It is pointless to fight with a bot.
We should all think about how Liné1bot's edits could be improved and make suggestions when that is appropriate. Perhaps your suggestion of adding {{On Wikipedia}} could be automated by Liné1bot. You may suggest it to Liné1, or propose it for broader discussion at Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Also, we should do tasks that a bot cannot do, e.g., looking for errors, making corrections, etc.
Second question: Have you found the interlanguage links in the left side bar? On the Category:Argentina egedii page, at the bottom of the side bar is a heading titled "In Wikipedia". If you expand that heading, you will find the link, "English". Selecting that link will take you to en:Eged's Silverweed. The last line of the Category:Argentina egedii page, "[[en:Argentina egedii]]" (with no leading ":"), causes the link, "English", to appear in the sidebar. This is a uniform and easy to maintain means of providing links to articles and categories in sister projects. That is why I don't think it is desirable to add lines like {{w|"wikipedia article title"}}, [[:w:"wikipedia article title"]], or [[:en:"wikipedia article title"]]. They are duplicative and non-standard. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent explanation and work. One comment however. Unfortunately, external interwiki links are ignored when extracting indexes for the search database, so references such as for example nl:Trapauto or {{VN}} are very usefull. Why I add in some categories with a large cultural context/vocabulary such as Category:Mbira all possible texts, so a search for for example "Billenkar" or "Калимба" works. This explains why Search for Eged's Silverweed does not lead directly to the related category. Enjoy. (In User preferences, Gadgets, one can enable Sum-it-up which then appears as a tool in the left toolbox bar; not perfect but helps a lot) --Foroa (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that enabling in "User preferences, Gadgets" HotCat and Cat-a-lot might help you a lot. --Foroa (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, when wisely used. I haven't seen yet a cat-a-lot edit-war, but it would not look good. Please use these tools very carefully. --ELEKHHT 20:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Foroa, thank you for commenting. Is it an oversight or a good idea to ignore external interwiki links when extracting indexes for the search database? I suppose that it may be helpful to be able to choose to ignore them when doing a search. But, as you point out, it can be useful to include them. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I guess that the rationale comes from wikipedias that are basically mono-language oriented. Commons, probably the only wikimedia multi-language project, should include them along, if possible, with the interwiki links to the articles that use the media; this could form an excellent base for a translation engine, but probably a nuisance in wikipedias where the same words in different languages have different meanings. The fact that this could be a search option switch is secondary to me. --Foroa (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please try to provide non-misleading edit summaries. "Cat focus" suggest reducing the number of categories to more specific ones. However what you were doing in edits like this is adding categories. Also may I ask you where do you see forests or forestry in this image? --ELEKHHT 00:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Same way "cat. sort", suggests that the edit concerns a sort key change only, whereas in edits like this new categories were added. --ELEKHHT 00:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • All the Category:Deer control fences edits today are for images predominantly with no categories at all, and a few with just the Scottish village. Using 'cat. focus' means zeroing in on what it is. If not best I can just notate 'cats.' ? Deer fencing is all about ecosystem restoration reforestation and trees - because 'we' have deleted predators of deer in many areas of developed countries their herds are excessively large, beyond carrying capacity of habitats, and so can be 'hooved locusts' eating tree seedlings and new tender growth on young trees away, before able to grow above browse line. Deer fences keep them out. I'm only putting Category:Forestry in Scotland and/or Category:Restoration of habitats when there is an active example shown, such as: little trees establishing - infrastructure ie: a stile - or dramatic forested difference on one side of a fence. I know of it being a wildland restoration and agriculture-garden protection practice and industry in the U.K. and U.S. In medieval times they were built for the opposite direction, to keep deer in deer parks. Hope that helps.—Look2See1 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for creating the Deer control fences category, it is well defined and useful. Regarding edit summaries, I suggest in the first example "categorizing" is more descriptive of your edit, in the second example you were "adding categories" really, but it wouldn't be wrong either to simply list them all in the edit summary. Regarding File:Deer fence crossing - - 1777378.jpg despite your explanation, I still can't see any forest. --ELEKHHT 04:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Elekhh, In the 'Deer fence crossing -1777378' image the forests are growing in center of yonder mountainside (dark green areas), an easy distance for deer to travel for a large buffet of fresh tender greens if foreground fence not in way, and so the [cat:forest]. However, regarding all the Category:Deer control fences edits I did yesterday, I will review the other cats. on those images for removal, as criteria became more severe when the immense number of new 2011 uploads under "Deer fence -" was revealed as session proceeded. A subject search last year did not produce enough to populate a new category. Yesterday, when six or so were found by a related subject search, the first 'rare examples' were well cross-categorized.
The second focused "deer fence" subject search brought the plethora, revealed by repeated "next 20 pages" available. Will hone down examples of other cats. to only the best examples. Your phrase above, "to not dilute" a category (with every uploaded example), is very helpful and usable (thank you). In hindsight, my formerly not understanding that aspect was a source of numerous mistakes generating the many over-categorizing messages here. Applying it, by 'image 88 or so on page 5 of 20...' the un-categorized orphans only got [Category:Deer control fences] and [Category:Fences in Scotland], unless notable otherwise. FYI: With the Category:Hiking in Scotland use; the U.K. public access paths across private lands right-of-way laws + the long sections of hiker uncross-able deer fencing situation + images showing crossing gates/stiles with geocoordinates = a useful resource for hikers. Thanks again for "not dilute" tool.—Look2See1 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fountain categories do not fit well as a subcategory of gardens

Hi Look2See1. I don't think that fountain categories can be considered a good subcategory of gardens. In many categories most or all of the images of fountains are in public squares, streets, courtyards, or on rural land, not in gardens. Fountains can be anywhere. If you wish to categorize fountains by type of location, then each images would need to be categorized separately in precisely defined categories. For example none of the images in Category:Fountains in Haute-Savoie is illustrating a garden. Thus this edit is misleading the readers, eroding the usefulness of categories, despite your good faith intention. --ELEKHHT 01:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi ELEKHH, I understand your point and will not put 'cat:fountains in place/country' under any level of 'cat:gardens in place/country' - but you cleanly lead into the other related question I'd noted to ask you. In Category:Fountains in India an editor reverted the 'cat:gardens of India', and 'cat:landscape arch. of India' - but left 'cat:sculpture of India.' My good faith intention was to get some 'outdoors' cat. for a 'landscape' element, whether in urban hardscape, public park, private garden, or a field. Would the 'Cat:Landscape Arch of a country' be acceptable to get some sun on it? Seems your point about 'cat:gardens' applies to 'cat:sculpture' also, most fountains are not by sculptors, and when one is "each image could be categorized separately in precisely defined cat:sculpture" ? There also is a Category:Fountain statues for statue sculptures. Should the 'cat:sculpture' be removed from parent 'cat:fountains' too? Thanks for your patience and patient help.—Look2See1 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
That's correct, fountains are of many types, and not per default sculptures, so I removed Sculptures of India from Fountains of India as well.
Landscape architecture, will be more difficult to sort out. As a multidisciplinary field (according to Wikipedia "botany, horticulture, the fine arts, architecture, industrial design, geology and the earth sciences, environmental psychology, geography, and ecology"), almost anything could be a subcategory of LA which would make it meaningless. IMHO it is not the scope of Commons to provide a definition of Landscape architecture, that's what Wikipedia is for. Commons is an image/media repository, and categories have the role to help find images with a specific content. As long Category:Landscape architecture contain images clearly depicting landscape architecture itself (i.e. landscape architecture drawings, examples of notable landscape architecture designs, portraits of people calling themselves landscape architects) I think there would be no dispute about its usefulness. But beyond that, categorizing everything related in one way or another as landscape architecture would IMO be a disruptive over-categorization. My suggestion would be, when you're tackling categories with such broad scope is to bring it up at the village pump, and ask the community whether the proposed category is useful, or under what circumstances (scope) is useful. --ELEKHHT 04:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying what Category:Landscape architecture certainly holds, and what needs discussion - and why. One of my degrees is in L.Arch., so quite familiar with its scope 'outside' wikimedia, and see that is more inclusive than what's appropriate here. In coming across it in various countries' [Cat:L.Arch. of a country] categories there are some odd sub-cats. under some: - manhole covers, airports, cemeteries.... - land use planning and street furniture detailing is in the profession's range, but probably not with images of those things under it in wikimedia. Will take a pause and observe period with that category.—Look2See1 (talk) 05:33, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been following your discussions closely so I may have missed an earlier mention of the observation that I'm about to make. I find it helpful to look at similar categories on our sister projects, especially en wikipedia, to see how they are categorized. Typically, those categories receive more scrutiny than ours do, so they may provide useful guidance. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Look2See1 for using your talk page as a forum :), in response to Wsiegmund: yes there is slightly more scrutiny on, but not sufficient. Also many of the topics edited here by Look2See1 were largely edited there as well by her/him. There is generally a lot of mess within categories, which will be difficult to be cleared, but at least we should insist moving into the right direction. --ELEKHHT 20:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Trees in art

I don't understand why you added the "Trees in art" category.[9] Surely that category is for works by artists, professional photographers, and the like. As much as we may admire Mbz1's work, she is not notable as an artist or professional photographer, so far as I know. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I do understand your point, and per that criteria will remove the cat. Was thinking "trees as art" but see the 'notable artist' need in wikimedia. Thanks for pointing it out, will remember for future use.—Look2See1 (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Black and white photographs of parks

Category discussion notification Category:Black and white photographs of parks has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--ELEKHHT 07:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


Please, do not add Category:Karelia to Category:Regions of Finland. The Category:Regions of Finland is for the official regions of Finland (Finnish: maakunta), and Karelia is not one of them. (However, South Karelia and North Karelia are.) Best regards, ––Apalsola tc 10:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining how the term 'region' is used in the Finland cat. tree. My intent was the shared regional culture-history-nature in the 'Karelia region' (Karelian-Finnish-Russian) - but now understand it is a geographic political division/sovereignty category. I apologize for the misunderstanding. thanks-Look2See1 (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Biota by political boundaries

You may wish to comment on 'geographic categories' vs 'pure endemic categories' at Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life.[10] Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

A quite late - but sincere thank you - for letting me know about the Commons talk:WikiProject Tree of Life.[11] discussion. I posted a (long) response there today. I respect your views and opinions expressed on other biota topics, and sincerely wonder what you think about the [cat:Flora of] and endemic/political boundaries questions? Also, do you see a difference in how the categories are best used/not used for media categories vs. wikipedia categories?
I enjoy your great flora images, and always appreciate coming across them. If I ever add a category that's not in the spirit of or accurate to an image (or am over categorizing it...) please let me know - and will correct it. Best wishes, Look2See1 (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for species pages

Species pages are only categorized in the closest available taxonomic category. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Historic gardens"

Could I please ask you to comment at Category talk:Historic gardens in the United States? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 02:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear from you on this. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pasted in-----

My responses pasted in from originals at: Category talk:Historic gardens in the United States.

Hi, Sorry to be slow responding here, questions are good. There is not a good, or even mediocre, wikipedia article on this topic yet. The en:History of Gardening article is actually more 'history of gardens-landscape design' and so the best 'across time and cultures' source for now, with some historic U.S. projects listed. Also, looking through 'style era survey' articles within parent wikipedia en:Category:Landscape design history and individual U.S. sites articles in sub-wikipedia en:Category:Landscape design history of the United States can give some backround for U.S. media articles inclusion.
Briefly, the criteria for inclusion is design quality that was/is historically influential (as the former cat. title spoke to ?), and not for important historical events that happened to occur in an undistinguished garden or one only famous by associations. The White House gardens are an example, very historical and important, but not an example of garden theory-landscape design. They certainly belong in Category:Gardens in Washington, D.C. and maybe in Category:History of Washington, D.C., but not Category:Historic gardens in the United States.
Hope this helps as a start, am tired tonight so will collect more links-examples-thoughts over next days to share for discussion. Perhaps a sample category lede also. Please ask any questions.
Thanks again-Look2See1 (talk)
All the gardens in the category, except the Getty, are on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, and a few are National Historic Landmarks of the United States. Perhaps that criteria, and also those that have been awarded state and municipal registered landmark status, gives boundaries to this category for older works.
For those few that are newer civic-design landmarks making U.S. landscape history but too young to be awarded official status, such as the High Line Park elevated gardens in NYC or the Getty's Robert Irwin Central Garden in California, a substantive amount of professional reviews and publications about them, especially if cited in a wikipedia article, could be considered criteria.—Look2See1 (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Interested in how the Category:National Historical Parks of the United States can tie into the U.S. landmarks of garden and landscape design history. The National Historical Parks are for sites of battles, expansionism, industrial revolution, transport, etc; and the people involved. Alas, they have yet to include sites of designed-engineered aesthetics-placemaking and the people involved. Please do explain.—Look2See1 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Category alignment

Not that I needed any proof, but this is just another example that you deliberately ignore community consensus on categorization. Please stop this kind of spamming. --ELEKHHT 13:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Elekhh, If you look at the identically titled wikipedia (english text) en:Category:Flora of Borneo, the same set of categories are in use, demonstrating a pre-existing community consensus on categorization. Why are you deliberately ignoring this? - it does not seem rational. Are you having an emotional reaction about me at the expense of the community?
As you probably already know, the territory of Borneo (island) is divided between three countries, hence three 'Flora of Country' categories, plus the floristic subregion. A cut and paste of those precise three wikipedia 'Borneo country' Categories is not spamming, but is research coordination and sister project alignment for the benefit of wikimedia users. Please stop this kind of accusatory spamming on my talk page and calm down, the world's flora deserves our best efforts. Thank you-Look2See1 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you really believe that one action can be justified with a similar one on a sister project also carried out by yourself?. Are you saying that it's useful to have Flora of Brunei as (1) See also link in Flora of Borneo (2) as a subcategory of Flora of Borneo and (3) also containing Flora of Borneo. Are you going to be consistent and carry on that logic and add all 40 or so European nations to Flora of Europe each one three times? Let me not further describe the implications of this "logic". You've been warned more than a dozen times by different editors, yet you obviously continue to carry out your personal agenda the same way each time. Please take a break and reflect on what are you doing, because believe me you are damaging the project. --ELEKHHT 04:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Flora of the various European countries are under specific geographic subcategories - ie: Flora of Northern Europe, Southwestern Europe, & Middle Europe - and there is no problem with that. Neither is there any personal agenda for Europe or Borneo. Your sovereign posts' provocative interpretations and aggressive conclusions [as above] are damaging the project's community spirit. Please take a break.—Look2See1 (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Street furniture as transport infrastructure?

Any rationale or reference for this? --ELEKHHT 23:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Careless edits

Please pay attention to your edits. Here in four edits you added a good description and a good category, while made two typos with broken links, added three categories which do not belong there, and a useless duplication to a interwiki link. That's 25% improvement, 75% damage. --ELEKHHT 08:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Per the "added three categories which do not belong there" (as l said in next entry below first) - There is much active work and progress in wikimedia and especially english wikipedia on the "multilayered, independent, overlapping, currently incomplete" milieu of Category:Biogeography—ecoregions and Category:Phytogeography - with articles, images, and categories sometimes needing to fill in until new material is created. This image appeared to assist with understanding the distribution ranges of the categories in question. If they need deletion it is due to their not being of accurate help, not over categorization.
The typos are innocent mistakes, not acceptable, but ~1% damage in ~99% improvement when seen in the whole picture of all edits completed.
Please pay attention to more than my average human mistakes and consider expressing a rare compliment or at least a notice of improvement. That is what helps a work in progress for the benefit of all, with good will—Look2See1 (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

SVG maps

Please note that only SVG maps belong to category:SVG maps. You seem to have missed this here while also added a farm of categories which do not belong there. I know this has been linked a couple of times already, but for your convenience pls read Commons:Categories#Why_is_over-categorization_a_problem again, carefully. Thanks. --ELEKHHT 08:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is much active work and progress in wikimedia and especially english wikipedia on the "multilayered, independent, overlapping, currently incomplete" milieu of Category:Biogeography and Category:Phytogeography - with articles, images, and categories sometimes needing to fill in until new material is created. This image appeared to assist with understanding the distribution ranges of the categories in question. If they need deletion it is due to their not being of accurate help, not over-categorization. This is all a work in progress, with good will—Look2See1 (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Category discussion notification Category:Marquees has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.
In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

--Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice Jmabel, I'm unfamiliar with or not remembering the Category:Marquees and so will rely on the decisions of the editors involved. Best. —Look2See1 (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

DIsputes noticeboard - Courtyards

Hi Look2See1; A discussion of a matter in which you are involved has been started on Commons:Disputes_noticeboard. Your comments are welcome. [12] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Walter Siegmund for pointing out the noticeboard issue that needed my consideration and response. The original editor classifying the issue as a dispute and posting it at the noticeboard did not mention it to me. I would have been unaware otherwise, your efforts here and clarification there are appreciated. Best—Look2See1 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
My response pasted in here from Commons:Disputes_noticeboard "Are courtyards gardens".
  • I will hereon follow the editors' consensus, and only add, on an image basis, Category:Gardens of place] to Category:Courtyards of place] for images that have a significant landscape component. The warm climate regional and cultural considerations used for several subcategory into category inclusions, such as Category:Courtyards in California, do make sense on the 'local vernacular' level - but wikimedia is global. I'm sorry for any distress or problems my perceptions caused. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Certainly "garden in courtyard", not the same as "garden is courtyard". --ELEKHHT 21:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well Elekhh — being in humor is certainly not about linguistics sensibilities, and is the sense called for with Mae's laconic modernist bon mot below....—Look2See1 (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Mae West was often in a pickle when asked by visitors to her Richard Neutra designed Santa Monica beach house —
    "Is that a garden in your courtyard, or your living room ?"

Look2See1 (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Categorization questions

[13] and [14] - one of two was wrong. If the category is placed in "Buildings", the photos in the category should not be in "Buildings" directly (unless they feature some other buildings other than the Gallery - which is not the case here).

