User talk:Look2See1

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

alt= link=
Archive 1

A Barnstar for you ![edit]

Commons Barnstar Look2See1.png

Well hello-ooh there ![edit]

  • File:Great white shark south africa with Teeth by David Shankbone sml welcome.png

Me again[edit]

Look2See1 ... Please, please, please stop what you're doing until we can come to some agreement about the interpretation of COM:OVERCAT. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday reviewing and correcting (I think) some of your 9/14 edits and checked again this morning on a few of your edits today. In my opinion, you're still doing the same kind of over-categorization that people have been after you for a couple of years now to stop. For example, with this edit, you properly added Category:Landforms of Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes. However, since that category is already in the subcategory tree of both Category:Geography of Aquitaine and Category:Landforms of France by region (you added the latter with the same edit), Category:Landforms of Aquitaine should not be placed directly in those categories. That's the very definition of over-categorization per COM:OVERCAT.

With regard to the edits I reviewed yesterday, there were several themes to what, in my opinion, were categorization errors introduced by your edits. Some of it was over-categorization. But in my view, some of it was just plain wrong categorization. The edits involved engravings and etchings, both of which are types of prints. In this case, you put an image of an etching in both Category:1730s prints and Category:18th-century engravings. It seems to me that there are two errors here. The image is actually not of an engraving. It's an etching and belongs in Category:1730s etchings. But even if it were an engraving, it should be placed in the most specific applicable time category. In this case, it would be Category:1736 engravings and not Category:18th-century engravings. In any case, I believe that Category:1730s prints is over-categorization because engravings and etchings are both types of prints.

Part of the problem here may be that the existing category structure is fraught with over- and mis-categorization. It's also entirely possible that I'm wrong about art terminology. It seems to me that since engravings and etchings (as well as lithographs and other printmaking methods, for that matter) are types of prints, the category tree should have prints at the top (under art, I think) with the others mentioned here as sub-categories. But this is not always the case. I confess that I'm a bit out of my element here because I'm not an art, geography or geology expert, although I think I have enough knowledge of each to make good categorization decisions out here. If you are an expert in these areas, perhaps you can set me straight. I made edits to quite a few of the images and categories you edited on 9/14 and a couple of those you edited today as well. Please take a look at the changes I've made to the image you've edited the past couple of days and let's discuss.

