User talk:Flynnbar

Welcome!

Hello, Flynnbar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Bachrach44 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double categorization

I noticed that you added various articles about oaks to Category:Fagaceae.

FYI, all members of Quercus should be placed in Category:Oaks, which is in-turn already a subcategory of Fagaceae. By adding a higher order category, you have, in effect, "double categorized". This is sometimes called redundant categorization. It is usually considered good practice not to put articles in both a parent and sub-category. — Eoghanacht ^talk 19:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was done for consistency, I also added a number of oak articles only categorised as Fagaceae|Oak,... to the Oaks category. This, I would have thought, would also help distinguish between Quercus oaks and Lithocarpus which is very similar to Quercus, and a number of its species have names containing oak which are reasonably categorised as oaks.Flynnbar 23:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flynnbar - don't worry about this one too much; Category:Oaks would be best merged into Category:Fagaceae anyway, with all the oaks placed only in Category:Fagaceae - MPF 09:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that it would be more useful if they were categorised in their family, and also categorised in their genus, so you can quickly and clearly see at a glance the species there are articles on in a particular genus. Families contain rather large numbers of species, and a genus list is useful.

I agree the oaks category is superfluous, the problem with it is that it is oaks not Quercus, and like the Fagaceae category, fails due to the use of common names, to quickly and clearly differentiate the Lithocarpus oaks from the Quercus oaks, and performs no particularly useful purpose.

Flynnbar 10:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Quercus robur 'Concordia'.JPG

Hi Flynnbar. As I am not familiar with processes in english wikipedia (my homewiki is german one) I uploaded your picture image:Quercus robur 'Concordia'.JPG manually to wikicommons with exact the same filename and under GFDL licence. This because I need this picture for a german article, thanks for this picture. Please delete this picture in english wikipedia. Then the same link in the articles should automatically be resolved to wikicommons. If I should add another licence please give me an info. -- Ilion2 18:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]