User talk:Look2See1/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Scientific name"

Hi Look2See1 - just a note: please don't add "scientific name" to the lede of species articles named for the common name. The standard format is "bold common name, followed by scientific name in brackets and italics" - see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Organisms#Lead_section. Also, the IUCN link (if there is one) should by preference go into the taxobox (see e.g. current Valley and ridge salamander) and not under 'external links'. Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Well, look at the source of Valley and ridge salamander [1]. Fifth line from the top, "| status_ref " - that's the IUCN link as an inline reference, using the "cite journal" template, as is current usage. This goes to the species' individual entry on the IUCN page - sending the reader to the front page is not very useful :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:56, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Melaleucas not trees

Hello Look2See1,

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

Botanical authorities do not follow the pattern used in zoology

Hi, you have been adding categories such as Category:Taxa named by John Torrey, Category:Taxa named by Augustin Pyramus de Candolle when that is not considered to be the case in botanical nomenclature. For example, Purshia DC. ex Poir. was named by Poiret in 1816, and although De Candolle named it again in an 1818 publication, his name is illegitimate. There was an earlier manuscript of De Candolle's which Poiret used as a basis, but that is not a validly published name. Purshia stansburyana (Torr.) Henrickson was called Cowania stansburyana by John Torrey. In zoology there is a pattern similar to what you have done, that the person who first gave a name, any name, to a taxon, is listed ever after, even if they blundered badly on the taxonomy, but that is not how botanical nomenclature works. If the species name is wrong, then the taxon assignment is wrong, so it cannot be said that the person named the taxon. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I endorse Sminthopsis84's point. Actually, I'm not sure of the value of these categories; is the idea to have one for every person who named a taxon? Or just the "major" people? If so, how are they selected?

If these categories are to be used, it would be better to name them as per the "Taxa described in" categories. Firstly, "first scientifically described by", which seems to be the meaning of a category like Plants described in 1753, works for both the botanical and zoological codes, which treat names somewhat differently; secondly, it's better to separate names under different codes, as per "Animals described in ..." and "Plants described in ..." Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment that if only "major people" are to be so treated, the notion that certain people's opinions count more than those of others is inflammatory in botanical nomenclature, which has fought long and hard against it in, for example, overturning the Kew Rule. I would oppose such an approach to categorization. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please stop. Wherever you are getting this information from, it is way off the mark. I can't even begin to imagine a source that could produce this edit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

And after looking at the genus Calliandra generally, I conclude that you are tossing all the species in that genus into Category:Taxa named by George Bentham. No, George Bentham did not name all of the species in the genus!! Please remind yourself of what taxon means. (Bentham also didn't claim that he himself was a taxon, as this edit suggests; in fact, I'm quite sure that he would have been horrified by the suggestion.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Neither did John Torrey name Torreya after himself as suggested here. Gderrin (talk)

Final warning

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

Tubificina

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

		The Category Barnstar
		Thanks for your tireless work with categories, particularly your awesome development of the Category:Outdoor recreation by country branch I just recently introduced, but without filling it with life! Now this previously missing aspect is getting tangible. Thanks! --PanchoS (talk) 09:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Mindanao island group

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

The Mindanao island group IS a valid administrative designation, per the wikipedia article Island groups of the Philippines and parent Category:Island groups of the Philippines. The Mindanao island group is 1 of the 3 administrative Philippine island group divisions, for those islands located in the southern Philippines, including its main one, Mindanao Island.

The other 2 other island group divisions are Luzon (northern Philippines) and Visayas (central Philippines).

The history of the 'Mindanao island group' has notable distinctions from the rest of the country in the Luzon & Visayas island groups, including successfully resisting incorporation into the colonial era Spanish East Indies, and having strong and meaningful Islamic influences within its historical traditions and contemporary politics.

Please see more information, my thoughts on this, and possible category renaming options at Category talk:History of Mindanao (region). Please assume good faith — Look2See1 t a l k → 07:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Administrative divisions? You are wrong from the get go. We only have regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, barangays and sitios/puroks as administrative divisions. Island groups are just geographic divisions. The problem is you dont consult, and you dont pay attention to edit summaries, or to your talk page. Its just only now.--RioHondo (talk) 07:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

So it is clear:

Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions: Provinces of the Philippines

Category:Second-level administrative country subdivisions: Cities of the Philippines and Municipalities of the Philippines

Category:Third-level administrative country subdivisions: Barangays of the Philippines

The Regions of the Philippines actually are more geographic than actual administrative (except for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The island groups certainly are no administrative jurisdictions.--RioHondo (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Add: So if you wish to carry out your categories: it should be per province (1st level) or at most per region (especially for ARMM). Island group-wide categories are very superficial and pointless.--RioHondo (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Respectfully — Look2See1 t a l k → 08:29, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

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

Hi Dschslava, my posting/reply at the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page:

"RioHondo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vandalism on Mindanao Philippine history-related categories and subcategories.

They repeatedly removed original Category:History of Mindanao and 'focused' Category:History of Mindanao (region) from the same relevant articles and categories repeatedly, and then proposing to speedily delete it because it was empty has neither integrity nor validity. RioHondo removed over 20 categories from it 1-3 times between ~22:20, 30 June 2016 and ~23:07, 30 June 2016 (so far) ([2] & [3]‎; and a third time ~an hour later.

The Mindanao island group/region is a valid administrative designation, per the wikipedia article Island groups of the Philippines and parent Category:Island groups of the Philippines. The Mindanao island group/region is 1 of the 3 administrative Philippine island group divisions, for those islands located in the southern Philippines, including its main one, Mindanao Island. The other 2 other island group divisions are Luzon (northern Philippines) and Visayas (central Philippines). :::The history of the 'Mindanao island group' has notable distinctions from the rest of the country in the Luzon & Visayas island groups, including successfully resisting incorporation into the colonial era Spanish East Indies, and having strong and meaningful Islamic influences within its historical traditions and contemporary politics.

Please see more information at Category talk:History of Mindanao (region), including category's original naming (Category:History of Mindanao), current name (Category:History of Mindanao (region)), and potential renaming (e.g. Category:History of Mindanao (island group) or Category:History of Mindanao), & other options. — Look2See1 t a l k → 07:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)"

It was replaced there by you with:

"Note: both parties appear to be involved in multiple edit wars. Will try to resolve. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 06:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The International Plant Names Index

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

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

Thank you — Look2See1 t a l k → 22:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Category:Images of Gardens and Landscape design has been nominated for discussion

Category:Images of Gardens and Landscape design, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 18:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Petroleum in California has been nominated for discussion

Category:Petroleum in California, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Wildfire

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

Bluecut Fire in the new

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

Proposal to rename Church of Ireland, Wales categories

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

Category:Northern South America has been nominated for discussion

Category:Northern South America, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Prevan (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

References and external links

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