Regards, --Sanfranman59 (talk) 21:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sanfranman59, agree that consensus clarification is needed on all the above. I appreciate there was no name calling (upon myself / my actions) involved this time, my edits were done very consciously with thoughtful intentions. I will explain my decisions, and welcome collaborative discussions with you and other editors, that have a respectful and constructive intent, and are based on assuming good faith. I am done with the ogresque 'trash talk' etc. et al, ad infinitum that has previously appeared here and at ANU pages from others — that is only ignorant, immature and destructive. I will no longer engage when that dynamic has erupted. Please know I'm not speaking at you now, but to the unacceptable situation contributed to by many over time. I really appreciate how you expressed your concerns here.
I agree with you, Hike395 was able to see and discuss insights, experiences, and considerations for serious reflection and future integration, in their posting here last month. I appreciate Hike395's taking the time to think about it all and then also write it all out It so clearly. Their points are so radically constructive, compared to the reliable cyberbullying and dire threats by some, and habitual ranting trash talk by some others, it initiated my planning disengagement from dialogs without good faith assumptions hereon. Thanks for your reply following Hike395's, I want to address a few of your points/questions in the future.
I cannot see any OVERCAT happened by my decisions placing the child cats of Category:Landforms of Aquitaine, Category:Landforms of Limousin, and Category:Landforms of Poitou-Charentes under their direct "Landforms parent" of Category:Landforms of Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes. It seems these 3 regions are/soon administratively within the (new ?) Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes Region [ re: on template — Régions administratives de France (‡ à partir de 2016) ]. If it's a mistaken understanding, please educate me. The geography parent & child 'cats-by-place' you mentioned regard "Geography" — and not the parent & child 'cat-by-topic' "Landforms" that I edited.
Trying an analogy, if we place [Cat:Buildings in child-place] under [Cat:Buildings in parent-place], we still place [Cat:Houses in child-place] under [Cat:Houses in parent-place] without committing OVERCAT. Of course [Cat:Houses in child-place] under [Cat:Buildings in parent-place], or [Category:Landforms of Aquitaine] under [Category:Geography of Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes] would clearly be OVERCAT.
I want to sincerely and fully answer your questions on the British engravings/prints categories, but need some focused time to review their fraughtness, and will reply then. Briefly, the categories for "mediums/decade-year trees/art in vs. from/country's names gaps" seem quite unaligned and inconsistent for artworks that are not Paintings or its sub. Oil on canvas paintings — in the UK/GB realm we are addressing, and beyond. It was a preliminary cleanup of the William Hogarth artworks mess yesterday, that I got sidetracked from by the plethora of missing UK/Great Britain by decades categories needing creation & most preexisting ones still needing Europe cats too. Will review it all & continue conversation.
I will also look at your 9/14 & 9/15 edit changes, so we can discuss them.
Regarding art, geography, geology, graphic & environmental design, & botany — being a senior citizen that has been very involved in them as my vocations or avocations for a lifetime, I have developed an expertise in them. Not as some expert/final authority, but in having an ability to contribute to intelligent discussions.
Thank you — Look2See1 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
People out here can certainly get a bit overly intense. I've experienced the same myself from time to time. Sometimes you just need to let stuff bounce off of you, but disengaging is sometimes necessary. Part of the problem is that some folks don't take the time or are just simply incapable of couching their criticism in a civil tone (this takes work). It took me quite a bit of time to compose the message that I posted above because I kept going over and over it to try and keep it in a positive, non-inflammatory tone.
With regard to your edit to Category:Landforms of Aquitaine, as I implied in my previous message, I have no objection to adding Category:Landforms of Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes. But since that category is already a subcategory of both Category:Geography of Aquitaine and Category:Landforms of France by region, including all three categories is over-categorization. The idea is for each file to be placed once and only once in each branch of the category tree. Having this image in both Category:Landforms of Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes and Category:Geography of Aquitaine, in effect, it appears twice in the Geography of Aquitaine branch of the category tree. When you added Category:Landforms of Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes, you should have removed both Category:Geography of Aquitaine and Category:Landforms of France by region.
I agree that what you describe in your analogy is over-categorization since it would mean that Category:Landforms of Aquitaine appears twice in the same branch (under both Category:Landforms of Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes and its parent, Category:Geography of Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes. Again, I don't take issue with your adding Category:Landforms of Aquitaine-Limousin-Poitou-Charentes. The over-categorization was caused by not also removing both Category:Geography of Aquitaine and Category:Landforms of France by region.
If you have a different understanding or interpretation of COM:OVERCAT, we might consider inviting another party into this discussion.
I'll await your feedback after you review the edits I made to your cat work on the Hogarth engravings and etchings. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's another example of over-categorization introduced by an edit that you just made. When you changed Category:Cactaceae in the United States to Category:Cactaceae in Texas, you should have removed Category:Flora of Texas since it's a parent category of the one you added. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
... and another example. In this case, since Faboideae is a subfamily of Fabaceae, this category should be a subcategory of Category:Fabaceae in Texas, but not a subcategory of Category:Flora of Texas by taxon because 'Fabaceae in Texas' is already a subcategory of 'Flora of Texas by taxon'.
I really think you should stop what you're doing until we can get this straightened out. You're a very prolific editor and if I'm correct in my understanding of COM:OVERCAT, there's already going to be a huge amount of cleaning up to do. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

