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!

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 If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.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 | Polski | 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 | Polski | 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 | Polski | 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)


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)


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)


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 | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 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)


Nyttend (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Redundant permissions.

Hi. I noticed that your edits on File:Southern Pacific Railroad Station in Owensmouth, circa 1915 (WVM78).jpg included adding "PD-US" to the "Permissions" field. According to the docs for Template:Information, though,

“Due to the size of many license templates they are often placed in a separate section below {{information}} template. In such a case please leave this field blank.”

Cheers. --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Junkyardsparkle, Sorry, and will leave it blank, thanks for letting me know.—Look2See1 (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


The Acoma Pueblo is a place. The people who live there are the Acoma.

Dear anonymous editor, I concur. However, since there is only the solo en:Acoma Pueblo article & en:Category:Acoma Pueblo, and solo Commons Category: Acoma Pueblo for both the place and the peoples, Category: Pueblo people is appropriate. What is your point please? —Look2See1 (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sierra Nevada geography images descriptions?

Please explain, especially if there are consensus-driven guidelines you are following. — hike395 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To restore deleted information and "within Wikimedia" links is the explanation for my edits. When Commons links are available, their being visual, and not needing sister project "external links" nor translations, supports the general publics' image browsing. I do hope there are "consensus-driven guidelines" to facilitate and support the general and international publics' usage.
I would expect you noticed the new Sierra Nevada geography features categories I've created in Commons and en:wikipedia, an area of focus we share. A thank you with your concerns/reversions would have been gracious. Respectfully, I also ask, why are you reverting my edits to images descriptions? —Look2See1 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi L2S1 - the tree in File:Camelback Mountain Big Tujunga Wash.JPG is definitely a cedar, almost certainly Cedrus deodara, not Abies bracteata - note the foliage structure with short and long shoots, and different crown shape. Cedrus deodara is very commonly cultivated in California; whether this is a planted tree (in a garden out of view below the edge of the photo) or a self-sown wildling, impossible to tell from the photo. While I'm here, a couple of commons formatting points if I may; interwiki links only go at the end, not in the VN section, and the VN section fits better below the Taxonav, Wikispecies link, and SN sections, not above; also descriptive text (e.g. "Endemic to California") only goes in wikipedias, not on commons. Thanks! Finally, a request, if you're able to do it please: can you move en:Cupressus pigmaea at en:wiki to its correct spelling Cupressus pygmaea? Briefly, the original name at varietal rank was Cupressus goveniana var. pigm a, a printer's error changed in the author's handwriting to pigmaea (original), but when Sargent raised it to the rank of species, he used the spelling Cupressus pygmaea, not pigmaea (original). Original spellings are only conserved within the same rank, not when the rank is changed (ICN Art. 11.2-11.4). At species rank, pygmaea is the oldest, and therefore correct spelling, and not pigmaea. The Farjon reference cited for the reverse at en:wiki is incorrect. Thanks again! - MPF (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/10/Category:Museums of Native American culture

You might want to weigh in at Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/10/Category:Museums of Native American culture (you made an edit relevant to these categories). - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I undid some of your changes

I saw that you undid some of my changes. I have put most of them back. I had reasons for the changes I made:

  • Some of them were where I removed building categories from categories related to the National Register of Historic Places or California Historical Landmarks: I did that because not everything on the NRHP or CHL lists is a building. The things that are buildings can be put separately into building categories.
  • Some of them were where I removed other categories because the item changed was already in a subcategory of the category I removed.
  • On Category:Transport in the San Fernando Valley, I removed Category:Transport in Los Angeles because not everything in the San Fernando Valley is in Los Angeles.

I'd be happy to discuss these with you if you want. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Category:Transport in the San Fernando Valley, all but Calabasas, Burbank, and the City of San Fernando are within the City of Los Angeles in the San Fernando Valley. Around 98% of the Valley's population, and the potential users of the public transit in/from it, are within the city. Therefore Category:Transport in Los Angeles is appropriate, in addition to Los Angeles County. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2014/10/Category:Museums of Native American culture

Hi. As you were (apparently) the creator of one of the two categories for which a merge is being proposed, I think if you had a minute to add some input it could constitute concensus and wrap up the "discussion" one way or the other... --jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 22:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Categories for NRHP and California Historical Landmarks: these do not go under buildings

Please stop adding building categories to the for NRHP and California Historical Landmarks. Not everything in those categories is a building. There are trees on the lists. There are places where something used to be on the lists. There are geographical places on the lists. There are parks on the lists. None of these are buildings. For the things that are buildings, they can go in building categories separately, just like any other building.

In addition to that, you can see that the high-level categories for these, Category:National Register of Historic Places in California, Category:National Register of Historic Places, and Category:California Historical Landmarks, are not in building categories. That is because the historic places and historical landmarks are not necessarily buildings. A lot of them are, but not all, so these categories do not belong under buildings.

I'd really like to know your reasoning for this, but you don't seem to want to explain. I am going to remove the building categories again. Please do not add them back without having a discussion and getting consensus. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The reason is the NRHP and CHL images are predominantly of buildings, across the state (and country). Most editors, including myself, use only [Category:National Register of Historic Places in in XYZ County, California] and/or [Category:California Historical Landmarks in in XYZ County, California] — and do not add [Category:Buildings in in XYZ County, California]. That is because [Category:NRHP] and [Category:CHL] are placed subcategories of [Category:Buildings] per county.
Since in my experience, across the country this is done with NRHP & Buildings Categories and demonstrates an existing consensus, I will respectfully restore my edits on these. Thank you, —Look2See1 (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, I started a discussion about this at Commons:Village pump#Input requested re: categorizing categories for NRHP and similar things. You are welcome to comment there yourself. So far, the replies do not agree with your point of view. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion took place, consensus was that these categories do not go under buildings

In good faith after our discussion above, I started the discussion linked above. (It has now been archived here.) You mentioned that "most editors" put NRHP and similar categories under building categories, yet not one person with that viewpoint participated in the discussion, not even you even although I specifically invited you to participate. The consensus was that general NRHP and similar categories do not go under buildings categories. Now I see that you have added more building categories to these, such here, here, and here. Please stop. Please. Historic places are not all buildings. Landmarks are not all buildings. NRHP properties, CHL properties, and similar properties for other heritage registers are not all buildings, and the higher-level categories for them should not be put under building categories. I am working to get the properties that are buildings into appropriate building categories. Admittedly, that process will take a while, but in the meantime it is not helpful for you to continue adding building categories the way you have. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for your kind information

Hi, as imho pointed before, some categories have been tagged as {categorize}, among them countries and cities etc, therefore p.e. that edit has been fixed, please see also Commons:Categories. Best regards Roland zh (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

‎Please stop injecting entropy into the category system

All towers are structures, whether they're water towers or observation towers. All buildings that have a function are buildings. Fountains are not bodies of water. That's just not what that term means. They're not buildings either. I know you're trying to help, but please understand that you are not helping. This project simply does not have the manpower to correct the chaos that you are injecting into the category system. If you do not understand how it is intended to work – and you clearly don't – please stop messing with it. LX (talk, contribs) 07:09, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately your assumptions and understanding are incorrect LX. The new Category:Towers in Latvia I created is a parent category, what is the problem? You apparently do not understand, it is one of the more common Architectural elements and Buildings subcategories around the world, please see Category:Towers by country. Category:Fountains in Latvia was put under Category:Buildings in Latvia by an earlier editor, and I removed that category, really, what is your problem? Category:Fountains in xyz are under bodies of water in other countries (as are Category:Ornamental ponds in xyz), again what is your problem? Category:Buildings in Latvia by function was missing numerous parent categories, which in turn were missing numerous subcategories, and... yet again what is your problem? Please stop injecting entropy into this talk page, "If you do not understand how it is intended to work – and you clearly don't – please stop messing with it." Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid it's your understanding that is incorrect, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly by myself and many others. Please listen.
LX (talk, contribs) 11:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Once again, please stop introducing over-categorization like you did here. Category:Structures in the United Kingdom is already a subcategory of Category:Architecture of the United Kingdom, so its subcategories shouldn't be. This is a continuing, long-term problem with your failure to understand how categories work here on Commons. It has nothing to do with Latvia. I've changed the subject back to the one I originally chose. Please do not mischaracterise my comments. LX (talk, contribs) 12:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Pitke (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


Isnt «fragmenting sentence with unecessary em dashes and fancy dots» a better edit summary for edits like this? The description

  • not makes sence in google translation
  • is not qualified for use (copy&paste) in image captions
  • is your own style, normaly the common name is followed by the italic scientific name in round parenthese
  • is not a sentence
  • is a miracle for those users who translate descriptions

Sorry for the criticism, but please use sentences. --Martin H. (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sort keys

Is this at all a normal way to do a sort key? If so, can you show me anywhere that it is suggested, or at least give me an example of someone other than just you sorting this way? - Jmabel ! talk 06:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It is distinguishing a city's category, one with subcategories, from solo building categories. It is done all over wikimedia, and so a rather normal way. If you prefer using * or + or ! or something else also already used elsewhere, please change it.—Look2See1 (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Populated places in California counties

