User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 6

← Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7 →

Talkback

Hello, Macdonald-ross. You have new messages at Dr Greg's talk page.
Message added  Dr Greg  talk  11:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Confucian reasoning

Just confirming your good judgment. Do you know this story?

One day, a disciple asked Confucius: “If a king were to entrust you with a territory which you could govern according to your ideas, what would you do first?”
Confucius replied: “My first task would certainly be to rectify the names.”
The puzzled disciple asked: “Rectify the names?…Is this a joke?”
Confucius replied: “If the names are not correct, if they do not match realities, language has no object. If language is without an object, action becomes impossible - and therefore all human affairs disintegrate and their management becomes pointless and impossible. Hence, the very first task of a true statesman is to rectify the names.”

In other words, your questions about Lō'ihi Seamount were good ones; and you are doing something important and valuable when you focus on issues having to do with article titles. --Horeki (talk) 09:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Assyria and Assyrian people

Hi, could you please revert your edits here and here. Assyria was an ancient geopolitical entity while the modern Assyrians are an ethnoreligious group who claim descendance from the ancient inhabitants of Assyria. Merging them doesn't make much sense. I tried doing it myself but my edits are considered harmful by a bot. Thanks.--Rafy (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand Syriacs need to be merged with Assyrian people.--Rafy (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I note your concerns. I hope I'll have time to look at this in more detail. In general, we do tend to put topics which are similar together, because our pages are (on average) much shorter than en.wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia

Hi! Sorry to bother you, but I'm trying to get my head around what is needed to write Simple English for complex topics, as I'm hoping to develop a few IT-related articles. So to start with I figured I'd go with something tricky, so I've been working on the euthanasia article. I was wondering if you could give some general pointers on writing style? It has a very long way to go, but I'm hoping that I'm not missing the target by too much at this early stage. - Bilby (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the first piece of advice is: don't bring over from en.wiki more than you can cope with. The second is: make sure the language is simple and clear and accurate. For example, it strikes me that your account of assisted suicide and murder is just not accurate. While assisted suicide is different from euthanasia, it is not that much different, because it is motivated by the same situation. On the other hand, murder is totally and absolutely different. It is most definitely not done for the good of a sufferer (as you say), and is a serious crime in every known society. Now your language must reflect this reality, or readers will begin to lose faith in what they read. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ethically, assisted suicide and euthanasia are considered separate - the same motivation applies, but most commentators draw a distinction between the two. I'm using Glover, as his is one of the more approachable works, but while there is clearly a connection in motivation, the ethical distinction between killing and assisting someone to kill themselves is reasonably well defined in the literature, and tends to account for the greater readiness to legalise assisted suicide without also legalising voluntary euthanasia. It is an interesting point, though - I'll have to look at how better to draw the distinction. - Bilby (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added a second ref to justify the second interpretation - the Stanford encyclopedia's discussion of voluntary euthanasia is a good one, although they remove assisted suicide by adding a condition to what is required for voluntary euthanasia, they acknowledge assisted suicide earlier as an occasional synonym. - Bilby (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I get the impression you are writing this article more or less from scratch, rather than start with the en.wiki article. If so, that's courageous and honourable, but it is difficult. It'll be interesting to see how the page develops. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I worked on the euthanasia article on en.wp - I worked extensively on the history and definition section, although the Action T4 section in history was another editor's. I also did a big chunk of Euthanasia and the slippery slope, although that's something which can do with some good copyediting once I get enough distance. I used to teach bioethics at university back when I was doing my Masters in philosophy, so I'm still interested in writing bioethics and philosophy articles. But I later moved sideways, and I ended up working and teaching in information systems. I still teach ethics at my current university, although now the focus of my teaching is more on computer theory, which is why I'd like to develop the simple.wp articles, as it would be nice to be able to refer students from a non-English speaking background to a concise and digestible account - the versions on en.wp tend to be good, but bogged down in writing and details which are difficult for some of the students to grasp as presented during first year.

