User talk:StevenJ81/Archive 1

Simplicity

An interesting question you posed, how detailed should an article on simple be? I would like to think that the main difference between an article here, and on enwiki, is that it should be easier to read. Now in some cases, biography is one that I am familiar with, there would be very little difference at all. In fact several articles have been copied from here to enwiki (Dan Kelly) is one that I can remember. On the other hand some complex articles on organic chemistry were very difficult to explain simply, and especially in the precise detail that jargon can deliver. I always work on the theory that I should be able to understand what the general concept is about, even if I get lost in the detail. Sometimes too, the level of detail seems overdone - that is out of proportion to the article itself. But as this wikipedia services a range of readers, it makes it more challenging to write for them. We can not assume that the need for simple language means that the content should be "dumbed down". So there are some rambling musings, and back to keeping it simple.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for a thoughtful answer. I guess where I'm still having a little trouble is this: I think enwiki is trying to be Britannica, if you will, in depth as well as scope. Clearly, simple is not Britannica in scope—not yet, and probably never. I'm not sure it really needs to be Britannica in depth, either, though. Isn't the right spot somewhere in the middle? If you were a Yank I'd say it might be enough for simple to be en:World Book Encyclopedia. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I had not thought of it that way, but I think that is an excellent summary.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

My idea is that people who use simple English are not simple. The language is their problem. If there were an article in Pashto on the subject maybe they would just read that one. Another possibility would be someone who has great math skills and lousy language skills. So we should reinforce the simple English with visual aids whenever possible. So start at the beginning and go as far as seems practical in language. Adding some equations that take the matter deeper but can be ignored by those not interested in going deeper would not be amiss. Alternately, pointing people to things like The Picture Book of Quantum Mechanics might let some users use the encyclopedia as a trampoline and jump right into the math and graphics of that book. Personally, I get ticked off when people who write articles on subjects that ordinary people might need some help to get a start in will jump in at the postgraduate level and count on a dozen hyperlinks to "help" if any of the technical jargon is incomprehensible to the reader. Compare some of those articles with Linus Pauling's intro to his Nature of the Chemical Bond.Patrick0Moran (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm completely with you. I hope it didn't appear as if I feel people using simple English are simple. But what I do think is that we should treat them as interested "ordinary people" or "laypeople". As you said, this is not a postgraduate level description, either, although I'm in favor of providing trampolines to those who would use them. (PS: I am watching your page.) StevenJ81 (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I had no thought that you regard people using simple English as being simple, but I have found others who seem dedicated to writing simplistic stuff. I just wanted to make my objection to that view clear. When I was doing my grad work I paid $1/week to assemble a copy of Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia at the nearby supermarket. I may have stopped at the volume for "S" because that was when I read their article on spiders. It was worse than I could have produced in 6th grade — pure nonsense assembled by somebody who knew nothing and took no responsibility for that fact. I looked up "Spider" in the English Wikipedia, found some nonsense, fixed it, and I was hooked. The opportunity to make knowledge freely available to people all over the world who intensely desire knowledge is what makes me happy. For physics it is especially important to keep the path straight. Few people even have the experience of making lots of electrical and electronic gadgets and getting a first-hand experience of electricity or electronics. If you have that kind of experience then somebody who writes badly can't drag you quite so far off course. But fewer students, I believe, will have access to good quantum physics lab apparatus.

I look forward to your efforts to keep the English as clear as possible. Thanks.Patrick0Moran (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2015 addition

• If I'd seen this discussion I would have said immediately that it's not just a question of language. In all subjects where advanced ideas depend on earlier, less advanced ideas, understanding is not possible for readers who have never been taught the basics. As we have many young readers -- and some are very young -- this will be an obstacle which we can never entirely overcome. To some extent we solve it by leaving out the really advanced stuff, although we do get "experts" coming over from En wiki and sticking in stuff which (though correct) spoils the illusion of simplicity. A friend asked someone who finished a PhD in pure mathematics "What was it about?" After some thought, he said, "It's no good, you wouldn't even understand the title!" See what I mean? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comment, @Macdonald-ross:. It seems to me that at some point, this discussion, or an essay along the lines of this discussion, or something similar, ought to be published in Wikipedia namespace here.