I noticed some changes you made, such as this one, which added Category:Geography of Ventura County, California to Category:Populated places in Ventura County, California. When you added this category, you left the main category for the county, resulting in entries being in both the country category and a child of the county category. They should be in one or the other, not both. To resolve this situation, I have removed the geography categories. I think it makes more sense to have them directly under the country category, but I don't greatly care as long as it is consistent. If you add the geography category again, would you please remove the main county category, and make the change for all California counties? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Several thoughts. Populated places are part of the significant geography of a "Place." Their absence in a geography category is an odd lacuna. Second, in en:wikipedia CA counties populated places categories are only under CA county geography categories. With such a notable category as "where we all live," it could be sensible to find them in the same parent cats regardless of the platform. With cities being an upper branch in the category tree, and rather important to human culture, is it really a serious problem for them to have 2 categories? Please let me know, so I can complete the other CA counties en:wiki links & cats. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is a problem to have one category in two places in the same branch of a category tree. For one thing, it creates issues when searching through categories, which people do when looking for something. It is also against the following provisions of the policy on categorization:
  • Under Principles: "Modularity principle. The page (file, category) should be put in the most specific category/categories that fit(s) the page (not directly to its parent categories)."
  • Under Over-categorization: "Over-categorization is when a file, category or other page is placed in several levels of the same branch in the category tree. The general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those." This rest of this section explains the issue pretty well. A lot of this section talks about categorizing images, but the same principles apply to categorizing categories.
I'm not sure what your point is about "cities being an upper branch in the category tree". They fit under populated places just like towns, villages, etc.
So put all the populated place categories under the "geography of xxx county" categories if that's where you think they fit best, just please change all of them so that they are consistent. Amy other questions? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Klamath Mountains

Category:Mendocino National Forest, Category:Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Category:Shasta-Trinity National Forest contain areas much smaller than the Clamath mountains and which are fully inside the borders of the Klamath Mountains. Therefore these nationals forests are subcategories of Category:Klamath Mountains not the other way round. --Kersti (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, your message's meaning was lost in the translation (Clamath mountains which are fully inside the borders of the Klamath Mountains ??). Please see Category:Klamath Mountains.—Look2See1 (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
... when I was my first year in School the teacher told me alredy: "Kersti make shorter sentences!" - it seems that this one was too long and therefore not comprehensible!
No not "Clamath mountains which are fully inside the borders of the Klamath Mountains"
but Category:Mendocino National Forest, Category:Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and Category:Shasta-Trinity National Forest are fully inside the Klamath Mountains.
Therefore all three categories are in Category:Klamath Mountains an not the other way round.
--Kersti (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Please stop editing Philippine files and categories

I appreciate you trying to edit Philippine files and categories. But please stop as you are doing more harm than good. You OVER-CATEGORIZE the files and you keep converting prose text to BULLETS. Please STOP this practice. Why do you keep on doing this? Some people have complained to you about this and it seems you don't want to listen. This is not the first time I complained to you. I left some remarks on this talk page last March 3, 2014 but received no response from you. I reverted most of your edits in the Philippines as some were incorrect. So please stop your (disruptive) editing on Philippine categories and files as you are wasting other people's time. Please, don't just think about yourself. As much as possible, PLEASE STOP editing anything Philippine-related. Thanks. -- Briarfallen (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Garden plants, Category:Ornamental trees, etc.

Hi Look2See1 - saw you undid my removal of one of these categories from Category:Cedrus libani. I took it off there, as I'd moved that category to the much more appropriate Category:Cedrus libani (cultivated). Where a [Category:Taxon name] has a subcategory [Category:Taxon name (cultivated)] (as most should have), please move categories like Category:Garden plants and Category:Ornamental trees to the subcategory. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 09:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi MPF, thanks for explaining. I was just seeing it from my watchlist and forgot about the many new "tree species (cultivated)" categories now. For those without (cultivated) categories, please keep the "Garden plants of continent" and "Ornamental trees" until new sub-cats are created. Thanks—Look2See1 (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorry for the delay in replying; in the 2 or 3 where I removed the "Ornamental trees" cats without a subcat (Pinus torreyana, P. edulis) I did so because Commons had no photos depicting the species in a garden / ornamental context - which rather suggests they are not much used as ornamental trees (and certainly in Europe, you won't find either outside of major botanical collections, not in 'ordinary' gardens). But I don't feel strongly about this, so happy to leave them in if you prefer. - MPF (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Natchez City Cemetery (2903701426).jpg

Hi Look2See1. Could you please fix the error you introduced? --Leyo 11:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Category:Building 170

Why are you adding a parent category of Category:Washington Navy Yard? (Category:Navy Yard, Washington, D.C.) Also, there's no need to reformat the text. That does nothing to improve the category description. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I reverted all of your Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. additions to categories that are not individually listed on the National Register. (ex: Category:Embassy of Afghanistan (Washington, D.C.)) Please read contributing property. Buildings that are contributing properties and not listed on the National Register do not belong in this category. You have added incorrect information to many category descriptions and images. On the Embassy of Afghanistan category, you changed the description from "Built as a private residence in 1912, the Colonial Revival-style building is designated as a contributing property to the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1989." to "Built as a private residence in 1912, the Colonial Revival-style building is designated as a contributing property to the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. in 1989." (emphasis mine) It is not listed on the National Register. The historic district where the building is located is what is listed. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Category:Building 170

  • I have since removed Category:Navy Yard, Washington, D.C. per your information. Please assume good faith here. I did not know if it was within the Navy Yard boundaries or just in the neighborhood, thank you for the clarification.—Look2See1 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: National Register of Historic Places

NOTE: AgnosticPreachersKid, please do not alter your already posted comments here. Add them in a new paragraph with a new signature/time. Your choice here is rude, deceptive, and confusing to me.
On an unrelated note, I reverted all of your Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. additions to categories that are not individually listed on the National Register. (ex: Category:Embassy of Afghanistan (Washington, D.C.)) Please read contributing property. Buildings that are contributing properties and not listed on the National Register do not belong in this category. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
DONE AT 20:44
On an unrelated note, I reverted all of your Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. additions to categories that are not individually listed on the National Register. (ex: Category:Embassy of Afghanistan (Washington, D.C.)) Please read contributing property. Buildings that are contributing properties and not listed on the National Register do not belong in this category. (FOLLOWING ADDED by AgnosticPreachersKid LATER, without new signature/time — WRONG) You have added incorrect information to many category descriptions. On the Embassy of Afghanistan category, you changed the description from "Built as a private residence in 1912, the Colonial Revival-style building is designated as a contributing property to the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1989." to "Built as a private residence in 1912, the Colonial Revival-style building is designated as a contributing property to the Sheridan-Kalorama Historic District, and listed on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. in 1989." (emphasis mine) It is not listed on the National Register. The historic district where the building is located is what is listed. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Meanwhile, however you wish to handle NRHP in Washington, D.C. is fine. Again, please assume good faith here. I hope you did not just revert Contributing property houses to no bldg. category, but changed their placement to under Category:Houses in Washington, D.C. or [Category:"decade #" houses in Washington, D.C.]. If not, please correct that lacuna.
There is much discrepancy by editors across the U.S. on use/non−use of Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in xyz (U.S. city/county/state) and/or Category: Historic district contributing properties in xyz, with [Category:Historic districts in xyz]. Some other editors delete all [Cat:contributing properties] if there is a [Cat:Named historic district], fine for signs and plaques, but often leaving specific buildings without a U.S. city/county/state place subdivision. I'm sorry I don't recall, but that may have been my motivation when adding Category:Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. earlier this year.
In addition [Category:National Register of Historic Places in xyz] (U.S. city/county/state) is often not under the parent [Category: Buildings in xyz], leaving those buildings (of any type) without place categories. In en:wikipedia the [Cat:NRHP in xyz] always are under the subdivision [Category: Buildings and structures in xyz] (U.S. city/county/state), as only a small minority are archaeolgical/military/historical sites without structures. Thank you—Look2See1 (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
"Your choice here is rude, deceptive, and confusing to me." - Rude and deceptive? Wow. I was expanding my comment and did not change the meaning of my original statement in any way. You want me to assume good faith, but call me rude and deceptive. I think we're done here. You stay away from me and my page. I'll do the same to you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes AgnosticPreachersKid, "Your choice here is rude, deceptive, and confusing to me," and not acting in good faith. Please choose to expand your comments honestly and with transparency, that is acting in good faith. You may choose to stay away from my talkpage. However, you will not tell me where I may choose to communicate in good faith.—Look2See1 (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


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#User:Look2See1. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

 AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
  • NOTE: The editor "AgnosticPreachersKid" will not discuss issues directly with me, here on my talk page or on their talk page. They have deleted my brief and polite comments on their talk page 3 times today. Oddly, they began this discussion. It appears when I did not auto-agree, but actually thought and replied with constructive points, they took their talk toys and left, swinging by the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard instead of seeking resolution together. There is a faint smell of a cyber-bully, and strong scent of autocratic control habits in this sequence of behavior choices by AgnosticPreachersKid.—Look2See1 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

HAER image categories

Can you please clarify the intent with categories such as "Historic American Engineering Record images of Alabama" vs. "Historic American Engineering Record photographs of Alabama"? I see that you have worked on these, and ones for other states... I'm assuming the 'intent' is to get the photographs into the photos subcategory, since having them split between is rather odd. If that's the case, or if (per the notes in the photos subctegories) the intent is to move them all into images, I can help with getting the 'arrangement' consistent. I'm intending to work on getting these all sorted into state categories, and also changing the HAER photos that are using {{HABS-source}} (the ones uploaded by Fae) to use the 'new' {{HAER-source}} that I created, which will move them from the HABS category to the HAER category (the HABS template was 'split' away from being a combined source & license template a while back, but for some reason HAER and HALS were never done, and Fae uploaded the whole set using the HABS one). Getting them sorted should help with 'associating' all the duplicates that had been previously uploaded... it seems like a lot of them were low-res versions from American Memory, and replaceable with higher-res ones cropped from the tiffs.