Similar concern with rivers ([15]). Category:Rivers of Stavropol Krai is already a granddaughter of Category:Nature of Stavropol Krai. Here it may be argued that trees and weeds in the picture are distinct from river itself... but this will also be true for the bulk of river photographs. NVO (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello NVO - With the first two building questions, the photograph and its subject are excellent, and could be an informal 'featured' building example and image representing the architectural heritage of Stavropol Krai. The Lermontov Gallery may be unfamiliar to most readers and with the 2014 Winter Olympics approaching in nearby Krasnodar Krai, there may be an increase in 'casual readers' that would see-use the image at Category:Buildings in Stavropol Krai to then jump to its Category:Lermontov Gallery subcat. Perhaps my library research and architectural backround is too present here?
With the second question on nature-river, respectfully, you are just wrong. Most of the image is of the Riparian forest and native understory (certainly not weeds...). The [Мутнянка ?] river is runnning through that Natural habitat - hence Category:Nature of Stavropol Krai is clearly needed and correct.
Than you—Look2See1 (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Parent categories and categorizations questions

Why have you added the category bell towers together church towers? IMHO a church tower is always a bell tower and it is possible that it has a clock but it continues to be aalways a church tower...--Threecharlie (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello Threecharlie — questioning your assumptions about which category is the parent - from an architectural view and global usage examples.
  1. Not all church towers are bell towers. They can also be: frequently steeples (no bell), 'modern' types with loudspeakers and recordings (no bell), and sometimes articulated 'roof pedestals' for a cross or statue and other 'architectural signage' elements.
  2. Not all bell towers are church towers! They can also be: bell structures of other religions; municipal bell buildings-towers; campus campaniles, fort and military installation bell towers-structures, and theme elements in commercial centers and amusement parks - to name a few.
  3. The Category:Bell towers is usually directly found in a Category:Architectural elements by country's subcats, otherwise in Category:Towers there - as a non-religious element. But the Category:Church towers is indirectly found under Category:Church elements by country or 'place' - if that 'place' has a [cat:] (if not then over yonder in non-architectural [Category:Churches in 'a Place']) as a religious element of Christianity (in countries with churches).
  • Therefore it appears that Category:Bell towers is the parent, no over-categorization occurred, and a service to Wikimedia was provided.
  • My understanding is that Wikimedia strives not to reflect one culture's or religion's point of view, and to assist any reader worldwide with access to images-information. Than you—Look2See1 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Colonial era in the Americas [Cuba]

The Great Theatre in Havana it's German neo-baroque architecture not colonial.

Who are you to know please - unsigned one? It may be neo-baroque in style, but it was built during the Spanish Colonial era of Cuba, when structures were built from the early 1500s through the late 1800s. Spanish Colonial architecture styles in the Americas [including Cuba] extends from early 16th century baroque through neoclassicism to various revivals, with strong vernacular adaptations. — Look2See1 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token dddb10914666c798d935b5dfbf2f78b7

Toolserver User Screening Control - TUSC

Step 2: Edit your talk page on commons.wikimedia to verify your identity, with a summary containing the following token:


Look2See1 (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Species and countries

Hei! Country flora and fauna categories commonly consist of specimens found there. So species' categories with specimens from all over the world shouln't be categorized under certain countires, like here. 18:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain reverting two of my edits? Has it been discussed somewhere? Common practise seems to be that plain species categories doesn't fall under "Flora of <country>" categories. Only some seem to have more of such, like "Flora of France", where you can see two kind of categories: half are plain "<species>" and the other are "<species> in France". The last ones makes more sense to me. 07:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You haven't explained. Rather, this is a good faith revert. 15:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not usually respond to unregistered-anonymous users. Please consider signing up, thank you - Look2See1 (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Please stop reverting without giving explanations! I've tried to gather other options at village pump and Tree of Life talk and there doesn't seem to been much of a support to your approach. Also I didn't find an evidence of such convention at English Wikipedia. (I only see that most of such categories there are added by you.) Anyways, even if there is such convetion, the case here is different. At first, we are categorizing images here. It makes little sense to find subcats of "Flora of <country>" mainly consist specimens that aren't flora of this country. If there are plenty of images by the same species and same location, please create categories like Cupressus sempervirens in Greece. If you actually have any counterargumetns then participate in refered talks. 08:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
To resubmit to "": We do not usually respond to unregistered-anonymous users. Please consider signing up, thank you.
The wikis - & w.pedia - seemed designed for education, as all encyclopedias are. These however "are never finished" - incrementally improving and growing over time. Many people want to learn what the native plants (& other biota) are in a/their continental region &/or country. Perhaps you are among those who care not to? In the media categories' ongoing images additions, readers could find what to look for & photograph, and fulfill examples in species' distribution ranges. To create 'Category:Plant species in Country' for the tens of thousands of genera/species here in seems an overkill of specificity, and a tremendously huge effort to implement. The 'landmark species' such as Cupressus sempervirens and Olea europaea are the exceptions. Please stop destroying, via the data elimination edits, serious and careful effort to make information accessibility a priority. Thank you-Look2See1 (talk) 09:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
In general the scope is educational indeed, but the category system in specific is there to categorize files. Category system has to make sense to be useful. An unambiguous way to describe the range is to write about in the Wikipedia article. In general, please categorize files (not plain species categories) by location. "<species> in <country>" categories should be created when plenty of images by the same species and location have accumulated, 1000s of empty categories obviosly aren't needed. If you don't agree please discuss this at Tree of Life talk before implementing the system that other users don't agree with. 17:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Plants & Category:Flora of...
There are many plant species with categories placed by other editors that use the 'habitat range' system, they were my exemplars. These plant categories are about native (sometimes endemic) species, not introduced or naturalized ones, if using standard flora (& en:wikipedia) criteria. Flora species categories are helped when range distribution categories are present.
For example: a wikimedia viewer researching/traveling to the Italian Alps can see an image of a plant present there, even if the current uploaded images were photographed north in the Swiss Alps (having only [cat:Genus.species] & [cat:Flora of Switzerland] i.d.), by having [cat:Flora of Italy] i.d. on the [cat:Genus.species]. This assists in understanding the ecosystem, and recognizing/identifying what is seen in situ Italia (perhaps to photograph & upload).
Wikimedia has an outstanding breadth of plant categories, with the majority of species unfamiliar to most viewers. I think of it as a freestanding visual encyclopedia - beyond wikipedia sister reference - that is independently navigable/researchable without the necessity of always returning to wikipedia articles/categories to use. It is a sister project, not a dependent child one. Some viewers navigate in wikimedia and link back to wikipedia only when wanting more complete information. Many plant species cat.pages have only [cat:Genus], with no 'where in the world' help for viewers. Unlike animals, cosmopolitan/pan-continental species are limited, and a range cat.clue is meaningful.
Every viewer is not proceeding (post-seeing range info @ w.pedia ) on a one at a time {commons} link to a wikimedia [cat:Flora] window. Also, the category names used for the same larger regions/smaller habitats are not always the same - and that's just english w.pedia -->
One sister can have more detailed sub-categories: for example w.pedia has only en:Category:Flora of Europe, while has within Category:Flora of Europe five continental sub-regions (ie:Category:Flora of Southwestern Europe). With Asia, the Category:Flora of Asia and w.pedia en:Category:Flora of Asia use different sub-regional subcategories (boundaries, spellings, or missing altogether).
Therefore, researching by w.pedia articles' categories only can miss more distribution specificity. Why hinder (or completely eliminate with your comprehensive and repeated [cat:Flora of] deletions - user: image research and exploration?
Note: With individual images, I have taken many [cat:Flora of species' range countries] off, leaving only [cat:Flora of image's country]. Other odd categories are regularly removed also, such as [cat:Trees (or Parks, or anything else) by country] (instead of the specific country's name), top of tree parent cats (ie:Category:Environment, Category:Plants), and more. Nothing is done for recognition, however it is interesting you (user: do not mention the new taxonomy charts, international (& en:) w.pedia links, Genus|species cat. sorting, and cats. that have been added (& left or rvt. restored) - that are significantly enhancing a thousand or so category-pages' usefulness. However, it seems average for most of us to usually only complain and critique. Peace.
Thank you - Look2See1 (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC) (links & clarification added - Look2See1 (talk) 23:08, 17 November 2011‎.
I've responded at the Tree of Life talk. 09:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi. Due to polish description it is note of en:Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, not Poland, and it was used at 1922-1936. (pl:Rubel zakaukaski). Piastu (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Piastu for clarifying and correcting the political entity - much appreciated.--Look2See1 (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please use sub-categories

dansk | Deutsch | English | español | suomi | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk bokmål | polski | русский | svenska | +/−

Start hand.svg
When categorising files, please avoid placing them into several categories that are directly linked within the same tree (e.g. a parent category and a child category – like Category:United Kingdom and Category:London), to prevent over-categorization of files and over-population of categories. Usually, only the most specific category should be used. See Commons:Categories for more details. Thank you.

––Apalsola tc 10:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes please stop adding categories that include subcategories already added.[16] It is redundant and causes over-categorization. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I created the new Category:Gardens in Tennessee, and to initially populate it with 'Tennessee's finest' examples I did a "Tennessee" & "garden" subject search. The image came up. If remembering correctly, later the Category:Cheekwood Botanical Garden and Museum of Art was seen and included in [cat:Gardens in Tennessee]. However, removing the image's [cat:] was certainly forgotten - it's not, just a mistake.
Perhaps the new lede, location info, and en:Cheekwood Botanical Garden and Museum of Art link I also did then on [cat:Cheekwood] could mitigate your distress. If Tennessee's gardens are of interest to you, I hope the new category is helpful. Thanks - Look2See1 (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Odd sorting - interior cats vs. subcats

[17]: Why would you want to do something like this, which completely defeats the natural alphabetization of categories? Is there some standard at work here with which I am not familiar, or is this your personal project? - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you don't seem to be interested in replying, I've raised the question of the appropriateness of the change at Commons:Village pump#Sorting. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Respose - part 1
My response, I’m sorry it was delayed.
The sorting was done in response to several friends mentioning that on their small laptop, tablet, or smartphone smaller screens sometimes the leading images were confusing per a category title (place, biota) they were unfamiliar with. I began to notice, albeit on a large screen, that the order is ‘random’ per the uploaders’ choice of a title label, with any image using a date or personal filing # leading, and the alphabet following. There is no standard naming convention followed. Often it doesn’t matter, but occasionally the ‘by chance’ queue does not assist small screen comprehension (or larger sometimes).
For example, in a biodiversity hotspot nature reserve in the Caribbean (Puerto Rico?) the leading images were of a cute house cat and of the turquoise food stand near it. Those of the endangered tropical rainforest habitat were a row ‘down the line’ (even on my screen). Of course the cat/bldg. images belong there as part of the whole scene, but not as the introduction however?
If the editor community consensus is that this type of sorting is unimportant, considered a ‘personal project,’ or just unacceptable I will not continue it. My intentions are not ‘personal’ but assisting the educational focus of this visual encyclopedia.
Thank you, -Look2See1 (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
1) This was not order of images: it was order of categories. If you have some basis (which I still don't see) to put a bunch of categories under '~', at least put them under '~' followed by their respective names, so the order within the '~' section is not random.
2) If you want to put images in a particular order, I strongly recommend a gallery page (main namespace) instead of trying to make the images within a category show up in a particular order. This also lets you select for the images likely to be of broad interest, and simply skip the images that aren't particularly useful. - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • (Note: - was posting part 2 on my talk page (and yours), when your 01:04 was posting here - response #3 to follow. - Look2See1)
Response - part 2
Hi Jmabel - I'm sorry my earlier response today (above & @ Commons:Village pump#Sorting) did not directly address your specific question about [18] . I just re-clicked the link and was reminded. The Category:Building interiors in the United States has an alphabet full of subcategories of 'interiors by type' - and the specific example categories were lost among them. I had seen the cat. sort " |~ " used by other editors before in similar sub-type/specific separations. If it is not an accepted wiki organizing technique I will not reuse it. Again, I'm sorry for the delay in addressing this. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, but when you use '~', use it consistently: you got some, but not all, of the individual synagogues in the category. Also, as I said, if you follow '~' with the name the category, the [many] categories within the '~' section will be alphabetized within the section. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Response - part 3
Hi Jmabel - Thanks for 01:04 & 01:28 ideas. With Category:Building interiors in the United States " |~ " cat. sort, unless hear from other editors I will add the names after the ~. I've yet to learn how to do a gallery page, but it is a clear solution. -Look2See1 (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) If you've read the full conversation at the village pump, than you've heave already heard from other editors that the "~" is not seen as particularly useful. Why do such temporary, inflexible, partial, "solutions", instead of simply separating building interiors by functional type from interiors by geographic areas (if the later make any sense: for instance what's the use of separating kitchens by each state?). Also it would be helpful if you would not add categories which are not defined as containing images of interiors in their scope? What you end up with is a confusing mess with images like this sub-categorized as interiors. --ELEKHHT 02:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Elekhh, Most of the paragraph above makes little sense to me - such as "temporary + inflexible" in same line? It is not important however, as the new cats you created (ie: Category:Synagogue interiors in the United States) in Category:Building interiors in the United States very cleanly eliminated the " |~ " interior category sorting question/problem.--Look2See1 (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Pike Place Market, a good example of what you can do with a gallery. When the focus is on presentation, rather than just a more internal use, this is really the way to accomplish that. [By the way, no reason to keep responding on my talk page, it's much simpler to continue the conversation in the same place it started.] - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

The Pike Place Market gallery is exceptionally well done, and exemplary model for what can be created with aesthetics and information in collaborative balance in a gallery. Thanks Jmabel for bringing it to my (our) attention.--Look2See1 (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

My take on it.
The most important part is that there is some agreement how the body, the main part of the category will be organised. In the case of Category:Building interiors in the United States, it becomes clear that it should contain further subcategories, not really interior categories. Most meta categories are using a space prefix to push them on the left side. In many cases, those meta cats are further regrouped by using the -, ?, !, ... signs. An example is Category:Painters from France where groups of meta categories are isolated, one could say a visual intermediate category that avoids real intermediate categories.
Personally, I use the ~ sortkey that appears on the end of the list for categories that are only sidely related to the categories such as maintenance and organisation categories.
I use a blank sortkey for new or uncategorised categories that I create but that are not completely categorised or documented, such as default sort missing, needing deeper categorisation in the structure, ... That way, they pop up in the list and (hopefully), specialists will take care of that. That way, they don't disappear somewhere in a large list.
Other examples are in Category:Belgium and most of its cities such as Category:Brussels where we have:
  • on the left, the subdivision related and stable parts that allow for quick navigation in its regions, cities and towns
  • the main body containing the ever growing main topical categories
  • the bottom ~ part for maintenance and organisation
I noticed that in some wikipedias/countries (Spain ?), there seems to be a convention for cities to prefix the images sort keys for flags, coats of arms, ... in such a way to get them always on top in a certain order.
I copied that idea for some categories, such as painters, photographers, architects, ... to insert a a blanc in the sort key for what I consider the "main" pictures, in this case, the pictures of the persons themselves.
I think that the role of galleries is very much underestimated. Once we have a certain volume in a category, it is often better to create a nice presentation gallery instead of inventing deeper expert (and often parallel) categories that are difficult to understand for average users. --Foroa (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Foroa, thanks for your clear thoughts on categories, sub vs. interior cats, and sorting. With the interior '~ sortkey' questions, I've seen it used as you described, and also it seems current consensus of the editing community is to limit its use to that, which I will practice hereon. I appreciate the time and calm presentation you gave to sharing your info/experiences about sortkeys here. It will be a good reference.--Look2See1 (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


FYI Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#User:Look2See1_-_4th. --99of9 (talk) 06:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


(pasted in from [Commons:Administrators' noticeboard], linked above)

The editor above (Elekhh) seems to be misunderstanding/misreading what is said/done, and hastily jumping to an incorrect conclusion again. There has been no "insistence" that all courtyards are landscape design/garden elements, as my 23 June 2011 response at [19] and pasted to my talk page said:
"I will hereon follow the editors' consensus, and only add, on an image basis, [Category:Gardens of place] to [Category:Courtyards of place] for images that have a significant landscape component. The warm climate regional and cultural considerations used for several subcategories into category inclusions, such as [Category:Courtyards in California], do make sense on the 'local vernacular' level - but wikimedia is global. I'm sorry for any distress or problems my perceptions caused. Thank you—Look2See1" (23:26, 23 June 2011).
That has been carefully followed. I had been making a mistake, listened when the editing community explained why it was one, and changed. That is called learning, and per a Jimmy Wales interview, courage to risk making mistakes and then learn is encouraged in the wiki projects to broaden the diversity of editors.
With my recent edit patios/garden features/Spain, I replaced Category:Gardens in Spain with the more specific Category:Garden features and elements in Spain. The parent cat of Category:Patios of Spain, Category:Courtyards in Spain, was not edited. Images of courtyards (or Category:Terraces) located in Spain, that are also a landscape architecture/garden element, are in [Category:Patios of Spain] - and so the [Category:Garden features and elements in Spain] (restored today) is appropriate in my current (as landscape architect and editor) understanding.
In looking at the Commons:Disputes noticeboard#Are courtyards gardens? link above today, I was startled and realized that I made a mistake yesterday, when thinking I was still on my own talk page, and had edited it. I will not revert that, as not sure what is best to do, and apologize for the action and casual wording not befitting a community noticeboard.
In my experience ELEKHH predominantly 'talks at' and does not 'discuss/converse with' me when they have a different opinion. When their reasoning is clear it is applied. However, since I do not know their credentials, their authoritarian judgements are not blindly accepted. This seems to provoke a 'bad editor' response from them on my talk page, Village Pump, here, and elsewhere. I have respectfully asked them many times to actually discuss with me an edit that's problematical for them, or to please respond to a specific question, but almost exclusively receive more 'Elekhh's opinon is fact' pronouncements instead. That does not support learning. In addition, they have used phrasing on my talk page and edit summaries that feels a variation of cyber-bullying. Ironically, I was reflecting yesterday on posting that problem here soon (but am not here).
I have learned much (and applied it) from other editors/administrators that take a moment to explain why an edit needs reconsideration or is just wrong, and appreciate the opportunity to learn. Thank you—Look2See1 (19:13, 19 November 2011)
Attn. Elekhh, see also: en:Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy for talk page guidelines.—Look2See1 (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello Look2See1,
Thanks a lot for your good contributions. As you may have seen, on wikicommons we prefer templates over pure text (By the way descriptiv sentense are avoided). That allows to have an homogenous display:

