Talk:7-Eleven

June 2016

I'm having problems simplifying. One part is that it says it was called "Tote'm" because customers could tote their groceries, but I want to say "carry" instead of "tote". I can't say it was called "Carry'm" because that's incorrect, and I can't just put "tote" because IMO that's not simple enough. I tried putting "tote (meaning carry)" but that worries me because we're not the Wikitionary, so could I have some help please? Krett12 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

One of the standard ways of dealing with a complex word is to explain it in parentheses after using it. In a case like this, as you're seeing, you can't just substitute a simpler word. You could say one of the following:

• Customers could tote (carry) their groceries.
• Customers could carry ("tote") their groceries.
• Customers could tote their groceries. (Tote means carry.)

Will any of those work for you? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I already tried that and I didn't want to put the definition due to that we're not the wikitionary, but I'll put the first one there since we both thought of it. Krett12 (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

A problem with sources

Because we took this article from enwiki and brought it here, we are now responsible for this copy being accurate, right? Anyway, Wikipedia articles, even if another Wikipedia, can't be used as a citation, which means that we have to verify each one's reliability, right? This is concerning because all I do here is simplify things and revert vandalism, I've never really managed citations before. Could someone help me do that? Krett12 (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

About the recent simplification attempts...

Krett12, I think you should reconsider your approach to handling this article. "Simplifying" an article into Simple English is not just a simple matter of substituting words and removing what you think to be unnecessary content. Some of your edits are rather problematic:

• Wage scandal in Australia: your simplified version changed "wage scandal" to "insurance scandal", and left the reader wondering about Allan Fels' role in the investigation (eg. what is he the chairman of?), and more importantly, appeared to accuse Allan Fels of being involved in the fraud itself.
  • See my edit for more details on what I changed.
• Indonesia: "targeting densely populated commercial and business areas" simplified to "and very much places that have a lot of people and businesses."
  • Rewritten in Special:Diff/5416634. Chenzw  Talk  06:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• Japan: "The aesthetics of the store are somewhat different from that of 7-Eleven stores in other countries as the stores offer a wider selection of products and services." simplified to "The way the store works is different than 7-Eleven stores in other countries as the stores offer a more products and services."
  • Apart from the grammatical error in that statement, this simplification is inaccurate; aesthetics is not the same as "the way the store works".
    • Rewritten in Special:Diff/5415392. Chenzw  Talk  06:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
• "Following the example of other convenience stores in Japan" simplified to "Not like other convenience stores in Japan"
  • This is inaccurate: your simplified version is stating that 7-Eleven, unlike other convenience stores, uses solar power. (implying that other convenience stores do not use solar power)
• Philippines: "also a licensee of 7-Eleven, purchased the majority shares of PSC and thus formed a strategic alliance for the convenience store industry within the area" simplified to "also a license of 7-Eleven, bought most of the shares of of PSC and created a plan to have all convience stores in the area be theirs"
  • "Licensee" is not the same as "license". Also, this simplification is inaccurate. Forming a strategic alliance does not necessarily mean a takeover of all stores in the area.
• Thailand: "to develop a new distribution center" simplified to "to develop a new center"
  • "Distribution" is an important word in the statement, and even if considered a complex word, should not be outright removed from the sentence without rewriting the sentence. The current simplified statement is lacking context as to what kind of center is being developed.
• Wage scandal in Australia: "Bob Baily was appointed as interim chief executive" simplified to "Bob Baily was just for a little bit chief executive"
  • This is grammatically incorrect. "Interim" cannot simply be substituted for the "simpler" phrase "was just for a little bit".
    • Rewritten in Special:Diff/5416636. Chenzw  Talk  06:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Again, simplifying an article is not like summarising, or to replace "non-simple" words into "simple equivalents". If you cannot handle simplification of an existing EN article without introducing major errors, please consider writing the article from scratch instead.

I will be taking some time later to make corrections to the article, and I would recommend you do not try to copy over existing articles from EN until you have a stronger grasp of the English language. Chenzw  Talk  04:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not done simplifying it, it even says that at the top of the page. Krett12 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not the point. The parts which you have already simplified (as I brought up above) have many errors. Simplification of an article is not just substituting complicated words for simpler ones. To put it another way, it was a bad idea for you to copy over the entire content from EN, and then attempt to simplify the copied content. Chenzw  Talk  15:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)