User talk:Couiros22 - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nick Thorne (talk | contribs) at 10:34, 13 June 2018 (→What are you doing?: answer the question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:34, 13 June 2018 by Nick Thorne (talk | contribs) (→What are you doing?: answer the question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, Couiros22, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! I see that you have been here for near unto a year and nobody has welcomed you. Well, belated welcome. --Bejnar (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Mountain

In the Mountain Infobox, latitude and longitude are formatted like this:

| lat_d = 42| lat_m = 49 | lat_s = 41| lat_NS = N

| long_d = 0| long_m = 06| long_s = 27| long_EW = E

Good luck with more Pyrenees! --Bejnar (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Excellent new article! This article is very good for a new article by new editors. Mr. Guye (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (La Maladeta) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating La Maladeta, Couiros22!

Misplaced Pages editor Mr. Guye just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good job. This article is now reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment on Mr. Guye's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Franz Schrader (geographer) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pau, Henry Russell and Montagne

Ibón (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Basque and Aragonese

Néouvielle National Nature Reserve (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pinewood and Isard

Petit Vignemale (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tautology and Pre-Indo-European

Pic de Ger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Jer and Gascon

Campbieil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Isard

Grande Fache (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry Russell

Pic Schrader (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Posets

Pic des Spijeoles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Henry Russell

Vallée d'Aure (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lançon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Théols (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pike, Roach, Crucian, Barbel, Arnon and Bleak

Ozanne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Bonneval and Brou

Pyrénées Animal Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Hen and Isard

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikilinking

Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Misplaced Pages.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

dates
years
commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

This applies to infoboxes, too.

The animals are all listed in the See also section, so best there and not twice.

Thanks, and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Dolore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Auvergne, French river and Mayres

Sédelle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Chub and Bleak

Veyre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Auvergne and Saint-Saturnin

Château de Boucard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Le Noyer

Grande Sauldre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Le Noyer

List of châteaux in the Centre region (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Le Noyer

Miodet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Auvergne

Monne (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saint-Saturnin

Petite Sauldre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Achères

Sancerrois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Le Noyer

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Bay of Txingudi

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bay of Txingudi, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://wikipedia.orange.fr/Baie_de_Chingoudy.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Cerisy Forest

added links pointing to Adder and Boor

Irati River

added links pointing to Salazar and Erro

Mount Okabe

added links pointing to Pyrenean and Basque country

Cotentin Donkey

added a link pointing to Millwork

Irati Forest

added a link pointing to Basque country

Souleuvre

added a link pointing to Bungee

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Donkeys and other things

Hi! Thanks for starting Cotentin Donkey. I see you've made a number of other useful articles in a similar way. So please forgive me for asking you to do things a bit differently:

Please don't copy-paste text from other wikis into this one, as you did at Bay of Txingudi; that is a form of copyright violation, and, as you have seen, alerts the copyright search bot
In general, it takes two or three times as long to clean up a bad translation (and those done by Google are really very bad indeed) as it does to translate from scratch; so - again, in general - please don't post great chunks of badly translated text
It's far preferable (in general!) to start the article – a lead sentence or two to give context, plenty of references, some categories, perhaps an infobox – and then tag it with one of the {{expand language}} family of templates, such as {{expand French}}; that will, sooner or later, attract the attention of interested and competent editors
Whenever you translate content from another Misplaced Pages, please make sure you give attribution for the work of the editors who created that content by placing a {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the en.wiki article

If you have questions or need advice, please feel free to ask. Please don't let my suggestions above prevent you from enjoying being an editor here. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Repeat the same requests

Hi again! You are doing a great job creating useful articles. But I'm going to ask you again to slow down a bit and start being a lot more careful. You are randomly copying stuff both from French Misplaced Pages and now from within this one too without any acknowledgement, and often without making the obvious basic changes that are needed. Please note carefully:

You must write in your own words; you may not copy from elsewhere
When you "translate" a page from another wikipedia, you must give attribution for the work of the editors who created the content by placing a {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the article
There's no point importing {{sfn}} tags if you don't also import the references they refer to
You will make yourself very unpopular if you continue pasting in atrocious machine translations of foreign-language content; you are making a huge amount of work for other editors, and they are not likely to thank you for it

and (this is just a warning, not a threat):

continuing to ignore advice on these matters can lead to some undesirable consequences.

I'm still available to answer questions, feel free to ask at any time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Forêt de Tronçais, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Primary, Deadwood and Paris basin. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Corse" horse

Per this source I think your Corse horse is actually the Corsican horse may want to look into that and move the article. BTW, in the future, maybe do more than create a one-sentence stub with no project tag, we will not find it to improve it. Montanabw 18:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lac de Bort-les-Orgues, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Auvergne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dongola (Horse), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian-Abyssinian War. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

French mountains

Hallo, I've come across a few of your new French mountains while stub-sorting. A few comments:

Please remember to check for alternative names - I've redirected Le Grand Veymont to the existing article Grand Veymont. If an article needs to start with "The" or "Le/La", it's always worth having a redirect or a dab page entry at the version without.
Similarly, watch out for dab pages where an article belongs - I've added Le Taillefer to Taillefer (disambiguation)
Please remember to add {{reflist}} in the "References" section
I haven't come across the template {{iw-ref}} which you're using, but the template documentation page says it's "Deprecated". You might want to have a look at that page and read about it.

Thanks. PamD 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pardusco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tallman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Category: Birds of South Island

Hi there; I see you've been fixing the categories of some New Zealand birds to specify they are only found on the South Island. Unfortunately the category "Birds of South Island" is incorrect. The name of the island is "the South Island", always written with a definite article – yes, it's a strange usage. Would you be able, please, to correct the category in each of the articles you've changed? Many thanks. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Please take heed of the formal warning above, and seek consensus. The best place for a wider discussion might be at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Birds, although I can't see how you can possibly justify removing the Birds of Europe category from relevant species pages anyway. Also, please give an edit summary for your edits. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Where did you check them from? None of them are found in Europe; at least not according to references like BirdLife International - you should look at the repartition map and see for yourself - Avibase etc. like I highlighted to you earlier.

See also the IUCN geographic range directly accessible at the bottom of each page article ;-)

Example:

You reverted Aleutian tern to be included in "Birds of Europe" cat. WHERE DOES THE SPECIES OCCUR IN EUROPE THOUGH ??

IUCN range "Native: Canada; Hong Kong; Indonesia; Russian Federation; Singapore; United States" --Couiros22 (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It would be better if you asked these questions before continuing edit warring. For many of the species List of birds of Great Britain should be sufficient to show that they occur in Europe, since Britain is a European country. IUCN concentrates on breeding ranges, not wintering, passage or vagrancy records. Please Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith from other editors, and don't keep warring to push your agenda. FWIW, there is at least one Long-billed dowitcher in England at the moment. Note that the categories don't define any condition for birds to be included , and it would be nonsense and uninformative to exclude birds because you don't want them included Jimfbleak (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that your last edit to the tern article breaches the WP:3RR rule. I'm not going to block you at present, nor invite another admin to do so, since I prefer to give you the opportunity to revert your own edit. Please stop the edit warring though, since a block is otherwise bound to happen Jimfbleak (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You should realize that perhaps it isn't as useful to include in "Birds of Europe" as one might think, as it misleadingly suggests that the species is present throughout the whole continent, when it isn't ; just because it occasionally occurs in Winter in one remote part doesn't really make it eligible to be included in 'Birds of Europe'. Also, aside from IUCN, no major bird reference mentions its slightest presence in Europe or the UK. It would however, be useful to include the species in a new separate category: "Wintering birds of the United Kingdom", rather than "Birds of Europe", hence the utility of creating geographical subcategories... --Couiros22 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

And on what consensus or discussion do you base your unilateral decisions? I can't get you to stop edit warring, and actually discuss the issues first, so I'll take this elsewhere, specifically Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Birds and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hi Couiros22,

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. I am responding to a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and have looked at your recent edit history in detail. Would you please undertake to follow WP:BRD - that when an editor reverts you, that you do not attempt to make the same change again without consensus?

This is a collaborative project and you will not get far if you follow your current approach. Please edit according to established norms and consensus, discussing as appropriate with Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Birds. I also recommend that you work with experienced editors like Jimfbleak, rather than against them.

Best regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Birds of the Andes

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Birds of the Andes. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Birds of the Himalayas. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Birds of the Himalayas – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. Passengerpigeon (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Birds of the Andes

A tag has been placed on Birds of the Andes requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

No substantive text content

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jimfbleak (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Couiros22. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Common hill myna categories

I noticed that you've made some changes to the categories that Common hill myna belongs in. I've just started dealing with the issues of categories and so I've got a few questions about the changes that you have made, some of which are general in nature, some specific

1) You removed all of the categories of South East Asian countries, and kept the category South East Asia. Conversely you have removed the Asian category and kept the Asian countries outside of South East Asia. What is the rationale behind this? When would you use, for example, Category:Birds of Brunei? Why not have either Birds of Asia, or list every country that the bird exists in?
2) Countries where the bird has been introduced appear to be not included, eg: Puerto Rico, is this deliberate?
3) China was replaced with Hainan, yet the bird exists on the mainland. Why was this change done?
4) The category Starling was removed, and yet it is a Starling, so why? Admittedly Misplaced Pages has Starling synonymous with Sturnidae, and Gracula is a subcategory or Sturnidae, but if they are synonymous - why have the starling category at all? Also Starling is a subcategory of Songbirds, so by removing Starling, the myna has been removed from songbirds - so should Sturnidae be included in Songbirds, and if so doesn't that undermine the point of common name categories? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

1) - If a bird is present throughout most of Southeast Asia, then "birds of South East Asia" should be used - however, if the bird has a much more localized range, then individual countries cats should apply - e.g. birds of Malesia, birds of Indonesia, birds of Borneo, or even "Birds of Brunei" if the bird is endemic or only restricted to the north of the island (to which another category 'birds of East Malaysia' could also be added to).

This was discussed on the Project birds talk page.

2) - I decided up until now to exclude cats. of areas where the bird has been introduced, given I felt many bird species tend to be "extirpated" from their original geographical zones of predilection. Although I agree that this is more discussible.

3) - As stated above, if the bird is restricted to Hainan or equally to most southern parts China, then "Birds of Hainan" is suitable (perhaps a third category eg. "birds of South China" should also be added). If the bird is present throughout most of the country then only "Birds of China" is necessary.

4) The starling category was +/- empty; therefore I decided to include only the names of some of the most common species. --Couiros22 (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Couiros22 thankyou for your reply, I do have some further queries and comments

1) do you have a link to where in the Project birds talk page that this was discussed. There are 68 pages of archives, and the subject of categories was discussed a number times but not with any wide-ranging or firm decisions that I could see. It does also raise the issue of how a reader is supposed to use categories. Let's say I want to look up a bird, can't remember the name, but I know it's local to my area, do I start from continent category and keep checking all of the birds as I narrow it down to the local area? What's the purpose behind categorising things the way that you have suggested? The reader isn't necessarily going to know how wide-spread a bird is in South-east Asia, so why decide how to categorise it based on that? How is it decided how widespread it has to be? Does this ruling only apply to SE Asia? Why are the separate countries included under Asia, when it's distributed in most of Asia? Including only a province in China is even more odd, how is the reader supposed to use that category?

2) Would it be reasonable to use the IUCN extant native distribution to decide what areas to include? Or include areas that they have been extirpated from? Surely this is a topic that must have raised previously and some consensus arrived at?

3) I can't agree that only Hainan is included when the bird also exists in southern China. And then why "birds of South China" rather than the southern provinces? How much of China does the bird need to be in before all Birds of China is used? Remember that distribution maps are rough estimates and quite often animals do not exist in most of the areas covered, so even if a bird had been spotted in every province at some stage (and thus the whole of China is in the distribution map) that doesn't mean that the bird actually exists in most of that area. Further - what's the rationale behind selecting which category to put things on that basis? How does help the reader who is trying to use the category system to navigate through the articles? It's not how books on bird-watching are organised, which is surely what the category system should be trying to emulate.

4) What does "+/- empty mean"? Why is that relevant? The common hill myna is a very common bird, much more so than the Emerald Starling or Metallic Starling. And what does 'commonness' have to do with whether an article should be included in a category or not?

I'm still confused Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

1) It was earlier suggested for animals species in general:

   https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=743635920
   which was later followed up here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_68#Proposals.3F

as a reminder: - If a bird is present throughout most of Asia, then there isn't any need to refine into subcategories (or to list every single country - there would be a lot of them) - if a bird has a more localized range of presence within a larger geographical cat. then relevant subcategories should apply (e.g. if a bird is present in only India, then "birds of India" rather than "birds of South Asia") - one exception: eg. if a bird is sparsely present throughout East Asia yet notably present in Korea (more frequent than anywhere else) then one should use both categories: "Birds of East Asia" to indicate that the bird is frequent throughout all or most of the sub-continent and 'birds of Korea' to highlight the fact that the bird is prominently found in Korea.

- If a bird is present in southern China only, then, 'birds of South China' would be more relevant than 'birds of China', given the latter would mislead the user into thinking the bird is found throughout the whole country. - If a user knows a bird is local/endemic to their country, then why should this pose a problem?

2) This is still a matter of debate, but given the very rare amount of bird species to which this matter is an issue, then I think it is not of the utmost importance for the time being.

3) The Birdlife International website is a sound source and also seems to match the areas of repartition from the IOC World Bird List 99% of the time...

If a bird is present throughout most of China, then 'birds of China', if not then sub cats should apply ; only use any category when then bird has a prominent or outstanding presence within that area and compared to its neighboring areas.

4) As the category was almost empty I decided to include only the more common ones & those that are easy to remember - more can be added later (myna not being a true starling either). Also due to the fact that 'starling' category being a literary definition, as opposed to "sturnidae", where there can be found every scientific species of starling. --Couiros22 (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Couiros22

1) I think the stumbling block I am having relates to your two statements "given the latter would mislead the user into thinking the bird is found throughout the whole country." and "If a user knows a bird is local/endemic to their country, then why should this pose a problem?". It seems that you are using the Category list at the bottom of the article as some means of describing to the reader the distribution of the species. But my understanding of Categories is that this is not what they are for, but are used by the reader to navigate through Misplaced Pages eg:]

2) It is not true that this issue only applies to a "very rare amount of bird species". A great many have been introduced, and surely it is important to get this right before people start deciding where the categories go, otherwise someone's going to have to redo them all over again later.

3) The Birdlife International website has it on the mainland of China, in the southern area as well. How do we/you determine "when then bird has a prominent or outstanding presence within that area and compared to its neighboring areas"? Typical distribution maps don't provide that sort of information, and indeed it's usually very hard to determine that at all. How did you determine what the areas were for the common hill myna?

4) in what way are mynas not 'true starlings'? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Just sticking my head in because Jameel the Saluki left me a note. My understanding of categorization is limited (I've placed all of a dozen, ever, I believe), but I thought I'd add my 2 cents.