  1. So you interesting contribution could use {{Taxonavigation}} like that.
  2. You wanted to renamed Category:Osmunda cinnamomea into Category:Osmundastrum cinnamomeum, just use {{Category redirect}} like that
  3. {{Taxonavigation}} automatically adds needed categories like Category:Families of Polypodiopsida, so this modification is not needed.
  4. {{Synonyms}} is now named {{SN}} to look like its sister {{VN}}. It can take multiple parameters (see here)

I hope, it will help, but if you need more help, please ask. Best regards Liné1 (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Liné1,
Thank you for the explanations above so I can learn more. I saw your redirect Category:Osmunda cinnamomea into Category:Osmundastrum cinnamomeum before your post here, and it was clearly the correct way. I corrected the commons link at en:Category:Pteridophyta families for your correction of [Category:Pteridophyta families] to Category:Families of Pteridophyta here.
I will ask you on any further taxonomy/cat help too, your kind offering is appreciated. Glad to see your not a bot, but an individual. Please let me know whenever missing other flora opportunities to learn.,
Best regards - Look2See1 (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Culture sort

[20]: huh? It seems you've picked an almost completely arbitrary place to sort this. The image is in Seattle, Washington at the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. Why sort it under "Yukon"? Indeed, why sort it at all? This seems s clear case to leave the default sort alone. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As with the example we discussed the other week, a 'specific example' cat. was amongst 'cultural types' subcats in Category:Culture of California. At the previous time the consensus was to not use " |~ " cat sorting for separating them, but creating new relevant 'subject type' subcats. However, since it's unlikely to have other cultural buildings 'of' but not 'in' California, creating an underpopulated new cat. seems incorrect. So a cat sort by " |Yukon " resolved the positioning, and is certainly not arbitrary as it was the California State Building at the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. Clear now ?-Look2See1 (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Nope. "cat sort by Yukon " certainly did not "resolve" anything. --ELEKHHT 13:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm reverting this. This is completely idiosyncratic and follows no accepted pattern at all. If you want to do this, pick some more public forum here (maybe the Village Pump, but I'm open to another one) and let's have a broader conversation to build a consensus. But right now you seem to me to be going off making entirely personal and idiosyncratic decisions that have little or no chance of forming part of a larger useful pattern. - Jmabel ! talk 16:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
If that type of cat sort is not useful for Commons users I will not do it in further edits. Usefulness is the motivation, not anything personal. Thanks for taking time to correct/revert it, and explaining why. - Look2See1 (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thymus (×) citriodorus

Dear Look2See1,

I have seen that you have created the category Thymus × citriodorus.
According to the Kew World Checklist Thymus citriodorus is not a hybrid and should be considered is a variant of Thymus serpyllum subsp. serpyllum.
That is the reason why I had put the pictures in category Thymus serpyllum.

Please advise. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 08:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Réginald, alias Meneerke bloem,
I did not create Category:Thymus × citriodorus or title it, but added lede material, including synonyms. The english wikipedia article, en:Thymus citriodorus, and web research (U.S. sources) were my references. Taxonomy (& hybrid or not) consensus surely was not found. One synonym relating to yours is Thymus serpyllum citriodora.
What do you think ? Thanks -Look2See1 (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Look2See1,
Please acknowledge my apologies. Apparently Orchi was the creator of this category.
I will contact a co-worker of the Kew World Checklist, whom I am knowing, and ask him for comments about this issue.
I will let you and Orchi know the outcome of our discussion.
Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 18:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Réginald, alias Meneerke bloem,
Thanks for your message, no problem. I appreciate your attention to detail and research followthrough. Look forward to information from a more reliable authority/reference than the nurseries cited in the en:Thymus citriodorus article.
What is your experience when a species' Article title and Commons category name are different ? Is the goal to maintain the same and most current nomenclature on both, or accept the differences with synonyms in the ledes/taxoboxes?
Best regards, -Look2See1 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Look2See1,
I have in the meantime had a contact with Rafaël Govaerts, responsible at the Kew World Checklist. He has done further resaerch, from which he has concluded that Thymus × citriodorus should be considered as a hybrid T. pulegioides × T. vulgaris. He has adapted the page on the Kew World Checklist accordingly. See Thymus × citriodorus (Pers.) Schreb.
Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 13:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Temperate_grasslands,_savannas,_and_shrublands has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Skinsmoke (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Skinsmoke, is this discussion about dropping the Oxford comma after 'savannas,' ? That change was already made by others, and 'fine by me' if that is the punctuation standard used here. I was educated to use it (long ago), so will watch to not do so on any new category names. Thanks—Look2See1 (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

More weird sorting

What is the purpose of sorting this image under lowercase 'w'? Is this consistent with any broader, agreed-upon notion of sorting? Because it sure looks to me like arbitrary sorting according to no particular rule, or according to a rule that has no chance of being consistently applied. - Jmabel ! talk 01:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Its the first letter of the state Snohomish is in.—Look2See1 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
If that was the intention, why not sort under "Washington" rather than "w"? But, furthermore, it is simply not customary to pick an arbitrary fact about a photo and sort the category. - Jmabel ! talk 07:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Docks as "buildings"?

[21]: in general, docks are structures, not buildings. You can have a building on a dock, but I wouldn't normally put a dock in a "buildings" category. If you look at the pictures in the category in question, probably less than half contain a building at all. - Jmabel ! talk 05:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are not technically buildings, but as there is no [Category:Maritime structures in the United States], the Maritime buildings category is the only current tool to file by function - as U.S. maritime infrastructure elements. It is imperfect, and if offensive to you then please just remove it from Docks in the United States. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
So why not create "maritime structures..." categories? - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, will do so (in U.S.) under Category:Marine structures. Thanks—Look2See1 (talk) 21:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:Canyons_of_California has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Auntof6 (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Historic buildings

Hi Look2See1, could you have a look at Category talk:Historic buildings in the United States? Thank you, Multichill (talk) 21:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much Multichill, for the wonderfully massive HABS uploads you will be doing. A great contribution. I posted some specific questions—options at the category talk link above. Best—Look2See1 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

CCC seems dubious to me. The CCC was not a structure or a group of structures. It was a government agency. We don't put architects under "buildings" or "structures". Why put the CCC there? - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Category:Civilian Conservation Corps is predominantly structures, in images and subcategories (and their contents). To create a new [Category:Civilian Conservation Corps structures] (or projects) seemed superfluous to segregate one subcategory (Category:Robert Fechner) and some images of CCC workers out. If it is important perhaps creating a [Cat:CCC...structures] or "[Category:Civilian Conservation Corps people]" (or better wording) could hold those?—Look2See1 (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Parks and jurisdiction categories

Hello. I see that several others have raised the issue of over-categorization with you in the past. Yet, based on edits like this one, it appears that you continue to make edits that violate the principle. Over the past month or so, I have reverted a number of edits to categories that you have made that had resulted in over-categorization. I hate to criticize, because you are doing lots of good work here at the Commons, and I presume that all of your edits are done in good faith and with the best interests of the project in mind. But the ongoing failure to comply with COM:OVERCAT is a real problem. It really messes up the category trees, and it creates a lot of clean-up work for other contributors. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems your question relates to Category:Parks in Arizona and Category:Arizona. No "violation" was done or repeated, if a mistake it's one cat. which is not 'a lot of clean-up work' or 'really messy,' please try to write comments here less provocatively. In many levels of parks' jurisdictions around the world (by country, province, state, region, county, city, etc.) that I've come across, the [Category:Jurisdiction] is often already being used — perhaps for the general reader? In many hundreds of [cat:Parks in x] I've seen, there is not a one rule consistency yet. An example is Category:Parks in Minnesota, which already had Category:Minnesota but not Category:Protected areas of Minnesota. The [Category:Minnesota] was left, and [Cat:Protected areas] added. The latter is consistent with en:Protected area definitions.
If it is editing policy not to use [Category:Jurisdiction] on province/state level and above park categories (lower levels often have no other parent cat.), then I will no longer add those and correct them when already present. Thank you for bringing up the question. Best—Look2See1 (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I have reverted a number of instances of your overcategorization in the past few weeks, and the issue has been raised by others on your talk page a number of times before, so it isn't just one category. I don't think I was provocative at all. And, yes, there are inconsistencies throughout the category tree. As you know, proper categorization is always a work in progress. There are limited cases where sometimes it makes sense to disregard COM:OVERCAT, almost always involving the categorization of images, but incorrect categorization somewhere else is not one of those casee. In this instance, the treatment of parks categories may differ in different jusrisdictions, depending on whether intervening categories exist. Skeezix1000 (talk) 00:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not change a topic title on my talk page. Of course any text comments entered under it here by other editors or myself is never altered. You speak of jurisdictions above, but were not able to clarify my specific jurisdiction question yet.—Look2See1 (talk) 18:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't raising a jurisdiction issue, but a much broader one, so the title is really odd. And I answered your question directly. But to be more specific -- to the extent that a parks category is found to be directly in the parent jurisdiction category, it is either due to the fact that there are no relevant intervening categories, or it is incorrectly categorized. In either scenario, it is not something that one would replicate elsewhere. All I am going to say is please read COM:OVERCAT and have regard to it. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Another recent example of the creation of an COM:OVERCAT problem. Your edit was a fine one, but in adding the more specific category, you neglected to remove the parent category. As a whole, this issue has nothing to do with parks and jurisdictions. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Neo-Grec & Greek Revival

My understanding is Neo-Grec architecture is not the same as Greek Revival architecture, so I have reverted your edits in this regard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Neo-Grec architecture seems to be a French Second Empire version of Category:Greek Revival architecture, is that correct? Would Category:Second Empire architecture and [Category:Greek Revival architecture] both be parent categories for [Category:Neo-Grec architecture]? If a structure is outside of France or beyond the Second Empire style's peak worldwide, how does one distinguish between Neo-Grec and Greek Revival? Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not all that clear on the specifics, all I know is that, for instance, designation reports from the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission clearly differentiate between "neo-Grec" and "Greek Revival." I'll have to do a bit of research to find out what the relationship is between them and other architectural styles, but in he meantime it would be best not to compound the two, a mistake I made when I first started to add categories to building images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

NARA image categories

Hello. I don't understand why you removed the specific category from an image while adding other less specific categories: [22] Wondering, -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Most Category: Images from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA images) are uploaded as both TIF images (lower quality) and JPG images (higher quality). The Category: NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs is used to file the TIF images, while all the specific categories are on the JPG version of the same image. (Occasionally — there is only a 'plain' TIF or a high resolution TIF, no JPG, and so the specific categories are applied to it.)
In the info section below the image and description (TIF or JPG), there are two thumbnails — one a TIF and one a JPG — that link to the full image in their format. So, if one comes upon a TIF in a subject search, it is simple to switch to the JPG and all its specific categories (& higher quality). If one is searching by category, the best image (JPG) is already present, without 'double vision' clutter from a second low quality one (TIF).
Hope this helps, Thank you,—Look2See1 (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. — Sorry, here is an example: File:CALIFORNIA-SONORA - NARA - 542586.tif and File:CALIFORNIA-SONORA - NARA - 542586.jpg.
Look2See1 (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Via culture/art/architecture ?

Please refrain from overpopulating Category:Iran. This is the second time that I'm undoing your edits (1st time). Thanks Americophile 21:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have not realized I was 'redoing' a category add, that had been undone before, and not discuss it first. However, to have the only cat-link to Category:Structures in Iran or Category:Buildings in Iran 2 steps away from Category:Iran — via Category:Culture of Iran, then via Category:Architecture of Iran, seems to defeat the average user from finding them and their sub-categories for Iran, or any country. To add to the 'via' confusion, some countries have cat:architecture under cat:culture and others under cat:art. Remedying this maze is not overpopulating, just basic access.
More importantly, most structures and buildings are not designed by architects, so it is misleading (and perhaps arrogant ?) to eliminate users finding the ~90% non-architect created constructions only by very indirect access. In U.S. ~8 % structures & buildings are by architects (I've read, and visually see alas) — so perhaps with more vernacular 'architecture' used in Iran traditionally even a lower percentage by architects, without disregarding modern achievements and urban construction.
There seems to be a general effort to create more structures by country categories, with many of those and building by country ones not 'overpopulating' their country category, instead being findable by non-design professional Wikimedia users directly at the top-parent category. Please feel free to notice and comment on the hundreds of depopulating edits done on Iranian images that had a town (or two), city, district, & province categories; whether on a building in a town or a reservoir out in the district/province.—Thanks, Look2See1 (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Look2See1, you are making some valid points on structures and architecture, and your points on consistency on the treatment of architecture categories is well taken. However, this all comes back to COM:OVERCAT. Please do not place a category both in a parent category, and a subcategory of that parent category. That's the issue Americophile is raising with you, and the issue I have been raising with you. The problems with the architecture categories need to be addressed, and you should raise them in the appropriate forum, but an edit like this is not an appropriate solution. None of this is intended to criticize the good work you are doing, but rather is intended to avoid this problem that keeps turning up over and over and over again. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude. It all depends from what angle you look at the category tree. If you look at the conceptual level, one has to go via country - culture - architecture - structures to arrive at a building. If you look from the organisation perspective, then you have to go via country - city - quarters - streets/squares before you come to your building. If you look from the guy that brings a new picture (mostly of buildings), you want city - buildings, no more. --Foroa (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
And yes, we have to think bottom up too. Many, if not most, towns and cities start with a first structural category "Buildings in ...". This is often the trigger of many category structure developments, why I always place it at the parent level in a systematic way at all levels. People need to see a consistent model that they can clone. You don't want people to create for each town a art, culture, architecture and structure category before they start building ? Lets keep our feet on the ground. --Foroa (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
No intrusion Foroa, my thanks to you and Skeezix1000 for responding on this question. It's important to understand what the policy really is/will be. Sorry I'm under-skilled to "raise them in the appropriate forum" - as do not know how/where to initiate that. Excellent idea to do so though.
I'm confused on the conceptual level tree logic. If most buildings/structures are not 'architecture by architect' (such as most habitations/dwellings/houses worldwide), why the detour through [cat:architecture] ? It may be correct, but unclear logic to me still. Could a possible access solution be [cat:structures of country] under top [cat:country], instead of/with under [cat:architecture of country] ? If [cat:buildings of country] becomes/stays unacceptable for 'treetop' access, it would just be one direct generation away (country > structures > buildings) - instead of the current circuitous two/three route (country > culture (art) > architecture > buildings - or longer country > culture > architecture > structures > buildings).
On [cat:architecture of country] under [cat:art of country] or [cat:culture of country], since much of what is built is not design/art, the latter seems more accurate for one consistent model. Not trying to decide here but explore, the 'appropriate forum' is needed. Thank you for your patience.—Look2See1 (talk) 23:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Re Category:Architecture of the Song Dynasty

Great idea! Thanks for making it. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Photo discussion, taken from Snake Range "region", Nevada

2 mountain ranges-(unseen valley between)-Pine Valley (Utah)

I am just taking an opportunity to say "hello", and comment on your many edits (congrats, the satisfaction, goes unsaid). I recently made the numerous articles of valleys and mountain ranges, etc in Utah..and have been working on Plateaus, etc. (in the Colorado Plateau regions.. (AZ, and Utah)).. And have been diligently finding photos for articles (never intended to create) the new (great)...en:Yellow Knolls.. I've been cleaning up things in WikiCommons, and learning as I go... so (I know you are working in both Wikipedia and Wikicommons...) if you ever want an adventure: I did Egpt. hier. and some Cuneiform... so look at Category:Cuneiform on media and Category:Hieroglyphs on media... they are both just starting point cats for such amazing things to see, or work on. (many sub-cats were created for them; and see also Category:Clay tablets or its master "Category:Clay archaeological objects", etc.-(I have to get back to that task))

So the photo above... overlooks the (north) Hamlin Valley (as it goes (right) and southeast into Utah. The north (left) is the south beginning of Snake Valley (Great Basin)... So the two 2 ranges on horizon, appear as one.. you put them in the category:Basin and Range Province-(where they should be). The view is of the intersection point.. I made the Burbank Hills category because of it (left, to the north)... the valley unseen between the two ranges (north end of Mountain Home Range (right, closer)) is the Pine Valley (Utah).. so the major range on horizon is a north section of the Wah Wah Mountains... I know some renaming is done on Photos.. (this would be a good example of a better named Photo)... But that is not really why I am pointing this out to you.

I added (to) the text (to the File Page), 3 times I think and after making the Pine Valley (Utah) article, I finally completely understood this southeast view of the valleys and ranges seen.Mmcannis (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Waterloo State Recreation Area v. Waterloo Recreation Area Discovery Center

I think your recent edits moving several files from Category:Waterloo Recreation Area Discovery Center to Category:Waterloo State Recreation Area are counterproductive. The discovery center includes not just the building itself, but also some 14 miles of trails (map), on which most of these photos were taken. Following the principle that files should be placed into the most specific appropriate category, these should be in Category:Waterloo Recreation Area Discovery Center, not Category:Waterloo State Recreation Area. I am reverting these changes, but if you disagree I'm happy to continue discussing this. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing my 'good faith' mistake, you know the area well and your corrections are appreciated.—Look2See1 (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I have added a description to Category:Waterloo Recreation Area Discovery Center explaining that it does include not just the building but the associated trails as well. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Dreiebenenmast.jpg and File:Donaumast Schema.png


why did you add the category:branch pylons? Both of them are no branch pylons.