I have no 'particular preference' on 'images' vs 'photos', it would just be nice to have consistency, you know? Revent (talk) 12:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and planned efforts regarding HAER images. I've been using the term 'images' in creating the 'by state' categories, as often there are drawings as well as photographs for their projects. If I've mistakenly did a 'photographs' cat(s), unless other editors disagree, it should be transformed to 'image.' I've been creating categories for the drawings, such as Category:Historic American Buildings Survey of California - Drawings that to date are shared by HABS/HAER drawings, and is now a subcategory of both. If its a HABS drawing it gets solo 'Drawings' cat, if a HAER one it has been getting both 'Drawings' & 'HAER' cats. I started those when there were only HABS by state categories, and to now have 2 drawings cats per state has seemed excessive for an esoteric to most distinction. What do you think? I'm supportive of evolution of them if you and/or other editors see improvements.
There has been a wonderful huge jump in HABS/HAER images being uploaded lately. A temporary situation is their flooding of 'by geographic subdivision' cats, in a visual mosaic of jumbled subjects. Do you think it is possible to have them titled differently before uploading (or after), so they 'self sort' per their documentation subjects? Currently all the "Detail of"/"Southwest view of"/etc. for numerous projects disperse in county or nearest populated place categories. If the "xyz bridge"/"abc building" could lead, followed by all the LOC title details, the images would be together per structure/place, and more useful for general Commons users and easier for editors. Currently piped 'project name' sorting is the only method, and a bit tedious. With the drawings, when tiff and png images have both been uploaded, the tiff ones are far more clear. When there are more than 9 to a drawings set, I usually pipe sort with |0 (1-9), |1 (10-19), and on, otherwise they are not in sequence. It's a triviality and may not matter to most.
Your writing "nice to have consistency" is splendid to read, and very supported. Again, thank you for your attention and thought regarding HAER materials.—Look2See1 (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think a 'joint' category for drawings, that is a subcategory of both the HAER and HABS image categories for each state makes sense, with the 'photos' in either the 'by state' category or a topical subcategory, and the drawings in the 'drawings' subcategory and in a 'topical' subcategory if it exists (as well as all HABS/HAER images in the 'hidden' parent category that is assigned by the source template). My comments about the 'photographs' categories was just based on having seen your name in edit histories, I didn't know for sure which way you were sorting them. I think I moved quite a few drawings from the 'general' by state HAER categories into just the 'drawings' ones, but I could copy them back... it just seemed odd to have them in both the parent and a subcategory. I think the 'ideal' sorting, though, would be to have the 'by state' categories eventually empty (with everything in topical subcategories) and the drawings in both the 'topical' one, and 'drawings'.
'Wonderful huge jump', heh. If you were not aware, Fae applied his mass-uploading bot to the 'HABS' collection several months back, and the 'collection' of tiffs should be, if not complete, very close. I believe he uploaded something like 300,000 files in that run, though his bot did not 'discriminate' between HABS, HAER, and HALS images... they are all marked with {{HABS-source}} (except for the few I have changed so far to the 'new' {{HAER-source}} template). My intent was to work on first HAER, then HALS, then try to dig into HABS (which is immense).
As far as the filenames, I agree that the current arrangement is terrible.. it's a result of how the bot worked at 'automatically' creating filenames, and how the metadata is stored at the LoC... they were constructed automatically from the 'titles', which are formed that way. I'd be very supportive of amending the filenames to give better sorting (and I am a filemover, so I could help with that... I think it would fit under the 'harmonization' criteria) but I think it would be a good idea to bring it up somewhere like the VP first, since we're talking about a very large number of files.
You are right that the TIFFs are better, the existence of 'duplicate' PNGs was to allow for a (now mostly fixed) bug with the 'thumbnailing' of TIFFs. There are also a large number of 'old' JPEG images, apparently mostly taken from the 'American Memory' part of the LoC site, that can be massively improved in resolution by overwriting with a 'cropped' image taken from the TIFFs (the jpegs have the borders removed). (Blaisdell filter cleaner AZ1.jpg for example)
FYI, other than minor 'side trips', I'm currently working on going through the contents of the "Historic American Engineering Record" category (that don't use HAER-source yet), changing them to use that source template and a 'separate' license template, changing the 'written out' dimensions to use {{size}} (internationalization is good), and changing the 'long' source URLS to use the {{LOC-image}} template (it uses the 'permanent' URLS from the LoC's 'handle' system instead of ones that might change at some point). In the process, as I find 'sets', I'm trying to categorize them as a group. Also, for 'old' jpegs, I'm trying to locate the tiff version of the same image, and overwriting them with a higher-resolution 'extract' (and changing the metadata). Revent (talk) 06:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

For what reason Church of John the Baptist in Kerch is a Gothic church?

It is typical cross-in-square Byzantine churches. Slightly distorted by 19th century extension with the bell tower. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the Category: Gothic archivolts in several images indicate late Byzantine/early Gothicarchitecture? — Look2See1 (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Elizabeth Lake

Hello, Look2See1! Regarding your reversion at File:Automobile road map- Los Angeles to Ely via the Midland Trail. Part one- Los Angeles to Palmdale-Elizabeth Lake, 1922 (AAA-SM-005598).jpg, I had removed the Elizabeth Lake cat because it has to do with the lake in British Columbia, not the town in California. The latter doesn’t appear here in Populated places in Los Angeles County, California, so I guess a cat should be created for it, but first I’ll see if I can move the existing one to an unambiguous name. OK?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Odysseus, thank you for noticing the Canadian cat. mistake of mine, and creating the new Category:Elizabeth Lake, California. Sorry for not checking that on my 1st edit & especially on my revert. The California one is a CDP—en:Elizabeth Lake, California and a lake/sag pond—en:Elizabeth Lake (Los Angeles County, California), so will add cats for that to it now. Thanks again, —Look2See1 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


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#restoring incorrect info. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Reply I posted at COM:AN
Please see former 1-2 January 2015 COM:AN/U regarding editor AgnosticPreachersKid and myself for backround experiences. Regarding my editing of Category:Central Union Mission, correcting and focusing categories and links, and information:
  1. I went to the LOC website before making any changes, and read the HABS Central Union Mission project report and image notes. I also read the en:Central Union Mission and architect en:Appleton P. Clark, Jr. articles.
  2. I made the corrections and additions these sources provided on my first edit.
  3. Though no mention was made of an automobile agency ever in the building, I left that cat. in a "nowiki" with embedded note, in case another editor could verify it.
  4. All my info/cats/links were completely reverted by AgnosticPreachersKid, with NO edit summary/notes. No selective links/cats editing was chosen as the accurate and respectful editing option, retaining/correcting data other editors and Commons users could learn from. It was just destruction.
  5. I reverted AgnosticPreachersKid edit to restore the correct data, according to HABS/en:wiki — With an edit summary/note.
  6. Since the rvt. by AgnosticPreachersKid was illogical and destroying information to my understanding, and experiencing his former temperamental mode of communicating, it seems possible this was an irrational "temper based vandalism" edit, which I also noted.
  7. The entitlement and arrogance of AgnosticPreachersKid has become distressing and tiresome, as displayed (in my understanding) by their "I'm not here, volunteering my time and photos, to get stressed out and insulted. That's a quick way to lose editors." from their 2 January 2015 COM:AN/U statement. First, AgnosticPreachersKid is responsible for their own cognitive and emotional reactions/responses/interpretations of stress and insult, not mis-assign motivations/responsibilities to others. Second, we are All volunteering our time and effort, and deserve good faith.
If I need to file a separate COM:AN/U about this editor also, could an administrator please advise me? I am ignorant if the "on file" documentation that would provide is necessary or important. I have no personal need to do so, but can if a "balanced paper trail" is appropriate. It takes two to have a disagreement, and I do not want all the credit here. —Look2See1 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


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#RfC?. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
My reply posted at COM−AN/U link.
I can also say AgnosticPreachersKid "has once again restored incorrect information on a category" "without addressing any of the concerns I raised" regarding Category:Central Union Mission, as they wrote above. Though informative of both our perspectives, that does not resolve the ongoing problem. My edit notes for the cat. repeatedly indicate the information I used is from the LOC−HABS data report and en:Central Union Mission article. Alas, AgnosticPreachersKid has not addressed that information or those data resources yet, nor have they offering any sources/references to support their opinions. They merely revert my edits in a seemingly temperamental vandalism spirit.
This is the third COM:AN/U posted by AgnosticPreachersKid on this topic. Yet again AgnosticPreachersKid posts biased acquisitions here instead of objectively discussing the category's correct information. Neither will AgnosticPreachersKid discuss that problem or their behavior on my or their talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid seems at ease with attacking and threatening here, but is absolutely unavailable for discussion and solutions.
This now feels like editorial cyberbullying. Will an administrator please help gain resolution with this? Thank you Look2See1 (talk) 00:37, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Strange revert