1) & 3) The standard for using low-level subcategories in species distributions seems reasonably clear: we use the more specific category, with supplementary use of a higher-level one (possibly the parent) if the species is more rarely/sparsely present in a wider range. Maybe that does mean highjacking categories as a kind of secondary distribution description, however consider the alternative: providing both the low-level category (clearly required) and the next higher one (to help the reader navigate to the broader region) in every case - this leads to the kind of category bloat that is always avoided. And at what level do you stop - Island -> Country -> Ecoregion -> Continent? Better to keep to the lowest level as standard, with option to go one up if required. - As for the specific case of common hill myna, Hainan does seem broadly correct if maybe a little too restrictive based on the distribution described in the article. lord I hate that "footnotes" reference scheme

2) I agree with Jameel that the question of introduced ranges is important, and that a solid consensus would be valuable here. As our various lists of introduced species show, these circumstances are by no means rare and bound to come up over and over again. If no clear guideline has been established so far, maybe an RFC should be launched to get some input? That wouldn't be a lot of work to set up.

4) Matter of taste, I'd say :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

1) How do the present categories not allow the user to navigate through Misplaced Pages? They're simply categories relating to each other within one project: a great 'bird atlas' if you like.

2) I reckon these should at best be included in a separate category (e.g. "introduced birds of the United States", which should be easy to recover, given the modest amount.

3) ...given the "South China" category has not yet been created. The bird is generally present throughout "Southeast Asia", so one global category is enough. The reason why 'birds of South Asia' and 'birds of East Asia' can't also be used is because according to the BirdLife range map and other sources, the bird is not significantly present in those areas (e.g. a simple look will show that the bird is present in Hainan and far southern China, but nowhere else in East Asia).

4) let's avoid hairsplitting --Couiros22 (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me try and clarify a few things, at the risk of repeating myself. Firstly with regards the general principle of how species are categorised, I am not stating whether or not the method used by Couiros22 is correct or not, but rather I am looking for the rationale. Given that I asked for a rationale previously and did not get one (I got the methodology), let me risk being patronising and put the definition "a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or belief.". Why I think that this is important is that once established, it then allows consensus about the method by which categorisation can occur, without continuous changes by recurrent editors. Looking at the previous conversations linked in WikiProject_Birds there is a) no explicit discussion of underlying rationale b) only a small group of editors involved c) the conversation ended with no agreement reached. Interestingly one of the set of principles that you seem to have highlighted you have then ignored, or misunderstood/misapplied. Peter Coxhead stated 1) The basic unit should be a contiguous geographical area or a biogeographically sensible collection of contiguous geographical areas, ruling out many politically defined units, e.g., the United States, Ecuador (because this includes the very different mainland Ecuador and the Galápagos Islands) or the UK (because this includes Northern Island, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands but excludes the Republic of Ireland). 2) Categories should always be migrated upwards where possible, so any organism found in a large number of subunits of a larger unit should be categorized at the larger unit, e.g. an organism found in a large number of countries in Africa should be categorized as "of Africa", not "of Kenya", "of Tanzania", "of Nigeria", "of Mali", "of Ghana", etc. . The concept here is to attempt to categorise by areas consistent with biogeographical areas - this has the advantage of naturally matching species distribution to category, but has the distinct disadvantage of being opaque to useless for the average reader. In any case that is no what you are doing, which is following along the geopolitical lines, which then makes principle 2) even more arbitrary to apply. This leads into the principle behind categories at all, which is to allow the reader to navigate Misplaced Pages. None of the discussion or principles involved appear to be addressing this issue. You ask "How do the present categories not allow the user to navigate through Misplaced Pages? " - and yet I gave an example - you want to check on a bird in your garden, but don't know the name. With the method you are using the reader has to search through multiple categories and check each one, when ideally he/she should just be able to drill down to the one that they want. So, for example, I live in Hong Kong, and see a bird. If I go to the library there will be books on Fauna of Hong Kong, Birds of China or Birds or Southern China for example, but I only need one of those books to get the bird. The way the categories are I need to hunt through (hypothetically) Birds of Asia, Birds of East Asia, Birds of China, Birds of Southern China, and Birds of Hong Kong, and hope that there hasn't been a mistake in the categorisation (eg leaving out Southern China by putting only Hainan - in which case I'd never find the bird I was looking for). The only possible rationalisation I seem to have gotten for the current methodology, is to have a neat list of categories at the bottom of the page, from which the reader can determine the distribution. But that is not what they are for, or what they should be used for, that information should be included in the text of the article.

the concept of then separating out birds completely between introduced and non-introduced could potentially complicate matters. My point is that how can you decide that the current methodology is the appropriate one, if when presented with additional issue, such as introduced birds, you simply dismiss the matter as something that can be dealt with later? How do you know that unless you work out how to deal with it now? How do you know that the current methodology is not making things even more of a mess to sort out later?

In terms of the specifics of the common hill myna article

3) Your response here makes no sense to what I have said, and I am not sure what it is that you think that you are addressing by it. I am stating that the way things stand for the categorisation of the common hill myna, even by your methodology, there is a problem that needs to be addressed, namely that the myna is present on mainland china and that area is not covered by the current categorisation. My previous comments related to incongruity of many of your comments relating to your general principles in determining categorisation, and your apparent misunderstanding of how distribution maps are determined and agreed upon. I note that you have changed your wording to "significantly present in those areas", and that you are implying that the distribution maps define what is and is not significant.

4) Which part of the discussion here is 'hairsplitting'? If you are referring only to whether or not the myna is a true starling, well that is the rationale behind your exclusion of the myna from that category, so how can you now say that this is hairsplitting? If you now think that the whole issue is hairsplitting, then I am happy to revert the myna back into the categorisation of starling.

I hope that this clarifies my position somewhat Jameel the Saluki (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

1) Geographical subunits should correspond to environmental areas (e.g. 'birds of West Africa', 'birds of Southeast Asia'...) rather than political units, except when the latter is unavoidable (e.g. apart from the Andes and the Amazon Basin, there are no other further geo. subcategories of South America, therefore these can only correspond to political units).

Why would 'birds of Ecuador' pose a problem when 'Birds of the Galapagos islands' being a subcategory subcategory (as is 'birds of Bioko' of 'birds of 'Equatorial Guinea')?

In case you hadn't noticed yet, the category recently created was 'birds of the British Isles' rather than 'birds of the United Kingdom'

The idea of migrating categories upwards (if and when possible) is the most pragmatical solution, given that all birds of a given country can't and shouldn't be listed into one category

- there would be an excessively high amount for many of them

- some birds are much more common than others within the geographical division

- on average (mostly for users acquainted to the topic but equally for users of any level), it is very relevant, academic and without risk to refine bird species' areas of presence as much as possible

2) Even if the bird were included in e.g. "birds of Hong Kong" e.g., you still would need to browse through all the names in the category. If the bird isn't specific to that local area, then it needs to be migrated upward (e.g. 'birds of China' or 'birds of East Asia'), for the reasons listed above

I already explained the reason why 'birds of South China" category is absent is simply because it hasn't been created yet, like many other sub-cats. which eventually will.

Why do you suggest the issue of introduced birds species should imminently be solved before any other further amendments and enhancements? Why do you consider this as an arduous task to accomplish?

3) Misplaced Pages has a much broader scope of knowledge and consequently has more room for further geographical refinement and accuracy, e.g. compared to traditional bird listings...

I never meant that distribution maps actually define which local ranges of presence are significant within a geographical division are, but they clearly reflect it though.

4) Mynas can be included in a subcategory. --Couiros22 (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

1) I'm afraid that you seem to have completely missed the point of what I was getting at, or at least have avoided it completely in your reply. Is this deliberate or is it that you don't understand what I am posting? In any case nothing in your reply appears to remotely relevant, or if it is you certainly haven't managed to convey in what way that it is. Can I take it that you have no interest in listening to what I have to say on the matter?

2) "If the bird isn't specific to that local area, then it needs to be migrated upward (e.g. 'birds of China' or 'birds of East Asia'), for the reasons listed above" - you haven't given any reasons, all you are saying is that your method is right

3) Again you are not understanding a word I am saying, or are deliberately giving that impression

4) But you never did that.

I'm sorry but these replies are completely and woefully inadequate. I am making changes to the common hill myna categories that now suit me, and if you have any issues you can ask me what I am doing.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

1) I gave you explanations to my method to which you have no valid counter-arguments against...

2) Yes: common sense & for reasons listed in 1°

3) The "South China" cat will be created soon enough...

4) I had more important edits to make first... that is why I din't create it ; you appear to be making a huge polemic out of a really small issue --Couiros22 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

1) You have not provided any explanations as to why you feel your method is appropriate, you have merely described your method. In your previous post you argued against a particular methodology that I had posted as being inferior. The reason why this was irrelevant is because the methodology I posted is the one that you appeared to be claiming to be following, to which there was some semblance of logic to. You then decided to argue against the methodology that you claimed to be following. Further you completely avoided acknowledging anything that I had posted on the subject that argued against your methodology, of which the nub is that it should be aimed at allowing the reader to most easily navigate through the articles. You have failed to acknowledge this principle, you have ignored the examples I have given, and you are still claiming that I have no valid counter-arguments despite never once addressing any of them (or even acknowledging them). I notice you have reverted my changes without giving me the opportunity to explain, which is the courtesy that I extended to you. So let me fully explain the logic of my changes - since I have not done so or at any previous time proposed a contrary methodology, which is apparently, though not explicitly, what you seem to be requiring. 1) That geographic categorisation of species should be clearly explained in the category pages. 2) That the level at which the species are found should be, unless there is good reason, and that reason is explained on the category pages, all at the same level. This is so that the reader does not need to hunt through several pages of categories in order to find what they need. 3) What these levels are need not be fixed, but they need to be self-consistent - in other words do not start categorising species until all subcategories are sorted out (this is so the reader is not left guessing in which category there animal might be found). Given that countries have already been set up and that these are simple concepts for the reader (as opposed to ecogeographical zones). 4) Thus the simplest method is to list all species by country only, unless there is good reason, and the reason is stated in the appropriate parent category article. 5) All of the areas must be listed and be complete - in other words no areas are not included - otherwise the reader will go to that category and not find the animal that they are looking for. 6) how many categories are displayed at the bottom of the page is relatively unimportant, however some species have near global distributions, in which case these creatures are not put into country categories and are instead put in the global or near global distribution category. If this becomes too full then this is subcategorised into the continents but no further. 7) creatures that are restricted to one or two countries may be broken down into one further subcategory, but again only with it made clear in the category article. 8) Categories are listed on an article page in alphabetical order, this is the only objective system. Otherwise it makes it hard to find them - note the display of categories at the bottom of articles is more for the benefit of the editors than it is for the readers, though readers may find them useful also 9) includes regular migrant birds and established introduced species 10) This is my proposed methodology based on the principles of a) what categorisation is used for b) self-consistent objective categorisation that is simple for the reader to follow c) acknowledging the underlying limitations in determining distributions of species. And as such is open to comment and criticism. This opinion should be laid down at some central discussion point for consensus on how to categorise species by geography BEFORE any such categorisation further ensues. If you have any questions then please ask me to elaborate. Please, do not automatically take the stance that your method is superior until you have fully convinced yourself that you fully understand the implications of what I have posted.

2) your idea of common sense is not the same as everybody else's. You have posted discussions that show that people disagree with you (and then you went off and did your own thing anyway), and I'm disagreeing with you. You need to elaborate why you are doing things, not just say what it is you are doing and claim common sense.

3) That's simply not good enough to say that the South China category will be created a) you can't just keep creating sub-categories to satisfy every whim of how you want to categorise a species b) you need to get things right first, discuss it with people get on the same page, construct the appropriate sub-categories, then categorise c) if I hadn't been such a pain you might never have done it.

4) The reason why I'm making a polemic about it is that you made the changes. Thus my options are a) get you to agree on what changes need to be done or b) go make the changes without you agreeing. I am trying desperately to get a) to work. Do you understand this?

I insist that you make no further changes to any categories anywhere until this is sorted, or until you can point to some authoritative agreement. Your last attempt at pointing to one showed one where the other editors disagreed with you and you went off and did your own thing anyway.

In short I am not happy at all with the changes to categorisation that you did to the common hill myna. I believe that they are detrimental, and that the original is to be preferred and that you do not appear to have a good understanding of the purpose of categorisation, or of the underlying science behind geographical distribution determination. I have raised numerous issues with you, the ones of most crucial importance you have simply ignored or failed to understand. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Jeesh, guys. I strongly recommend either of you does go and start an RFC on some or all of these, if there's such a perceived lack of clear guidelines. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

1) - "Thus the simplest method is to list all species by country only"
No - a) as also disagreed by other users b) for reasons I listed which you have ignored...

- "If this becomes too full then this is subcategorised into the continents but no further."
WHY NOT?

- "otherwise the reader will go to that category and not find the animal that they are looking for"
...all the user has to do is type its name in the search box

2) Other users aren't disagreeing with me otherwise they wouldn't have granted me permission to make vast useful changes in the past few weeks. I've already provided explanations to my method further up... feel free to comment on those ;-)

3) a) I've already given you the reasons as to why the common hill myna was included in "birds of South China" category: given it's much more pertinent to include it in 'birds of South China' than 'Birds of China'. South China is also more than just a political division, it has a bio-environmental identity too to some extent, i.e. like any other major political subdivision.

4) In the scope of my recent contributions this represents little and has nothing to do with the core of the debate. a) I could ask you the same thing... --Couiros22 (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

1) a) which users? the only examples you have given is one where the users disagreed with you and another that you have put forward arguments to show what was being put forward was wrong. b) The word 'simplest' has not been raised once by you, nor have you argued against what I have been proposing. So which reasons are you describing that I am supposed to be ignoring?

"WHY NOT?" - on the basis on the argument that I had put forward, in terms of making it as simple as possible for the reader to navigate the categories when looking for bird species pertinent to a particular locality.

"all the user has to do is type its name in the search box" - I am talking about birds that the reader does not know the name of. What on earth do think the categories are used for? Have you been following anything that I've been saying? Have you even been trying?

2) They never granted you permission. What on earth gives you that idea? Or are you just suggesting that people not disagreeing continuously with you is a sign that they condone your actions? I would suggest that this is the nub of the problem. If I gave up at this point would you then claim that I condone and agree with your edits?

3) Your answer (once again) doesn't address my major complaint in this matter. My last comment had nothing to do whether or not the myna should be included into 'birds of South China' or not.

4) In my opinion your recent contributions are a negative and detract from the value of Misplaced Pages. I do not agree with your claim that you receive broad support. and a) that is what I am trying to achieve. Agreement does not simply mean giving in to someone else's point of view, it means finding out the basis for someone else's point of view and reaching a compromise with which both parties can agree.

I am going to take Elimdae's advice and go for an RFC. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

1) a) cf. the first of two links I provided further up b) simplicity is not a formal priority... Read through all of my answers again.

Even if all the birds were listed into the same country cat., the user would still have to search through many many names before finding it; so whether or not they also need to search in the cat. above is meaningless.

So given your reticence towards further scales of geographical categorization, perhaps you should to recognize their advantages.

2) Why would they let me continue to make hundreds of edits if they actually disagree with me?

3) see above

4) Perhaps you're the one who needs to consider other's points of view rather than just claiming this method seems much too complicated and that it doesn't resemble anything done before *which perhaps you even dislike deep down for no real reason anyway* --Couiros22 (talk) 12:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

1) a) Those are the two links I am talking about. If you think that there is any confusion about which links you and I are referring to, then please repeat them. b) This answer, once again, does not make sense. You said "- "Thus the simplest method is to list all species by country only"
No - a) as also disagreed by other users b) for reasons I listed which you have ignored...". I responded that you hadn't mentioned simplicity, and now you are saying it isn't a formal priority. I have read through your answers many times. Not only have you not mentioned that simplicity is not a priority you have also not made mention of what principles are a priority (you have mentioned what actions you believe are a priority). So I ask once again - which principles do you believe are a priority?