Regards, --MdE [de] [com] 22:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi MdE, in North America those two images show a type of Category:Branch pylons. If incorrect in the utilities terms of your area (or just colloquial in mine) please let me now and I will promptly remove the cat. If I'm colloquially wrong and there is a characteristic to see/use, please let me know so others aren't mis-categorized. Best—Look2See1 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems that in this category the two terms dead-end pylon (German: Abspannmast) and branch pylon (German: Abzweigmast) are mixed together.
  • A dead-end pylon is a pylon where the lines coming from both sides end at the tower, connected with a short wire like an arc (see this image). They are used for long distances, over streets or for changing the direction.
  • A branch pylon - the word branch says everything - is a pylon at which a new line starts, so there are at least three lines arriving at this pylon (see this image - each line may include more than one system, the lines in this example have two systems). Otherwise there would be no branch, would it?
Branch pylons are often dead-end-pylons, but they don't have to be. I think this is not depending on the area, so my pictures are no branch pylons in North America neither. An article about branch pylons seems to be missing on en:wp (there is only a wrong redirect to dead-end pylon). In my opinion there are many wrong images in this category.
Regards, --MdE [de] [com] 16:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining dead-end pylon and branch pylon characteristics. My understanding of "the word branch says everything" — was as strong lateral 'tree branches' carrying lines away from a pylon and each other — clearly wrong. I won't use Category:Branch pylons unless an image matches either of the two examples you linked above. I appreciate your taking the time to explain it so well.
Perhaps a new [:Category:Dead-end pylons] (German: Abspannmast) would help, but is beyond my detailed understanding to populate it with certainty; and same to 'de-populate' [Category:Branch pylons] (German: Abzweigmast).
Best,—Look2See1 (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome! I have corrected the categories. Regards, --MdE [de] [com] 10:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


Hi. As we know, en:Category:History of Persia is redirected to en:Category:History of Iran in English wikipedia. With which criteria do you want to use Category:History of Persia ? Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Please read Category talk:History of Persia. Takabeg (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Criteria re: Category:History of Persia: perhaps Classical Antiquity (650 BCE) to end of Qajar dynasty (1925 CE), when Persia was self-renamed Iran. What do you think? —Look2See1 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

People from Miami Beach?

Hi. Thanks for all your good work. However one thing I'm a bit surprised by is your changing the categories to put photos such as File:Girls dancing in South Beach.JPG and File:Halloween South Beach Frog.jpg into "People from Miami Beach". Do you know who these people are and where they are from? Of course, people from places may not be in that place; people in a place may not be from there. That category change seems inappropriate to me; they photos appear to be of events IN Miami Beach (if the people shown also happen to be from there, that's something in addition, not instead of the location of the photo). What do you think? Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Infrogmation, I see what you mean - I was in a 'people in Miami Beach' frame of mind (mistake). I will go through and remove the transient visitors. Thanks for pointing it out.—Look2See1 (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

National Monuments

Hello. I wanted to clear up some confusion. National Monuments in the United States are not monuments in the traditional sense -- they are parks. The only main difference between a National Monument and a National Park is that the former is established by the President while the latter is established by Congress. It was really just an error that two of the state categories for National Monuments were in the state's respective categories for monuments and memorials. While parks can sometimes be monuments/memorials, when they are established in commemoration of a person or event, parks in general are not always monuments/memorials, even if they belong to a class of park that confusingly uses the word "monument" in its name. I hope that helps. If I have misconstrued your concern, please let me know. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Skeezix1000 for the very clarifying definitions for monuments - natural and cultural; park and memorial. Your writing was so clear, I took it right in - and forgot to respond here. I'm sorry for the delay to let you know. Thanks for taking the time and care to create a helpful 'teachable moment. With appreciation—Look2See1 (talk) 01:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't consider it a teachable moment - it was merely a heads up. No error on your part - on its face what you had done made sense, and not everyone would know that a national monument ≠ monument. We all inform each other as we go of the particularities of various category subjects -- we all know something about some things, and share the information with each other as we go. I only know about National Monuments because I encountered the issue before. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Bolding in image captions

In short, it's not needed. This isn't Wikipedia, and those are captions, not article leads. Imzadi 1979  20:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand your graphic opinions and beliefs, and will re-evaluate how I use that graphic tool. The motivation is not aesthetics but clarity of an image's context (place-time-culture). This is especially applicable when a geographic/jurisdiction/date-era/etc. is so familiar to 'local' uploaders &/or editors that the visual resource is compromised for out of county or state or province or country or continent users - the rest of us. Using bold for the image's article, or the province-state and country can quickly give correct context, even on small screened devices. Regarding a a blanket rule-opinion-belief — "In short, it's not needed". Meanwhile, I will be much more reticent with the ’’’ bold ‘‘‘ use. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Images can be used on multiple articles, so there isn't "one" article that necessary applies to it. A photo of a road could be used in the article on that road, the city/village/county/state where the road is located, an article about the type of roadway, etc. No one of these trumps the other, so bolding one over the others is subjective. Imzadi 1979  02:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Please be careful with your changes to captions. "Scenic road" is an official designation for a highway or other road in the US, granted by the state or federal governments. FFH-13/H-13 in Michigan's Upper Peninsula does not hold such a designation, so it's wrong to call it a "scenic road". Imzadi 1979  23:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
See new •Scenic adjectives are not proper nouns• heading just below. Your 23:39, 14 June 2012 posting was copy/pasted there, and responded to.
Also, please be careful what categories you add to file pages. If "Category A" is a subcategory of "Category B", it's not needed to add both to a file's description page. You should used the most specific category in the tree where appropriate, and not the categories higher up that contain it. Imzadi 1979  23:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Some of today's cats used were not containing sufficient image info as stand alones. I will come back and create new ones mirroring same title/different locale/jurisdiction - as have so often done. Out of energy presently so temp. made do. Please consider just creating the missing ones rather than criticizing here, and looking at a bigger scale of effert. I've been doing that for totally uncategorized NARA and vaguely categorized B&W images 'by the hundreds & thousands.' Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Forest Highway is a subcategory of Category:Forest roads in the United States. It's not necessary to place an image in both categories. Using the most specific one is fine. Imzadi 1979  02:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Scenic adjectives are not proper nouns

copy — Please be careful with your changes to captions. "Scenic road" is an official designation for a highway or other road in the US, granted by the state or federal governments. FFH-13/H-13 in Michigan's Upper Peninsula does not hold such a designation, so it's wrong to call it a "scenic road". Imzadi 1979  23:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Scenic drives and roads have no official designation, in my understanding. In the U.S. a National Forest Scenic Byway, a National Scenic Byway, an All-American Highway, and various state level designated routes are quite different, as you point out. FFH-13/H-13 can be a called and categorized a "scenic drive" or "scenic road" — without any federal, state, county, or city approved review, criteria, funding, or status designation. Please be careful - adjectives are not proper nouns. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
National Scenic Byways are specifically designated by the Secretary of Transportation. The All-American Roads are a subset of that program. The National Forest Scenic Byways are created by the US Forest Service. Many states have similar programs; in Michigan it is the Heritage Routes designated by the Director of the Michigan Department of Transportation, and only some of the HRs are Scenic Heritage Routes. The others are Recreational or Historic Heritage Routes. Without a source that backs the application of the adjective, it's not up to wikimedians to state that one road is "scenic" while another isn't. Imzadi 1979  02:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The Category:Scenic drives in the United States seems to reflect the en:Category:Scenic highways in the United States (which has more state route list articles). However "Scenic drives" is a vague title, inviting other images of un-designated roads and highways with predominantly attractive scenery in the U.S. Perhaps a category rename would help if this is important to you?—Look2See1 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

File:CalabasasAdobe.jpg categories

"Category:Black and white photographs of California" is redundant to the more specific subcat "Category:Black and white photographs of Los Angeles". -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You are so right, I'm sorry. In all the adobe's categories I missed "B&W of Los Angeles" and mis-assumed the redundant cat.—Look2See1 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that image does have a long list of cats! Thanks for your reply and your work. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What I'm trying to do with Species of the Sierra Nevada category

I see that you half undid what I half-finished doing, so now it looks like a mess. Before we make an even bigger mess, I want to describe my goal.

The current categorization of images of species doesn't make sense to me. Let's say we have an image of a plant (say, Mahonia repens: an Oregon Grape). And let's say the photo was taken in Portland, Oregon. Well, that photo certainly belongs to the Category:Mahonia repens. But placing Category:Mahonia repens directly into Category:Nature of the Sierra Nevada (United States) is problematic. Readers may assume that all photographs of Mahonia repens occur in the Sierra Nevada.

There's a fix for this -- it's true that the species Mahonia repens occurs in the Sierra Nevada, even if the individual photographs weren't taken there. So, if we make a Category:Species of the Sierra Nevada (United States) and include Category:Mahonia repens, I think readers will understand that the species is in the region, even if none of the individual photographs are taken there.

Now that I clarified what I'm doing, can I go ahead and fix everything up? — hike395 (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I find the Sierra species category unusable, with linking to other media cats and text cats impossible. At best it is a semi—[cat:biota]. Just 2 animals in it meant no [Category:Flora of California] cat tree placement.
I understand and appreciate your thoughts, but trust most reader's intelligence to use [cat:flora of place] as cats for various places/habitats where the species can be found. So many [cat:plant species] have only [cat:genus] - no 'where in the world' clue ? Some of us are not single linking from wikipedia articles (and back to w.p.) . We are navigating along Commons exclusively — using cat:genus, cat flora of, cat:ecoregion, etc.
Sorry, please don't go ahead to "fix everything up" — as it seems to be just done again with cat:flora sierra (for the moment). More discussion please before either change more. Species (all biota) simply seems too vague, and can confuse as much as 'flora of' for 'literal every image-same place' point you speak of.
Thanks, —Look2See1 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude, this will not work. Nobody will be able to distinguish between "Flora of ..." as used in all other cases and the specific Category:Species of the Sierra Nevada (United States) as they mean basically the same. --Foroa (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No intrusion Foroa, appreciate your efforts to clarify. How should we proceed?
Thanks for correcting [[:Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.)] to Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada (United States). I creating it mirroring en:wikipedia en:Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada (U.S.). Is (United States), and not (U.S.) or (USA), best practices for other categories in Commons that need that a place-name noting United States to avoid international disambiguation ?
Thanks — Look2See1 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that there were 3 different disambiguation terms in the same cat tree: (Unites States), (USA) and (U.S.). From experience, we know that this would quickly lead to new variants such as (US), (U.S.A.), ... On Commons, we try to avoid acronyms, why I harmonised to (Unites States). --Foroa (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I really want to distinguish between photographs of plants that are actually in the Sierra Nevada, and photographs of plants whose species are in the Sierra Nevada (but the photographs could be from anywhere). Right now, these are mixed together and I think this is misleading.
Look2See1 seems to object to lumping together animals and plants. That is fixable --- for a region R, we can make Category:Plant species of R and Category:Animal species of R. We can either make Category:Plant species of R be a subcat of Category:Flora of R, or a sister category. I am really quite flexible.
I do really want to solve this problem. If either of you have a better idea, I am all ears. — hike395 (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
One idea I just had --- we could rename the category Category:Flora in R --- does that make it seem like the photographs really should be taken in the region R? — hike395 (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hold off

Just to be clear --- let's hold off on any recategorization until we figure this all out. — hike395 (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, we have to think on that. There have been several attempts to make endemic plant categories and they all ended up by being merged back in their root. Question is what is feasible and maintainable in a context where we have millions of new images and 600000 new categories per year categorised by hundreds of people. Maintaining a category is different than an article as one can empty a category without being noticed by the maintainer. (COM:TOL ?). First things to consider is the natural category tree where people will drop their images from the place. More specialised cats should clearly stand out but be on the side and without creating problems with the COM:OVERCAT specialists. --Foroa (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Should we move the discussion to COM:TOL? — hike395 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Holding off on further recategorization until clear. Yesterday put flora images taken in the Sierra within Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada (United States). It is a good option to consider species categories currently there (non-endemic) to be moved to [Cat:Plant species in Sierra Nevada]. The [Cat:Plant species in -] could be a good series of categories for major ecological/topographic/political subdivisions - that informs readers even if Commons is awaiting images from a subdivision to be taken—uploaded. Beyond my insight to know, and defer to editor community.
You each have a much bigger picture of this and deeper history with TOL discussions. I and my friends—professional cohorts that use the flora cats never expect all the [cat:flora of place] on a [cat:plant species] to relate to all the images, but offer an image of what to look for in the field or to understand the ecosystem. Perhaps that is too specialized, re: your bigger pictures of Commons. If so, please let me know what the current editors consensus is on best practices for botany in Commons. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a mess eather ways as far as all images in subcategories of "Nature of the Sierra Nevada (United States)" don't depict the nature of Sierra Nevada. As suggested above, the solution is not to categorize plain species categories by location and categorise only images by location as it's done for most European species, e.g see Category:Flora of Germany. I mean, keep File:MahoniaRepensBerriesUtah.jpg in "Category:Flora of Utah" and "Category:Mahonia repens" and don't keep "Category:Mahonia repens" in "Category:Flora of Utah". If neccesary (if there are lots of images images by the same species and same location), you may create categories like "<species> in <location>". 08:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be more careful when messing with my pictures

Per [23], you moved the purported date of the picture back by over a year. Stan Shebs (talk) 06:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm so sorry Stan Shebs, and apologize. Another beautiful photo of this species by you was a year earlier, and my copy - paste came from it went in uncorrected onto this one. Will be more careful when "messing" (with info-links) with your pictures. With your plant images, effort is to add new botanical names and their en:wikipedia links, while retaining the former name used when you shot it, is that ok ?
Thank you for sharing—uploading so many wonderful photographs of flora, habitats, and places. Many would have none otherwise. The quality of your photos being consistently high is such a pleasure.
With appreciation—Look2See1 (talk) 16:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Gallery links

Hi Look2See1, Please don't remove gallery links from file descriptions.[24] Category links are available at the bottom of the file page, but gallery links allow the viewer to reach the relevant gallery directly. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Walter, I was ignorant that was a template, let alone was a gallery link, and apologize for de-linking your image. Perpetual learning. I probably did the same yesterday to your other Pinus benthamiana images. I will gladly repair the links, if you have not already.
Do you know if P. pondorosus subsp. benthamiana also currently accepted by some, or superseded now ?
Thank you — Look2See1 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Look2See1, scientific names are changing rapidly because new tools, e.g. DNA fingerprinting, are being employed for the first time. Sometimes there are differences in taxonomy among national or regional groups. I tend to follow the lead of English Wikipedia, Wikispecies or USDA GRIN.[25] The goal on Commons is to help users find illustrations, not to have the latest taxonomy. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forest (California)

Hi L2S1 - please be careful in what you add to the category; the ABCF only covers a small area within the Inyo National Forest, and many / most of the Pinus longaeva in the White Mts (including e.g. 'The Patriarch') are not within its boundary. Only add them to the category if the geolocation data or the photographer's description explicitly states it is within the ABCF boundary. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no geolocation data use abilities alas, and so can not be sure of 'within/out of' boundary status via that information. Therefore, will only add to the category when explicitly stated. Thanks for pointing out limits of the ABCF. — Look2See1 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Hi, Look2See1, your edit to the above, appears to have knocked the Source & Author information, out of the info box. --P.g.champion (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out problem. An extra ' }} ' got in, and Source & Author information is fixed now. — Look2See1 (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)



There is no need (or benefit) to place files like File:Greater London UK locator map 2010.svg‎ in Category:London like you did here. It is already in the appropriate subcategory (Category:Maps of London) so should not be in the parent.

I've removed this inappropriate categorisation from all your recent map edits (I've kept the sort codes). Please do not re-add them, as that is against Commons consensus on how to categorise files.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nilfanion,
It is too bad there can not be (just) one map leading a U.K. county's parent cat. page, while also in 'Maps of'. Non-Brits could use the help to quickly know where one is located, especially when navigating directly through its Commons subcategories or deeply nested images' subcategories, and not via wikipedia. There is a need (and benefit) to dual-categorize one single locator map per county, at least for England. Be helpful and kind to foreign users please. — Look2See1 (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Athlete vs. sportspeople

Hi Look2See1.

Please note that an athlete is a sportspeople whose specialty is athletics. Athletes and sportspeople are not synonyms. Cheers. Badzil (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Badzil,
Thank you for the correct definition—information, and sorry for the mistake. — Look2See1 (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


Commons-emblem-issue.svg Category:2012_Summer_Olympics_athletes_by_country has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | English | español | français | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | português | русский | +/−

Badzil (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

She's a native, eh?

I undid an edit you made here. The location of the photo seems of more importance than the birthplace of some individual in it. However if the person shown is also a notable Sacramento native, I suggest both cat relevant to her origin be added in addition to the location cat, not instead of as you did. Thanks for your attention. -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Adoration pastors Veronese.jpg

This is certainly on the left wall from the entrance, not on the ceiling. How do you know it is a fresco?? --Oursana (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC) (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cascades in the United Kingdom

Sorry, I don't understand why you have replaced this previously deleted category. The description you've added is "A design style of artificial waterfalls and fountains in gardens; or a stepped type of natural waterfalls over rock formations." (emphasis added). It is important that categories represent a clearly definable concept, rather than a collection of alternatives. Whilst I understand that they may both be regarded as "water features" in some sense, they are fundamentally different in that one is natural and the other constructed. Could you explain your reasoning please? Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Reason: Category:Waterfalls in the United Kingdom (and other fountain cats per country, county, or city) have natural and constructed waterfall images mixed together — a long established "collection of alternatives — one natural and the other constructed" used around the globe in Commons. Cascades are a "body of water falling in steps or increments" - unlike a freefalling body of water. The Category:Artificial waterfalls does not have location subcats to date. Hence Category:Cascades in the United Kingdom for natural waterfalls and designed fountains. Thank you.—Look2See1 (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

New Asian categories work

Looking above on this talk page it looks like you enjoy adding parent cats with child cats - the recent Indonesian categories seem in the same line - not too sure what your reason is for clogging up categories like that, I just make the observation and state the fact, however as so many of the Indonesian categories and images are overcategorised it seems pointless at this stage to revert or worry about... SatuSuro (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi SatuSuro, Your concern is incomprehensible, sorry. Adding Category:Religious buildings in Asia; Category:Mosques in Asia; & Category:Temples in Asia to the appropriate/specific subcats is responsible and correct. There are no parent/child issues. Please try to look for all the good work done by me correcting and focusing cats today. Perhaps the problem is your perceptions colored by hopelessness over Indonesia ? Your care is valid.—Look2See1 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not querying your larger category additions for a start. - there is nothing whatsoever wrong with my perception, thank you, I see more categories than are necessary in that edit. There is a combination of categories that are incomprehensible to use your term...