Why did you revert my modification ?
You want this picture to be in a genus category when it is already in a species category ?
Regards Liné1 (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, the species Category: Leymus mollis is using the former name. It has been returned to Elymus mollis (Accepted by TJM2 + USDA PLANTS) after its decade or so as Leymus mollis. I do not know the process for requesting a change to botany cats, and so am using the image as a marker/reminder/fyi under the genus Category:Elymus.
Thanks—Look2See1 (talk) 23:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Currently there is a redirect from Elymus mollis to Leymus mollis
We usually don't reverse redirects in biology and even less in botanic where old valid names are still valid.
We use {{Synonym taxon category redirect}} on one side with some ref prooving the synonymy + {{SN}} on the other side (sometimes containing comments like 'preferred by all sources')
Of course, we make exceptions and reverse categories containing few media when all sources have the same preference.
But in that case, most source seem to prefer Leymus mollis (EOL, GRIN, ITIS, KEW, NCBI,, ThePlantList, for Tropicos it is always difficult to understand)
Could you verify which of your sources prefer Elymus mollis ?
And please remove the picture from the genus cat as moving pictures from genus cat to species cat is really the purpose of most of the biology contributors.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Please, Look2See1, could we talk.
I don't understand your behavior on File:Leymus mollis ssp. mollis.jpeg.
Pictures involving a single species are not supposed to be categorized in the species cat and in the genus cat.
You seem to want something that I don't understand.
You must understand that everyday I find picture that are placed in a family cat + genus cat + species cat. Just because people want their pictures in many categories.
As you are far from this beginner behavior, I would really like to understand.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liné1, I will try to explain further, thank you for asking. Based on the latest botanical research, the accurate and accepted current name for this plant is Elymus mollis subsp. mollis in TJM2 (Jepson Manual eFlora), and Elymus mollis & E.m. ssp. m. in the CalFlora database (Trin.), the accepted references/authorities for the flora of California.
This image is of the plant in California, so Commons viewers looking for an image of the plant with its current accepted Calif. bot. name finding just one image of it under genus Category:Elymus is reasonable to me. If they want to see more they will go to species Category: Leymus mollis. It is just one image of this plant in taxonomy duality, and I'm sorry I do not understand why it is a problem having that sole image in the species cat and the genus cat. that's used in the 'local' nomenclature. I would not presume to request the category be renamed from Leymus mollis until/if ITIS et al update to Elymus mollis from that and/or the USDA accepted Leymus mollis ssp. mollis.
Please understand it is not 'my' image, nor is there any intention to overcat nor have 'my' way. I can always find Calif. flora images under old/new/dual botanical/common names, the motivation is for others search results. If the consensus is that this image shall not have both cats, please remove the genus cat. knowing it will not return again.
Thank you — Look2See1 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
What I don't understand is that your issue is with the Category:Leymus mollis name. It has nothing to do with this image.
Why not copy the 4 images in Category:Leymus mollis in Category:Leymus ? (I would not like it at all)
There is something in your logic that I cannot follow.
Really there is a huge consensus that an image of an identified species should only be in the species category.
But you should add a comment in Category:Leymus mollis. This would be logical.
Best regards Liné1 (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liné1, unfortunately it seems both our best efforts to explain are not helping understanding. Respectfully, in my experience I've answered your 4 February questions once or more in my replies above. My "concern" was only about the one image of the plant in California, not the Leymus mollis species category, nor any other images filed in it, nor any category renaming. I've waited to reply, hoping to understand better, alas not so yet. The discussion remains open, in case you see what I can't.
With good will and thanks — Look2See1 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Excuse my butting in, but there must be a better way of signalling a taxonomic or nomenclature issue than by using an out-of-place image as a ‘flag’ (assuming I understand your intent). What about a pair of {{Cat see also}} templates instead?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Categories/subcategories by continent — North America and South America

I've fixed lots of issues in categories that were missing parents by reconnecting them to the right level. Continents and countries by continents have lot of errors (including countries in the wrong region. You are killing this effort when you revert without checking anything. verdy_p (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You also seem to ignore that the Caribbean is not just islands. You are confusing them with Antillas !!! Please stop these decategorisations !!! verdy_p (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi verdy_p, Thank you for your efforts with countries and continents. My problem is with your bypassing the continents of North America and South America. For those actually residing in one of those continents, "The Americas" is usually a colloquial term, and/or a passé Colonial era placename, along with "The New World." It is too broad and inefficient for continental categories/subcategories by continent. The problem seems to be giving the 2 top Western Hemisphere continental parents of Category:North America and Category:South America a vague "The Americas" psuedo-over-parent. [Category:Topic by continent] requires the actual 2 continents, not a colloquial region. Please do not over consolidate.
There are lots of categories using "Americas" because it has a historical meaning and Commons has categories for the history. It is then necessary to attach them correctly, even if we also maintain the geographic separation also North and South. Not everyone agrees that North and South are separate continents (they are separate only for geologs, but not for the most common use and for the history, ethnography, languages, and even politics (e.g. Gran Colombia is a former country that covered Colombia and a large part of Central America in North America). verdy_p (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the Caribbean — Central America has an eastern coast on the Caribbean Sea, and a western coast on the Pacific Ocean, completely in the Northern Hemisphere. That sub-continent mainland and its countries are not in the Caribbean, per biota, geology, geography, or culture. Although they also have coastal areas on the Caribbean Sea, neither is Mexico, the United States, Colombia, Venezuela, or Guyana in the Caribbean. Please do not overcat those countries. The Caribbean cats are already subcategories of Central America, Latin America, and/or North America.
You're completely wrong. And Wikipedia also agree, as well as historians and politicians and searchers (the Caribbean is not defined based on biotops, but on ethnography, history and native languages). But for the classification of countries, having at least one border on the Caribbean sea is enough (we cannot categorize parts of countries in a category listing current "countries", even if they have also coasts on the Pacific side such as Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia).
Biotops in Panama are still under influence of the Atlantic side, including on the Pacific coast. But these categories are not categories for natural biotops, only for political countries and peoples (e.g. look at Category:Languages of Panama : it lists the "Caribbean Spanish" creole, based on Spanish and former native Caribbean languages, you can perform similar lookup in Mexico and you cannot ignor the history of Incas and other native Precolombian peoples, in the Caribbean... and on the continent).
  • Yes, Central America is full part of North America (so it can be fully categorized in it ; it is NOT possible for other American regions).
  • No, the Caribbean is not fully in North America (the independant islands of the Caribbean are considered all part of North America, but... Venezuela and Colombia are also in the Carribean, as well as the the dependant islands of Venezuela and of the Netherlands and also Trinidad and Tobago which are in South America and NOT in North America !
  • And yes, US is also a Caribbean country (but only for its dependencies in Virgin islands and Puerto Rico... Puerto Rico one is also in Latin America and speaks Spanish !). It can be also argued for the US state of Florida (however, unlike Puerto Rico, Florida is not a "dependent territory" of US).
  • The Caribean is a historical and cultural region that spans an area between North and South America, on the continent and in islands. This area is also now an economic region with its organisation.
  • This has always been the case in Commons which uses 2 main geographic categories : North and South America, the other regions being ethnical/cultural/linguistic (Caribbean, Latin Ameria, Central America...)
verdy_p (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Please do not over consolidate, nor its opposite, overcat. Thank you — Look2See1 (talk) 07:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There's NO overcategorisation, they are made according to different criterias. All countries and territories in the Americas are in North or South (the limit being the border between Panama and Colombia). The other caegories are needed and cannot be deduced.
For fixing countries that were incorrectly located (e.g. I found occurences with Trinidad-and-Tobago incorrectly put in North America, only because it was only islands of the Caribbeans... but it is in South America, extremely near the continent).
Note also that Venezuelian islands are in... North America (and politically they are "dependencies" with special status, but they are still not categorized separately because Venezuela is categorized in South America for most of its lands, but most of its lands, on the continent are still in the Caribbean !).
This has always been like that in Commons. Only you want to remove continental countries from the Caribbean.
All countries of Central America, except El Savador, are in the Caribbean, as well as Mexico (for its Yucatan state, e.g. in Cancun). Most native Caribbean people (before the Spanish conquest) were mostly leaving on the continent between southern Mexico and Venezuela. Historially this has a great significance, even for the people of these countries today !!!
And stop confusing the Caribbean (singular: the ethno-cultural and historic region) with the informal Caribbeans (plural which restricts the Caribbean to only its islands: Antillas, plus the archipelago covering Bahamas anbd Turks-and-Caicos, and Venezuelian territories).
verdy_p (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I haven’t looked at the Caribbean region, but a pattern I've seen elsewhere is to have something like X coast of Yland under X Sea, that is also under Geography of Yland (containing beaches, seacliffs, harbours, lighthouses, marine parks, & whatnot of Yland). So I agree that Yland itself should not go under X Sea—just the parts that pertain to the relevant coasts. Same for Isle of Z, which IMO belongs under something like Islands in the X Sea, not in the main sea cat.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a separate problems for some categories that have ambiguous names. But even in that case, you'll immediately see that islands of Venezuela (South America) are still in the "Caribbean sea". The "Caribbean" however doesnot restrict to just the sea as it covers also all its bordering lands
(and in some definitions, the 3 territory of Guianas are also included in Caribbean, but there's no geneal agreement as their Atlantic border is a bit too far to the south from the exit of the natural gulf closed by the volcanic arc of the Little Antillas : they are in a separate tectonic plate; it is admitted that Guiania, Suriname and French Guiana are not in the Caribbean, but Venezuela is for most of its coasts). verdy_p (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Graphic design questions….ongoing