In terms of searching for a bird - yes the reader would have to search through many many names, but by the system you are using you would have to search through the same number of names, but over multiple categories, with the increased risk that birds may have been missed by editors doing the categorisation. Again, I ask you, what do you think the purpose of the category system is? Who would use it, why, and how?

"perhaps you should to recognize their advantages." - I would be happy to if you could please tell me what they are, and in context of the principles and purpose of categorisation. Don't just say that you've already told me, because clearly I can't find where you have. If you have it is simple for you to cut and paste and say 'here they are'. And I don't have any reticence towards further scales of geographical categorisation, as I thought I made perfectly clear. What I am asking for is a set of cohesive principles by which a methodology is derived, and one by which comments can be generated by multiple editors. My suggestion of not going to finer levels was purely a starting point suggestion based on the principles which I had put forward.

2) Because they didn't think it worth their time disagreeing with you. From a personal point of view I find our conversations extremely distressing and would rather do without it, and other people have told me not to bother but to work on Misplaced Pages in ways more conducive to a pleasant life and my health. But you'd just take that as me condoning your actions, and I couldn't live with that.

4) I am not claiming you method is too complicated, and I am wanting to hear your point of view, but I am not getting it. I am asking you to explain on what principles you are doing what you are doing. I have been stating this from the very start, and made it clear in my clarification statement. I do not disagree with your methodology per se, I disagree that you don't seem to have a logical reason for it, or can't explain it, and don't seem interested in finding one. And having such reasons are important, because a) it then allows consensus b) it makes sure that the methodology is the best one and c) when you stop editing, other editors will know what you have done and why you have done it and won't merely change it on a whim. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Once again, here is the link where other users back up my viewpoint - I don't know why you continue to ignore it, but please read it carefully:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&diff=prev&oldid=743635920

So in short:

- it is perfectly acceptable to have geographical sub-categories of different scales (including sub-continents)

- Birds are allocated geographical cats according to their smallest geographical areas of occurrence, unless they are broadly present throughout the geographical area of a larger scale (e.g. "Birds of Burma" only if the bird is not widespread throughout SE Asia... otherwise: "Birds of South East Asia")

- It would be hazardous and of no advantage to instead list every country where the bird occurs (especially if the bird is present in many of them), also partly because it would not give a real broad sense of the birds' environment of predlection; cf. the 'birds of South America' where many geographical non-political categories. have been created.

- Your claim of potentially having to search through further higher sub-categories while not knowing the name of a bird is not sufficient to invalidate the method above

- if other users were truly opposed to my method, why would they have let me continue making hundreds of *useful* edits?

- "To avoid the slightest confusion, things should be kept as rudimentary as possible" ... A bad ethos that should be avoided --Couiros22 (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

With regards your link, I haven't been ignoring it. Let me go through it to explain why I don't think it supports you like you claim

The first part is the difference between revisions made by Peter Coxhead. I previous repeated his comments and made the claim that you were not following what he was suggesting, in particular the principles that seemed inherent behind it. In response you pointed out all the reasons why you disagreed with his suggestion. So this can't be the section that you are referring to
The next relevant section is titled 'Edit War', hardly encouraging, indeed it starts with another editor Jimfbleak complaining about the manner in which you have been editing, much like I am complaining. After a bit of other complaining, you put in a statement of what it is that you are doing and providing some reasons for the specific changes. Two editors respond. Jimfbleak continues to disagree with what you are doing. Peter Coxhead does not comment either way, but puts forward the principles which he has been working on, but for which you disagree.

So please tell me how this link shows that other editors are agreeing with you? Specifically, in regards to the most recent reason for a return to the link at what particular stage is it disagreed by them that given the principles that I laid down that "Thus the simplest method is to list all species by country only" would be the following conclusion, particularly given no-one discussed the principles that I had suggested.

However thankyou for making me realise just how recent that link is and just how much Jimfbleak disagreed with you. I shall be finding out what happened from him.

"it is perfectly acceptable to have geographical sub-categories of different scales (including sub-continents)" - I agree

"Birds are allocated geographical cats according to their smallest geographical areas of occurrence" - that was never agreed upon, that was just you proposal. Further, its a statement without any underlying basis.

" It would be hazardous and of no advantage to instead list every country where the bird occurs " - why is it hazardous? And I have explained the advantage. "partly because it would not give a real broad sense of the birds' environment of predlection" - categories are not supposed to be used for this purpose, they are suppose to allow the reader to navigate Misplaced Pages. The distribution of a species should be described in the appropriate articles.

"Your claim of potentially having to search through further higher sub-categories while not knowing the name of a bird is not sufficient to invalidate the method above" - why? on what basis? what is it that you are trying to achieve? what do you think that categories are for?

" if other users were truly opposed to my method, why would they have let me continue making hundreds of *useful* edits?" - I answered in the previous post this specific question. To add to this I'll be contacting Jimfbleak

""To avoid the slightest confusion, things should be kept as rudimentary as possible" ... A bad ethos that should be avoided" - I have no idea what you mean by this, or why you brought it up, or what relevance it is.

It seems, but I would like you to clarify this explicitly, that you want to use the categories at the bottom of the page to be used to express the distribution of the species, whereas I want the categories to be used to optimise ease of navigation through wikipedia. Is that fair? What is it you are trying to do?

My call for an RFC has returned comments by one editor. He has suggested "Every classification system is done within a particular selected view. My one suggestion is that that "view" be selected with typical users and uses in mind. Also, to help you make progress and possibly help the RFC make progress, you might select and start with a narrower question". Any ideas? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"Categories should always be migrated upwards where possible, so any organism found in a large number of subunits of a larger unit should be categorized at the larger unit, e.g. an organism found in a large number of countries in Africa should be categorized as "of Africa", not "of Kenya", "of Tanzania", "of Nigeria", "of Mali", "of Ghana", etc."

convinced?

"The next relevant section is titled 'Edit War'" this was never referred in my last post ; moreover it does not address the problem itself

"why is it hazardous? And I have explained the advantage"

- it is cumbersome and detrimental to list every single country where the bird occurs (as you acknowledged for worldwide or birds found across entire continents; i.e. you have yet to prove why this cannot in the same way apply to sub-continents)

- my method would enable the user to navigate in a much clearer, insightful, straightforward, useful, relevant, purposeful and pragmatical way:

-only birds having a distinct presence in the country would be included in the relevant category (which would also avoid overcrowding, c.f. birds of Peru, birds of Ecuador... which included many birds present across the whole continent, whereby it sounded logic to me to include them in "birds of South America" alone)

-any bird also present, yet generally distributed across a larger area (e.g. a whole sub-continent) would be included in its relevant parent category (e.g. 'birds of Southeast Asia')

-no disadvantage would result from this as there would consequently be fewer names in the lower category, therefore the user (in your example) would still have to search through the same amount of bird entries --Couiros22 (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

"convinced?" - Right. I've gone back to the area which we've discussed this before, and I believe I misunderstood what you posted. You posted The idea of migrating categories upwards (if and when possible) is the most pragmatical solution, given that all birds of a given country can't and shouldn't be listed into one category

- there would be an excessively high amount for many of them - some birds are much more common than others within the geographical division - on average (mostly for users acquainted to the topic but equally for users of any level), it is very relevant, academic and without risk to refine bird species' areas of presence as much as possible

When I read that, I read it as you disagreeing with the position taken, and therefore it didn't seem relevant. On reflection it appears that you are agreeing with the position taken and are disagreeing with something else as a matter of support, though what that something else is eludes me as at the time I hadn't proposed anything and was merely asking you questions.

So there was some indirect support from one out of the two editors in the point in question (I have spoken to the other editor and he realised you were just going to ignore everything he said and gave up). But that then brings it back to the same point that I gave just prior to your response, namely that the principle the editor was trying to achieve was to match up to ecological regions rather than political ones, and in doing so the methodology stated then makes sense. However you are not using ecological zones at all eg: South China is not a political area, but a "geographical and cultural region", and one that is a subunit of China. Please refer to my comments above when I originally posted this.

On a side note it is rather frustrating that I made many comments about how you had posted your disagreement with the other editors proposal, yet never once bothered to correct me on it.

Anyway the result of it is that the discussion posted does not count as consensus at all (confirmed by Jimfbleak), and merely points to some amount of congruence with your methodology and the methodology employed be Peter coxhead, with the main difference being the principle that Peter coxhead was trying to move away from political divisions, which you, despite your claims to the contrary, are not. Further my objections to seeing the categorisation as only between political and ecological methods stands in that why not have both, if it makes it easier to navigate Misplaced Pages?

""The next relevant section is titled 'Edit War'" this was never referred in my last post ; moreover it does not address the problem itself" - this is completely untrue. The methodology you just quoted, namely "Categories should always be migrated upwards where possible...." is in the section labelled "Edit Wars" on that talk page.

"it is cumbersome and detrimental to list every single country where the bird occurs" - why? It's the way things were before you started changing things. And it was working fine.

"i.e. you have yet to prove why this cannot in the same way apply to sub-continents" - you continually miss the point. It can be applied, but when and how is dependent upon the basic principles that are set forth at the beginning, namely the point of having categories at all.

"my method would enable the user to navigate in a much clearer, insightful, straightforward, useful, relevant, purposeful and pragmatical way" - but in the explanation below you do not mention or refer to navigation at all in any way, so the explanation does not clarify why this staatement is true

- explanation 1) part not in brackets merely repeats once again what you are doing. Part in brackets more interesting - "which would also avoid overcrowding" What does this mean? It appears to be an important principle of yours but you have not mentioned it before, nor do I understand it.

"whereby it sounded logic to me to include them in "birds of South America" alone" - it's good that you are using logic, then please explain it (see Logical form). I'm not being rude, it's just this is the thing I've been asking you to explain from the very first paragraph, and the only thing that I am interested in.

- explanation 2) again all you are doing is telling me what you are doing, not why, and certainly not how it relates to navigation

- explanation 3) "no disadvantage would result from this as there would consequently be fewer names in the lower category," - two points here. Firstly this is a non-sequitur, no disadvantage implies the same or better, and yet "fewer names" implies a change, thus one cannot follow the other if it is being used in this context. Secondly, but it is starting to elucidate an apparent principle of yours, namely having fewer names in the lower category. So is this the second of your principles, the first being that the list should adequately express the distribution of the species?

I think we may be making progress at last. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"When I read that, I read it as you disagreeing with the position taken, and therefore it didn't seem relevant. On reflection it appears that you are agreeing with the position taken and are disagreeing with something else as a matter of support, though what that something else is eludes me as at the time I hadn't proposed anything and was merely asking you questions."

The common idea we both share is that it is better to only refer to the bird's most ostensible range(s) of presence.

Take the Eurasian magpie or the common house martin e.g. both are present in Korea - fine - but is it really interesting and relevant to include them in "Birds of Korea" and "birds of East Asia" also, rather than just in "birds of Eurasia" alone?

Should every bird widely present across Sub-Saharan Africa be categorized into *at least* all of the 30 countries where they are present?

"namely that the principle the editor was trying to achieve was to match up to ecological regions rather than political ones, and in doing so the methodology stated then makes sense. However you are not using ecological zones at all eg: South China is not a political area, but a "geographical and cultural region", and one that is a subunit of China."

That is my aim too - have a look at the "birds of South America by region" cat. and see all the newly interesting created sub-cats.

Ecoregions are the choice of priority - however for areas that cannot be divided into them, political sub-areas can be used (e.g. "birds of Colombia" etc)

"On a side note it is rather frustrating that I made many comments about how you had posted your disagreement with the other editors proposal, yet never once bothered to correct me on it." both links provided the explanation

"Anyway the result of it is that the discussion posted does not count as consensus at all (confirmed by Jimfbleak), and merely points to some amount of congruence with your methodology and the methodology employed be Peter coxhead, with the main difference being the principle that Peter coxhead was trying to move away from political divisions, which you, despite your claims to the contrary, are not."

see above; moreover, sub-continental political divisions can even correspond +/- to environmental divisions to some extent as well (e.g. 'birds of South Asia', 'birds of Southeast Asia'...)

"Further my objections to seeing the categorisation as only between political and ecological methods stands in that why not have both, if it makes it easier to navigate Misplaced Pages?"

Why not have a quick browse through the 'birds of South America by region' cat. (having the best mix of political and environmental geo. subcats) - and tell me if the navigation really poses any problem.

"why? It's the way things were before you started changing things. And it was working fine"

see above ; far from it

"Part in brackets more interesting - "which would also avoid overcrowding" What does this mean? It appears to be an important principle of yours but you have not mentioned it before, nor do I understand it."

-take for example the 'birds of Mozambique' category, which would contain a modest amount of entries, all of which near-endemic or having an ostensible range of presence... Now take the "Birds of Sub-Saharan Africa" cat. which includes roughly 600 entries, nearly all of which are found in Mozambique... would it really be wise to include nearly 600 supplementary entries into the relevant category (i.e. "birds of Mozambique")?

- many South American cats (e.g. 'Birds of Peru', 'birds of Ecuador', 'birds of Colombia') formerly contained a very high amount of entries, many of which either had a much broader area of presence or a more local one (i.e. 'birds of South America' or 'birds of the Colombian Andes', 'birds of the Ecuadorian Amazon' etc); as a result all three of these country categories now contain a much more modest amount of of bird entries (albeit still many!) whose areas of presence more genuinely reflect their areas in question

- the 'birds of the United States' and 'birds of India' cats formerly contained a huge amount of entries, most of which with only very refined local areas... these have now nearly all been transferred to their relevant sub-cats; as a result, the parent categories are now:

a) cut down to size with a much more modest amount of bird entries*

b) *that have a standard-scale range of presence, ie. +/- present throughout the whole country

"it's good that you are using logic, then please explain it" that is the most ostensible range of presence where it is found - it is a pragmatical choice, as a logical one

"Firstly this is a non-sequitur, no disadvantage implies the same or better, and yet "fewer names" implies a change, thus one cannot follow the other if it is being used in this context."

your claim of potentially having to search through further higher sub-categories while not knowing the name of a bird would not pose a problem given the user would have to search through the same amount of entries - even though they would be spread into different categories --Couiros22 (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"The common idea we both share is that it is better to only refer to the bird's most ostensible range(s) of presence." - we can both agree on that

"but is it really interesting and relevant to include them in "Birds of Korea" and "birds of East Asia" also, rather than just in "birds of Eurasia" alone?" Whether is it is interesting or not is irrelevant. Categories are not there to provide information they are there for navigation. Further the rules of categorisation forbid articles to listed in parent and child categories, so you can't put them in both Korea and East Asia. In terms of relevancy, it may be reasonable to include it in any one of those categories so long as it is easy to find birds of the characteristic that you want through the category system. It might be reasonable to have only the choice of Korea or Eurasia, but no other subdivisions so as to limit the number the reader has to search through.

"Should every bird widely present across Sub-Saharan Africa be categorized into *at least* all of the 30 countries where they are present?" - That's a possibility, depending on the eventual method of categorisation chosen.