I am sure someone with your volume of eidting has done a lot of good. I am not making any inferences or comment about any of that, what I am stating is that you have been queried about over-categorizing before, and I observe (with no problems about my perception, or anything to do with Indonesia as having anything to do with hopelessness - I said nothing about it and I have no idea what you are referring to).

I also happen to disagree with the usage of Indonesian topics under the 'asia' category - asia is too large and should in fact be reduced to its component parts, simply to make things more manageable.

IMHO South east, south, west, central and east asia should in reality be used only, asia as a category is far too large and too wide to be functionally useful for any online encyclopedia. SatuSuro (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Reversion of edits to Category:Yosemite Valley?

Why did you revert my edit to Category:Yosemite Valley? — hike395 (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hike395, It was reverted as the parent cat of Sierra Nevada was renamed from "Sierra Nevada (USA)" to "Sierra Nevada (United States)", so that the Sierra Nevada link would lead to the wide scope of Sierra Nevada sub cats. If you disagree, I defer to your expertise of the region and the preferred access routes to its media (& en:text articles). Thank you, —Look2See1 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Shrine gates in Japan

Hi, I was about to create a category Category:Shrine gates in Japan and thought you might have an opinion. I saw you had suggested Category:Temple gates in Japan be used for shrine gates as well, and I was quite confused by that. What was your intention on getting shrine gates and temple gates under a single category? If it really was the best to be merged for some reason, wouldn't it make sense to call it Category:Temple and shrine gates in Japan? --whym (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi whym, You may well be more knowledgable about the distinctions. Are shrine gates part of the Shinto tradition? My familiarity with temples gates is in the Buddhist tradition (internationally), though shrine gates may be used also. Perhaps Category:Temple and shrine gates in Japan would allow greater access, or Category:Shrine gates in Japan more precise access - for viewers. Thank you —Look2See1 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Due notice

Because of your continual changing of categories in violation of our categorisation standards (in particular, COM:OVERCAT) despite numerous warnings on this talk page, I've filed a request for administrative assistance; you can find it in the "Look2See1" section of COM:AN/U. Nyttend (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You need to stop editing, and discuss your changes first. Otherwise, you will get a block. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Responses and notes from Look2See1
Hello, this complaint was presented quite vaguely here, so that an intelligent response was un-formable. With no explanation elsewhere, including a "Look2See1" section of COM:AN/U not being present there, it was not until figuring out how to do a 'Look2See1' name search in "all noticeboard archives" that more information was finally found.
  • After an extended family holiday during the winter season of "good will to all" - this information felt like someone had no good will to balance their irritated impulses and blatantly incorrect deductions.
  • There seems to be a "Will to Misunderstand". There is a habit of judging incorrectly, jumping to a mistaken conclusion, writing before researching or understanding an edit done in good faith and accurate.
  • There also seems to be the "Will to Ignore Learning Curves" and so not acknowledge my listening, learning, and growth as an editor.
  • Responses to: selected Nyttend mis-examples:
  • CaptainJacksStronghold.jpg: predominantly shows the Great Basin habitat/vegetation of the park (Lava Beds cat. for natural history), but also (blurred) documents a NRHP site (NRHP in park cat. for historical landmark).
  • Tule Lake Relocation Center; used the California, created by another editor to depopulate subject categories with 2 identical images, of the less clear TIF one! I use the state's name to sort, as 'TIF images with categorized JPGs' has no subcategories.
  • NOT: ("actively decategorises"); Nyttend, in ignorance of American NARA documentation and unaware of the correct protocol, was repeatedly choosing to overcategorise in his revert; shows the "Will to Misunderstand," and continuing a pattern of cyberbullying me.
  • NOTE: Scrolling down a NARA image's page, TIF or JPG, there is an active thumbnail for each; NARA - 536372 - Tule Lake Relocation Center JPG and NARA - 536372 - Tule Lake Relocation Center TIF. The TIF image is not decategorized into non-findability.
  • NOT: ("various images"); Nyttend, in ignorance again over categorizes.
  • NOT: ("that a category of a building is only suitable for a few images of that building taken by a specific person at a specific time."); have why did Nyttend then remove the lede completely, careless mistake in temper?
  • NOTE: I originally created all the original Category:Historic American Buildings Survey by state/city categories. They were renamed without discussion a year ago to [Category:Historic buildings by state/city]. The editing community discussed this, with most, including myself, expressing 'historic building' was too vague to be meaningful, and the named image source category was useful. Only I, to my knowledge, have been recreating the Category:Historic American Buildings Survey images by state subcategories. A bot, initiated by another editor renamed all [Historic buildings by state/city] categories to [Buildings in state/city] categories later, although without using HABS by state categories or History by state categories.
Appreciation for the Historic American Buildings Survey efforts: substantial, twice, and without bots; has not been heard nor is needed - but is welcomed. In my experience, it is a loss to Wikimedia that acknowledging another editor's good work happens so rarely, while criticism and hostility are shared so easily.
  • Nytend's comment on my en-wikipedia talk page (beckwithii), about using only "link" in edit summary, was responded to, clarified his misinterpretation, learned from the opportunity, and have been carefully annotating my edits on Wikipedia & Wikimedia from that day forth.
  • Responses to selected LX (talk mis-examples:
  • NOTE: Category:Towers in Finland (and most all other countries) is under Category:Architectural elements in Finland & Category:Buildings in Finland. Towers is a broad category, and can include skyscrapers, clock towers, bellowers, minarets, steeples and church towers, observation towers, water towers, and other culturally specific types - some buildings and some structures.
    Perhaps LX is unfamiliar with the rather recent growth of [Category:Structures in country-name] and its subdivisions; and/or the term's meaning?
  • Other past discussion opportunities, with my integrated learning:
  • This plethora of old discussion links, just dumped as though ongoing problems is disgustingly misleading. Everyone has the right to make mistakes, have help and work to understand the mistakes, and then learn and integrate the corrections, and henceforth implement them. Hauling out 1-3 year old examples of my efforts/process to understand and learn, and in the self-serving spirit of not acknowledging growth, seems like a stuck and belittling control style.
Because I choose to express my thoughts, do not silently conform when my many decades of experience brings a different interpretation, and want to respectfully discuss the issue -- this does not become evidence of rogue editor behavior.
  • Examples include:
    The Commons:Disputes noticeboard/Archive 4#Are courtyards gardens? topics, after also continued more substantially on my and other talk pages, made it clear to me that within Wikimedia, courtyards are not always gardens, and so [Category:Courtyards in country-name] never belongs under [Category:Gardens in country-name]. (The fountain example below is old, I learned back then [Category:Gardens in place-name] is all but never appropriate. In addition 2 new categories by others have proliferated across geographic subdivisions, [Category:Structures in place-name] and [Category:Landscape architecture in place-name], and have been used by myself and others for [Category:Fountains in place-name] for some time now.
  • NOTE: Using old discussions (like courtyards or fountains) as deleterious 'permanent' examples, when the subsequent record shows my fixing others' edits that repeat my former mistake, is really pathetically non-constructive and unsupportive, and not based in reality.
Jimmy Wales repeatedly speaks to the importance of broadening diversity and representation of Wiki-projects editors. I am a senior citizen, came later to computers, and have learned professional resources with depth and from experience in a breadth of topics. This "Due notice" is on shaky ground, as so many accusations are falsely supported as my responses show, it is a small agenda driven sightline, and it restricts diversity for those editor's not in the 'core profile' that need to and do learn as they contribute. Please consider looking for positive contributions more in the future.
Thank you, —Look2See1 (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding incorrect information

In this edit [32] you altered information about where the photo was taken. The photo was taken at the UC Berkeley campus and NOT at the UC Berkeley Botanical Garden. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize EncycloPetey, will not make that Berkeley assumption again. Had been doing large numbers of adding Category:Regional Parks Botanic Garden or Category:Specimens in the University of California Botanical Garden location cats (correctly), and momentum mistakenly swept in your wonderful image. sorry again, —Look2See1 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 3 days

Blocked user.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 days for the following reason: . If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so after the block expires. See block log.

Azərbaycanca | Български | বাংলা | Català | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Gaeilge | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Please discuss your changes before. You also need to make clear and precise summaries.Yann (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see my responses of 23 January 2013 under "Due notice" heading. The examples presented are predominantly incorrect and under-researched, some even ignorant of standard overcat reduction procedures (ie: Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs) — as my comments specifically address.
To be accused of 'serial overcat' when much of my work is focusing them, for example: (1,000s of images - many were uncategorized, numerous were at parent UK level: when county-city cats. avail.; or had overcat of several local towns, & a municipality & county, & the country...) + (1,000s of uncategorized NARA images) + (1,000-plus NARA TIF images refiled when sharper JPG is adjacent, often eliminating overcat in 4-8 subcategories.)
I have been putting in summary terms of all actions done since the issues above. The problematic solo "links" term is now only used alone when that was the sole addition. Your and other editors' concerns were heard, and sincerely addressed with this change.—Look2See1 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
this is an exceptionally poor summary for a block, it opposes the fundamental principle of the project. The summary in the block log sheds no light on the reasons for the block, links, if any exist, would be helpful.
Considering the contributions this established editor has made, this is not too much to ask. Penyulap 08:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet another warning - & for no reason ?

Stop adding parent categories, as you're doing to the Mexican convents; if you persist, I will request that you be blocked again. You may also note that you are the only one converting prose text to bullets. Stop it. Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend, threatening me with being blocked is unskillful overkill, when taking the time to try understanding the edit/context and explaining your views is called for. I learn from specific examples of an edit, and a brief explanation of my specific mistake. If it is clear I will use thereon, if not I will discuss—ask for more clarity. It is accurate to "assume good faith" in all my work here.
  • Nyttend, please explain your specific concerns with the Category:Convent of Desierto de los Leones edits. They were done carefully, so if there is something to learn, it needs to be specifically taught. It's time to stop threatening and start helping. You may want to balance with a 'thank you' — as you are welcome for my adding Category:Stone buildings in Mexico to a fine image example, which inspired you to add it to the whole Convent-Desierto category afterwards. Do hope that is not overcoat by you though, as not all images therein show stonework ?
  • In addition Nyttend, do you have a personal agenda with all this, hunting only for tiny or non-issues, and ignoring or unaware of the scope of improvements I contribute? Unless you are willing to give your edit issues enough research time to understand the option, your reverts, block sirens, degrading comments et al appear merely impulsive reactionary behavior. Please see my very specific responses (above @ 23 January 2013 entry) to your falsely founded examples that lead to a needless warning/block notice. Your message initiating this section, and not responding about your mistakes I showed on 23 January — causes me to be concerned you are indulging in cyberbullying.
  • Please explain your reversion at [33] Nyttend, I only added an English lead, the Spanish one was retained. Therefore your "Restore Spanish text" edit summary does not make any sense - why so irrational and destructive of another's work? Just regarding Mexico, D. F.—if instead you chose look more deeply-broadly at the total picture, yesterday I did much work for image sub-cats under Category:Parks in Mexico, D. F. and text articles under en:Category:Parks in Mexico City to link to one another — in all languages available. In addition, for the media sub-cats I added a Spanish text lede at top, honoring the language of parks' locations. Images and {commonscat} were added to their en:wikipedia articles, as most had neither.
  • Please explain your repeated edits reverting my accurately focused Category:National Register of Historic Places in Wilmington, Delaware to the less specific parent Category:National Register of Historic Places in New Castle County, Delaware ? They are irrational, sloppy, and destructive to wikimedia accuracy. Do you need a self timed 'block' to cool down ?
  • I learned about the use of bullets in an image's description from other editors' work years ago, the graphic clarity—improved readability was 'obvious' to my eyesight capacities. Perhaps it's being an older editor than most. If there is a consensus policy about bullets, please direct me too it, and I will gladly learn. If not, stop abusing me with your personal opinion.
  • In summary Nyttend, instead of being temper reactive, please be constructive for my and other editors' growth and learning. I respect a preponderance of your work I see in wikimedia, please try to contribute and assist from that level. In good faith, —Look2See1 (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Look2See1, I don't want to get involved in this issue, as I have not had the opportunity to review any of Nyttend or your points in any detail. However, I did want to raise the specific bullet point issue. You should not assume that what is an "obvious" readability issue to you is so obvious to everyone else. It's very subjective. If someone raises it as a concern, you should restrain from implementing the "bullet point style" elsewhere unless you want to raise the issue in a more general forum. Personally, I am a fan of bullet points, but I do think regular prose can be more appropriate in many circumstances. I find bullet points can often be less than helpful where we have, or may have, image or category descriptions in multiple languages. I checked one (only one!) instance of where you and Nyttend were disputing the use of bullet points and I tend to agree with Nyttend on that one -- but I do not want to make too big deal of it because it was only one example, your other additions to the image description in that case were very good, and I really want to focus on process here more than the minutiae of one photo description. I know your views may be different than mine, and that's fine. But I do think, since Nyttend has raised this issue and how subjective these layout and style issues are, that if you feel strongly about implementing additional "bullet point style" descriptions elsewhere on any kind of regular basis, that you should first canvass opinion on the Village Pump. Just my opinion. I hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Nyttend on the points raised above. I've been seeing your changes to images I watch for over a year now. Most of your changes are non-standard. I have no problem with you adding a link to English Wikipedia, but all of the reformatting with bullets, bold text, and etc is not an improvement. I also have no problem with adding a well thought out category, but you seem to continue to all but ignore COM:OVERCAT and to add strange, non-standard formatting to the sort keys. You need to stop and consider what people are telling you, something I haven't seen evidence of. You just keep on trucking doing the same things and believing you're the one who is "correct.". If you refuse to take any of this into consideration, you're probably headed toward not being able to edit at all. Altairisfartalk 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
COM:OVERCAT is a help page rather than a policy, perhaps the talkpage of the files involved is a better place to garner support for your style ideas Altairisfar, especially when different people have different ideas of setting out pages. Who knows it might eventually lead to a discussion about making text clear and consistent using bullet points, or not. Don't know there will be sufficient MOS na**'s on commons as there are on, but who knows, maybe there would be enough to write a guideline or something. Penyulap 16:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Well done Look2See1

I can't believe just how much you have managed to give to this project without attracting attention ! I've looked over your contributions and they are very impressive, large numbers of edits don't impress me ask anyone, but when they are all great quality like yours are, and there are more than 100,000 of them, it's hard not to be awestruck. Well done Look2See1. I just wish I had a better Barnstar to give you. Penyulap 08:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Once again — illogical Ny

When are you going to stop making edits like this? See COM:AN. Nyttend (talk) 13:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend — "When are you going to stop" your acting on temper impulses and distorted fixations, resulting in destructive editing ?
So, regarding the "HABS image edit" — the categories are appropriate for the image, with the HABS photographer Category:Jack Boucher simply moved from the top so next to new Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Indiana that I had just created. The other cats. are related to architecture, and it is a building. Perhaps your impulsive knee jerk/attack reactions obscured that aspect. By the way, I have recreated all 36 subcategories in Category:Historic American Buildings Survey images by state, as well as populating them all, after a British editor 'disappeared them' and our editors' discussion consensus was they were needed again. Many HABS images are your uploads, so strange you sabotage their being accessible.

Reminds me, "When are you going to stop" making irrational reverts of my edits by the dozens, and dozens, especially your repetitional and temperamental edit wars. How about stopping _ right _ now?
Though with some, it's become humorous how many times you insist on reverting to parent cats, instead of the focused child cats — do you remember several Sequoia Park NRHS HABS images, [34] and [35], and your distorted removing of Category:Log cabins in California to replace with Category:Log cabins in the United States and removing Category:National Register of Historic Places in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park -- some multiple times? Was one intoxicated?
On [36], your reverts were a disservice to the media project, shame on you. Simply illogical unless you are puffing passive/aggressive vandalism. "When are you going to stop" being so destructive, and cyberbullying via your childish name calling in revert edit summaries? Your threats to block me when your personal opinion is not concurred with also reeks of an immature and sovereign temper tantrum —professionals do not do that — it's really time to grow up Nyttend.
I am very grateful for the numerous wonderful images you have uploaded over the years, and appreciate their quality and in depth subjects coverage. Please consider continuing with those instead.—Look2See1 (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe it is a fair and proper question Nyttend, when are you going to stop harassing Look2See1 ?
Considering their 100,000 edits, and not the usual high speed little tiny ones used to drive up numbers, but multiple well-considered additions and changes done in single edits, I would say this editor is has more experience catting than, well, anyone I can think of on commons.
You appear to be upset at other people editing what you consider to be 'your' images. I'd remind you that when you upload something to the project, other people are invited to edit them, that is a condition of the licensing of your contributions to the project.
I've added talkpages to a few of the files, to help everyone express an opinion on the matter.
Your reverts of Look2See1 seem intended as harassment, but if you can give any other reason at all for edits as LAME as this I'm all ears and ready to AGF. Penyulap 11:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Please be polite — with examples posted here

Just because something is located near something does not make it part of something (File:EdselFordHouseSide.jpg, File:Irish Hills Towers.JPG, File:Estivant Pines.JPG ‎, File:Black creek.jpg, etc.) Just because somewhere is a National Historical Park partner it isn't really correct to say it is located in a park (File:US41 –FannyHooeCreekBridgeSide.jpg, etc.). Nor should a 20-mile long river be labeled "located in a national park" just because one privately-owned museum is located near it (File:Ontonagon River Ontonagon Michigan.jpg, Category:Salmon Trout River (Houghton County, Michigan)). And why would one you put the category on one picture in one case and one category in the other? Rmhermen (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Rmherman, please Assume Good Faith, the presumptive tone of your text is not helpful to understand your concerns. The comments here vs. actual images/edits are mostly unclear. The Edsel Ford House, being in Metro Detroit, was not a problem? Try again—Look2See1 (talk) 10:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
The fact that you cannot distinguish between them or don't simply care is the problem. Near is not in, Metro is not city, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Rmhermen, "Metro" is synonymous with "City", something a lot of people know, but some don't. I've popped it back in there and started a discussion about it here. Don't put it back until after you explain yourself on the talkpage, and please be polite, people will listen that way. Penyulap 13:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Rmhermen: note — speculative and ignorant comments such as "cannot distinguish between them or don't simply care is the problem" are not appropriate here, and make you appear ill mannered and silly. "The fact" is my backround includes a degree in Urban Planning, which gives space for intelligent discussions to consensus. Please do not try again here, until refocused and able to assume good faith. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Parks vs Gardens

—(note: regarding new Category:Gardens in Saint Petersburg and existing Category:Parks in Saint Petersburg.)