My assumption here is that the audience might require a different article structure to what is offered on en.wiki, along with the different language. So I'm not sure that porting over the complexities of en's account would work. But if it would be better to more closely mirror the work we've been doing there I'd be happy to. :) Any advice would be happily accepted. - Bilby (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

No, your way is good. I'll look again in a couple of weeks. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

From Voceditenore

Hi there. Like Bilby, I saw a discussion on English Wikipedia about the Indian Education Project's latest plans and came here to find out what writing in Simple English is like. All I have to say is that academic writing is a piece of cake compared to this. :). Anyhow, I re-wrote and expanded Rigoletto and created Teatro La Fenice and Francesco Maria Piave as experiments. I was aiming for a minimum Flesch score of 65. Hopefully, I didn't overdo the simplification. I decided to write the articles from scratch rather than translating directly from English Wikipedia. Let me know if there's anything I can do to improve them.

I commented at Wikipedia:Proposed Indian Education Program, just to suggest some things that you should all "nail down" with the project's proposers if you decide to go ahead with the project. I won't comment further there, as this is really for the regular Simple Wikipedia editors and admins to decide amongst yourselves. I was extensively involved in the clean-up/damage limitation when the IEP ran at English Wikipedia and was one of the interviewees for this report. I don't necessarily think it would be a similar disaster this time. They seem to have taken a lot of things on board, although as I said in my comment, everyone (including the IEP folk) needs to go into this with their eyes wide open. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. Your articles look good to me. Hope you do some more! Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I will try to do some more for you, maybe one or two short articles per month. Opera is probably not a priority for Simple Wikipedia, but in general, articles work best when people write about subject matter they are very familiar with. So I'll stick to that general area. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Le Spectre de la rose

Hello Macdonald-ross, if you could revisit Le Spectre de la rose at WP:PVGA to see if anything has changed since you last commented, that would be helpful in order to close the article. Regards, Albacore (talk · changes) 01:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

IEP 2.0 proposal

I regret that it was necessary to join you and others in disagreement with the IEP 2.0 proposal.

In my opinion, a better start-up plan was used in an SEWP pilot program in Japan. I mentioned it here, but two sentences may have been overlooked in the wall of words:

"... a very different kind of strategy has marked the development of a pilot SEWP program at Tokyo Medical and Dental University (TMDU) here and here. Strategic planning and context-building here and here were quite distinct from the IEP 2.0 proposal."

I would have thought we want to find ways to build on what works well. --Horeki (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Since it's clear the organisers will not change their present proposal, I think this wiki will reject it. If they come back later in a more receptive mode, then you can make your suggestion again. I have received two or three e-mails from them, which just repeat things they have already said on our discussion page. I could be wrong, but I think this proposal is already a dead duck. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Aha, yes. I also received e-mails. They persuaded me to try to be more forceful in responding to the steamroller sales strategy. At that time, I didn't think that others would be sent a similar message. Now my perspective is wider. Thank you. --Horeki (talk) 12:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Higgs boson

You're a Science-y type guy right? I was updating the Higgs boson article and saw this template at the bottom. Is it worth moving the Higgs boson from the hypothetical section? Thought you'd have a better understanding of this than me. Kennedy ^(talk) 12:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, the CERN group has claimed they found it, but it pays to wait until other physicists have reviewed the evidence. It is being actively discussed now, and articles should soon appear in Science, Nature and Physics Letters B. I suggest looking at English wiki in a few weeks' time. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :) Kennedy ^(talk) 15:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The articles I read have mentioned that they can prove it exists but they haven't actually found it. So I have a feeling this will be a fairly lengthy debate on if its really been found or not. As these things in science usually are. -DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Reversion on Africa