...rewriting descriptions in your own idiosyncratic style, which involves lists of bullet points instead of paragraphs. You've been asked several times, by several editors not to do this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Beyond My Ken — unfortunately all your reverts returned the images to the general Category:Neo-Baroque architecture in the United States, instead of my preceding edits more specific Category:Neo-baroque churches in the United States, a step backwards. Also internal links in the text were destroyed by the reverts, such as for the architect and artist in the Category:St. Francis Xavier Church (Manhattan) lede. Could you remedy those tossing out "baby with bathwater" mistakes please?
The information zone below images is in various graphically emphasized boxes, an outline style reminiscent of a gridded form in graphic design. On my mid-size laptop screen there is much compartmentalized information competing for visual attention. I would expect it is even more so on the smaller screens of tablets and smart phones. An image page is not an en:wiki article where prose in a paragraph can read clearly and beautifully.
Some of us of a certain age (and younger) have visual difficulties and/or attention deficits that hinder picking out the germane "picture of" information out from amongst a screen-full of upload/location/source/permission/et al data. My addressing that is not my "own idiosyncratic style" but what I learned from the work of other editors when starting a long time ago. I simply noticed the difference, and emulated it. Please consider an experiment, with a screen shot of a complete 'image page' printed out and held at different distances, to see what others' experiences can be. I have, and the "prose approach" does not read with clear grace or otherwise amidst everything else below the image frame. Prose seems an idiosyncratic and nostalgic preference, in a format more similar to membership applications in my experience.
I also learned to use the same platform's links in image page descriptions from other editors, to Commons categories rather that en:Wikipedia articles: to minimize descriptions' language hinderances for Commons users in understanding "where/what"; and also to directly lead to other related images. For example with the latter, instead of: "is listed on the en:National Register of Historic Places" term link; using "on the Commons National Register of Historic Places in New York City" to link with 'sibling/cousin' images.
If there is a Commons rule/policy addressing this graphic design issue please share it. Otherwise I am only aware of some editors expressing different preferences, often using the term "prose," without addressing graphic clarity/information access considerations. These considerations are my motivations, and not some personal aesthetic, in description edits. Thank you — Look2See1 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
What I am objecting to is you re-writing descriptions in a bizarre staccato, hard-to-read format that numerous editor have objected to. I have no objection to your category work, but when you link it to your unaccepttable rewrites, I have little choice buy to revert. I suggest that if you don;t want this to snowball on you, you stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, chances are very good that I am significantly older than you, so playing the age card doesn't work. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
First Beyond My Ken, do not threaten any editor, including myself, with "snowballs" or anything else. You do have choices besides a total revert that destroys category specificity improvements. Use your choices and stop the cyberbully "suggestion threats" now! I ask you again to please cease your total reverts, it is an unnecessary scope of destruction.
You may "play age cards" Beyond My Ken, I'm playing no game. I simply speak of my experiences.
Your "numerous editor" phrase implies a popularity mandate. So again, if there is a Commons rule/policy addressing this graphic design issue please share it. Look2See1 (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


I'd like to step in and make a suggestion.
I don't agree with the formatting that Look2See1 has been adding to image descriptions. I think I'm the editor he/she is referring to, above, who talks about "prose". To me, the Description field of the Information template on images is equivalent to an image caption. In main wikipedia, we would not put extra formatting (boldface, bullet lists, em dashes) into image captions, and I think we should not do so here.
But, as Look2See1 points out, there is no rule or policy that address formatting in the Description field. As Beyond My Ken has pointed out, several editors have objected to the extra formatting (see, e.g., Comments from Nyttend1, Skeezix1000, Altairisfair, Comments from Quadell, Comments from Briarfallen, Comments from Leyo, my comments, Comments from Martin H.).
Given that the formatting seems controversial and there is not a guideline, I think we should go to the Village Pump and come to a community-wide consensus about the formatting. We can then all have a guideline to obey. I'll start a discussion at VP, and invite all of the editors, above, to participate. I will add a link to the VP discussion, below.
Can we agree to seek community consensus and abide by that? That seems far preferable to multi-year slow-motion edit wars. — hike395 (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I've started the Village Pump discussion at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Formatting of image or media descriptions. Look2See1 --- I will invite the editors, above, to comment on the proposal. Do you know of other editors who like your description formatting? Please feel to invite any such editors, in order to get all sides involved in the discussion. — hike395 (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


As I can see from your discussion with User:Beyond My Ken, above, you find reverting your edits to be very frustrating. I agree: I find reverting quite frustrating, also.

I want to point out the edit history of File:Old senate debate.jpg. I have not been reverting (i.e., completely erasing) your edits. In this case, I kept the paragraph breaks that you added. I have also kept the category links that you added. I've been trying to come to a compromise on formatting that is acceptable.

However, it does not appear that you have been reciprocating. You reverted File:Old senate debate.jpg, which destroyed some of my work (i.e., I re-ordered the sentences in the description to make them flow better). Given that you are angry with BMK's reverts, above, can you see why I am frustrated?

I am asking: please don't just completely revert my edits. Let's have a community-wide discussion and see if we can all agree on the formatting. I hope that you noticed that I added your preference for internal links to the proposal. I am striving for a compromise that would be acceptable to a large fraction of the community.

Please feel free to explain to the community why you think your formatting improves readability -- if you are persuasive enough, then perhaps you can get your formatting ideas blessed as community guidelines, then the rest of us will format the way you do. — hike395 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for edit

here but an edit summary like '+pipesort' would be appreciated for watchlists and email watchers... you know. // FrankB 03:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Whittier Mansion category

Hi Look2See1 ... I don't understand how this edit isn't exactly what COM:OVERCAT says we should avoid. The photo is already in Category:Whittier Mansion, which is already in Category:Jackson Street, San Francisco. It seems to me that this is the whole reason for COM:OVERCAT. Is your view that the photo belongs in Category:Jackson Street, San Francisco because there's a street sign in the photo? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning. If that's it, shouldn't all of the categories that Category:Whittier Mansion is in also be on every photo that's in that category? Should we also put the photo in the category that Category:Jackson Street, San Francisco is in and all of the other categories that are in that tree?

I see that you've been involved in back-and-forth with a fair number of other users about this type of thing previously. Can you direct me to some kind of community consensus that's been reached wherein this type of categorization is supported? It doesn't make any sense at all to me. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Look2See1 ... I'm just following up on this message I posted last week. I'd like to understand why you think the photo I referenced should be in both Category:Whittier Mansion and Category:Jackson Street, San Francisco when the former is already a subcategory of the latter. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello? Anybody out there? I'd still like to understand your views on this. Any feedback? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Sanfranman59, I'm sorry to be slow in responding here, I mistakenly thought my last edit note clarified my action. When I created Category:Jackson Street, San Francisco recently, at first for some HABS images at Jackson Square, I then went to populate the cat. with images and sub-cats for other sections of the street. Category:Whittier Mansion went in of course. This 1 image of the residence, File:Whittier_Mansion_(San_Francisco)_2.JPG, has the City's Jackson street sign in it, and so to me 'rationally' merited the 2 categories. In a 'non-rational' way, the cars at a rakish angle indicate its 'Pacific Heights ridgetop' topography that could give a sense of setting for those unfamiliar, but that is certainly not a stand alone reason for [Cat:Jackson Street]. This and the File:Roos House 3500 Jackson St San Francisco 3-7-2010 12-50-26 PM.JPG are the only 2 images of western sections of Jackson I could find uploaded, and so my rvt/recats of the Whittier. At first I assumed it was obvious why (how dumb), finally realized I was wrong and then thought my edit note would clear it up, and was wrong again.
If [Cat:Jackson Street] is offensive to you on this Whittier Mansion image, let's just leave it off. Neither of us need the drama, and I apologize to you Sanfranman59, for the distress my assumptions caused. Please know I appreciate your ongoing efforts to photograph so many architectural and historical landmarks of the City and upload them. In my experiences they are a large and notable documentation that would be missing otherwise, and a pleasure to frequently see when exploring images of the San Francisco.
Thank you, Look2See1 (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Look2See1. I don't really agree that File:Whittier_Mansion_(San_Francisco)_2.JPG is "an image of the street", as you say in your edit summary. The subject of the photo is pretty clearly the building and not the street (or blue sky or the trees or the light post, for that matter). Furthermore, it doesn't seem useful or interesting to use the presence of a street sign as the criterion for putting a photo in the "xxxx Street, San Francisco" category structure. Photos of structures that are mid-block and don't include signs belong in there also, no?
But be that as it may, since the photo is in Category:Whittier Mansion and that category is already assigned to the Jackson Street category, putting the photo in the Jackson Street category also is redundant and over-categorization. I think the idea out here is to think of categories as hierarchical tree structures. It's redundant and potentially confusing to put a photo or category in the same branch multiple times. This type of over-categorization destroys the hierarchy and, taken to the extreme, ultimately makes categories and subcategories rather meaningless. That said, if there were a "Street signs in San Francisco" category, it could make sense to put the individual photo in that category since there's a street sign in the photo whereas it wouldn't make sense to put the Whittier Mansion category in there (though I could argue, as I do above, that it's not a photo of a street sign even though a sign appears in the photo). In fact, there is a category structure out here for street signs (though nothing specific to San Francisco), but I don't bother with it because I don't find it to be of interest.
On the other hand, it makes perfect sense to me to put the Roos House photo in Category:Jackson Street, San Francisco since it's not assigned to any categories that are already in that category. In fact, since that house is at the corner of Jackson and Locust, if there were a Locust Street, San Francisco category, I suppose that it could also go in there. Down the road, if other photos of the Roos House are uploaded to Commons and a new category for the house is created, it should be included in all of the categories the current photo is in and the photo should be put in the new category. The photo itself could also be put in categories related to other things in the photo besides the house (e.g., something related to the parked car, the light post, the street sign, the stop sign, etc.).
Thoughts? Concerns? --Sanfranman59 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Arbutus menziesii-2.jpg and other

Please note that sometimes you forget to close language template, so {{Information}} become broken. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you EugeneZelenko for noticing and pointing out the broken templates problem. I will be more careful to make sure I close language templates when adding botanical/location info within them. — Look2See1 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


Please see COM:AN/U#Look2See1_again. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For those interested, please see my reply at the AN/U link here. I'm sorry it is far too long, so a synopsis:
Regarding the WhittierMansion/Jackson Street image categorization topic, please see my reply to Sanfranman59 above.
Regarding the AN/U block, in my experiences the 'tempest in a teapot' reactions by Nyttend about this 1 image are another eruption of threats and attacks they periodically mount, now over several years. I would appreciate the views and suggestions of editors and administrators not on this little battlefield, with a bigger sense of the problems and solutions, at the link and/or here. Neither I nor Nyttend can speak for the Commons community, whose collective effort I respect, appreciate, and am amazed by.
Thank you, Look2See1 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Please respond to my request for information in that thread. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

North America and the Americas cats

Visibly you still do not see that North/South is THE main divisin and contains every area in the Americas, but NEITHER North or South contains the Caribbean which is partly located in BOTH.