I don't understand your criteria of distinction between "Park" and "Garden". Please explain it. In Russia, "garden" word (by apply for public open-spaces) used as part of historical names, no typological characteristics. In fact, a "garden" is sometimes referred to as the small size of the city's parks, as well as former private gardens, which became the public parks. Typologically, now, "garden" refers only private or commercial gardens where they grow fruit plants.

Many historical parks, designed as "landscape english gardens" - was named as "parks". You are include all Parks in Peterhof into Category:Gardens in Saint Petersburg. But two parks, named Upper Gardens of Peterhof‎ and Lower Gardens of Peterhof‎ - is "French formal garden", also attributable to the "parks"; with "Gardens" as part of historical name, no type of space and/or kind of design.--Kaganer (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • In English, a garden is any more or less deliberate arrangement of plants, typically small plants (e.g. not predominantly large trees). It can include a formal garden in the French style, the landscaping around an apartment building or private home, a small plot of vegetables, or a portion of a public park (occasionally even an entire, small public park, or a very deliberately landscaped larger park). It can also be stretched a bit to cover some other things (e.g. a Zen Garden may contain only sand and stones, no plants). - Jmabel ! talk 14:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi Kaganer, It seems something was lost in the translation from Russian to English usage of the words. Please see the differences in the Category:Gardens and Category:Parks (or Category:Gardens by city and Category:Parks by city), which are used wiki—worldwide in all the other garden/park category geographic subdivisions I've come across to date. Also, usually 'gardens in xyz' categories are under the parent 'parks in xyz' categories.
In my editing experience Saint Petersburg is the only location that seems to use the English terms interchangeably. Moscow garden/park categories do not. Since there are internationally renowned Imperial era gardens and landscape garden parks in the Saint Petersburg region, my intent was to allow them to be found by the average wikimedia user. This was especially due to many of the city's parks' categories being named 'Xyz Garden,' while being far stronger in recreational use than placemaking and aesthetics.
I hope this helps. If it needs a different solution please ask. Thanks—Look2See1 (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Please don't use decorative wiki-markup!

Please don't use decorative wiki-markup, as there! If needed additional space between parts of category description, should be improved related templates and/or CSS-styles. --Kaganer (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kaganer, I was not being decorative, the intent was alleviating difficult legibility, that occurs when a lede is tightly under a heritage banner—box (of various countries). I'm sorry to be absolutely ignorant about how to "improve related templates and/or CSS-styles," as those are the best remedies.
My computer screen size is compact, which may cause others with wonderful large desktop screens to ponder my graphic clarity—readability efforts. Thank you for assuming good faith.—Look2See1 (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Nyttend Look2See1 Edit Wars

Hi, Look2See1 (talk · contribs) and Nyttend (talk · contribs). I've noticed you two have been repeatedly reverting each other on numerous image pages (one example of many). I don't consider myself a novice about Wikipedia categories, but I'm not sure what the disagreement is about. I have no particular opinion about who is more correct, but I am getting increasingly annoyed at seeing so many counter edits back and forth on my watchlist. Let me suggest that you please take your disagreement to a forum here where other Commons regulars can comment, or submit the matter to third party arbitration. I think both of you are well capable of making better contributions to Commons than spending your time reverting each other. Thanks for your attention. (Same notice put on talk pages of both users.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Infrogmation. It is very annoying for me also, and often feels like I'm being cyberbullied by Nyttend. I'm sorry that I do not know how to followthrough on either of your good ideas. If you or another administrator could help me learn how, and which route is more peaceable (arbitration?), it would be very appreciated. Thank you for your attention to the matter—Look2See1 (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The ongoing harassment campaign against you

Hello Look2See1, I have mentioned the behaviour of Nyttend which is concerning many of us. If you care to, you could comment at AN/U Ongoing harassment and poor behaviour by Nyttend however, you don't need to do anything. Penyulap 01:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

  • My response on Administrators' noticeboard — "Ongoing harassment and poor behaviour by Nyttend" section — pasted in here.
  • Thank you administrators for reviewing this matter here. I have tried to answer Nyttend’s concerns and examples posted on my Look2See1 talk page. Nyttend has never chosen to respond to my responses there (here), in a good faith discussion or otherwise. Please see my responses to Nyttend’s postings on my talk page (Look2See1), under the headings of:
1. Due notice (my response: 23 Jan. 2013)
2. You have been blocked for a duration of 3 days (my response: 11 Feb. 2013)
3. Yet another warning - & for no reason ? (my response: 11 Feb 2013)
4. Once again — illogical Ny (my ‘too sharp’ response: 15 May 2013)
I do make mistakes of course, but Nyttend’s total reverts of an edit wiping out: my more focused categories (opposite of overcat); added ‘fact-based’ categories (non-subjective); and en + other wikipedia links — are ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’ and a disservice to Wikimedia users. However, predominantly when Nyttend does all this I’ve made no objective mistakes, and a compulsive harassment and destructiveness seems at play. In my understanding that is: information vandalism; non-consensus sovereign exceptionality; and illogical, reflexive, temper motivated acting out. In my opinion this is cyberbullying.
Nyttend does revert in ‘"multiple blocks"'’ of my edits with the same time indicated, such as nine done on June 4, 2013 at 22:50 (and on 8 May 2013 — 200 in 5 minutes: 27 @ 22:44; 44 @ 22:45; 38 @22:46; 52 @ 22:47; 39 @ 22:48; 6 more by 22:50). Can Nyttend be looking at each image, and making rational decisions? Seeing my name seems to be enough for impulsive destruction. Since I do not value unreviewed reverts, it takes much time to check all of Nyttend’s and restore revertsinformation — sometimes repeatedly per image.
From a Jimmy Wales interview: courage to risk making mistakes and then learn is encouraged in the wiki projects to broaden the diversity of editors. I may be on the editors’ bell curve fringe, but do value ongoing learning so my efforts to assist Wikimedia become ever more accurate. Sometimes I’ve been slow, however patient editors logically explaining ‘why’ does work. If there is anything to learn from Nyttend now, amidst the abuse, I’m missing it. Snarky edit summary depreciations are not teachable moments. Nyttend's initiated 3 day block feels like an insider power trip was executed, I do not understand.
I just do not have ‘edit warring’ in me — my intentions, values, and life experiences preclude that. Also, I am not a doormat for Nyttend’s cyberbullying. I’m asking for administrative assistance and/or arbitration on this ongoing matter please. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Paste in from Administrators' noticeboard.
  • Administrators, please note vandalism and illogical destructiveness of Nyttend in [37]. clearly a 'no look edit' as Nyttend reverted image back to {Uncategorized|year=2013|month=March|day=27}. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Paste in from Administrators' noticeboard.
  • Please note: This is the only example I have seen of Nyttend doing a ‘no look edit’ and then reverting that mistake, alas with an inappropriate edit note. This regards File:Cannelton Cotton Mill 570906cr.jpg. The 1st edit was destructive vandalism, removing Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of Indiana (no edit notes on why), and while the 2nd edit restored the category, accompaniment was the ignorant, insulting, and self-aggrandizing edit note saying “That's the first productive change I've ever seen from this editor” — Really ? — 1st after 100K edits, really?
This new HABS category for Indiana is the 35th state that I have created and populated under Category:Historic American Buildings Survey images by state (that I also created and recreated). It averages out to ~3 dozen images per state (~1,260 total). Nyttend uploads most of the wonderful HABS images, so is likely well aware of this. Therefore, the edit note saying “the first productive change I've ever seen from this editor” is absurd, stupid, and of unacceptably abusive intent.
There are also the many 1,000s of {uncategorized template} images (eg: British geography, NARA) I’ve non-controversially remedied that utterly ridicule the edit note. Though, if Nyttend’s seeing only ‘Look2See1’ is enough to prompt auto-revert compulsiveness, perhaps this really is the “first productive change” Nyttend has actually seen.
Perhaps a 3 day or longer edit block would get Nyttend’s attention to stop nonconstructive edit notes and derisive cyber-bullying, and to consider trying group mindedness for Wikimedia’s benefit ? This senseless and disgusting harassment needs to be stopped please. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your header edits at "Category:Logging in Humboldt County, California"; they were most helpful and I really like how the page looks when you have done with it. Best wishes and thank you for a lovely edit; please feel encouraged to fix all the Humboldt County, California categories like this, I didn't know how to get the pretty headers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome Ellin Beltz, and thanks so much for noticing and posting your comment. Will check other Humboldt County categories' ledes, in appreciation for wonderful vacations spent there over the decades. Best to you—Look2See1 (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrong architects

Your lede at Category:Perelman Building, Philadelphia Museum of Art listed the wrong architects. Horace Trumbauer and Julian Abele (with others) designed the Philadelphia Museum of Art, but the Perelman Building is across the street from the museum and wasn't bought by PMA until about 2000. It opened as a museum annex in 2005. The page is now accurate.
-- BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying architectural provence BoringHistoryGuy. I appreciate your detailed knowledge and explanation, anything but boring—Look2See1 (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Horseriding cats

Hi colleague. Safely argued Category:Equestrian trails and Category:Bridleways are both "lower" in scope & meaning than Category:Horse riding paths - the latter being the very more general (i.e roofing any other category of equestrian ways); Bridleways in the UK must thus be a subcat for Horse riding paths in the UK Equestrian trails in the UK. I hope you agree. Cheerz, Orrlingtalk 12:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

..Further looking, given that Bridleways is a virtually exclusive term to the UK use, "Bridleways in the United Kingdom" is actually redundant... - If you however think a "bridleway" exists in other anglo countries then plz set back the discarded category, not that I believe this is the fact. Orrlingtalk 12:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Orrling, Thanks for clarifying, seemed like too many cat. synonyms sans a parent cat. — that en:wikipedia did not help with. Most familiar with "horse trail" predominanting in Western U.S. vernacular, with "equestrian trail" favored at ranch resorts and country clubs. Mistakenly thought bridleway was the most international term, but see it's only for where the sun never sets.... Best—Look2See1 (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Hehe, I thought this was a category of Circus animals, trained cats that ride horses. :) Penyulap 00:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

COM:AN/U (regarding Nyttend again)

বাংলা | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Македонски | മലയാളം | Português | Русский | Svenska | +/−

float  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record now (2 months later) — if curious, please see discussion entries under The ongoing harassment campaign against you heading below, and its own AN/U link regarding Nyttend with more discussion. This block effort appears to have been part of an ongoing cyber-bullying agenda by Nyttend towards me.
Nyttend morphed "Look2See1" in the edit arena into a red cape, and their horns ran amuck reverting edits draped with it, committing illogical information vandalism (on ledes, en_int_links, &/or cats), often in massive units of reverts (e.g.: 25/per second; 200/per 4 minutes). Nyttend, unless the bionic-speed reader of our team, was apparently not reviewing my edits individually, just hyper auto-reacting. That behavior begs for a block, of ice over time, to chill out.—Look2See1 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Bullet points

Greetings. I see you've been improving categorization for images -- I do this to, and thank you. But I was wondering, why do you insert a bullet point before the description in edits like this one? It doesn't bother me, I'm just curious.

All the best, – Quadell (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Quadell, thank you also for your categorization improvements efforts, and am glad to know it's important to you also. On your bullet point question, please first see Difference between revisions of "File:Polar bear taxidermied.jpg", and compare image's two description graphics on 'older' & 'current' views. There has been talk of prose being the description model in Wikimedia, but in the older version it is very difficult to even find the prose.
Usually I will do {en|1=abc, xyz.} to spotlight what the image is about for an "average viewer" (non-wikian speakers). It had been a long edit session by time reaching this research center's series, so did expedited bullets instead of {en|1=abc}. These wildlife taxidermy images seemed especially a draw for young Wikimedia users, and bullet effort was to quickly move the info to forefront findability for them. Hope that helps show this was not an idiosyncratic graphics impulse, but a group minded interim step. What do you think please?
Thanks so much—Look2See1 (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I think your version is a clear improvement, since it makes it easier to see the description on the page. However, when I think of it, I like to use the "Add {{Information}}" link in the toolbox section to add a full Information template. (Here is an example of what that link does. If this link isn't enabled for you, you can turn it on by going to Preferences, clicking the Gadgets tab, scroll down to the "Maintenance tools" section, and checking the "Add {{Information}}" checkbox. It's a very cool tool.)
The only downside to adding the bullet point is that if someone does use the "Add {{Information}}" feature, it makes this change, where the bullet point is no longer needed. But that's really a very minor issue.
Anyway, thanks again for your help at the Commons! – Quadell (talk) 12:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Look2See1..

I was wondering if you have thought of archiving your talkpage, if you have, I am happy to set it up for you. The only thing to think of is how old things should be before they are put away and how many conversations as a minimum to keep on the talkpage so it doesn't (or does) look empty. On the other hand, archiving is over-rated. :) Penyulap 21:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Penyulap — Yes, just today when going to write the response just above, after a 5 min... scroll down to it, the auto archive thought came to mind (yet again). And then came thought (yet again) of asking you if you had time to help me learn the set up process. So you are a mind reader too Penyulap, never underestimate. My en.Wikipedia talkpage was set up for auto-archive, with the help of a very patient admin. (online from the UK), some years ago. It works just fine, just leaves the Barnstars and positive/supportive conversations. Another question, how does one do 'private email' that you mentioned when the cyber-abuse flack was flying?
Since today honors 'my people' telling 'your people' "we are dropping our membership your Colony Club, y'all will have to make do with Canada for your empire needs on this side of the Pond." (translation, it's July 4th, Independence Day) — would like to set it up another day, when convenient for you. Thank you so much for asking, and for giving that 'orange new message band' some good energy ! —Look2See1 (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I do that mind-reading thing a lot, it is cool eh :) I like the orange band too. The page will automagically archive in the next few days, and this will be your archive, we can fine-tune it later. Your email is enabled by the look of it, and so is mine. To check your email address is correct, you go to Preferences at the top of the page or just click here instead. Check down the page that the email address is ok and you're done. To send me an email, click here. You'll also see a 'Email this user' link at the left of anyone's userpages in the 'Toolbox' if they have email enabled. Penyulap 00:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Penyulap, its automagical qualities will be cool. Recall with that I did copy/paste/<:no-wiki> for supportive or humorous chat, and the occasional Barnstar, to not have it sucked away from pg. one's easy visibility. Is it a similar technique for ? Appreciate your pasting in the code, magic spell, or whatever that all is called.—Look2See1 (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, I already added code to keep select sections above. Once the robot clears your page, you'll see by what is left that sections with the code, and sections without a time-stamp are kept. Penyulap 10:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edits...