(unindent)One more thing (for now) ... Please explain what you are trying to accomplish by adding sort keys like this? I don't see how doing this will make it easier to find this image in that category display. Per Help:Category, "The sort key system should be obvious, otherwise the order seems random and items are hard to find. The system should either be consistently applied to all members of a category, or be such that the listings of members on which it is applied fit in well within the list of members for which no sort key is used. The latter is advisable for large, growing categories with many contributors." --Sanfranman59 (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please Stop for a spell, so I can submit replies too.
Hi Sanfranman59, I just was writing a long 'Taxon & flora categories reply' to your 22:09, 16 September 2015 posting, that did not post upon hitting send now (then, attempt #1). It's lost, as going back produced talk page without it. Perhaps your 22:30 posting auto−invalidated it? Anyway, I was not editing more categories, but replying to you on this subject. And that just happened a second time with your 23:01 reply (now, attempt #2). Jeesh, please slow down.
Meanwhile, I think with both the French landforms & geography and Botanical orders/taxon categories issues, you are preferring an UNDERCAT approach that is inconsistent with Commons. Please see my "buildings & houses" example above (re: France) — and now applying it here, an example: Category:Faboideae in Texas / (Category:Wooden houses in Texas) belongs in BOTH Category:Fabaceae in Texas / (Category:Wooden buildings in Texas) AND Category:Flora of Texas by taxon / (Category:Houses in Texas). This clearly shows two distinct category tree routes to a category is used in Commons, and is not Overcat.
If there is a preexisting flora policy please produce it, and I will follow it. If not, please do not produce a "huge amount of cleaning up to do" fears, though not your intention, it's slightly insulting. Please assume good faith, as I am with your inquiries. Thanks — Look2See1 (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Your examples are not similar. Category:Wooden buildings in Texas and Category:Houses in Texas are not in the same branch of the category tree. The two plant-related categories are: Category:Fabaceae in Texas is a direct child of Category:Flora of Texas by taxon. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Insulting? Assume good faith? Seriously? I've been bending over backwards to assume good faith and avoid insulting you. I'm simply pointing out and attempting to explain things that many, many people out here have been trying to get you to stop doing for at least a couple of years now. Take a look at your talk page archives and do a search on overcat or over-cat. It's jammed full of people asking you to stop overcatting. We can't all be wrong. I'm trying my best to help you see where I think you're going wrong. If we can't come to an agreement about what overcatting is, we're going to need to bring in someone or several someones to arbitrate. In any case, I really, really wish you would stop your category work here until we figure this out.
I don't see anything above about "buildings & houses" in France. But in the example you gave in the comment to which I'm responding, Faboideae/Fabacea/Flora is not analogous to Wooden houses/Wooden buildings/Houses. 'Wooden buildings in Texas' is not a subcategory of 'Houses in Texas' whereas 'Fabacea in Texas' is a subcategory of 'Flora in Texas'. That's the key. Because 'Faboideae in Texas' is a subcategory (child) of 'Fabacea in Texas', it is also a subcategory (grandchild) of 'Flora in Texas'. You can't say the same thing about the houses example because 'Wooden buildings in Texas' is not a subcategory of 'Houses in Texas'. (i.e. what Auntof6 said ... I was in the middle of editing this comment when she saved her comments ... so I too had an edit conflict, but didn't lose all my work ... read on ...)
By the way, I assume that the problem you were having saving your comments was because of an edit conflict. This happens when you try to save an edit you've made to a page that's changed since you started editing (in this case, I had undoubtedly saved edits of mine before you tried to save yours). If this is the case, I think it should have brought up a window with two edit frames, one with your edits and one with the latest saved version of the page. All you should need to do is copy and paste the text that you entered into the frame that has the latest version of the page. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Where'd you go? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi L2S1. Since you're back on Commons, can we continue our discussion? Do you understand now and agree with what I've identified as over-categorization on your part? I'd also like to understand the reasoning behind what you do with sort keys (see above). Regards. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)