I had fixed it because files were mistacategorized or left behind. But for topic that are really for the whole Caribbean, you cannot put them ONLY in North. All territoies and countries are located eothjer in North or South, plus optionally in the Caribbean and/or Latin appropriately (but they are not the main division of the Americas)

It is why there's also a parent category for "the Americas" (OK people don't like to have "the Americas" listed in "continents" but they prefer it in "regions" or "locations", but you cannot forget that "the Caribbean" is NOT fully in North America and that it covers also Colombia, Venezuela and the Guianese countries and territories which are all in South America, NOT North).

The only thing that was criticized was the fact that I had attempted to put "the Americas" in "continents", and I have accepted to put as Continents only North and South.

For the rest the Caribbean is not and has NEVER been a subpart of North America.

Also you continue a false assertion about a "standard" key using "*" which has never existed. Each parent category has its own sorting/grouping rules. verdy_p (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Verdy p, please notice that I am only restoring [Cat:xyz in North America], not removing [Cat:xyz in the Americas]. I fear you may be doing blind reverts, and missing that fact. Your removing [Cat:xyz by continent] for Category:North America subcategories repeatedly since mid-March was distressing, thank you for stopping that.
In standard geography, geology, and biogeography the Category:Caribbean and Category:Central America are defined as sub-regions of Category:North America. Mainland countries with coasts on the Category:Caribbean Sea in Central and South America are sometimes considered parts of the socio−cultural Caribbean region by some, but not as part of the physical subcontinent. Certainly biota of the Caribbean (and/or Central America and/or North America) can also be present in Category:South America. However, in my experiences with 1,000s of en:wikipedia flora/fauna articles, they are primarily migrating birds and tropical flora species. Please just add [Cat:xyz in South America] to the North America one, and not remove [Cat:xyz in North America] to leave only the extremely broad [Cat:xyz in the Americas]. For the very southern geologically and politically affiliated Category:Islands of the Caribbean, please put them under Category:Islands of South America, and their subcategories under [Cat:xyz in South America].
As I've said in edit notes, The Category:Americas is usually used as a colloquial term for the colonial era New World in the English language, and for some it can be a 'politically incorrect' or culturally insensitive term. Nothing was "new" to the indigenous peoples of North and South America, present long before 1492 for at least ~10,000 years and more. The term Western Hemisphere includes parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia, and so is not accurate either. There can be value in [Cat:The Americas] as a quick regional go to container cat, a short−cut to drill down to more specific cats. I hope that was part of your intentions.
Post revolution Cuba has tended to use Norte America/norte-americano (not es: América del Norte) specifically when referring to the United States alone, but the North American continent includes the 'northern' region of Category:Latin America from Panama through Mexico and Cuba/Puerto Rico. Unfortunately, you are wrong that the Caribbean has never been a subpart of North America (a fact used by scholars and the educated public). Perhaps you are using the Cuban Communist definition, to lessen the political et al dominance of the United States in North America?
Regarding sorting keys, after numerous edits of international subcats (1,000s) over the years, I'm aware of what is used by the Commons editing community around the world. I'm not any designated expert or decision maker on sort key symbols, just noting what to date are usually used and never used. I have never seen ' " ' or ' ' used, lots of ' * ' ' + ' ' - ' and ' . ' however. Perhaps other editors or an administrator can clarify the policy for both of us.
Look2See1 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

AN/U thread problems

Hello, Look2See1. It seems to me that you have had many complaints against you, and rather than engage with other editors, your response has only been to ignore them or insult them. Your behavior at the AN/U thread is a good example of this: you simply insulted Nyttend, and then twice refused my request to provide a defense for yourself.

Please do not continue on this path.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Magog the Ogre, I provided a defense/reply for myself to the best of my very limited "data retrieval" abilities, in what I wrote at the AN/U and here. The subsequent discussion in the AN/U thread after my reply often felt like a witch hunt attacking with impulsive and insulting (mis)interpretations and assumptions of my thoughts and actions (not even close), and without a respectful meaningful discussion. That is not the way to engage with other editors such as myself.
Regarding the 10 examples you requested, I do not keep a file/bookmarks/post its/etc. on other editors' well or ill intentioned editing decisions and actions. I'm not even sure how to get to my talk page's archives for related discussions of years ago. This is a constructive volunteer effort, not a paid FBI/military/courtroom job to stock up defensive and/or offensive peeves for. It was a good idea on your part, but the past "while editing" info links were not retrievable, I do 1,000s of small edits. My innumerable edit notes saying "cat focus" do show how often I'm reducing other editor's overcats and/or removing a cat(s) to populate a more specific category I've recently created.
I have been repeatedly "simply insulted by Nyttend" (to adapt your phrase above) over the last years − and so stand by my words posted at the AN/U and here. The ongoing temperamental words Nyttend uses in edit notes is quite simply insulting to receive. Your phrasing above on who was insulted is one dimensional. That is not fair nor conducive to creating a safe place to mutually understand a problem. When my experiences are another repetition of being "cyber-bullied" by an editor then I will call it that each time. Some seemed to claim since I've said that before it is unusable again, as though it is an excuse or there is a quota. Wrong. If another's entitled and presumptuous behavior is repeated, I will repeat my truth.
Please do not allow discussions to continue on this path that the AN/U thread displayed. There are not teachable/learnable moments when it is unsafe to participate. Thank you — Look2See1 (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Elko Hot Hole