"That is my aim too - have a look at the "birds of South America by region" cat. and see all the newly interesting created sub-cats." - again you've missed my point, and my objection to ecological regions in exclusion political ones. It may seem that I'm having a bit of both ways, here, but the issue is to get an underlying framework of rationales, and do that first, then get consensus on a methodology, and then apply it. You are applying things first then developing a framework as you go. Not only does it not allow other editors to comment, it's not how you build a house or a computer application.

"however for areas that cannot be divided into them, political sub-areas can be used" - the world has already been completely divided into eco-regions, there are a variety of different versions devised by different organisations, so there are no areas that cannot be divided into them, and you've got your choice about which one you want to use. Which one are you using? Or have you just made up your own?

" both links provided the explanation" - again you clearly haven't understood what I have posted. The contents of the links is not what I am discussing at that point, but rather your discussion of the excerpts in this conversation.

"to environmental divisions to some extent as well (e.g. 'birds of South Asia', " - Southeast Asia is not an environmental division, it is a geographic one, and one finely defined on political boundaries.

"Why not have a quick browse through the 'birds of South America by region' cat. (having the best mix of political and environmental geo. subcats) " - when I talk about having both ecological and political category systems I am talking about two systems separated lying side by side, not mixed together as you have, such that from 'Birds of South America by region' I can choose to narrow down by either political or ecological and either will bring me to bird that I want. The implications are that every bird will be categorised under both country (for example Brazil) and ecology (for example Amazon). Started going through your categories and straight away found that you have category 'Birds of the Amazon Basin' in both the categories of 'Birds of South America by region' and 'Birds of Brazil', which is not allowed as 'Birds of Brazil' is a subcategory of 'Birds of South America by region'. Same problem with 'Birds of the Altiplano‎', and indeed all non-country categories that you have in 'Birds of South America by region'. So I'll assume then that when fixed the only categories at this level you will have will be by countries. So drilling down to the next level. I pick Argentina, and the bird I want is right there the Picazuro pigeon. Looking at the categories at the bottom, they are all by country. So this was simple when I picked a bird that you haven't as yet changed. However lets suppose I'm not sure it is this bird. If if were just by country then all of the birds to choose from are under 'Birds of Argentina', however you have added other categories and now I may have to go through them. I'll always have to check 'Endemic birds of Argentina‎' and perhaps one other category depending on where I am. So your changes did not affect my target bird at all, but added two more categories I have to search through to make sure I had the right bird. So this is more inconvenient currently for the example.

"see above ; far from it" - again, you never discussed navigation, you seem to be worried about some aesthetic aspect which you are refusing to be explicit about.

Re: explanation about overcrowding. Your explanation doesn't seem to match your original statement. In you original statement you said "only birds having a distinct presence in the country would be included in the relevant category" whereas your explanation refers to putting as many into the country category as possible.

"that is the most ostensible range of presence where it is found - it is a pragmatical choice, as a logical one" - fair enugh, but can ou explain the logic part to me.

"your claim of potentially having to search through further higher sub-categories while not knowing the name of a bird would not pose a problem given the user would have to search through the same amount of entries - even though they would be spread into different categories" - we've been through this already. Yes, potentially the reader would have to go through the same number of species, but why then also make them go through more categories? What benefit does someone have in doing that? I realise that next you're going to say that the cost here is less than the value added elsewhere, but you never described what it is you are trying to achieve by which what you are doing can be measured, and every time you claim to describe what it is you are trying to achieve all you do is describe what it is you are doing. I am claiming that ease of navigation is the primary consideration that any methodology must be measured against. what is yours?

In any case I must insist that you fix the problem of sub-categories existing in both parent and child categories as this is against the use of categories see Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Categorizing_pages Jameel the Saluki (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding to above, let me describe another bird that is a bit of a mess currently Chilean flamingo. Currently it is listed under both 'Birds of the Altiplano' and 'Birds of Argentina', which is not allowed as 'Birds of the Altiplano' is a category of 'Birds of Argentina'. Thus 'Birds of Argentina' would go, which would mean that if I were looking for it under 'birds of Argentina' I would not find it, and I might not think of looking under 'Birds of the Altiplano' unless I realised it lived there as well, but I might then think I have to look under every category to find it (its always the last one). Remember I'm trying to find birds that I'm not sure about. You might come up with some quick fix for this problem by introducing more regions, but it then becomes an maintenance issue also - if the distribution of the bird changes or a new species is split off. Anyway, looking through the new categories you've set up are full of grandchildren categories/articles existing in multiple ancestor categories, which you can't have. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"Categories are not there to provide information they are there for navigation." They must enable the reader to fathom knowledge as clearly and as relevantly as possible.

"Further the rules of categorisation forbid articles to listed in parent and child categories, so you can't put them in both Korea and East Asia." Perhaps we can agree that the wisest way would be to include it only in the parent category rather than potentially into many subcategories.

"In terms of relevancy, it may be reasonable to include it in any one of those categories so long as it is easy to find birds of the characteristic that you want through the category system."

*** In 99% of cases the user will know the bird's name and simply type it in the search box, rather than browsing through the whole category...

"Not only does it not allow other editors to comment" I think it does

"the world has already been completely divided into eco-regions, there are a variety of different versions devised by different organisations, so there are no areas that cannot be divided into them, and you've got your choice about which one you want to use. Which one are you using? Or have you just made up your own?" The ecoregions already present are among the most important ones and generally correspond reasonably well to the birds' areas of repartition.

"Southeast Asia is not an environmental division, it is a geographic one, and one finely defined on political boundaries" Yet the major Asian political subdivisions correspond to a certain level to Asia's major geo-environmental divisions. Madagascar is also one of many examples of both a political and environmental entity.

"when I talk about having both ecological and political category systems I am talking about two systems separated lying side by side, not mixed together as you have" this is a pragmatical issue though

"such that from 'Birds of South America by region' I can choose to narrow down by either political or ecological and either will bring me to bird that I want" ***

"Started going through your categories and straight away found that you have category 'Birds of the Amazon Basin' in both the categories of 'Birds of South America by region' and 'Birds of Brazil', which is not allowed as 'Birds of Brazil' is a subcategory of 'Birds of South America by region'" Then perhaps these rules should be amended for the benefit of this project...

"I'll always have to check 'Endemic birds of Argentina‎' and perhaps one other category depending on where I am. So your changes did not affect my target bird at all, but added two more categories I have to search through to make sure I had the right bird." ***

"again, you never discussed navigation, you seem to be worried about some aesthetic aspect which you are refusing to be explicit about." I'm concerned about pragmatics, not aesthetics.

"whereas your explanation refers to putting as many into the country category as possible" No, it doesn't... read again carefully.

"fair enugh, but can ou explain the logic part to me" the logic part is simply because it is simply present throughout the region; but reason is not merely restricted to logic :-)

"but why then also make them go through more categories?" a) *** b) why would this present a major drawback?

"Remember I'm trying to find birds that I'm not sure about." ***

"Anyway, looking through the new categories you've set up are full of grandchildren categories/articles existing in multiple ancestor categories, which you can't have." They're not always parent/child related, e.g. 'birds of Venezuela' and 'birds of the Guianas'

Anyways, It would be reasonably wise to adapt the current rules of categorization to the flexibility of navigation suitable for this project. --Couiros22 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

" They must enable the reader to fathom knowledge as clearly and as relevantly as possible." - this is not what they are used for. If you think that they are could you please identify where in the category guidelines that this is stated.

"Perhaps we can agree that the wisest way would be to include it only in the parent category rather than potentially into many subcategories." - no, we can't agree on that unless you provide a rationale behind it. If it is the case that it is always wisest to include in only in the parent category, then the subcategories will be empty.

"In 99% of cases the user will know the bird's name and simply type it in the search box, rather than browsing through the whole category..." - so in those 99% of the cases the reader will not be using the category system at all, I'm clearly talking about those occasions when it is being used. Are you claiming that you are setting up a category system on the basis of it never being used?

"I think it does" - well you are wrong, and I would have thought this line of discussion was evidence enough.

"Yet the major Asian political subdivisions correspond to a certain level to Asia's major geo-environmental divisions" - no they don't.

"Madagascar is also one of many examples of both a political and environmental entity" - Madagascar is not part of South east asia.

"this is a pragmatical issue though" - what does that mean?

"Then perhaps these rules should be amended for the benefit of this project..." - you need to do that before making the changes. Do you understand why those rules are in place? How are you going to get them amended?

"I'm concerned about pragmatics, not aesthetics." - fine, then please tell me what it is that you are trying to achieve, instead of leaving me guessing

"No, it doesn't... read again carefully." - You need to reword it then, because what you have written makes no sense then, and doesn't explain what you mean by overcrowding. What is being overcrowded, and where? Hint - use the word overcrowded in your explanation, and don't have your explanation as a question.

"b) why would this present a major drawback?" it doesn't have to be a major drawback, it merely has to be a drawback, because you haven't demonstrated any benefit by doing this, pertinent to the only aim, which is the use of categories for navigation.

"Anyways, It would be reasonably wise to adapt the current rules of categorization to the flexibility of navigation suitable for this project." - no it isn't and this needs to be escalated. Your use of categories is in clear breach of guidelines so you need to 1) make it clear in the very next comment how you are going to change these guidelines or 2) fix the offending categories or 3) allow me to do so. If such a response is not forthcoming I have no other option but to go to dispute resolution. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

"this is not what they are used for. If you think that they are could you please identify where in the category guidelines that this is stated." a) this issue just simply hasn't been addressed yet b) you haven't explained how this would pose any navigation problem

"- no, we can't agree on that unless you provide a rationale behind it. If it is the case that it is always wisest to include in only in the parent category, then the subcategories will be empty." I meant only for birds of a larger-scale range of presence, not restricted to local level (i.e. the parent category), as I've already alluded to in many parent categories that I have amended (e.g. 'birds of Australia' which ply included birds widely present across the island; no sub-categories are exactly empty either...)

"so in those 99% of the cases the reader will not be using the category system at all, I'm clearly talking about those occasions when it is being used. Are you claiming that you are setting up a category system on the basis of it never being used?" In those 99% of cases, categories are accessed at the bottom of the page article...

"well you are wrong, and I would have thought this line of discussion was evidence enough." no I'm not

"The ecoregions already present are among the most important ones and generally correspond reasonably well to the birds' areas of repartition" - this sentence doesn't even make sense or correspond to anything we've been talking about. What 'important ones'? Where did you get these ecoregions from? On what basis do you claim that "correspond reasonably well to the birds' areas of repartition"? What about your previous concern that there were areas that couldn't be divided up? Many birds' tend to be ostensibly refined to those ecoregions' (...regarding other ecoregions, there is simply no correlation). This is why these are among the areas most susceptible of being linked to birds' areas of reparation (along with sub-continents, islands etc) and thus constitute bird geographical categories.

"no they don't." Yes, because eventhough they aren't ecoregions per se, they still constitute ostensible geo-environmental (as well as political) continental subdivisions.

Madagascar is not part of South east asia. you've missed the point - see above

"when I talk about having both ecological and political category systems I am talking about two systems separated lying side by side, not mixed together as you have" This does not pose any problem - moreover both can be navigated separately (i.e. regarding countries and ecoregions any user can heed and navigate through only one or the other if they wish - without difficulty).

"You need to reword it then, because what you have written makes no sense then", and doesn't explain what you mean by overcrowding." Yes it does; all three examples illustrate clearly how the amount of entries can significantly be reduced within overcrowded bird categories.

"because you haven't demonstrated any benefit by doing this, pertinent to the only aim, which is the use of categories for navigation." Yes I have: to avoid convolution.

"Your use of categories is in clear breach of guidelines so you need to" If a bird is broadly present across Argentina on one hand and the Atiplano on the other, then the single and wisest option is to include them in both, even if both are subcategories of one another. --Couiros22 (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

First up you haven't addressed how you are going to fix the issue with your use of categories in breach of guidelines. I have given 3 options - initiate guideline change, you fix categories, or I fix categories. You have done neither of the first two, therefore I must do it. If you revert the changes it goes straight to conflict resolution. Is that clear?

For the purpose of hoping to get progress on the other fronts, I will respond to your latest response in the meantime

"a) this issue just simply hasn't been addressed yet " - then you need to bring it up. You must follow agreed guidelines

" b) you haven't explained how this would pose any navigation problem" - in itself it doesn't, so any modifications that are made that meet your particular goal here that aren't a detriment to navigation are fine. But I think that the modifications that you have made are a detriment to navigation.

"I meant only for birds of a larger-scale range of presence..." yes, I know. I used the 'always' case to demonstrate that I could not agree to the statement without context or caveats. And I need those caveats to include a rationale as to the methodology you are employing, one which you have steadfastly refused to be explicit about (though using the categories as a means of expressing information at the bottom of the article appears to be at least one)

"In those 99% of cases, categories are accessed at the bottom of the page article..." - relevance? why does it matter where the starting point is? Though you possibly could put a genuine case here with real grounds for claiming a valid rationale behind the methodology. I would be glad to hear it if you managed to express it.

"Many birds' tend to be ostensibly refined to those ecoregions' (...regarding other ecoregions, there is simply no correlation). This is why these are among the areas most susceptible of being linked to birds' areas of reparation (along with sub-continents, islands etc) and thus constitute bird geographical categories." - this response didn't answer any of the four questions I posed. It is a rewording of the statement that the prompted my asking the questions.

"you've missed the point" - no I didn't. I made a very specific statement about south east asia (which I am sticking to). madagascar has nothing to do with it.

"This does not pose any problem - moreover both can be navigated separately " - you clearly don't understand what architecture I am suggesting. It doesn't matter because it's not germaine to the central discussion.

"Yes it does; all three examples illustrate clearly how the amount of entries can significantly be reduced within overcrowded bird categories." - I said I didn't understand what you said, I gave an example of why I don't understand what you said, I asked you to reword it so that I can understand it, and your response is to say that your statement makes perfect sense to you. I think this sums up this entire conversation. Time and again I have asked specific questions in order for you to explain yourself. You answer only a fraction, and the ones you answer I complain that there is still key elements missing and ask you to fill these in by asking more questions, which you then don't answer. It is perfectly acceptable in a conversation not to answer direct questions if you think that you can explain it better, but when there is a demonstrated lack of communication going on to not answer those questions and insist that you have adequately explained things is completely unhelpful. I you are genuine about getting me to understand your view on the world can I get you to answer the questions I have posed. We've been at this days and I am still none-the-wiser about what you are trying to achieve, and I am far from being an uneducated man. Or you really genuine about getting me to understand?

"Yes I have: to avoid convolution." - this is the first time you have used the word convolution. Could you please explain what convolution means to you in the context of the category system we are discussing. In doing so please give examples of something that is convoluted, and something that is not. Then, as an extension, please explain how the concept of convolution relates to the underlying principles that are guiding your construction of a category system.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"then you need to bring it up. You must follow agreed guidelines" Until now, current guidelines on categorization simply applied to all or the vast majority of projects, but not to this one, which simply requires an extra level of suppleness.