...of my category descriptions are atrocious. Please stop. You want to fix cats, that's fine, but stop screwing with the ledes, because you;re making them worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, your entry here is atrocious, and unwelcome as vague slander. Please stop. I'm not being provocative — your comment as posted is useless. This talk page is not for other editors' temper outbursts — so just stop it, calm down, and come back when able to be respectfully collaborative.
If I've done something in a lede that's lost the intent of your image, I would like to learn what the mistake is. If I am "making them worse," they must have already been awaiting improvement, so at least my intention was spot on. Coming upon your uploads, over the years now, is always a pleasure, so there is certainly no intention to anger you. Please help clarify your concern. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know any other way to tell you this but that your changes to the ledes that I wrote are very, very bad. As written, they were coherent English paragraphs which conveyed information in coherent English sentences. You converted these into a series of bullet points which are not as comprehensible as what I originally wrote. Please don't do this again. I'm sure that you are a valuable editor here on Wikimedia Commons, but this is not one of your strong points. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Something you may not be aware of Look2See1, is that it is perfectly acceptable to remove comments from your talkpage. This is especially common where the comment is rude and contains no useful information. This has the twofold benefit of not encouraging nasty commenters creating drama, and helping editors to actually provide links and an explanation of what it is that they want. Penyulap 10:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Something else you may not be aware of is that the Commons as a Wikimedia Project has a lot of growing up to do, as evidenced by the sort of unserious person they give the mop to here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please avoid over-categorization — City Hall + City Name

In this edit, you introduced multiple levels of over-categorization. Firstly, Protected buildings in Kungsholmen is a subcategory of Buildings in Stockholm. There are no protected buildings in the Stockholm district of Kungsholmen which are not also buildings in Stockholm. Secondly, Buildings in Stockholm is a subcategory of Architecture in Stockholm (and consequently, so is Protected buildings in Kungsholmen). Please read Commons:Categories#Over-categorization before attempting to do any additional categorization work. LX (talk, contribs) 11:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi LX — I disagree, only a Swede and very informed foreigners would know Kungsholmen has any relationship to Stockholm or even is a place name. The Stockholm City Hall is too important as a Stockholm government seat, civic landmark building, and a significant architectural example to be only hidden within 'protected Kungsholmen.' I now understand using Buildings in Stockholm and Architecture in Stockholm is overcat. However, using one of them is not, as the Stockholm City Hall deserves to be findable by most of the world's Wikimedia users in a category containing the word Stockholm. If you are an expert on the nation's capitol city, please chose one and restore it. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
That's not how it works, Look2See1. We don't ignore COM:OVERCAT because of subjective opinions as to what buildings (or other subjects, for that matter) are significant and need to be more "findable". If you find the city hall is buried in Category:Protected buildings in Kungsholmen, then the problem is that Category:Buildings in Stockholm is missing appropriate subcategories (the solution is not to engage in overcategorization). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Overcat is not a policy page, it is a help page. A great many people feel that overcatting is placing images where they are hardest to find, so to avoid overcatting is to do precisely what Look2See1 has done. I quite agree with the reasoning. Entirely. Look2See1's idea makes perfect sense. Still, Look2See1 and I are only two people, you can make a talkpage discussion about it and ask more people for their opinion, though, they may very well agree with Look2See1 as well. Penyulap 21:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Here we go, the knee jerk, nonsensical response from Penyulap, which is actually not helping Look2See1. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well you can go look for yourself if you can't understand me. Policy pages have a box at the top with words to the effect of 'this is policy' and guidelines have a similar box with words to the effect of 'this is a guideline'. COMMONS:OVERCAT has never even been considered as a guideline let alone policy. It's left to common-census :) Have a look if you don't believe me.
Look2See1 has already been convinced that using Buildings in Stockholm and Architecture in Stockholm is problematic and agrees with LX, so what's the problem ? Penyulap 13:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
And how far do you take that principle? I've met a lot of people who don't know what country Stockholm is in. They usually know it's in Europe, so do we put it in Category:Buildings in Europe as well? Why not just Category:Buildings directly? That way it's really easy to find... right up until the point when we apply that principle to all supposedly important and significant buildings in the world. Oh, but it's just one important building overcategorized just a little, you might say. And then someone goes ahead and adds the Royal Palace, Riksdagen, Globen, Kungliga Dramatiska Teatern, Kungliga Operan, Storkyrkan, Hötorgsskraporna, Konserthuset, the Central Station and Kaknästornet. And from there, there are several dozen more that are about as significant. Then who decides what does and what does not get copied to parent categories? How far up the hierarchy should stuff be copied? To how many intermediate levels? And by which criteria? LX (talk, contribs) 20:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Those are questions I've often asked myself, as I have seen comments by editors on both sides of the discussion, where some people think everything has to be hidden in the most obscure categories possible, and others go for an easier to use approach. Fascinating questions indeed. Look2See1 no more has the answers than you or I do LX, I would think that the VP would be a great place to spread the discussion across to, so that any agreement that can be reached here on this page could be applied somewhere in some meaningful way. At the moment, there is no guideline or policy, there is only commonsense. I can't see how fishing for different points of view as a prelude to dramaz is productive, although I'm not saying that is what anyone here is doing. I'm reminded of Real Life, sometimes I come across really funny (not funny comedy wise, but quirky) people who decide they aren't going to like me for some reason they are too pitiful to own up to, so they ask a long list of questions, this is something you may have come across, they'll be like 'where do you work, what do you do, what do you think about this, what do you think about that' but you can tell quite clearly they have no interest at all in the answers, they just want to find something, some particular thing, maybe not even unusual, so they can run off to their friends and say 'Oh, Such and such thinks this, or such and such thinks that, or they work here or they work there, or they like that kind of music'. I often think they should just have the spine and courage to say 'hey, I don't like you and I'm courageous enough to come right out and say so' Not that I'm saying that is what is going on here, I have no idea really. But it gives pause for thought.
Stockholm City Hall is a Building in Stockholm ??
Especially when nobody is giving voice to reasons why the Stockholm City Hall, in the most obvious category of Buildings in Stockholm, is anything akin to a bad idea. Like the idea people will see it and think "Whoa baby, Look at that ! the Stockholm City Hall is a Building in Stockholm ?? what's next ? Wah! just let me get my head together! this is so confusing !" I mean, think about it, could that ever happen ? I can see people not being able to find it when it's hidden away in Kungsholmen, it's like, well, that could happen, but the reverse ? Abandoning the core idea of why categories exist because of a single-minded pursuit of the absolute letter of the help-page which isn't even policy seems, well, meh. Penyulap 04:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
You know very well that OVERCAT is a categorization principle here on the Commons. And you know what the issue is. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/07/Category:Protected buildings in Kungsholmen Penyulap 14:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
That's not the issue either. Look2See1, I am always happy to have adult discussions with you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

There are always many opinions, such as interpretations of Overcat. So my opinion is that it's common sense to have a cat:City Hall + cat:City Name together, and that is not Overcat. To remedy Undercat, I created Category:Government buildings in Stockholm, where Category:Stockholm City Hall can now easily be found. That is how it works. Using Stockholm for this, as I stated on 14 July, is beyond subjective opinions and calmly logical.

I was encouraged by my friend, who among other qualities is the daughter of the founder of Volvo and so very familiar with Stockholm for over 80 years, when she said to me — "Isn't that some visual encyclopedia? Are non-Swedes like you supposed to know all those borough names? They are in Swedish, how very silly. Please just find a way to make that wonderful landmark accessible for those interested in my city. I think they might like it, no?"

Refreshing perspective. So simply done.—Look2See1 (talk) 04:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Having Category:Government buildings in Stockholm is a good and sensible solution. Much more so than pretending that your previous overcategorization was in line with established categorization practices and that it's all really a matter of interpretation and opinion. As I explained above – and that's probably not immediately obvious to someone who has knowledge of the topic but not of categorization – arbitrarily injecting items into to multiple levels of the same category branch to make it easier to find just makes everything harder to find. LX (talk, contribs) 05:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Look2See1, we categorize in accordance with COM:OVERCAT, not one person's subjective and arbitrary views as to what is common sense, logical, helpful or silly. Please pay attention to what LX is saying, as he is expressing it far more succinctly that I am. And how is it that you created Category:Government buildings in Stockholm???? You are also taking credit for the solutions and fixes of other people? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, that looks correct, it seems Look2See1 didn't create the category. Look2See1, you should say you pimped the category rather than claim you created it, which is incorrect as far as I can see. Skeezix1000, when you say "we categorize in accordance with COM:OVERCAT", it is clear that we all do, it's simply people read and interpret that help page differently, same way one church has one set of ideas from their bible, then you go next door to another church and it's completely upside-down even though it's the same bible. While we all work for the same project and all join the same religious procession, we are all different.
Word processing, bird processing, or temps touch tap typing ?
I think there are some who carry a candle for 'helpful' like Look2See1, there are those who carry a torch for the picture on the help-page, there are those who carry the lantern for logic you mention when you say "views as to what is common sense, logical, helpful or silly." Oh, and of course I would be carrying the pickle of sillyness in the category procession, {category:Insect pornography} was my guess for this one, but people changed it to animal sex and then insect sex, personally, I think with the subtitles it would qualify as pornography, but without some awful soundtrack maybe it's hard to tell. Hmmm, maybe I should add a soundtrack and make it a video, it was quite popular at the DR. I don't know what to do with my tireless pigeon, .....and I think people become too exhausted to think about catting after they see this one. I should think category:fool injected double overhead camster powered shop fittings would be correct, but honestly I am a mess when it comes to catting, but I am glad to have friends with more experience in the field, and an ounce of commonsense. You'd be amazed how hard it is to find people who have an ounce of commonsense, you really would. Penyulap 13:47, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
And please stop bringing up what THEO did to this one, I'm still too upset to talk about it. Penyulap 13:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Skeezix, please always assume good faith here, as posting on my talk page is to be done only in accordance with our Wikimedia guideline. Your assuming the opposite regarding my motivations with Category:Government buildings in Stockholm is unacceptable. I just made an average human memory mistake, and couldn't even think to "grab credit" for any other editor's efforts. I apologize to you, who of course did create it, for my misremembering — and would appreciate the same from you for your (12:41, 19 July 2013) mistake above. This goes for the mistake by LX also, imagining "pretending" activity (05:50, 19 July 2013 above) — incorrect and presumptuous mind reading of another editor only reflects self-deluding self importance, and arrogant ignorance. Both of you practiced subjective opinions — while advising me not to —
Human communication 101 = ASK, do not assume/presume. I have now had enough of aggressive impositional quack ESP postings here over the years, and will delete them hereon.
I did create Category:Government buildings in Göteborg; and populated [Category:Government buildings in Stockholm] with already existing but missing nationally significant buildings' subcategories (don't you populate your new cats?). I did the same populating for Category:Government buildings in Sweden, with use type subcategories such as Category:Courthouses in Sweden and Category:Post offices in Sweden. You edited parent cat. [38] just before my sub cat. adds. I do not understand why you didn't you look at it, notice some obvious voids, and do something? Instead of seeking and being so harshly critical of one trivial talk page mistake, please consider spending your time placing missing subcategories in their 'traditional accross-wikimedia' parent categories, so average users can find images this public visual archives contains.
I retain deletion rights for anything posted here that is not attempting accordance with our guideline to always assume good faith. In my replies, I will give my best efforts to assume good faith also.—Look2See1 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Dalarna County, Sweden

Please stop over-categorizing in Dalarna County, Sweden. The counties consists of municipalities, and the pics (I've seen) you have changed are already in the municipality categories, or subcategories to those. V-wolf (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

  • V-wolf, please consider focusing on more important Category:Dalarna County information maintenance. Dalarna County (Sweden) was missing main subcategories, they were still lost in the 'former' Province of Category:Dalarna category (superseded since 1634), and were disregarding the uniform categorization precedent set by editors for the 20 other counties in Category:Categories of Sweden by county. These included the significant Buildings in Dalarna and Category:Maps of Dalarna. While correcting the missing categories, several general 'sense of the county' images were also placed in the parent category, and merely a minimal visual introduction V-wolf.—Look2See1 (talk) 20:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Look2See1, thanks for working to improve these categories. However, please understand that one person's subjective view as to what might be a "minimal visual introduction" is never an exemption from COM:OVERCAT. If the category structure for Dalarna County is insufficient and/or badly developed, then please help fix it by improving the category tree (as you normally do). Overcategorization is not the solution, and will inevitably be reverted. And please accept this as a general comment; I have not reviewed your specific changes to files or cats related to Dalarma, so I am not speaking specifically as to whether there were any overcat issues in this case. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit like using the edit summary, some people like to, some people don't. Things that are not guidelines are opt in or opt out at our leisure. You could always get it upgraded to a guideline though. I, myself raised the issue at the village dump and by the looks of it, it wouldn't be hard to come up with yet another idiotic policy, something to follow overwrite. Actually, they'd match. Over cat and Over write. Looking at that village pump discussion, I think it would be quite a hit at VPP. I didn't bother taking it there myself, as I can clearly see, and, as a person who actually searches for images on commons on a regular basis, I know full well that over-catting is a problem. Over-catting as in hiding images in overly specific categories so that nobody can find the damn things. That's why about 80% of my searches, and almost all of the highest-speed searches are done using external engines. Because if you want a picture of stockholm town hall, you sure as hell won't find it using commons categories, that's for sure. Waste of time. Pointless. When you want a smiley, like the one with a tongue poking out, or any common smilie, you won't find it in that category. You'd just find a selection of hideous nondescript smilies. The actual ones you actually want in a hurry are several clicks away, so it's better to use a different engine if you don't have all day, or want a town hall picture. Penyulap 20:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Penyulap, my message was for Look2See1. I am no longer even bothering to read your messages here. You are not doing Look2See1 any favours by harassing everyone on his talk page. Skeezix1000 (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You are reading my messages, you're reading this message right now, I can tell. You just won't admit it later is all. I apologize if it appears that I am 'harassing' people who are here to 'harass' a long time outrageously valuable contributor, that's not my intention. I would SINCERELY like to assist you and anyone else who thinks that Overcat is policy to make it policy. I may not agree with it, but I would bloody well like to see it as policy if that is what the majority wants. Then we can all comply with the new idiotic regime, including Look2See1. I would be back here along with you demanding that Look2See1 acts the fool along with the rest of us the day it becomes policy. I'm certain that he would, and not just because he lives in mortal fear of my disapproving look -> -(o)-(o)- but because Look2See1 respects policy above commonsense. (you're still reading and you said you wouldn't. Quit it !! )
My objective is to take the 'frustration' you feel and turn it into something constructive, and I'm willing to genuinely assist you to do that. You'll never actually know if 'everyone' agrees with you until you ask them. This talkpage is no place to ask everyone. If Look2See1 took the 'hide everything in ridiculously over-specific category' approach, then with a GAZILLION contributions, we would see everyone from the commonsense side of the debate in a pile-up on this talkpage.
The opposition here is not a reflection of Look2See1 being out of harmony with the community, it is a reflection of the amount of editing they do. If they reversed their school of thought on overcatting, then the amount of complaints may well triple. People who do an enormous amount of editing get more complaints than people like me who only edit out of spite :D (someone quoted me on that once, then the joke became real funny). To accurately gauge what the community consensus on a school of thought is, we use the village dump. I mean pump, the village pump. That way it is not 100% filtered to the opposite school of thought of a single editor, like a user talkpage is.
So all I'm saying is just ask everyone in the proper venue, because without that 'this is policy' written across the top of that help page, it's not community wide opinion. It's just a guess. (and by the way, although it shits you to tears, thank you for reading this all the way through. I appreciate it, even if you're not going to admit that you did, I appreciate it just the same. Because like, I talk a lot, I really do, I know it's hard to believe but I do, no, it's true.) Penyulap 03:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
My fixing important Category:Dalarna County subcategorization problems, that formerly disregarded the uniform categorization precedent set by editors for the 20 other counties in Category:Categories of Sweden by county, is the major effort that really counts here. The minor effort was just ~six images of Dalarna County as place intro on parent cat. page, remove them if consensus decides they are ruining Wikimedia. Do make sure one of their categories is under [Category:Dalarna County 'sub cat. specifier'], not just Category:Dalarna, as that carelessness will ruin Wikimedia's usefulness.
I am comfortable with my talk page used as a proxy forum by others, as I can learn from it. Assuming good faith, editors know it is not a substitute for image/category talk pages, Village Pump, and other WM community discussion venues.—Look2See1 (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You didn't ruin anything. As numerous editors have asked you to do over time, just conform to COM:OVERCAT. Edits that do not conform will be reverted.

I have no issue with discussions involving multiple editors on talk pages - I do it all the time. That's not the problem with Penyulap. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know the difference between a help page and a policy page, go figure. Penyulap 17:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Because this is an unusually short response, I actually read it. Thank you for that - it makes it much easier for others. In any event, I responded to that point weeks ago. OVERCAT is a categorization principle on Commons. The fact that it is also on a help page is irrelevant. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
you fail to understand that if it is not policy, people DO NOT HAVE TO CARE. Penyulap 19:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If you think that's true, then you do not know much about Wikimedia Commons. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
and you read my last long response, I know you did :P Penyulap 19:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
No, I did not. And I am done with this discussion too. Always happy to chat with Look2See1, though.Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
And, Penyulap, just because I have not found your input here very helpful, I am always happy to discuss Commons generally on our respective talk pages whenever you are interested.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fountains in Guatemala

I saw you added Category:Parks in Guatemala to Category:Fountains in Guatemala. I don't believe fountain categories should be in park categories as not all fountains are in parks as shown in File:Biosand Filters in Guatemala.JPG. Fountains can be stand alone in front of hotels or even in plazas or squares which aren't always considered parks. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please avoid over-categorization

In this edit, you introduced over-categorization by placing Art of Sweden into Sweden. Art of Sweden was already a subcategory of Culture of Sweden, in accordance with Commons:Category scheme countries and subdivisions and in line with Art being a subcategory of Culture. Culture of Sweden is a subcategory of Sweden (again, in line with Commons:Category scheme countries and subdivisions), so placing its subcategory Art of Sweden there as well constitutes over-categorization. Please read Commons:Categories#Over-categorization before attempting to do any additional categorization work. LX (talk, contribs) 13:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

COM:OVERCAT and sign categories of California

Look2See1: I know you're now an experienced editor at Commons. I also know that numerous editors have discussed overcategorization with you over the years. And yet, here we are, with you reverting my edits to Category:Park signs in California and Category:Trail signs in California.

Category:Park signs in California is a child of Category:Beach and park signs in California, which is a child of Category:Signs in California. Makes sense so far.

COM:OVERCAT tells us that a gallery or category cannot belong to both a category and its ancestor. Before I edited them, Category:Trail signs in California belonged to both Category:Park signs in California and Category:Signs in California. One of them has to be dropped.

Similarly, Category:Park signs in California belonged to both Category:Beach and park signs in California and Category:Signs in California. One of them should be dropped.

Do you have a preference for which one should be dropped?