Hi, I'm curious as to why you reverted my edits on Africa [1]. The sentence I removed about the islands was because there were no island nations that were omitted, and the only islands that would be listed there anyway were countries (since it was a list of nation-states). A Clockwork Orange (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• You had inserted Azawad, which is definitely not an established country by WP guidelines. I have taken the sentence about islands out, as you suggest. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. So I can assume that international recognition is required before it is added to that list? I had thought that since there was a war of independence and, after it was won, a declaration was issued, that it was safe to include. A Clockwork Orange (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's right, recognition by independent parties is needed. However, there is no objection to an article explaining the history of the region in question. Macdonald-ross (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

Can you please revisit the article that you gave comments to and check if I have satisfied them? Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 04:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't promise anything: I'm pretty busy at present, and the Olympic Games is going to make life hell around here! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you one of the people with a missile launcher on their roof? Osiris (talk) 05:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

WHS table format

During the April 2012 World Heritage Sites and National Parks Big Weekend, we discussed the format of tables here. As you probably know, some WHS tables look alike, and others do not.

Tables with "standard" formats

• List of World Heritage Sites in Australia
• List of World Heritage Sites in Bulgaria
• List of World Heritage Sites in Ecuador
• List of World Heritage Sites in India
• List of World Heritage Sites in Japan
• List of World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom
• List of World Heritage Sites in the United States

Tables with non-"standard" formats

• List of World Heritage Sites in Armenia
• List of World Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina
• List of World Heritage Sites in China
• List of World Heritage Sites in Iran
• List of World Heritage Sites in Ireland
• List of World Heritage Sites in South Korea
• List of World Heritage Sites in Macedonia
• List of World Heritage Sites in the Netherlands
• List of World Heritage Sites in Romania
• List of World Heritage Sites in Russia
• List of World Heritage Sites in Serbia
• List of World Heritage Sites in Switzerland
• List of World Heritage Sites in Turkey
• List of UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Ukraine

IMO, the simpler format is probably better in our SEWP context.

Over the next few months, I would be willing to invest time in converting the variant tables to our tentative "standard". However, I am reluctant to proceed without some kind of confirmation that our reasoning is supported by consensus. What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is good to go ahead, because:

1. We have discussed this at length and got a good model with the USA and UK tables
2. Standardization of formats is encouraged by having a style guide (that's what a style guide is all about)
3. "Be Bold" is important. No need to discuss things which are already well discussed. Others will have read our discussion already, and there were no dissents to the general idea.
4. Lastly, some of the non-standard formats are really hard to understand compared with ours. You would be doing everyone a favour!

Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. --Horeki (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Macdonald-ross. You have new messages at Kennedy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kennedy ^(talk) 11:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The next Big Weekend – 10 to 13 August

You are invited to take part in the next big weekend, the Big Space Weekend, on 10 to 13 August. Our goal is to increase the number and quality of space-related articles. For full details, see Simple Talk. DJDunsie (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Under construction template

Hey :) I thought we could have the {{under construction}} template during breaks? I didn't use {{inuse}} like I'm supposed to because I forget we had that here. But does the same rules apply? On enWP we tag articles in use during active expansion and under construction during breaks. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 18:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Depends how busy the topic is. Long-term construction should be done on a sandbox page. Work on an existing page is {inuse}, and it's not meant to be left on all day. However, it might be left for a couple of days if noone else is interested in the page. I haven't seen {under construction} on this wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea I should've done that, well thanks for replying. Best, Jonayo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 15:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Limes

Would it be practical to merge your new Frontiers of the Roman Empire into Limes? Osiris (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'll do it later today. It's probably good to keep the longer name because Limes is a Latin word which is not used in English. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I had to merge the revision histories so it was all in the one place. Thanks for that, Osiris (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles about teams at the Olympics

Please take a look at the small changes I made in Great Britain at the Olympics. The introduction and history sections are mirrored in other similar articles -- for example, see Australasia at the Olympics and Japan at the Olympics. What do you think? --Horeki (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no criticism of the article. However, when editing it to cover the point that all citizens here may have dual nationality, I ran across a peculiar gap. We had no article on the British Government/Government of the UK! Isn't that strange? Hence I started such a page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)