"in itself it doesn't, so any modifications that are made that meet your particular goal here that aren't a detriment to navigation are fine. But I think that the modifications that you have made are a detriment to navigation." a) but they are not substantive reasons b) you seem indifferent to the advantages already highlighted and that I will reexplain below

" yes, I know. I used the 'always' case to demonstrate that I could not agree to the statement without context or caveats. And I need those caveats to include a rationale as to the methodology you are employing, one which you have steadfastly refused to be explicit about (though using the categories as a means of expressing information at the bottom of the article appears to be at least one)" Although my methodology hasn't yet been concretely layed out, I've conveyed the main principles.

"so in those 99% of the cases the reader will not be using the category system at all, I'm clearly talking about those occasions when it is being used." Obviously they will, as In those 99% of cases, categories are simply accessed at the bottom of the page article...

"madagascar has nothing to do with it." It does, because it shows that both are political and to a big extent geoenvironmental entities as well.

hence in you initial draft you wrote: "however some species have near global distributions, in which case these creatures are not put into country categories and are instead put in the global or near global distribution category. If this becomes too full then this is subcategorised into the continents but no further" - why not? Why would this be inabordable to the average user?

"I said I didn't understand what you said, I gave an example of why I don't understand what you said, I asked you to reword it so that I can understand it, and your response is to say that your statement makes perfect sense to you." By 'overcrowding' I meant that it is much preferable to include only a modest amount of birds, that are truly relevant to the category:

- 'birds of Mozambique' should preferably include only birds with an ostensible range of presence found there (rather than listing every bird, almost all with a wide range of presence across Sub-Saharan Africa, which would be obfuscating for the reader as they wouldn't be able to straightforwardly acquire an essential conception of birds relevant to that area; if every bird of the continent were listed into each political subcategory, these would all include +/- the same extremely high amount of identical bird names and it would be hard to sift the relevant entries from the lot.

- after a sifting task the 'birds of the United States' cat. now only contains a modest number of entries of birds that are all ostensibly present throughout the country (birds of a much more local, continental or global level are now classified separately); the reader now has a much more practical and less obfuscated access ; this is another example of "avoiding convolution".

- why should 'birds of Australia' include an excessively large amount of bird entries (the vast majority occurring at a much more local level and are not ostensibly present throughout the country - which therefore belong to a local sub-cat. - or present worldwide)?

"First up you haven't addressed how you are going to fix the issue with your use of categories in breach of guidelines. I have given 3 options - initiate guideline change, you fix categories, or I fix categories. You have done neither of the first two, therefore I must do it. If you revert the changes it goes straight to conflict resolution. Is that clear?" If having both environmental and political categories side-by-side in the same category is truly inabordable (which I doubt) then why not classify them separately - but apart from this level of problematic there really is no real impediment to the present navigation system. --Couiros22 (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"a) but they are not substantive reasons " - what reasons are you talking about here? please elaborate and clarify.

"b) you seem indifferent to the advantages already highlighted and that I will reexplain below" - if you mean that I don't see your changes as being an advantage, you are spot on. But it's not because I don't understand what you are doing, it's because I don't understand why you are doing it. In other words I have a set of goals or principles by which I measure the value of a methodology, namely the primacy of ease of navigating wikipedia, with any other benefits being secondary. You are making changes to the categories and are convinced they are beneficial, because you using a different measure to me. In order for you to get me to understand how you value your changes you need to describe the principles by which you are measuring this. I've had hints of a couple of things, eg: using the categories on the article page as a means of conferring information b) reduce 'overcrowding', which I still don't understand fully c) I think there's been others but I never get you to confirm them so I end up assuming that I am wrong about them.

" Although my methodology hasn't yet been concretely layed out, I've conveyed the main principles." - at this point I am suspecting English is not your first language, you are really not at all understanding what I am asking, nor even apparently aware that you don't understand. Let me clarify - you have laid out the key elements in your methodology, but you haven't explicitly stated a single principle. Here's the definition of a principle - "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.". Principles are not the methodology trimmed down of full detail, they are reasoning behind the methodology. What are your core beliefs about what the categories should be doing? These are your principles. This is all I'm interested in in this entire discussion.

"Obviously they will, as In those 99% of cases, categories are simply accessed at the bottom of the page article.." - it's obviously not obvious to me or I wouldn't have asked. What is the point of you answering a question I pose by saying it's obvious? (don't answer that one). So I ask again why does it matter where the reader starts navigating through wikipedia from?

"It does, because it shows that both are political and to a big extent geoenvironmental entities as well." - the only reason I'm following this line of questioning up is because I would like to demonstrate that you are not making sense. I said "Southeast Asia is not an environmental division, it is a geographic one, and one finely defined on political boundaries". You said "Madagascar is also one of many examples of both a political and environmental entity.", with the logic that starts this paragraph. Seriously how does demonstrating Madagascar is anything say something about South East Asia? It's like you've got a pet cat named Felix and a dog named Rover. I make the comment that Felix is a cat, and you reply no he's a dog and so is Rover. Rover being a dog does not make Felix a dog. Madagascar being something does not make South East Asia anything. I mention this because I am finding you are making many such comments that, to my mind, do not make sense. In short, we have a communication problem. One that I would like to fix, are you willing?

"why not? Why would this be inabordable to the average user?" - The part that you are questioning is a suggestion of a potential framework for categorisation, partly to demonstrate the type of framework I am looking for, and partly to demonstrate a potential counter-methodology. As such I am not particularly endeared to it, and any part is open to change. So the answer then depends on the nature of your questions. Do you wish to look at the methodology and understand it, or are you asking me to defend it? In any case what I can say is that the suggestion of restricting the number of levels of categorisation to the level of country was to make management and navigation as simple as possible. The suggestion is a starting point by which changes could be made to reach consensus. The changes can be discussed in context of stated aims of the methodology. and even the aims can be discussed and modified. The point it that its a explicit starting point by which a failings can be seen and the methodology improved, even during or post implementation. Even your methodology could be suggested, so long as it relates to the stated aims of the methodology.

"By 'overcrowding' I meant that it is much preferable to include only a modest amount of birds, that are truly relevant to the category:" - ok, so you mean to not let the number of entries on a category page get too much, rather than to minimise the number of entries. There are already guidelines on this and a number of editors dedicated ensuring that the number of entries are kept below particular levels (I've forgotten the exact term). There are a number of solutions to this other than to add more locations. Taking the analogy to bird guides, another obvious solution to this is to make the next level by bird type. There are pros and cons to this, as there are to your suggestion. So I can take it that that is one of the principles behind the use of the further level of categorisation? If we can get all of these together explicitly in one place it would then be a useful starting point for a real discussion, as I could then understand what you are doing.

"'birds of Mozambique' should preferably include only birds with an ostensible range of presence found there ...." - I don't understand this paragraph at all. Let me pick it apart to demonstrate why

'birds of Mozambique'- this is clearly an example of some category. Is it picked because it would contain a lot of bird species (more than other countries). Does what you say only apply to categories by country, or are you making a comment about any other category type?
preferably - implies that it is optional and therefore there is some trade off. What's the gain and loss? When does it apply and when not?
only birds with an ostensible range of presence found there (rather than listing every bird) - ostensible means 'stated or appearing to be true, but not necessarily so.'. So it appears that this statement is saying the 'Birds of Mozambique' should only contain birds that have any appear to have been seen in Mozambique, but to exclude all others. Are you really claiming that editors had been putting birds into the category when they'd never been seen in the country? If not what is the point of the statement?
almost all with a wide range of presence across Sub-Saharan Africa - are you referring to the birds that have never been in Mozambique? Is it that the birds that you had found had been put in the Mozambique category when they had never been found there, turned out to be birds that had a broad sub-saharan distribution? If this comment is all about people being careless, there is no need to make a comment about it. It is clear that 'birds of mozambique' should, at most, only ever contain birds that people believe have been found there. I would argue for an even tighter entry.
which would be obfuscating for the reader - not just obfuscating - wrong
as they wouldn't be able to straightforwardly acquire an essential conception of birds relevant to that area - if this is following from above, and the reader is looking at the category page, then it's not a case of it being straightforward, it would be wrong
if every bird of the continent were listed into each political subcategory - this the standard way its been done for a decade now. Also I know there is a semi-colon between this and the previous part of the sentence, but this appears to be a completely different topic.
these would all include +/- - what's +/-?
the same extremely high amount of identical bird names - I assume that here you are comparing the standard method with yours
and it would be hard to sift the relevant entries from the lot - what relevant entries? If you are discussing a particular example of when the category is used, what is that example?

The breach of guidelines I am referring to is the placement of pages (article or category) into parent and grandparent categories simultaneously. I am currently in the process of rectifying these breaches. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"what reasons are you talking about here? please elaborate and clarify." all the reasons why you suspect my method is incorrect

"You are making changes to the categories and are convinced they are beneficial, because you using a different measure to me." which I've attempted to explained repeatedly

"you have laid out the key elements in your methodology, but you haven't explicitly stated a single principle." My principles are all reflected in this section, eventhough they aren't yet elicited in a formal manner.

"Seriously how does demonstrating Madagascar is anything say something about South East Asia?" Both have their own distinctive geo-environmental traits - even though they are not ecoregions per se...

"In any case what I can say is that the suggestion of restricting the number of levels of categorisation to the level of country was to make management and navigation as simple as possible. The suggestion is a starting point by which changes could be made to reach consensus." Simplicity isn't an utmost priority... it can even be an impediment, notably for well acquainted users on the topic. Categorizing birds' areas at country scale alone would be monotonous and obfuscating for reasons already given.

"Is it picked because it would contain a lot of bird species (more than other countries). Does what you say only apply to categories by country, or are you making a comment about any other category type?" Why is it picked? The same could apply to nearly every other Sub-Saharan country. Of course, countries would *in your case* be concerned the most as they would include a vast amount of entries, with birds occurring throughout the whole continent as well as at local level. But continental cats can equally be concerned if one resorts to list the totality of birds found there (e.g. the 'birds of Sub-Saharan Africa' cat. formerly included over 1,200 entries, most of which were only present at sub-continental or state level); however it now has a much more modest amount, only including birds whose range is widely spread across the area.

preferably - euphemism

"ostenibly" : apparent, evident or at first glance... so my apologies if this caused any confusion

Therefore 'birds of Mozambique' should include birds' ranges accordingly, i.e. not generally present across the whole continent.

"if this is following from above, and the reader is looking at the category page, then it's not a case of it being straightforward, it would be wrong" Categories would only include birds affected to their relevant range of distribution, i.e. not necessarily endemic, but markedly present in that area. --Couiros22 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"all the reasons why you suspect my method is incorrect" - but you don't know what are all the reasons I suspect that you method is incorrect. For that matter, I would be quite happy if you could demonstrate that it is. But in any case saying that all of the reasons that I may have for thinking that your method is incorrect, when I haven't said what they are, is merely dismissive, and strong evidence that you are simply not interested in discussing the matter in any reasonable way.

"which I've attempted to explained repeatedly" - ok, then I must have missed it. Can you just list it out clearly please. I am a very literate person. I am genuinely trying to understand. I am barely any more aware of how you are assessing how one method is better than another than I was before we started. Could you please start the explanation off with "The way in which I am measuring how one method is better than another is ..."

"My principles are all reflected in this section, eventhough they aren't yet elicited in a formal manner." - call me stupid, but I need them explicitly stated, otherwise I'm guessing. And every time I explicitly guess and ask you to confirm, you either ignore or tell me I'm wrong.

"Simplicity isn't an utmost priority... it can even be an impediment, notably for well acquainted users on the topic. " - the paragraph that this is referring to didn't say anything about simplicity let alone it being a priority. I have no idea what this is in response to at all given I have never suggested that simplicity is the utmost priority, nor would I.

"Why is it picked? ..." you then proceed to not answer the question, try starting with "it is picked because ...". You also then didn't bother to explain the paragraph that I said I didn't understand, or at least didn't say that you were doing that. The rest of the paragraph that followed I didn't understand at all, so it might have been saying something about it, I really wouldn't know. But it does appear that you are simply trying to argue with me, when I'm not arguing with you.

ARE YOU ACTUALLY SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING ME TO UNDERSTAND YOUR CASE? IF YOU ARE HOW CAN WE FIX THINGS SO THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY??? There is no point going on like this, because I am learning nothing, and we are getting nowhere. How do we move forward? What so want to happen? 15:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Jameel the Saluki (talk)

"ARE YOU ACTUALLY SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING ME TO UNDERSTAND YOUR CASE?" Of course I am; even though I am finding it somewhat difficult for you to understand my reasoning, never did I suggest you were stupid or that I wished to argue with you. Therefore I will go through your initial method draft and suggest reformation when necessary.

1) "That geographic categorisation of species should be clearly explained in the category pages." perhaps, OK

2) "That the level at which the species are found should be, unless there is good reason, and that reason is explained on the category pages, all at the same level. This is so that the reader does not need to hunt through several pages of categories in order to find what they need." Simplicity, for this case, isn't the most relevant priority; furthermore it makes sense to list birds' levels of repartition simply according to their most reflected range of presence (retrievable from the BirdLife Int. site), rather than by dividing them into separate country categories, as this would be obfuscating for the reader; moreover while consulting the bird entries of a given country, they would not be able to distinguish which birds are specifically native to that area as opposed to those generally present throughout a much wider area (e.g. across the whole sub-continent). The latter part of the sentence is void given the user would have to look through the same amount of entries and in the vast majority of cases know the name of the bird and search it via the search box anyway.

3) "What these levels are need not be fixed, but they need to be self-consistent - in other words do not start categorising species until all subcategories are sorted out (this is so the reader is not left guessing in which category there animal might be found). Given that countries have already been set up and that these are simple concepts for the reader (as opposed to ecogeographical zones)." Countries may sometimes be further divided into smaller areas (for large states, e.g. USA or Australia, or when distinct areas of occurrence are found there (e.g. 'birds of Bolivia' can further be divided into 'birds of the Bolivian Andes', 'birds of the Bolivian Amazon' and 'birds of the Gran Chaco'); similarly 'birds of Ecuador' can be refined into: Ecuadorian Andes, Amazon, Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena and Galapagos Islands). Birds solely native to those areas should be categorized accordingly rather than simply 'birds of Bolivia', which would lead the user to believe they are generally found across the whole country, rather than at local level.

4) "Thus the simplest method is to list all species by country only, unless there is good reason, and the reason is stated in the appropriate parent category article." see above

5) "All of the areas must be listed and be complete - in other words no areas are not included - otherwise the reader will go to that category and not find the animal that they are looking for." yes

6) "how many categories are displayed at the bottom of the page is relatively unimportant, however some species have near global distributions, in which case these creatures are not put into country categories and are instead put in the global or near global distribution category. If this becomes too full then this is subcategorised into the continents but no further." agreed ; see above

7) "creatures that are restricted to one or two countries may be broken down into one further subcategory, but again only with it made clear in the category article." birds are simply classified under both categories. If the bird is restricted to one country, then it is classified under "Endemic birds of...".

8) "Categories are listed on an article page in alphabetical order, this is the only objective system. Otherwise it makes it hard to find them - note the display of categories at the bottom of articles is more for the benefit of the editors than it is for the readers, though readers may find them useful also" But this is how categories are usually accessed.