you have a problem with overcategorizing. you overcat my contributions, and your edits will be undone. Famartin (talk) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well Famartin, your appreciation for my creating and populating Category: Springs of Nevada today is quite something, you are most welcome!
Meanwhile, your elimination of my specific Springs of NV & Hot Springs of U.S. categories on Category: Elko Hot Hole is unappreciated. That seems senseless, as well as your calling their use overcat. Perhaps you can try to explain their irrational demolition and problem you seem to have?
Please be careful with your phrase "my contributions" (above) regarding your uploaded images, this is not your personal image file. My understanding is that once one releases their images on Commons, other editors may add/subtract/focus descriptions and categories. Some of your new categories (and cats on your images) for northern Nevada are very vague or only meaningful to a local expert. Please try to see through the eyes of national and international Commons users, so your images are meaningfully filed for the community to find/see/use.
I sincerely do appreciate your prolifically documenting the Nevada Great Basin region, it is a beautiful and unique area. — Look2See1 (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
You were recently suspended for a time for ignoring requests to stop overcatting. Now that your suspension is over, don't continue. I won't tolerate it. While this may be a "community" there are definite categorization rules, and you routinely ignore them. Famartin (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Note from Look2See1: I am unaware of being suspended or blocked — ever — and certainly saw no administrator's notice of that event issued here my talk page. My Commons editing has not been interrupted. I do not tolerate your slanderous exaggerations of depreciation Famartin. If no official notice is provided I can choose to strike your disparaging words from my talk page.—Look2See1 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Famartin − Your unceasing removal of Category:Springs of Nevada and Category:Hot springs of the United States for Category:Elko Hot Hole is irrational. It is a spring in Nevada and a hot spring in the United States. Well, "I won't tolerate" your insulting threats somehow based on your routinely illogical reverts deleting those 2 categories 3 times now. They fit definite categorization rules, and you are routinely ignoring them now with your senseless removals. Since you are also ignoring my "Perhaps you can try to explain" − just stop it. — Look2See1 (talk) 06:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Famartin — you are committing "overcatting" again with your fourth removal of the more specific child cat. on Category:Elko Hot Hole and leaving its parent cat. If you feel Category:Geothermal features in the United States is a parent cat, then why did you not remove that parent overcatting (of yours) 4 edits ago at 3:47, 5 May 2015 — and leave the new child cat Category:Hot springs of the United States on the image? You appear peevish, and attempting entrapment 'of my overcatting again' by not sharing your actual parent cat concern until your 4th (insultingly worded) edit note saying "you really don't understand what overcat is, do you... US hot springs are a subcat of US geothermal features, so it shouldn't be in both." I would have understood that at 3:47, 5 May 2015; 6:32, 6 May 2015‎; or 6:37, 6 May 2015‎; if you had been a collaborative contributor supporting the community of editors by explaining your insight and reason. You did not even try, shame on you.
Other editors and administrators, if interested in edits sequence please see: Category:Elko_Hot_Hole & action=history
As you said above Famartin: "While this may be a "community" there are definite categorization rules, and you routinely ignore them" (06:35, 6 May 2015). You, Famartin, routinely ignored them eight times in four rvts on just this Hot hole catting! Perhaps you should you be suspended for a time? Why do you assume an entitled exceptionality to ignore them, is it control problems with me and others editors 'touching' "(your) contributions" you spoke of above ? (03:48, 6 May 2015). Why should we "tolerate" you doing that repeatedly? Applying your quote: "You (Famartin) really don't understand what overcat is, do you…?" (3:47, 5 May 2015).
Also, your repeatedly committing psuedo-overcatting vandalism removing Category:Springs of Nevada, which is not a Geothermal feature's child cat but an independent Nevada body of water features cat, is inexplicable, reeking of self-blinding anger impulses, and insulting to me and Commons users. You routinely ignored definite categorization rules yet again. You have never shared any explaining on that vandalism action, nor answered my repeated questioning about it, which is abusive and plain wrong. Get off your self serving power trip with Category:Elko Hot Hole, and be a fully positive member of the editing "community," which your image uploads show the capacity for.
Peace — Look2See1 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please don't edit war and don't refer to a dispute over categorization as vandalism.[40] Your block log lists your blocks.[41] Since I see no evidence that you and Famartin have reached a consensus, I've reverted the category to the last stable version and protected it. I'll lift protection when a consensus on categorization is reached. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Walter Siegmund, could you please further constructively address the categorization problem? I do not understand how a sole parent-level U.S. cat, instead of more specific cat and a specific state cat, is a "stable situation"? I have repeatedly asked Famartin to explain their reasons/understanding here, to reach a consensus and peace. So far they only choose to "edit war" by inexplicable reverts of both cats and brief mis-accuisations of "overcatting."
Perhaps Cat:Geothermal is scientifically more accurate than Cat:Hot Springs, I'd certainly defer to professional geologists. However the incessant removal of Category:Springs of Nevada by Famartin does feel irrational to me and evidence of a temperamental vandalism (senseless destruction) of my good will editing work that created and populated the state specific category.
Since the other editor has refused to discuss the matter, generating the "evidence that you and Famartin have reached a consensus" has unfortunately been impossible so far for the Elko Hot Hole.
Thank you, Look2See1 (talk) 00:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Just for the record, you are >< close to another block for disruptive editing and edit warring. Please try listening when people make requests of you instead of arguing every time. You can't get your way every time you're on here; there has to be some given and take; that's what a community is about.
When everyone and his sister is telling you that you're wrong, it might be in your best interest to consider the possibility, rather than constantly digging in your heals and acting like there is a grand conspiracy. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Magog the Ogre, I have asked the editor Famartin and the community to assist understanding the Category:Elko Hot Hole dilemma. It takes two to edit war. So far Famartin has chosen to not actually discuss the matter, they are not obligated to. However I have been trying to understand and resolve it, have been asking for help about it, and since it first flared have ceased editing any images uploaded by Famartin.
Please know I am not trying to "get your (my) way every time you're (I'm) on here," and am always learning. As I discussed with Walter Siegmund above, I simply and sincerely do not understand the Elko Hot Hole categories problem. If Famartin or another editor can briefly explain which categories are most accurate, and therefore illuminate the blind spots I and/or Famartin are stuck in, it would be very appreciated. For me that type of group support is part of "what a community is about."
Meanwhile, please understand that unless new constructive comment is posted here that needs respectful acknowledgement from me, I'm dropping the Elko Hot Hole topic. This is expressed in peace and good will for the editing community. Thank you, — Look2See1 (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a thought: perhaps you're a bit too verbose in your responses. You take too long to get to the point, and talk about so many things in the meantime, people don't understand what you're seeing. Eventually, people begin to interpret it as you trying to justify spitting in their soup (please read the article!). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Look2See1: The version that I protected was dated 23:00, 9 June 2014‎ and was stable for 11 months.[42]
Since you have been editing since 2010 and have 269,035 edits on Commons and Wikipedia, I should not have to remind you of en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.[43] “Do not continue edit warring” and en:WP:DISENGAGE may apply to your dispute with Famartin.
"Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism." (en:WP:VAND) "Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus."(en:WP:EW). Calling people vandals, bullies, or the like is similarly ineffective. Please set a good example for more junior editors.
I don't have an opinion on the categorization of hot springs, nor would it be appropriate for me to express one (since I'm involved as an administrator). You may wish to seek third-party opinions from those editing related categories. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)In the hope that a fresh eye might be helpful, I think I may have a solution. I have just created a new category, "Hot springs of Nevada" which I believe covers all the bases that have been at issue here. It is a member of Category:Springs of Nevada Category:Hot springs of the United States, and Category:Volcanism of Nevada. I propose moving the Elko Hot Hole category to this category. Since Category:Geothermal features in the United States is a (grand)parent category of Category:Hot springs of Nevada, I think this covers the category favored by User:Famartin.

If we did not have this option, then the appropriate category(ies) would be the lowest-level ones that applied and communicated all the information. In this case, that would be the ones favored by User:Look2See1, but without the "geothermal features in the US" category. If we just use the "geothermal features in the US" category, as proposed by Famartin, then we lose the information that the topic is a hot spring and that it is a spring in Nevada. When we don't have exactly the category that would be needed, we sometimes have to put things in multiple categories to get them fully categorized.

Hope that helps. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Auntof6, very much. An inspired solution and very clear explanation of the 'generational relationships.' It gives words to the favored intention I always had for using the categories U.S. hotsprings and Nevada springs, without U.S. geothermal features, which was always not overcatting. Having one lowest-level Nevada category now, Nevada hot springs, resolves the dilemma with simple elegance. Thanks to Magog the Ogre and Walter Siegmund for your responses also. — Look2See1 (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome, but I don't need the flattery, thanks. If anyone was overcatting, it was you, by including the parent category. While we're at it, you can please stop changing headings to support your point of view. I've changed them back here. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't flattery, I express appreciation when I sincerely feel it. I know it's rare in the wikiworld, just my style and ethos. Look2See1 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
We have a solution for the issue this time. But are you going to continue to edit warring, name calling, falsely accusing others of name calling, and insisting that everyone is wrong and I'm right and their opinion is null and void the next time someone gets upset at one of your categorizations? Because this has got to stop, like yesterday, or you won't last for much longer. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Magog the Ogre, I see various mistakes I made, have learned from them, and will proceed differently with that insight. Please assume good faith, and not choose to create a pigeonhole that I 'must agree with or else.' Those are your experiences of the situation, forming some concepts that are germane, but others that are incorrectly imagining and assuming my motivations/perceptions/actions. I'm sorry my communication efforts have upset you, that was never an intention.

Please consider looking at the total view of my contributions. Of the ~269,000 edits, a large amount are in creating new more specific categories (& removing parent categories) and a substantial amount are removing parent/grandparent/sibling/irrelevant categories. As an example: a special focus since last year's mega-uploads of HABS/HAER images has been getting 1,000s of the photos/drawings out of 'plain' city/county categories and into site specific ones; as well as initiating the concept of Category:Historic American Buildings Survey images by state & Category:Historic American Engineering Record by state categories to do that, and creating many/most of them. Some HABS by state categories needed my creating them twice due to a well intentioned editor's merging them into a by state historical category, that all editors discussing it deemed was undefinable and too vague.

Looking back at the Category:Elko Hot Hole edits history after the 10 May 2015 overcatting clarification by Auntof6, I was surprised to see that it wasn't until my last revert that I removed Cat:Geothermal features in the United States. I'd misremembered it in my comment preceeding their reply, and it reminded me that until then I was putting the child cats back on the image while leaving Geothermal features, because I was assuming in good faith that the region might also be a named/known geothermal feature (with other subcats: eg. lava fields in Nevada/U.S., volcanism of Nevada), which Famartin would be aware of as an expert on Northern Nevada. Unfortunately I also assumed Famartin would explain that aspect &/or leave the more specific 'new' cats each time, and that assumption was clearly my mistake. Do you think my removing Category:Geothermal features in the United States from my first edit when adding the more specific Category:Springs of Nevada & Category:Hot springs of the United States would have avoided this episode entirely? If so, I'm sorry I missed that opportunity. — Look2See1 (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Look2See1, I am not upset in the slightest bit. I am simply trying to maintain a cordial community on Commons. As an outsider to the dispute, I have noticed an nonconstructive pattern.
When one person notes something, it might be a problem, but when you've had probably a dozen people ask you to do something differently, and your initial response has always been to fight back, this causes problems. English Wikipedia has a good essay on this: w:WP:NOTGETTINGIT.
I do not find it useful to go and discuss individual cases; even if you are right about some, in others, you probably are not. The problem is the overall pattern of behavior. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, yes, the majority of your contributions have been largely quite helpful. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Please do not add misinformation or specious categories to Commons.[44] Do not change a description to contradict the filename unless you are certain it is correct. If you are sure, please use {{Rename}} to suggest a correction to the file name. In this instance, it is evident from the filename that the lake is in California. The upload history of the contributor (File:Spokes 2013 at Carson Pass.png, taken the next day) suggests that the lake in question is within a day's bike ride from Carson Pass. You edited File:Spokes 2013 at Carson Pass.png only four minutes prior to making your edit to File:Spokes 2013 at Silver Lake, California.png. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Avner the Eccentric 01.jpg

Could you explain this edit? The only person I see in the photo is Avner the Eccentric, who lives in Maine and I believe is originally from New York. - Jmabel ! talk 01:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

We will take it off then. With 3 dozen similar images of him filed under Category:Chumleighland on Camino Island he appeared a revered local. Thanks for pointing out his visitor status in Island County, Washington.—Look2See1 (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
He gives an annual workshop and performance there. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Autopatrolled userright