— hike395 (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've asked you before, and I'll ask you one more time...

please do not re-write my category descriptions. I research them thoroughly and format them the way I want them to be. You can change and add categories, of course, you can add to the description if you have additional information that I've overlooped, but please do not change my formatting into the format that you prefer, which, frankly, I think is very poor. If you continue this, I'll be foreced to bring your behavior to the attention of the larger community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Beyond My Ken, my understanding, from administrators, is that no one has "my category descriptions" as this is a group project. Furthermore I have no idea which ones you misclaim as sovereign to yourself. Lastly, my edit that prompted your posting here is not identified. The last two points mean I am bound to innocently and inadvertantly "continue this" misclaim jumping — and arouse your threats of "foreced" actions. Your all inclusive vagueness of some "my unarticulated way — or else badness" is absurd and cyberbullying
Since you share your subjective opinions, mine include thinking your attitude and attention to communication clarity is very poor. You seem to assume others can read your mind, or should. Nope. So, no valid point, no example, nothing learned.
If you have a specific calmly expressed example, that is something that can work towards mutual progress.—Look2See1 (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
A man who brags about having learned nothing from a warning is a man who's heading into the abyss. That's your choice, I don't care to pretend to be interested in your education. If you want to continue to waste your energy re-writing my category text, go ahead, I'll just be reverting it, since my writing is superior to yours. If, however, you want to be smart, just adjust categories, if necessary, and leave my text alone, since its always based on research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Mark of wisdom to not attempt the impossible of learning from cognitavely empty 'warning' void/threat. The abyss of vague comments and psuedo-superior writer's bragging, that avoids the point of actually helping another/this editor, is not my domaine. That's your world, own it.
The "leave my text alone" sounds obscenely possesive in our Commons context, even self aggrandizing. No talk, discussion, or even clue — hmm. Please do not project your personality, motivations, and angst upon another/this editor, it's not smart and wastes energy of all involved. Please try anew.—Look2See1 (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what are you guys "fighting about" but I have to give a smiley face :-) to this "dialogue". Peace. --Codrin.B (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Category:Willard Memorial Chapel and Category:Flatbush Reformed Dutch Church Complex, please see the guidance of Commons:Categories#Creating_a_new_category and Commons:Galleries item 3. The first link suggests adding a "short description text that explains what should be in the category, if the title is not clear or unambiguous enough on its own." Unnecessary information may be distracting and unhelpful to our users who are looking for an illustration. Also, (unnecessary) work may be needed to keep that information accurate. It may engender arguments, as in this instance, regarding how the description should be written, whereas, a short description may not. However, Interlanguage links make it easy for our users to navigate to Wikipedia articles in their own language (when available) and are strongly encouraged (Galleries, item 5). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Downtown Rhinebeck, NY.jpg

Please Look2See what you broke there. ;-) --Leyo 09:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing straight-forward plain text descriptions into this weird format with bullet points? It's hard to read, it's ugly, and it's totally unnecessary. Please stop, you're not improving things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ken. Look2See1, this has been raised numerous times now. It is unclear why you are breaking apart simple English-language sentences and paragraphs with unnecessary and unusual punctuation and formatting. Nobody is questioning the good work that you do here, but issues such as this remain problematic. Cheers. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Look2See1, we are awaiting your reply. --Leyo 10:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

MetaCat along with categories

You've been requested to keep the MetaCat-tag in the categories where you edit in its correct placement at the head of and adjacent to the categories. Thank you in advance for not breaking that old consistency and clinging to the sense in it. :) Orrlingtalk 10:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Reverting with poor edit explanations

Look2See1: you've reverted some of my edits with what I think are incomplete (and somewhat misleading) edit summaries. For example, at File:Kaweah River.jpg, you reverted my edits, saying you wanted direct media links. But, my version linked to a gallery instead of category, both of which contain media.

Further, my version removed extra formatting in the description field (dashes, bold) that several other editors have complained to you about.

I am happy to discuss (although I am travelling, so may be slow to respond). — hike395 (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hike395, with the File:Kaweah River.jpg image and others, a "direct media link" keeps users within the wikimedia project, not diverting/crossing over to en.wikipedia. The en.wikipedia link would be on the cat. itself for those seeking text info (in any language avail.). In en.wikipedia, the {commonscat} template is under 'External links,' and so using that same 'external' crossover criteria, I used [:Category:Sierra Nevada (United States)|Sierra Nevada] instead of [w:Sierra Nevada (U.S.)|Sierra Nevada] to not emigrate to a sister project.
I personally appreciate this "within" link on images where the only description is not in english, especially when of "non-Western" script, and it links to a comprehendible images category. With the Kaweah River.jpg, the same is true for non-english readers.
On gallery or category options, the plethora of galleries that are linked to via en.wikipedia or (in my experiences only) are several images without context, while the cat. has far more images, with cats. context below and often a lede atop. I sincerely expect any galleries that you have contributed to are worthwhile, and will check first hereon.
I hope this helps. Thank you, Look2See1 (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Like you, I prefer to keep links to other Commons pages if available (see, e.g., my last edits to Stratovolcano). But, the issue here is whether to link to a gallery or a category. Take a look at Sierra Nevada, USA: unlike a category, all of the photographs have sensible captions, the photographs are arranged into user-friendly sections, and now there is a Flickr-like interface which shows photos at much higher resolution without taking up dramatically more space. I think users would prefer to first see such a gallery, with the option of moving to Category:Sierra Nevada (United States) (which sadly cannot contain all Sierra Nevada photographs, due to the over-categorization guideline). I'll revert File:Kaweah River.jpg to point back to the gallery. — hike395 (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright tag removal

I assume part of this edit was a mistake. You forgot to add a set of closing curly brackets to the description so breaking the information template and thereby hiding the copyright tag from the image I found in Category:Media without a license: needs history check today. Please be more careful when editing such image details because it could well have been deleted for lack of a licence except that I reviewed the history and found the problem. Using the preview option usually avoids such errors. I've fixed it. Ww2censor (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for my mistake, Look2See1 (talk) 22:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

English category descriptions

Hi. I see you changed the English description for Category:Tokyo Station, but unfortunately it did not read at all naturally ("The Tokyo Station"?), and did not appear to be an improvement. If, as it appears, English is not your first language, unless you are able to fix any obvious mistakes, I would suggest sticking to editing in your native language in future. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi DAJF, alas English is my language, but using it for Japanese place names is not. Thank you for correcting it. Look2See1 (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Please avoid over-categorization

In this edit, you introduced over-categorization by placing Buildings in Guadalajara into Guadalajara. Buildings in Guadalajara was already a subcategory of Architecture of Guadalajara, in line with Buildings being a subcategory of Architecture (via Structures). Architecture of Guadalajara is a subcategory of Guadalajara, so placing its subcategory Buildings in Guadalajara there as well constitutes over-categorization. Please read and understand Commons:Categories#Over-categorization before attempting to do any additional categorization work. LX (talk, contribs) 07:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Look2See1, it is exhausting having to go behind you correcting your edits. You have been asked countless times by numerous editors to be more careful. Please take LX's comments seriously. Thank you. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Numerous ? if they were so numerous why is there NO SUPPORT for making Overcat a policy ? huh ? Commonsense still reigns, and until the people who complain against commonsense goto the appropriate venue, the village pump / policy, and make a proposal to change overcat TO a policy, then these supposedly 'numerous' (but not numerous enough to make a simple consensus) editors can keep making pointless suggestions about NON-POLICY pages which can only be labelled as harassment. VILLAGE PUMP POLICY BOARD. Read my lips, that's what its for. Meh, wasting my breath. Penyulap 13:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Look2See1, please do not be misled by suggestions that the principles of Commons:Categories#Over-categorization is somehow controversial or lacking in support from the established community of editors working on categorization of content on Commons simply because it appears as part of a help page (which is admittedly too bloated to be used as policy) rather than one marked as policy. Established practices on Commons are much less formally codified and documented than on other projects, but the idea that categories like Buildings in Guadalajara belong simultaneously in Architecture of Guadalajara and its parent category Guadalajara is absolutely a minority position. LX (talk, contribs) 15:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

news for you LX, the proposal of making it a policy was taken to the larger community and it went down in flames. No support is what it has. The mob spoke. But hey, why not ask them again, will the sky fall and the ground crack open and swallow you if you make a proposal rather than saying 'oh but everyone knows this and that' as if it is meant to sound mature ? what are you so scared of ? it's just a simple section on the proposals board, they won't tar and feather you. Penyulap 16:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

LX, ignore the troll (Penyulap). It's not worth engaging with him. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't talking to them. I just don't want Look2See1 to get the wrong idea just because they've got the misfortune of having a talk page stalker with contrarian agitation as their hobby. Cheers, LX (talk, contribs) 17:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Far out, talk about sore when it comes to not having a consensus/policy. I feel sorry for you guys I really do, hey, as a charity I'll give you my vote to help you get it over that policy hill, how about that, do you have the b***s to make a proposal now ? I'll help, I promise. Penyulap 17:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose

Please explain why this edit changing the pipetrick for numerous categories was made. Thanks, answer here. // FrankB 19:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Fabartus, 3 versions of similar image, this one out of focus, so sorting after others in cats. If you disagree please just revert. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

category help

Hi Look2See1 ! how are you ? I was thinking of you and trying to make proper categories for this pic. I thought 'what would Look2See1 do?' and then umm umm, I tried to think what would I say if I knew what I was doing here. I think it worked out reasonably well. I should keep it up shouldn't I ? Penyulap 06:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

well, I may be no good at all at making categories, that's true, so many of my categories fall into 'uncategorized' category, and I didn't even put them there. I think it's because I put my effort into humor rather than categories. I don't know that it works any better. hmm. I should go and draw something, it's fun. I hope you are well. Penyulap 03:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Penyulap, how about Category:Welcome signs and Category:Teeth in art to start with? So many others come to mind, e.g. Sharks as weapons, International turn around signs, Reconsideration symbols, and Sincerely insincere word-image montages. But maybe that would be drifting into being too catty…. I mean overcatting.
Meanwhile, would like to borrow Sharky to get "proxy space" from administrators' bldg. overcat disagreements amongst themselves. Some admins say [Cat:Buildings in a place] belongs under [Cat:Arch. of a place] + [Cat:Place], while others certainly do not. Instead of perpetually criticizing me here as their proxy, they should figure it out themselves first, and write an absolutely "crystal clear" consensus policy.
Since in U.S. less than 15% of buildings involve an architect (alas, visually too true….) and probably similar > far lower % range for most of world's bldgs, and also [Cat:Buildings in places] is one of the most "subcatted" categories exceptionally full of images — hiding them from simple access seems technically incorrect (no architect), seriously not serving general global users, and somewhat elitist and design cognoscenti exclusive.
Anyway, do sharks growl when they smile like that? Delightful image + caption! Take care—Look2See1 (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Done ! added the first two categories, and Category:Seemingly sincerely insincere word-image montage scenes which are certainly sincere because I sketch a substantial selection of scenes similar to this specimen and it will save several seconds soon.
When I thought of sharkie, I was thinking of Bruce !!!! who I can't really picture growling, he's very nice really, just a little misunderstood. I think you may not be familiar with Bruce, Dory, Nigel and Nemo. It's imperative that you take time out from being an adult and watch finding Nemo. I can't stress the importance of this enough.
I think Bruce (I shall call him Bruce) might be one of my artworks that likes to be free, and would swim away onto the net if I made some slight changes, which I might do. Surely Bruce would be happy to help, in any way he can. If his teeth are false teeth and his jaws not strong, he can give empty heads a good gumming and they'll be covered in sharkie spit and be spat to a spittoon.
Nice to chat with you Look2See1 ! Penyulap 08:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Cavite City Park

Your edit on Cavite City Park is wrong. The whole park, the park in front of Cavite City Hall is called the Governor Samonte Park or just Samonte Park. Calling it Cavite City Park is incorrect. Also, Cavite City is not part of the Manila Region or Manila. It is part of CALABARZON region.

Also please observe over-categorization, as you are not following it, like what you did on some pictures on the Category:Church portals in the Philippines. Please read Commons:Overcat. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Cultural heritage monuments

Hi, I just want to let you know that these categories (e.g., Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Cavite or any other provinces) are only for those places or structures that have received historical markers from NHCP or the National Museum of the Philippines. It is just not because something is old or a monument. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Unauthorized changes in the Churches in the Philippines category

I am reverting all the changes as you've made on the category Category:Churches in the Philippines. Please do not make such drastic changes on the categories without consulting the other contributing editors. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your category editing

Some people are removing your edits because you disregard rules about over-categorization. I would consider some of your edits as category cluttering and some are adding incorrect information. So please stop your category editing. You think you are helping, but you are not! So please stop for the betterment of Commons. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Geological formations

Hi, i note you reverted my change in categorizing "rock formations". A "geological formation" is a specific word used in lithostrathygraphy, (the branch of geology studing thoose is stratigraphy), so it would be useful to leave this category only for this use . "Rock formation" as here is a matter related only to landforms, (the branch of geology who study thoose is geomorphology). That's why i have removed this category from geological formation category, and i think it's useful to do it again. --Ciaurlec (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ciaurlec, in my part of the world granitic, sandstone, and volcanic Category:Rock formations are certainly above grade formations of geologic origins, but I'm not a lithostrathographer. Will abide by your specificity.—Look2See1 (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi again (i noted only now that you prefere to answer there). As you noted, potentially every single stone is a source useful for illustrate a geological formation, "rock formations" due to their being in place and their volumes are surely the most representative case of them. The problem is to identify the specific geologic formation lithostratigrafically from a picture if lacking other useful informations such geocodes. I hope that in the future the most of rock formations will have also a specific "geological" category. Thanks for your work. --Ciaurlec (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement

Picture of the Year 2013 Results

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Look2See1,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Replaced category

Hi, I replaced Category:11th-century in the United States with Category:United States in the 11th century. Fayenatic london (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

cat-a-lotting Category:California Historical Society Collection, 1860-1960

Hi. I don't know whether this will be of any interest to you or not, but I'm planning to do some cat-a-lotting by place name of the 3500+ files in the above mentioned category. In preparation I've extracted this list of occurrences from the description pages, since it would be difficult to blindly guess what search terms might create useful cat-lots. Since you seem to be working on some of the same files in a more in-depth and individual way, I wanted to solicit feedback before I launch into things, to avoid making any problems for anybody else. If you have any thoughts or advice on the matter, let me know. Also, while I've got all the descriptions in a pile for slicing and dicing, I'd be happy to create any other extractions that you might find useful for your purposes (I'll probably move on to depicted person names, author names, etc. after places)... cheers. --Junkyardsparkle (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tweedsmuir & former counties

I see you put this back into Category:Peeblesshire; a group of us who edit scottish categories have agreed that categories for former counties should only contain historical files (e.g. flags, old railway junction diagrams) and those relevant to modern functions, mostly as Lord Lieutenancies. Otherwise, files should be categorised by the most recent council area of Scotland. Some old councils remain to be dispersed, and I am doing them as time permits. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ditto Category:Galashiels. This is in the Scottish Borders, and Selkirkshire has ceased to exist for geographical categorisation. Please stick to using these obsolete categories for historical material only. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Rodhullandemu, for the clarification. I had based those edits on my misunderstandings from en:wiki articles. Apologize to you and scottish editors group, and will not use the former counties cats hereon. My batch of other (hopefully accurate) Scottish Borders cat. focus edits/new cats was a first introduction to how uniquely beautiful the council area is. Cheers—Look2See1 (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So sorry!

I changed part of your edit to File:Landslide1992CapeMendocino.jpg because that Cape Mendocino is located in Humboldt County, California. Mendocino County sounds like it should hold this cape, but it doesn't and it is a bit further south. Thank you for all your hard work on the project! Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ellin Beltz, for noticing and correcting my mistake. I appreciate your ongoing astute efforts evolving the project, they're inspiring and a joy to come across.—Look2See1 (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Your category edits

If you want to implement what are clearly controversial changes to the categories in question, you have a choice. Either seek clear consensus on the talk page, or actually read the edit summaries. You will find that your objectives can be met. In terms of the decade categories, make the change to the template in question or ask that it be changed on the template talk page (the whole point of the template is so that there is no need to edit hundreds of categories every time a change is made). Second, in terms of the SF monuments and memorials category, it's fine if you want to put categories in some sort of order (different editors like them ordered different ways, but personally I do not care) - simply do not use it as an excuse to delete categories without explanation. If you have any questions or wish to discuss further, I am available. Regards. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

For example, see the past template edit requests made at Template talk:CanadaYear. Simply figure out what categories you want to add and make the request. You may want to consider requests beyond what you have already sought to implement (i.e. what you are thinking of doing next). Never mind. I forgot you were dealing with template:CanadaDecade which is not edit protected. If you are leery of editing the template, tell me the categories you want to add and I will do it for you.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Skeezix1000, thank you for your offer to assist with editing the "Events in Canada" template, I am leery and need your help please. I would suggest adding 2 factors to the template:
  1. add Category:Events in Canada sorted by "decade #" (e.g. [:Category:Events in Canada|1860s].
  2. From sub-categories found under Category:Events in North America, add the relevant decade one (e.g. Category:Events in North America in the 1860s for Category: 1860s events in Canada), sorted by "Canada" (e.g. [Category:Events in North America in the 1860s|Canada]).
Sorry that my reply was delayed. Needed a time out as was perplexed and stunned that just adding 2 simple country/decade/continent cross-reference categories would be trashed, with no effort to see their benefit or to see that the current "Events in Canada" template was grossly inadequate. Sorry, still don't see any "clearly controversial changes." Ready for onwards now. Thanks again—Look2See1 (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
No need to apologize about delay. Nobody "trashed" your edits - clear edit summaries were provided explaining the problem. I will make the requested changes to the template in the next couple of days and let you know once it's done. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Skeezix, for both your help and constructive mode. If I come across other century/decade/year templates that seem to be missing standard cat(s) will ask you, not manually supplement. Regarding my Category:Monuments and memorials in San Francisco edits, my reasoning then & question now: isn't Category:Monuments and memorials by city by name a parent cat of Category:Monuments and memorials in the United States by city? Perhaps you are aware, I have an Overcat vigilance reputation to feed…. With appreciation—Look2See1 (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I made changes to both templates (both the one discussed here and the one discussed on my talk page). In terms of CanadaDecade, it will take a day or two for the changes to filter through to the categories themselves (CanadaDecade wasn't even properly set up to accommodate events categories). Let me know if there are any issues. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Much category work

Hi Look2See1: I notice you do category work, have you ever seen anything like this [39]? The editor did some amazingly backwards edits to categories on my watchlist, but keeps doing it despite messages on the user talk page from other editor! So odd. Can you figure the logic? Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)