9) "includes regular migrant birds and established introduced species" wintering birds are already listed separately under ("Vagrant birds of") ; introduced species will also later be added in the same way

10) "This is my proposed methodology based on the principles of a) what categorisation is used for b) self-consistent objective categorisation that is simple for the reader to follow c) acknowledging the underlying limitations in determining distributions of species." a) categories must be defined according to the broader project which they constitute, in this case an ornithological atlas b) simplicity is not an issue - see above c) for the ostensibility and elaborateness of the project it is better to not to restrain categories at country level only --Couiros22 (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You missed the most important piece of my presentation, which is the line "The basic principle is the ease and simplicity in using the categories for navigating Misplaced Pages for a reader who might be searching for a bird or birds in a locality for which he/she has only a vague description, idea and no name. In this sense for it to act in the same manner as a library of bird guidebooks.". I have no doubt that you disagree with this, so please tell me what your basic principle or set or principles that you base your framework. Everything else I wrote came from that, so it you don't agree on this point then arguing about the rest is pointless. This point needs to be settled first before a discussion about anything else ensues. Does that make sense to you? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

a) I refer you to the second part of 2) b) please explain how this would outweigh the advantages I have set forth --Couiros22 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Principles are the starting point by which things are measured, it is not possible to compare the weight advantages of them. There are no 'better' set of principles. It is the methodologies that are compared to say which is better by measuring against the agreed principles. Further I don't see in your response in 2) any mention of what the principles that you are using. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You said I had missed an important line in your presentation, which I addressed in my last post... Therefore, perhaps you could try to explain in more detail why you think my clauses of bird range categorization aren't valid, i.e. rather than just saying "they're not real principles". --Couiros22 (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. But let me correct you. You didn't miss AN important line, you missed THE MOST important line. And I am not saying what you have put in your reply is not valid, I am saying that you haven't explicitly stated what the principles are that allow to determine how one methodology is better than another.

For example, at no point do you say something like this - the basic principle I use in deciding what a good methodology is .....

So if I were to assume that your set of principles are listed in your previous post it will take some hunting for me. Let me dissect the response you put for 2)

"Simplicity, for this case, isn't the most relevant priority" - which tells me what your principle is not

" furthermore it makes sense to list birds' levels of repartition simply according to their most reflected range of presence (retrievable from the BirdLife Int. site), rather than by dividing them into separate country categories, as this would be obfuscating for the reader;" - the use of "it makes sense" implies that the next section of the sentence is relying on something else to give it a sense of measure, and it is followed by "as this would be obfuscating" which again implies something is driving that section as being good or bad. To reduce the amount that the categories are "obfuscating" is a possible principle, but not stated explicitly as such.

Then starts off with "moreover while consulting the bird entries of a given country" - which leaves me wondering if this is an example of usage, or a basic principle that is guiding the construction. "they would not be able to distinguish which birds are specifically native to that area as opposed to those generally present throughout a much wider area " - is this a basic principle? that when a reader should be able to use the category page as a way of determining the birds that are in an area?

"The latter part of the sentence is void given the user would have to look through the same amount of entries and in the vast majority of cases know the name of the bird and search it via the search box anyway." - this is a comment on whether on how well the methodology I have suggested matches the principles that I provided, so nothing about your principles.

So here is a list of possible principles that you may have been inferring. Can you confirm that these are your guidimg principles and that you have no more.

minimising or limiting confuscation for the reader when perusing the category pages
catering primarily for users reading the bird entries for a given country
allowing readers to determine which birds are local to a country when looking at the category for that country Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

""Simplicity, for this case, isn't the most relevant priority" - which tells me what your principle is not" I meant that restricting categorization at country level exclusively poses problems earlier mentioned, i.e. not being able to reflect the birds' most relevant areas of presence, hence categorizing into every single country for a bird widely present across Central America would be obfuscating for the reader, as would every single bird found in Australia under 'birds of Australia', whether they are widely present throughout the island or only in remote areas (rather than subcategorizing the latter into state cat.). Hence, too much simplicity can cause complication, i.e. it is better to opt for more than one level of categorization, to avoid convolution of birds of different scales or levels of presence into country cats only.

"the use of "it makes sense" implies that the next section of the sentence is relying on something else to give it a sense of measure, and it is followed by "as this would be obfuscating" which again implies something is driving that section as being good or bad." a) birds would often be classified under a smaller number of categories b) cf. the remainder of the paragraph

"is this a basic principle? that when a reader should be able to use the category page as a way of determining the birds that are in an area?" It is the more pragmatic solution IMO.

draft of theoretical principles:

- Birds should be categorized according to their most fathomable areas of presence (cf. BirdLife Int. site) only, whose ranges are relevant to those areas and do not correspond to higher or lower-level areas of presence

- which would correspond to geographical entities, either:

- political units (countries, states/provinces, continents or sub-continents)

- or environmental areas

- landforms (e.g. Himalayas...)

- ecoregions (although these are numerous, only a certain amount genuinely match or correspond to birds' areas of presence)

- e.g.

- 'birds of the United States' should apply for birds broadly present throughout the country only

- 'birds of North America' should apply for birds broadly found across the continent

- if a bird's area is restricted to a more local area, it should be categorized accordingly (e.g. native birds of the Southeastern United Sates')

- this would allow the user a much clearer and keener interpretation of birds' geographical areas of presence; as opposed to classifying birds solely at country level which, although would be slightly more abordable for some users unfamiliar to geographical definitions in the short term, it would lack insight and not reflect the geography of bird's areas as adequately. An illustrative example : many exotic birds of French Guyana would exclusively be classified under 'birds of France' and under no other category - which would be very misleading as can one genuinely consider many of these exotic birds like the hoatzin, various breeds of toucans, parrots, manakins... to also be found throughout the mainland, let alone the French capital !? ;-) --Couiros22 (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think that you've got the idea of what a principle is. The reply you have given is in two parts the first looks like methodology, but I was prepared to accept as a principle, but the second part explains the benefits of the first part based on something. Therefore the first part cannot be a principle, but "would allow the user a much clearer and keener interpretation of birds' geographical areas of presence" could be. Can I please make this as clear as possible - if you state A, and then say list the benefits of A based on B, then A cannot be a principle but B can. I'll restate the definition of principle 'a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.'. In the above example A cannot be a fundamental proposition because it is based on B.

So is to make it interpreting birds' geographical area of presence from looking at the category pages one of/the only one of your principles?

If you still do not understand what I am asking for or what I mean by principle then please ask. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The core principle is that, but it needs to be explained in further detail. --Couiros22 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

thank you for that. I am currently investigating what the possibilities are based on that principle. I will let you know my results. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

If we take Common hill myna as an example, it has been put into several geographic categories, one of which is "Birds of Bhutan". Looking inside that category, according to what you are trying to achieve the birds listed here should be restricted to those for which Bhutan makes up the substantial part of the range. Yet the Common hill myna is a very widespread bird. How do you resolve this problem? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Bhutan is still one of its primary areas of presence, as it cannot be migrated into a larger area of presence. --Couiros22 (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Then there must be at least another principle involved that is guiding your decisions. If the aim is "to make it interpreting birds' geographical area of presence from looking at the category pages" then the Bhutan category page is completely failing, and yet you are reluctant to make a change to alter this. And of course it can be migrated up to a larger presence - it can be put in Asia. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Read through my guidelines again. Any bird should be categorized according to its most primary areas of presence. Bhutan cannot be grouped into any larger area where the bird is widely present; it is not widely present throughout Asia. --Couiros22 (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I have read thought your methodology many times. You aim to set up categories in such a way as that the aggregate of the categories that a bird lies in is as close a match to the distribution that you'd found on some website.

An additional change was then the invention of geographic regions to reduce the total number of categories that a bird would be in.

With regards to Bhutan, you haven't managed to invent a broader geographic range yet (though I can think of a huge number - and not Asia). And you are reluctant to use Asia as you feel that there would be too much of a mismatch between the aggregate distribution of the categories and the distribution that you have gotten from your website.

So the problem isn't that I don't understand what you are doing but why.

I have given a simple example of why the methodology you are proposing doesn't meet your stated goals (I haven't even begun on any nuances yet), and your reply is to merely repeat what your methodology is. I can only repeat my request. Why are you doing what you are doing? What is the purpose? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"You aim to set up categories in such a way as that the aggregate of the categories that a bird lies in is as close a match to the distribution that you'd found on some website." ...which is corroborated by many others

"An additional change was then the invention of geographic regions to reduce the total number of categories that a bird would be in." No. this was implied from the very beginning.

"With regards to Bhutan, you haven't managed to invent a broader geographic range yet (though I can think of a huge number - and not Asia)." Which ones though? i.e. only within its relevant range of presence

"And you are reluctant to use Asia as you feel that there would be too much of a mismatch between the aggregate distribution of the categories and the distribution that you have gotten from your website." Birds of Asia would be too vague, general and non-informative.

"Why are you doing what you are doing? What is the purpose?" For an ornithological atlas project that is elaborate, clear, relevant and easy-to-use. --Couiros22 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"which is corroborated by many others" - how is this relevant?

"No. this was implied from the very beginning." - it is additional to my first line.

"Which ones though?" Why do you want to know?

" For an ornithological atlas project that is elaborate, clear, relevant and easy-to-use." - what is an ornithological atlas project? Then can you please tell me what you mean by the four adjectives you have given. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

"which is corroborated by many others" - how is this relevant?" You described my source of range references as "some website", as if it were far from reliable - I then tell you its data is backed up by other main sources (Avibase etc)

"An additional change was then the invention of geographic regions to reduce the total number of categories that a bird would be in." No, it is given they tend to match or correspond frequently to birds' areas of presence.

"Which ones though?" Why do you want to know? If you look at the map, the bird is present in southeast Asia and other areas that can only be defined by smaller-level geographical areas; Bhutan being one of them.

"what is an ornithological atlas project?"

"Then can you please tell me what you mean by the four adjectives you have given." I've explained the advantages many times already. --Couiros22 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

re distribution map - I am sorry you took it that way, I meant that I wasn't interested in it, not that it was unreliable. But without being distracted away from the core issue there are a number of problems. 1) by using a distribution map from a particular source, ideally this should be referenced on the category pages. Normally this wouldn't be a problem because the categories aren't usually trying to define a distribution, rather use the distribution for categorisation 2) no two distribution maps are identical 3) distributions of animals change which will be difficult to accommodate in the structure that you are suggesting 4) we've only briefly touched on the nuances in regards what a distribution map means. Again normally that wouldn't be important but you are wanting the category system to describe information, thus it needs to be explicitly stated to the reader what that information is otherwise no information can be related

"No, it is given they tend to match or correspond frequently to birds' areas of presence." - that corresponds to the first sentence eg: south china. The second sentence, which you are commenting on, is the additional eg: SE Asia.

"If you look at the map, the bird is present in southeast Asia and other areas that can only be defined by smaller-level geographical areas; Bhutan being one of them." - one off the top of my head is Eastern Himalaya. But can I take it that being able to tell a bird's distribution from a category page is then not one of the aims of the methodology (despite it being the only one that you've ever confirmed that it was)? Or if you've change your mind again, please explain the point of trying to do that in other situations when you can't for the common hill myna. In other words, when is the reader going to know when he is looking at a category page whether or not it can be used to determine a bird's distribution or not?

""what is an ornithological atlas project?" " - how is this an answer to my question? you have given me a category page which only contains sub-categories.

"I've explained the advantages many times already" - I'm not interested in hearing you tell me what you think the advantages are. I want you to tell me what you aim to get out of your categorisation. It is only then that I can possibly appreciate your changes as being advantages. You simply saying it's better does not help, because I have already stated the principle by which I want to measure all methodologies, and your changes are disadvantages by that measure. All you ever say in response is that you don't think that my aim is important, and then never clarify what your aim is. Or rather I should say that every time I think you've said something you change it on me. The most frustrating thing is that every time I think I'm getting close to understanding you, you post a reply like the last which is dismissive at best, and brutally antagonistic and inflammatory at worst. Why? Where is this coming from? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

"no two distribution maps are identical" Yet the differences are too little for it to pose a problem for the reader.

"3) distributions of animals change which will be difficult to accommodate in the structure that you are suggesting" idem

"we've only briefly touched on the nuances in regards what a distribution map means. Again normally that wouldn't be important but you are wanting the category system to describe information, thus it needs to be explicitly stated to the reader what that information is otherwise no information can be related" fair enough, albeit the current bird navigation atlas should not pose significant confusion to the reader

"one off the top of my head is Eastern Himalaya." I also thought of 'Eastern Himalaya' (& 'Western Himalaya'), yet the eastern Himalaya region includes the whole of Northeast India, i.e. not only to the Himalayan mountain range; furthermore birds' areas of presence are rarely distinctly linked to either one or the other half. Hence, could you please give another example.

"how is this an answer to my question? you have given me a category page which only contains sub-categories" I referred you to the page "birds by location" from where one can explore birds species according to their geographical area... this was what I was referring to by "ornithological atlas". I don't understand why you failed to perceive this.

"All you ever say in response is that you don't think that my aim is important, and then never clarify what your aim is." I don't know what your aim is apart from trying to abolish my method and simply reverting back to the basic method how bird entries were mundanely listed before...

"Or rather I should say that every time I think you've said something you change it on me. The most frustrating thing is that every time I think I'm getting close to understanding you, you post a reply like the last which is dismissive at best, and brutally antagonistic and inflammatory at worst. Why? Where is this coming from?" That's just wrong ; please provide an example. --Couiros22 (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. How do you suggest we resolve this? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Why not try and navigate through the project deeply enough in order to get a true feel of its advantage? The main principle is to categorize birds into their most relevant areas of presence: i.e. that are nor part of a much larger area of widespread occurrence, nor that correspond and can be reduced to a more local geographical area within itself. My method is coherent, intuitive and pragmatical, i.e. all for the better, not for the worse. --Couiros22 (talk) 13:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I have used it, and I don't like it, hence my disagreement.

In terms of the main principle you are stating - in it's most literal meaning it's a truism. It also is incomplete based on what you actually doing - eg: no need for SE Asia, when all of the countries inside SE Asia could be listed instead. Given that you are using different areas other than countries, the question is how free are editors to choose whichever they like? So why SE Asia and not something else. You don't think that Eastern Himalaya is a good match (which I completely disagree with), and yet allow India as a category, when the bird is only in a small minority of the country. Likewise you find China objectionable and not India. There is simply to much scope for personal opinion, and not enough objectivity. Not to mention that even within a distribution map that the birds are not actually in all of the areas, they only live in the parts of suitable habitat. Needless to so I also disagree when you say that differences between distribution maps are small and they don't change (you do realise that we are in the midst of a great extinction event?). It's no good if you think that your system is good if lot's of others disagree. The only place you pointed to a discussion was with two other editors, one of which disagreed, the other made no direct comment. I've made numerous calls for other editors to offer an opinion on this topic, and there is a complete lack of interest, so you can't claim that just because no other editor has stopped you means that they agree.

We need to come to a resolution. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 13:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

"It also is incomplete based on what you actually doing - eg: no need for SE Asia, when all of the countries inside SE Asia could be listed instead." mainly because it is more relevant to the whole of South East Asia (as for any other sub-sontinent) rather than to any country(ies) in particular. I have illustrated this via many examples, but you are poorly receptive to my explanations.