This is not intended as any kind of 'sanction', but due to a history of complaints by other users regarding controversial changes you have made to file pages, and a seeming lack of engagement with discussion regarding those issues, I have removed the 'autopatrolled' userright from your account. If you desire to have this userright restored, please ask at COM:RFR. Revent (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Revent, please see "Where links go" section directly above for a discussion example. FDMS4 went off topic from Jmabel's good question there. I was hoping FDMS4 & Jmabel would return to address it. —Look2See1 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
My reference to a 'lack of engagement' had more to do with the fairly recent (and somewhat long) VP thread, where multiple editors expressed concern with you making large numbers of what were considered controversial changes to the formatting of image description pages. 07:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With such an active editor, the removal of the autopatrolled right floods recent changes/hide patrolled edits when he's around, making patrolling harder. INeverCry 06:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@INeverCry: That is of course true, and I would have no particular complaint if the right was restored after a request, but... while Look2See1 is IMO obviously acting in good faith, there seems to me to be a significant degree of concern that he's also making a large number of edits that are considered to be merely undesirable formatting changes, or overcategorization. Flagging his edits for a second set of eyes (at least for a while) seemed a reasonable way to possible sidetrack more drama. Revent (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I have studied the COM:RFR page. The words (criteria?/directions?) there regarding a COM:RFR (trial?/process?) is not comprehendible to me. Unfortunately, how to request autopatrolled restoration is beyond my wikimedia technical skills. Thank you, Look2See1 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
@Revent: If someone with almost 200k edits is doing something problematic, allowing them to continue making a large volume of edits doesn't seem like a good solution. An issue that's serious enough to warrant removal of a right should be at COM:AN/U, especially with such an established editor. This removal of his autopatrolled right makes patrolling for vandalism more difficult when he's editing, and is more of a hassle for patrollers than anything else. INeverCry 08:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with INeverCry. This is not a job for patrollers and it is counterproductive to remove the 'autopatrolled' userright. Look2See1 makes a large number of edits but it is the quality of edits, not the quantity, that makes a good contributor, in my opinion. Look2See1 would be well-advised to make edits that are genuinely helpful and recognized as such by the community. Careless edits degrade the quality of Commons and waste the time of other contributors.[45] Making edits to make a point is similarly disruptive.[46] Then, there are the seemingly unending additions of useless categories, e.g., adding Category:Saxifragaceae in the United States to a species category AND the file pages for that species.[47] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Where links go

Is there a specific, agreed-upon preference for linking Commons categories rather than English-language Wikipedia articles in the English-language descriptions of images and categories? That is, are you following some policy or guideline, or are you making an arbitrary choice based on your own personal preference? I've seen you do this recently for several images I've uploaded and categories I've created. I suppose one person's choice is as good as another's for categories, but unless there is a policy or guideline here, the photographer's preference should certainly win out for that person's own photos. - Jmabel ! talk 16:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • You appear to have been on Commons today, but you haven't replied. Again, are you following some standard or guideline I missed, or are you just changing things to your personal preference? - Jmabel ! talk 02:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Linking image description info & category ledes' secondary info to commons categories ({C|Place}, {C|Plant name}, {C|NRHP in place}, etc.) keeps the related images browsing & finding more info "internal", and it's independent of language limitations. Linking to en:wikipedia is an external link. It is obviously is english only.
Of course en:wikipedia article/category links are the only ones for any 'parent topic' (e.g. en:Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve for Category:Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve lede).
Since other languages' wikipedias all link to only this one Wikimedia Commons, keeping the image info links internationally comprehensible (via images/maps/etc.) seems wise and helpful to the greatestt diversity of users.
An administrator would have to answer if internal links being preferable to external links are standard or in any guidelines also.
You are welcome for the new subcats under Island County, Washington state. Some beautiful buildings, history, and HABS documentation occurs there. The semi-recent major uploads of HABS/HAER images are wonderful, but can monopolize parent county (and city) cats. — Look2See1 (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't there some sort of "agreement" (on AN or AN/U) that you stop adding lists to descriptions?    FDMS  4    04:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
List articles are in wikipedia to my awareness, I do not know of your reference to wikimedia. Please share a context/discussion link if it is a Commons topic. — — Preceding unsigned comment added by Look2See1 (talk • contribs)
This is a list or are you using the bullets to separate words?    FDMS  4    05:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • This is in an English-language description, so it is already in English. And, as I understand it, you are saying "no, there is no standard, I'm just following my personal preference." So I will feel free to revert you on the descriptions of my own photos. - Jmabel ! talk 15:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A much better solution, IMO, for 'internationalizing' descriptions on file and category pages is just to use the functionality of the LanguageSelect gadget... use {{en}}, {{es}}, and the like, and use links to the appropriate language Wikipedia inside those descriptions. It seems far more likely that a person clicking on a blue link in a description is looking for information on what the linked item 'is' (i.e. an article) since that would be the expectation created by the linking practices on other projects. The 'principle of least astonishment' seems to apply here. Revent (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Revent, I don't know whether you are addressing Look2See1 or me, but you are describing exactly what I do, and exactly what he changed. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Another notification

Please see COM:AN/U regarding your recent actions and discussions held on this talk page. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 1 month

Blocked user.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 1 month for the following reason: disruptive editing: see COM:ANU#Look2See1 --A.Savin 00:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC). 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 | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


[48], [49]: it seems to me that if you mae being from the HABS survey part of the category definition, that's too specific. I would presume that if we had architectural drawings of the same building from a different source, they would still go in this category, no? - Jmabel ! talk 05:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

All the Architectural drawings of Pantages Theater, Tacoma, Washington, the Architectural drawings of Union Station (Tacoma, Washington), and the Hazard Post Office (Spokane, WA) are specifically from HABS projects (archived originals or new drawings) — and so the Category: Historic American Buildings Survey of Washington (state) - Drawings is far more accurate than their former nationwide Category: Drawings of buildings in the United States.
There are 27 other "state/insular territory HABS Drawings" specific categories under Category: Drawings from the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), so please explore if interested in architectural drawings, the precedent there is clear and strong. Thanks — Look2See1 (talk) 06:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You're doing it again

You're rewriting category descriptions in your own bizarre style, when you've been asked over and over and over again not to do so, PLEASE STOP! Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been doing a lot of cleanup work with uncategorized BLM images, needing new or clarified categories. Also, the subcategories under Category:Paleontology in the United States by state and Category:Natural history museums in the United States by state were inconsistent at best, or oddly misfiled, often with no state cat & all needing editing. That was bizarre, not my clear edits.
Creating a message of appreciation occasionally would go along way, instead of always complaining here Beyond My Ken. Lacking that, an example would help clarify your problem for my reference. thank you — Look2See1 (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Does my recent edit on Category:Thunder Basin National Grassland cause you concern? If so why please. — Look2See1 (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Look2See1. It's good that you're being specific. You made the following category description at that edit:
English: The Thunder Basin National Grassland — a U.S. National Grasslands preserve in southeastern Wyoming.
I believe that many editors (including myself, and possibly BMK) object the the following formatting:
  • Boldfacing the category name
  • Using an emdash after the category name
  • Using a bullet list instead of multiple sentences
  • Linking to categories with {{C}}
Instead, I believe that most editors would be happy with:
English: The Thunder Basin National Grassland is a U.S. National Grassland preserve in southeastern Wyoming. The grassland is located in the High Plains ecoregion and is managed by the Medicine Bow National Forest.
I'm sorry that you are feeling underappreciated --- you've made multiple comments about that. You do a lot of good work at Commons and WP. Here's my interpretation of what's going on: you make a lot of personal formatting decisions for files and categories. People object to these decisions on your talk pages. You may not understand the objections (?) and you think what you're doing is correct (or at least, not forbidden), so you keep using the same formatting. Many editors get frustrated that you keep editing in the same way, and then don't see the good work that you've done. There seems to be a growing consensus that when you keep adding your own personal formatting styles, even over the objection of other editors, that is disruptive editing. This is my interpretation of why you were blocked for a month.
In summary -- I think you can either format articles/files/categories the way you like, or get the appreciation of your fellow editors. I doubt if you can get both. — hike395 (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I want to echo Hike's comments. I think s/he nails it on the head. You do a lot of good work here, but a few of your editing habits are just plain counterproductive and create more work for others who follow community guidelines and policies. In addition to the things that Hike points out (and I will say that I don't find these particular habits of yours to be as objectionable as others), I would also add your apparent lack of understanding of the importance of avoiding over-categorization (a policy).
With regard to your edits to Category:Thunder Basin National Grassland, I'm no expert in that geographic area, but a little Googling suggests that Thunder Basin National Grassland and Medicine Bow National Forest are geographically distinct areas that don't overlap (though the Forest Service includes them both with Routt National Forest in the same administrative area). If so, neither should be a subcategory of the other and they should probably both be subcategories of Category:Protected areas of Wyoming. But if Category:Thunder Basin National Grassland does belong under Category:Medicine Bow National Forest, Category:Protected areas of Wyoming should be removed since the latter is a parent category of the former. And I didn't need to look far for another example of over-categorization. In this case, adding Category:Owyhee River when the photo is already in a subcategory branch of that tree (Category:Owyhee River in Nevada) is the very definition of over-categorization as the policy is currently written.
You've done this type of thing time and time again over several years now and many in the community have tried to explain the problem to you. The feedback you are given just seems to have no impact and you go right on doing things the way you always have. If you don't understand or disagree with the feedback you're given or the over-categorization policy is not clear to you, ask questions, discuss, be open to changing your behavior and don't get defensive. If you object to the policy, work to change it. But don't just keep doing what you're doing. Eventually, people get frustrated and understandably conclude that you're not really interested in collaboration. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Me again

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)

You have been randomly selected to take a very short survey by the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team!

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

To opt-out of further notices concerning this survey, please remove your username from the subscription list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a duration of 3 months

Blocked user.svg
You have been blocked from editing Commons for a duration of 3 months for the following reason: disruptive editing against COM:OVERCAT etc, despite of complaints --A.Savin 04:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC). 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 | မြန်မာဘာသာ | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Română | Русский | Simple English | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−