User talk:Look2See1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Today is Tuesday, September 1, 2015; it is now 02:06 (UTC/GMT )

  • Please assume mutual good faith when here
Santa monica mountains canyon.jpg


Thanks for the edit on the recent merge, will help
--George2001hi (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Contributions[edit]

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding about the layout of Tahrir Square. Looking at your contributions, it looks like you're doing a great job of editing articles about Egypt at a time when many of us want to learn more. (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


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

Thanks for the accurate Australian usage of the term pastoralist. Have just removed Category:Ranchers from Category:Australian pastoralists. — Look2See1 t a l k → 02:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
however in the case where this occurs, I see no problem at all as a see also - it allows the reader to understand synonymic terms and possibly related subjects they didnt know were connected...

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

Hi JarrahTree, The term pastoralist, used in this specific Australian jargon, was unfamiliar to me before July 2015. If I hadn't arrived at Category:Australian pastoralists via an Australian agricultural cat tree, I would have thought it an Australian plein air art style or an Australian environmentalist movement. Since a new [Category:Australian ranchers] is clearly wrong, it seems placing [Category:Australian pastoralists] under international parent Category:Ranchers would be appropriate per synonymic terms for the same/related subject. Ranchers & pastoralists both being terms for people working on very large parcels of uncultivated land for (non−plant crop) agricultural products (sheep, livestock, goats…) — regardless of whether in local vernaculars the large parcels are called ranches, ranch lands, range lands, stations, pastoral leases, ranchos, or estancias, et al. The parent Category:Pastoralists only has the Australian subcat, and so that is not currently an international parent category.
There is an Australian precedent for a synonymic termed category being used: Category: Australian stockmen is placed under international parent Category:Cattlemen by nationality
Shall I put back Category:Australian pastoralists under international parent Category:Ranchers, so non−Australians can find them and Australians can find the same/related subject in other countries? — or not? Thanks for the discussion.—Look2See1 t a l k → 02:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

American sculptors[edit]

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

Got it now, thank you for explaining.—Look2See1 t a l k → 06:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Any time. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 18:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Information icon Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)


Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

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

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

I have to agree with this suggestion - adding edit summaries would make it easier to follow some of your reasoning. I see you've been doing a great deal of recategorization related to the Bronze Age and similar matters; while this is, in and of itself, not problematic, adding an edit summary to each of your edits would help people get a better picture of what you're doing. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Will do, thanks for pointing out the many places it helps readers. Please see my reply below regarding the Bronze Age recategorizations question. Thanks, Look2See1 t a l k → 00:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Category edits[edit]

Hi, I notice that you have been trying to recategorize Bronze Age pages. But I am not clear about everything you are doing. In this edit [1] for example, you have removed * for the main category and re-added Category:Bronze Age again. Can you explain what you are trying to do? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kautilya3, I was simply adding articles about the Bronze Age in India & other Asian locations at the parent Category:Bronze Age to the more specific & new Category:Bronze Age Asia. I'd found the existing Category:Bronze Age Europe subcategory helpful to continentally place Bronze Age cultures and events, as the cultures/places names et al are often quite unfamiliar (to me).
Per the 'cat/article same name' category sort, usually I see it sorted by an empty space, e.g. [Category:Indus Valley Civilization| ]. That way if there is a major 'topic organizing/list article,' e.g. [Timeline of Indus Valley Civilization] '* sorted' e.g. [Category:Indus Valley Civilization|*], it places it next one down, preceding all the articles only organized alphabetically. I learned it from other editor/mentors many years ago, it's not my invention or style.
The re-adding Category:Bronze Age after Category:Bronze Age Asia was because: 1.) I'm so ignorant of how Bronze Age experts expect to find articles; 2.) Since ~1 year ago I've keep coming across articles (usually landform/settlement related) that have both the child & a primary parent subdivison cat used: e.g. Category:Owens River with [Cat:Rivers of xyz] for 2 counties & also the counties' same state. May have been an editors' discussion/new rule decision I missed, but since it affects hundreds+ of articles I'm leaving them, though those seem to be primo Overcat examples (done by others).
Back here, what do you think, re: Indus Valley Civilization with sorted [Cat:Bronze Age Asia] & non-sorted [Cat:Bronze Age] also? Please advise. — Look2See1 t a l k → 00:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Geologic time templates[edit]

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

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