"You don't think that Eastern Himalaya is a good match (which I completely disagree with), and yet allow India as a category, when the bird is only in a small minority of the country. Likewise you find China objectionable and not India." There are still several subcategories left to be created; for example the range could be further divided into 'birds of East India', still not created, only because until now no birds I have come across were distinctly affected to that area; but I realize a small number - so it is a possibility. 'Birds of Eastern Himalaya' is also an area which the common hill myna is one of a very few birds whose area of presence is distinctly observable throughout - so it could eventually also be a possibility. Drifting away from this particular example, potential inadequacies are far less perceptible among the vast majority of bird species; this lone example is not sufficient.

"Not to mention that even within a distribution map that the birds are not actually in all of the areas, they only live in the parts of suitable habitat." You fail to realize enough the advantage this would bring to users acquainted to the topic.

Tomatoes are fruit, yet they are never found in the fruit section... because from a pragmatical outlook, they are vegetables. this is comparable to the aspects of my underlying principle --Couiros22 (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Since you still object to my reverting your changes to the common hill myna article, how about mediation Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_mediation, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy? Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind. --Couiros22 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing tags

Hi Couiros22: Please don't remove tags from articles where you haven't fixed the tagged problem. In the Tit berrypecker article, you removed a tag asking for a reference for questioned information, but didn't provide any reference. (Here's the link to your change...) Please don't do that again! Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. MeegsC (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Categorisation of birds by location". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 January 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Categorisation of birds by location, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit warring

You completely ignore the any discussion at the bird project about categories and just go your own way changing long-accepted categories to your own random system, which is largely useless for its intended purpose to help searchers. I wouldn't mind so much if your categories were correct, but they are not. I can't be bothered cleaning up all your mess, but I don't expect you to revert my edits where I do so without discussion.

Siberian accentor—it breeds in Europe, which is why that category was there, and is a regular winter visitor to East Asia, where the entire population winters, it's not a vagrant. Please read the article, and if you don't understand vagrancy (biology) look it up

Northern wheatear—Hardly Holarctic, it's Eurasian with tiny outliers in Alaska and Greenland. Again, it's not a vagrant to Africa, the entire world population, including the Alaskan and Greenland birds, winters there

Now, I've explained why you are wrong, and I'm going to restore the original status quo. If you think I'm wrong, please discuss before acting. Having seen how you ignore the opinions of others, it's more likely that you will just revert me again, in which case I'll take this to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎; don't say you haven't been warned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

You keep insisting that I am wrong and offensive yet I've already justified myself many times on the talk pages - feel free to comment on those. I clearly don't wish to be considered like that given that's not my intention. For non-breeding ranges in general (wintering, summer etc.) I thought the default term was vagrant, so having found no other alternative I decided to stick to it, which does not strictly contradict its definition anyway. If such an amendment needs to be done then why not use the bot to revert to "wintering birds of" instead. But again, I see no real misconception the way things currently are. The northern wheatear, according to most major ornithological sources is holarctic, with more than just a small amount of birds in North America. Besides, the Siberian accentor also has a very limited amount of birds in Europe - yet why do you accept to include the latter as "birds of Europe"? So far, a huge amount of bird articles were categorized partially, vaguely or incorrectly, which I have now amended to a great extent (labeled "corrected bird range", among many others). Had you realized this, perhaps you would show a little more respect and recognition. --Couiros22 (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Primates of South America category

Hi Couiros, I saw you removed that category from some articles, why? I think it is a pretty important category to keep? Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

All the pages in the parent category are 'primates from South America' (hence, only the parent category should be listed as "primates of SA"). --Couiros22 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but then can you add that cat then? I did it for Category:Saguinus now. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but saguinus also belongs to a parent cat. the 'callitrichidae family, which solely includes primates of South America; therefore Callitrichidae alone should be listed as primates of SA ; if that weren't the case then saguinus could have been listed as 'primates of SA. --Couiros22 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Category coding

I just made a few edits to articles about animals, removing some odd-looking code that I thought was redundant, and was stopping the articles from being alphabetized on the category page. Having looked at my edits via my Watchlist I see that you were the one that inserted the code in the first place. Apologies if I've misunderstood something. Feel free to revert my edits if you see fit, but could you please tell me what is the point of this coding? (and in future I'll leave it be.)nagual design 15:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I felt it was pragmatic to separately list the animals that contain different subspecies. What do you think ? --Couiros22 (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't use category pages a lot but, taking Category:Megafauna of Africa as an example, I think the automatic alphabetizing is better. Under R you get Southern reedbuck, Rhinoceros, Black rhinoceros and White rhinoceros, which is really useful. Adding any sort of 'misc' list doesn't seem very helpful to me, though I'm not normally involved with adding/editing categories at all. nagual design 18:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Megabovids of Africa has been nominated for discussion

Category:Megabovids of Africa, 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 06:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Mammals of Libya has been nominated for discussion

Category:Mammals of Libya, 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 16:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:Vagrant birds of Africa has been nominated for discussion

Category:Vagrant birds of Africa, 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 09:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Freshwater fish of Australia

Why are you removing fish from ] without discussion, as you did for these fish: Queemsland lungfish, estuary perch, Macquarie perch, golden perch and Australian bass? If you do not provide an appropriate justification I will revert. - Nick Thorne 13:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Because they are listed in the parent category 'Macquaria'. --Couiros22 (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds nice, except you are the one who created the category. The category is not needed, the original cat is the natural one for these fish: if a reader was searching for Australian freshwater fish, most are unlikely to have any idea of what genera are relevant. In fact most would be surprised to not find species such as golden perch listed at freshwater fish of Australia. If you want to make such a radical change to the organisation of this area of Misplaced Pages, you had better seek consensus first. I am going to revert per WP:BRD. - Nick Thorne 14:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Yet this is the way in which species within a single category are taxonomically grouped together into sub-cats - for clarity, relevance and often to reduce the large amount of entries. Even though this category does not have an excessive amount of entries, for standardization and to avoid obfuscation, I chose to make them only accessible from their taxonomical parent category. --Couiros22 (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Couiros22. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Vagrant birds of Europe has been nominated for discussion

Category:Vagrant birds of Europe, 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 19:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Asian antelopes has been nominated for discussion

Category:Asian antelopes, 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 06:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Birds of Bioko has been nominated for discussion

Category:Birds of Bioko, 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 07:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Birds of the Miombo has been nominated for discussion

Category:Birds of the Miombo, 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 05:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Alaska

This is why so many of us are getting frustrated with your categorization attempts. You start a job, and then get bored and go off to do something else. This category hasn't been completely filled; not even close. You've started, but left the bulk of work for someone else to do "someday". How does this help the readers? Answer: it doesn't. Why do you continue to do this?! MeegsC (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Other birds aren't included because they are either present worldwide or at a much broader level, which I've already explained several times... --Couiros22 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Couiros, that makes these categories absolutely useless! What information is it giving somebody? It tells them some of the birds that are in Alaska. Not all. Not all breeding birds. Not all migrant birds. Just "some birds found in Alaska". How is that of use to ANYBODY?! MeegsC (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

And, by the way, MANY of the birds you've put in this category are also present at "a much broader level" (i.e. all across North America), so even that justification is incorrect... MeegsC (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Birds with a much broader range of presence are exempt for the simple reason that they would otherwise need to be also categorized into every other single geographical region in which they are present (i.e. a ridiculously high amount) to which they are not signally relevant to ; hence only birds with a distinguishable (not necessarily endemic yet observable) range of presence are included. --Couiros22 (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

So why is dark-eyed junco, which is found all across North America, in this category? Ditto hermit thrush and brown creeper and American herring gull and literally DOZENS of others. Or how about common loon, which is found throughout the entire northern hemisphere (i.e. including Europe and Asia). Or greater yellowlegs and lesser yellowlegs, which range as far as South America?? Have you bothered to research what you're putting in there? How is this of use to readers?!

because their wintering ranges are categorized separately
n.b. the common loon isn't present throughout the entire northern hemisphere --Couiros22 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The category is "Native birds of Alaska". Not "Breeding birds of Alaska" or "Resident birds of Alaska", both of which would indicate how much of the year the birds spend there. Still not complete then. I just don't get what this is supposed to be providing to potential users. It's not a complete list. It's not even a useable partial list. What's the point of this category? What real information does it provide? MeegsC (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

And dark-eyed junco, hermit thrush, common loon, brown creeper, American herring gull and many others breed in many areas outside of Alaska — some as far south as North Carolina! So even if "wintering ranges are categorized separately", it still doesn't explain why they're in the "Native birds of Alaska" category while other equally widespread birds aren't! MeegsC (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

- the category should be renamed "birds of Alaska", to corroborate

- none of these birds are breeders throughout the whole of North america (the common loon is essentially present in Alaska and Canada only...) ; if you pay attention, you'll notice that each bird's breeding range can/should be categorized at sub-regional level --Couiros22 (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Renaming this category "Birds of Alaska" will not solve the problem; to be completely clear, you would need to indicate that you are only including some of the breeding birds, and explain that a significant number of species that occur in Alaska are not included in the list at all. And will you be putting (for instance) brown creeper in "Birds of Canada", "Birds of Massachusetts", "Birds of Maine", "Birds of New York", "Birds of New Jersey", "Birds of California", "Birds of New Mexico", etc. etc. etc? Or just in "Birds of Alaska"? By the way, the common loon certainly does breed outside of North America (Iceland, Greenland, some in Scotland, etc.) although I do agree that the bulk of the population occurs there; however, the people of Maine and Vermont and New York and New Hampshire and Massachusetts would be quite surprised to hear you say the common loon is "essentially present in Alaska and Canada only". I assume you mean during the breeding season", and even then you're wrong! MeegsC (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

As I will reiterate to you that every bird cat. entitled "birds of..." isn't intended to include every single bird species (e.g. this would mean many cosmopolitan birds should be categorized into over a hundred categories...) ; only the birds that are signally relevant to the region are categorized accordingly. You seem to be unwilling to make the slightest effort to understand this.

Hence who ever implied that "birds of Maine" or "birds of New York" was a pragmatic way of geographically categorizing bird species ?

n.b. I've updated the common loon article into "birds of the northeastern United States" which was overbroadly categorized as "birds of the United States" --Couiros22 (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I am struggling to understand this, because I don't see how it is any use whatsoever. This system you're developing doesn't list birds for any region in the world at all. It doesn't provide complete information about breeding birds of an area, or wintering birds or anything. I don't get what it's supposed to be used for. People can't use it to learn anything about the birds of their area, or country, or continent. What is this useful for?! You keep telling me that I should "make an effort", but you can't tell my why! Can you please explain what information is contained in these categories? Because I don't get it. MeegsC (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have countless of times : birds should be mapped/categorized according to their true, discernible areas of presence ; according to their scale of presence. Simply put do you realize it hardly makes sense to include the house sparrow or the peregrine falcon in every possible single regional sub-cat. in which they are present ? Do you think it is mostly relevant to reflect bird's ranges at sub-continental level only (while their ranges often clearly do not map/correspond to these areas) ? --Couiros22 (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I completely agree that house sparrow and peregrine falcon shouldn't be put into every single possible regional sub-cat. I also think they shouldn't be put into any other regional categories like "breeding birds of Alaska" or whatever because those categories will NEVER be complete. And if they're not going to be complete, they won't be correct. And then, what's the point of them?! MeegsC (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

...because birds are categorized according to their true ranges of presence --Couiros22 (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

So you'll admit that a "breeding birds of Alaska" category will necessarily always be incomplete? MeegsC (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

In the sense that birds' ranges that aren't signally relevant to Alaska aren't included, yes — but that's not how the 'birds by location' categories are meant to be interpreted. --Couiros22 (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Well then. That's the admission I was waiting for. In that case, I think you need to explain — very clearly, at the top of the category page — just exactly how the "birds by location" categories are meant to be interpreted. Because most readers will not be thinking the same way you do. MeegsC (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It was there all the while... but I've now added it to the main sub-categories as well. --Couiros22 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

It was where all the while?! There's no explanation in "Native birds of Alaska" and none in "Birds of the Aleutian Islands", which are the two I looked at (based on this conversation). Again, people aren't going to understand why things are missing unless you explain why they're missing. And a lot of things are missing! MeegsC (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

on the "birds by location" cat. as you mentioned --Couiros22 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I said you should put it at the top of every "birds by location" category. If someone gets to the category "Native birds of Alaska" (for example) and s/he doesn't find a species s/he expects, s/he's likely to add that species – even though you don't want them to. You need to explain your system thoroughly (i.e. none of the technical "parent and sub-category" stuff, which means nothing to those who don't understand categories properly). You could do that quite nicely in a template which could then be appended to the top of every appropriate category. Without an explanation, these categories are unnecessarily complicated, and clearly incomplete.

"For relevancy ..."

Regarding edits such as this to Category:Birds of Australia - (1) What exactly does your text mean (i.e. what articles belong in the category with that text, but wouldn't without the text or vice versa)? (2) Did you discuss your text anywhere before adding it to the category pages? (3) If it applies to all animals-of-area categories then shouldn't it be explained on a guidance page somewhere and then the category page (just) contain a link to that guidance? (4) Have you recategorized any pages in line with (your understanding of) the new text? Please answer these questions before you add the text to any more category pages. DexDor 13:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

If you consult the bird ranges (via BirdLife Int.) you will notice that every bird listed has a broadly-present range throughout the country. --Couiros22 (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Your response hasn't answered any of my questions. Can you please at least answer my first question. DexDor 16:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Birds of a higher scale of presence (e.g. found across several continents) yet present in Australia are not included under "Birds of Australia", because they should pragmatically be classified at a higher scale (e.g. "birds of Oceania" or "Cosmopolitan birds"). On the other hand, birds only present within a certain region of Australia are included in daughter categories (e.g. "birds of Queensland") rather than "birds of Australia". I've clarifed this enough already (further up as well as on other talk pages). --Couiros22 (talk) 18:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, from southwest North America, (Arizona)

I see you have been busy with birds, (etc.)..... I originally started some birds articles, (2006 and 2007, etc) & categories. Birds are so amazing, as are all creatures. I never got to Category:Birds of the Andes, but I wanted to. I didn't have the time (no tiempo) !!--- So, just saying hello from the hot AZ desert of SW Arizona, and the hot southwest of USA. I eventually saw thrushes, notably walking on the ground, between clumps of grasses (and occasionally perched). Here in southwest AZ, the cormorants are interesting, as well as the Ospreys, along the Colorado River. Also with the common kingfisher. I only saw your work because of my watchlist, and looked at the Birds of the Northern Andes. Good Work !! Mmcannis (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit comments

Hi, if you're changing categories, could you please mark your edits with an edit comment like "categories", and perhaps consider marking them as minor. Otherwise you waste other editors' time checking your work as unexplained activity. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Pirate blenny

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. It appears that you tried to give Emblemaria piratula a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Pirate blenny. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Misplaced Pages has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Misplaced Pages:Requests for history merge. Thank you. William Avery (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. In fact I had tried to move it, but was unable to, as the page already existed (as a redirect source), hence which was a rare exception when I was obliged to copy/paste. --Couiros22 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

No, nothing obliged you to copy-paste, Couiros22. You could perfectly well have started a move request, or – if you were sure that the move would be uncontentious – requested deletion of the redirect blocking it using {{Db-move|page to be moved|reason}}. I've reversed your copy-paste. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Please revert your edits

Hi, Couiros22, I don't doubt that your edits were made in good faith, but the edits were incorrect, and wrongly changed the leads of multiple articles. Please revert those edits. I already changed Synodus_intermedius - the title name should appear first in bold text (in bold italics for species) - and the common name following (in bold italics for species) as demonstrated at the article I just corrected. Also, do not change the category names to add the common name if a category is not available. Feel free to ping me if you have further questions. Thank you. 18:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand many of the species in question still have low popularity, hence which I suspect is the reason their scientific term is still the preferred appellation ; however, won't these species' articles eventually revert to their common names, just like many of the popular fish species already present (i.e. why is the blue mackerel entitled as so, rather than Scomber australasicus ..?)

Alternatively, would it effectively be possible to change the page title to its common name, as clearly outlined in the previous paragraph ? --Couiros22 (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus) is a good example of why using the scientific name for the article title is better. The fish has a wide distribution, and is apparently also called Japanese mackerel, Pacific mackerel, slimy mackerel and spotted chub mackerel in different parts of its range. The unifying factor is its scientific name, and all the common names can be redirected to that. In fact, the page mentions that it was once thought to be a subspecies of the chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus), and guess what, the common names for that fish include the Pacific mackerel and Pacific chub mackerel. Having the common name as a redirect should make it easy for anyone to find the right page even if they don't know the scientific name. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No, the underlying factor is its widely used common name : "blue mackerel" ; the existence of various synonyms doesn't add any ambiguity to its nomenclature. --Couiros22 (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth's explanation made perfect sense. If it is your intention to move all species article titles to common names, you'll need wide spread consensus to do so. I suggest you start with a survey at Village Pump. In the interim, please revert the articles you've changed, if you haven't done so already. 05:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:FISH already has a consensus standard at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Fishes#Article_titles for using the common names of fish as the article titles, under some circumstances. Neil916 (Talk) 17:14, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

And who makes that determination, and can you please provide a link to the consensus? Thank you. 17:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a link to a consensus, but here is a link to the WP:FISH page from 2004, which shows that naming convention has existed in substantially the same form for the past thirteen years, which is a pretty good judgment of consensus. There is also Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (fauna). Neil916 (Talk) 18:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Organisms. Stop edit-warring and making changes that obviously don't have consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The names are sourced in the underlying taxonbar (Fishbase). --Couiros22 (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not the point at all. The point is that the text of articles begins eith the title. Move to the English name if it is the most commonly used, but stop edit-warring before this escalates higher. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

here --Couiros22 (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Just seeing this on my Watchlist, the English name for this fish is sand diver, with no other common names, see here, here and here. The name for the genus is "lizardfishes", seen here, with many species, so calling this specific species "lizardfish" is not correct. Name should be changed to the common name as much as possible, with the latin name as redirect. Tisquesusa (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

The ONLY common database we use that uses the term "lizardfish" is EOL, here. But they use the same common name for S. indicus, see here. That cannot be correct in any case, way, shape or form. All the other standard databases use "sand diver". Tisquesusa (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Tisquesusa, see Common Names at FishBase. 03:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

But Couiros22, following this exact same logic, in the case of Acanthopagrus berda you are not right to choose just 1 common name, the one from FishBase, as the various databases give different names here, here, here and IUCN lists them all, here. ITIS doesn't list any common name and just uses the latin name, here. Tisquesusa (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Couiros22, I'm reluctant to take this to WP:ANI, but you will soon force me. You just aren't listening to what people are saying.

Yes, if there is a clearly most common English name, then the article should be moved to this name, and then it can begin with that name.
If there isn't an appropriate English name, then the article should be at the scientific name.
Regardless of whether the article should or should not be at the scientific name, so long as it is at the scientific name, the text of the article should begin with the title.

All of these are clear in the guidelines and have been explained above by various editors. I'll give you one more change to revert your edits and seek consensus to move the articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In fact, there is a more outstandingly frequent appellation for each of the articles concerned, which you seem to have uppishly ignored. The Fishbase title is almost always by far the most frequent term on google and very often corresponds to the eol title too. --Couiros22 (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This is meant to be a cooperative project working by consensus. You have no consensus for these changes. In the case of Arothron multilineatus, an article I am still in the process of creating, you have made the change twice and you cannot even claim that the title you chose is the one used by Fishbase (Multilined pufferfish as against Many-lined pufferfish). Please go and do something else more useful that will be less irritating to other users. Cwmhiraeth 06:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The consensus is explained above. The species in question did not have a taxonbar therefore I chose to stick with the literal translation already present. If you can't be bothered to understand my viewpoint via your cherry-picked false assertions, then I can suggest you to do something else. --Couiros22 (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry Couiros, you are out of line here. The MOS gives clear guidance here "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." and here "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence". Also, I strongly suggest that you strike your PA in your last reply. Your editing at the mooment is verging on disruption and making attacks on others is not going to read well if/when you find yourself at AN/I. - Nick Thorne 07:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The page title should evidently also be reverted to the most frequent common name ; please explain in your own words how the latter cannot be taken into consideration. --Couiros22 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty simple really. If the article title is Scientific name then the article's first sentence should start with

Scientific name or common name is a...

If the article title is Common name then the article's first sentence should start with

Common name (Scientific name) is a...

If you want to use the common name instead of the scientific name as the title for an article currently titled with the scientific name, or vice versa, then either move the article (if the change is likely to be uncontroversial) or create a move request. Given that you seem to have difficulty with judging the likely reception of your changes so far, I very strongly recommend you stick to the move request path, at least for the time being. - Nick Thorne 11:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, but that would require every article to be moved to their common name. I think it would just be easier to be able to copy/paste to the common name page (currently a redirect page) and then inversely redirect from scientific name to common name. --Couiros22 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

NO! This is exactly what you should not do. Firstly, if you want to use the common name for the title and there is more than one, as is often the case, then you need to establish consensus for the one chosen. Often in those cases different common names are used in different places, in which case there usually cannot be a true most commons name. Secondly cut & paste moves are extremely undesirable because it breaks the article and talkpage editing history which is required for correct attribution. This is not negotiable and not a matter for consensus. It may have been acceptable back in the early days of the project, but since the move functionality has been implemented cut & paste has become unacceptable. - Nick Thorne 12:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

that would require every article to be moved to their common name: Couiros22, you – and inadvertently others above – are confusing two possible meanings of "common name". At WP:COMMONNAME, "common name" does not mean "English name", it means the most commonly recognized name, which to be used as the article title must meet all the criteria at WP:AT including precision. The scientific name is often the common name, in this sense. To be clear: articles about organisms can only be at the English name if the English name meets all the criteria at WP:AT and there is consensus that this is so. Then, as Nick Thorne says, the article begins with the title. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Couiros22, just to be clear, in my comments above I am using the term common name in the same sense that it is used in the scientific literature, not in the WP:COMMONNAME sense. I thought this was understood, because we were talking about the scientific name versus common name with regard to organisms. - Nick Thorne 10:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the article title should be the most commonly recognized name ; in the case of many species it is the scientific name but mainly due to their low popularity. However, in the longrun as their popularity rises, wouldn't the common name tend to become the "most commonly recognized name" rather than the latin name ? So in the foremath perhaps it could still a good option to refer to them by their common name, even though for the moment the scientific name is still the more widely used term. --Couiros22 (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The article title should be the most commonly recognized name, if that commonly recognized name unambiguously refers to that one species. However with this edit, you created a problem. The article title is Enneapterygius bahasa. Your edit removed the boldface on the species name, which is the article title. The article title needs to be in bold in the first sentence. The article can never be moved to blacktail triplefin since it is obvious from the disambiguation page that already exists there that that particular common name, or a confusingly similar common name (Japanese blacktail triplefin) is used for several different species. So your edit has made things more confusing and I'm going to agree with the rest of the conversation participants here that it is wrong and that portion of your edit should be reverted. I'm not fond of the idea of starting a thread on ANI over whether the common name or the scientific name appears first in the article, I think that's fairly trivial and doesn't affect the usability of the article from the reader's standpoint. But removing the boldface of the article title does (~~but it's still not a subject that I think needs to be taken to ANI yet~~). I've seen several other recent edits that have the same problem, like , , and , just to pick out the first three I spotted in your recent contributions.Neil916 (Talk) 17:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You did it again. Neil916 (Talk) 17:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You are still doing it. I fixed that one so you can see what needs to be done. Neil916 (Talk) 15:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, look, you're still doing it. Why? Neil916 (Talk) 21:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No, you are : who ever said the scientific title ever needed to be written in bold characters ? Is that the case for the major articles on the project ? No. Who ever questioned the validity of the "Marine fauna of Eastern Australia" category ? --Couiros22 (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The MOS states that the article title should be in bold and as early as possible in the first sentence. - Nick Thorne 14:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

If the common name in bold characters (like the example stated) then no need for the scientific name to be too. --Couiros22 (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Couiros22, you're still not listening. The article title must always be in bold. If the article's title is the scientific name, then it should be in bold in the first sentence of the article, as early as possible. This of course means at the beginning, since it is a trivial matter to write the sentence that way. There are exceptions for articles that have titles with specific grammatical constructions, but in the case of biota like fish, these do not apply. Please start to pay attention to what other editors are saying. Like it or not, one editor's opinion (i.e. yours) does not over-rule the consensus of other editors here. - Nick Thorne 06:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

...for the example above, the article title was the common name, not the scientific one. --Couiros22 (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? I have only recently reverted literally dozens and dozens of your changes to fish articles where you had un-bolded the (scientific name) article title and moved it from the beginning of the first sentence. This is getting beyond a joke. - Nick Thorne 10:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

In the last example I did not invert common & scientific names, nor did I in any of my latest edits. --Couiros22 (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, @Couros22:, I quickly checked your contributions and I see you are busily carrying on your merry way. If I see any further changes of articles to the effect that you change the first part of the lead from the article title to something else I will be taking you to AN/I. You've been told politely to cease and desist, but you are acting in classic IDHT fashion. It's now time to actually stop. Consider this your last and final warning. - Nick Thorne 10:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I happen to have this page on my watchlist. Couiros, in case you have not yet understood what other editors have told you: unless you stop making changes against consensus, and quickly undo any such changes or moves that you've already made, someone sooner or later (and at this point probably sooner) is going to start an ANI discussion about you. Given your unwillingness to listen to advice here, it's my guess that the best you could hope for if that happens is a topic ban (perhaps from all zoological articles, broadly construed); but you might find that some people suggest that you are not here to improve the encyclopaedia, and ask for your editing privileges to be removed. Unless those are outcomes you'd be happy with, I do suggest you pay more attention to what other editors are telling you – and correspondingly less attention to your own opinions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See here -- Nick Thorne 15:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Per the ANI complaint, the next time you modify the lead of a biota article contrary to the usual practices for such articles you may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions, ask an experienced biota editor for assistance. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

See the follow-up here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

What are you doing?

Your behaviour is currently being discussed at ANI and yet (rather than dealing with the concerns of other editors) you are making more problematic edits - e.g. this (with no edit summary) which removes the article from Category:Fish of Australia (although it didn't when you made that edit because you'd messed up the category structure with this earlier edit). Are you trying to get blocked? DexDor 08:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your niggling contempt could also be discussed ; you never have and still aren't making the slightest effort to analyze the positive aspects of what I'm doing. When a parent category i.e. "Fish of Australia" initially contains a massively high amount of entries (compare "birds of Sub-Saharan Africa" etc.) and that the vast majority of entries have very local restricted ranges of presence, then it is wiser to allocate them to their relevant sub-category(s). The fish listed on the first page all have a +/- omni-range of presence. --Couiros22 (talk) 10:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Who decided this, and where? - Nick Thorne 14:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

No-one in particular, why ? ; plain common sense --Couiros22 (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Plain common sense (as you see it) isn't enough. Let me explain...

If (for example) the Fish of Foobar category contains (directly, rather than in subcats) a lot of pages then there are several options:

0. Do nothing. Note: Category:Moths of Africa (for example) currently contains over 6000 articles directly.

1. Split the category by type of fish - e.g. Freshwater fish of Foobar, Sharks of Foobar.

2. Split the category by geography (e.g. Fish of North Foobar etc) and move all articles down to subcats.

3. Split the category by geography (e.g. Fish of North Foobar etc) and move articles down to subcats except for fish found in every sub-region which are left (just) at Fish of Foobar.

4. Split the category by geography (e.g. Fish of North Foobar etc) and move articles down to subcats except for fish found in nearly(?!) every sub-region which are left (just) at Fish of Foobar.

5. Options involving breaking SUBCAT (e.g. non-diffusion).

(Note: the, possibly inadvertent, effect of your edit I referred to above was none of these - it resulted in the article being removed from the category.)

None of these is the obvious common sense correct answer. Editors coming from different perspectives (e.g. trying to describe the range of a fish by category tags vs trying to use a category to create a complete list) are likely to prefer a different option. That's why reasoned argument and discussion (e.g. before creating a new categorization scheme, before re-creating a previously deleted category, at CFD and if your edits are challenged) are important. DexDor 18:30, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI, the current system recently in application seems to fit all four of these theoretical options :

1. "Freshwater fish of Australia" & "Marine fauna of Australia"

2. 3. 4. are all narrowly similar options, yet the currently applied fourth option is pragmatically the best option I.M.H.O.

Apart from birds and fish, still a lot of categories containing a vast amount of entries remain... but everything in its own time. --Couiros22 (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with a category having a large number of entries? Freshwater fish of Australia would, I expect, have around 280 entries, because there are around 280 species. That is a simple fact. How does breaking it down into smaller categories help? - Nick Thorne 05:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

the "Freshwater fish of Australia" category would be sub-divided in the same manner as "Fish of Australia" i.e. into several geographical sub-categories, hence thoroughly reducing the number of front page entries.
the vast majority of the Flora of Southwestern Europe entries aren't linked to the Flora of Europe category ; reciprocally why should e.g. the "Fish of Queensland" entries also be included under "Fish of Australia" ? --Couiros22 (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You still have not explained why "thoroughly reducing the number of front page entries" is desirable or even a good idea. Also, why is dividing fish into categorises based on political divisions, i.e. states, at all desirable? It would assume that someone searching for something fish related already knows something about the distribution beyond it simply being Australian (for example). Also, species do not observe political boundaries anyway, only a small subset of species are specific to individual states. I would accept such things as geographical areas like "fish of the Murray Darling Basin" but that does not need to be part of some over-riding hierarchy of categories. Please properly and fully explain the schema you are seeking to apply and also please show us all where you obtained the consensus to implement this schema on such a broad scale. - Nick Thorne 07:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Please first explain why many floral species of Europe are categorized under "flora of eastern/northern/southwestern... Europe", as opposed to simply under "Flora of Europe". --Couiros22 (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is not of itself a valid reason to do anything. You need explain why what YOU want to do in THIS SPACE is appropriate, and if you want to use the other things as precedent why they are applicable. This is especially so when your edits have been called into question. BTW, depending on how it is defined "western Europe " is a more logical division than Australian states as it is presumable based on physical geography and biology rather than arbitrary and purely political regions.- Nick Thorne 08:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Why are they arbitrary ? They aren't just political (c.f. "Freshwater fish of Northern Australia" etc.) --Couiros22 (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yet again you fail to answer the question. I'm not continuing with this stupid game, it will just become more evidence at AN/I of your unwillingness to collaborate. Last chance now. What categorization schema are you trying to implement, and where did you get consensus for it? - Nick Thorne 10:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)