  I have some other thoughts on the subject of simplicity, and on the related subject of What does this wiki aspire to be?" which I will share with you at some point, if you're interested. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

August 2018 addition

• Later: All subjects which have a conceptual hierarchy cannot be properly understood until one has climbed that particular ladder no matter how simple the language. By conceptual hierarchy is meant "you can't understand higher levels until you've properly understood lower levels". But often some kind of sense can be conveyed, so long as people don't take it too literally.
• Another dimension which limits simple language is experience. In some fields words are meaningless unless a person has the appropriate experience. Try talking about art to someone who never spends time looking at art, or even music to smeone who has not listened to that kind of music. Words are not everything. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

For Musdan77

I thought I'd talk to you here to keep away from prying eyes. I don't know if you remember me, but you gave me a cup of tea at en during the latest Genesis creation narrative kerfuffle.

Can I ask a favor of you? (This is a forward-looking favor, not a complaint about anything!) Especially in this wiki, can you please be sensitive to not automatically ascribing Christian interpretation to Old Testament/Tanakh subjects? (Again, I'm not saying you haven't been!) As an example, look at Isaiah. If you look at the history page, and then look at the difference between my edit (3rd one down as of now) and the one before, you'll see exactly what I mean.

I'm also glad to partner with you; if you're working on something, and you want me to vet it for issues like that, just let me know here. Many thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will try to keep that in mind. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

About out of petrol

Hi,

I've made what I hope is an article on the Uncertainty principle that goes from concrete to a little abstract and from simple to somewhat deeper, and all without any gaps in the foundation. It could be improved by adding dictionary links to some of the lower-frequency words. Probably there are simpler ways to see some things, but I may need some time away from the article to see such flaws. There are probably some footnotes and some bibliography to be transferred. Right now I am pretty tired.

Thanks for your help.Patrick0Moran (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't blame you a bit. You've been stellar. I'll try to give it some attention this new week. StevenJ81 (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

municipalities / populated places, etc.

In case it gets lost at ST, I put information at User:Auntof6/Municipality categories about which categories I would change and which ones I wouldn't. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Your words here caused me think through the issues in a fresh way. Especially helpful was your use of the term en:disclaimer. The seeds you planted produced new ideas here. Thank you. --Jinki (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad I could help. But you really need to be more direct about stating your objection. (See the latest in the "Recap" discussion.) People really don't quite get the point you're trying to make. Say, "I object to this because [such and such place] [would/would not] be classified properly, and here's why..." I don't really understand myself. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Sabbath dab page sandbox moved

I moved this page to your userspace, at [[User:StevenJ81/Sabbath (disambiguation)]]. We don't have sandboxes for individual articles in namespace, like there are for templates. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Didn't realize that; sorry. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Mayflower articles, etc.

Thank you for your support. MySweetMelissa (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No consensus

Hello, StevenJ81. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Simple talk.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

24.218.110.195 (talk) 12:23 2 June 2013 (UTC) 8:23am 06/2/2013 EDT.

There has not been a consensus at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Official colors for Historical geology/Geological period articles/templates. You need to post a reply over there. 24.218.110.195 (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC) 6:43pm 06/15/2013 EDT.

Kiddish moved

Hello, StevenJ81, I havbe the page, as requested.--Eptalon (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Golden Award!

————————————————————————————

You deserve this for your hard work. Aaqib 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

————————————————————————————

Reply

See m:User_talk:PiRSquared17#Two_questions. Summary:

1. I think you have to do this by hand, but there at least used to be a bot to do this (at least on some wikis). (See detailed reply on Meta)
2. See detailed response.

PiRSquared17 (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Shabbat

Just so as not to derail what I hope will be quite a productive discussion, I wholeheartedly agree with the promotion of Shabbat which is why I did not revert, which would have seemed rather pointless and futile to only get re-promoted soon after. My only issue was with process, although, it seems, that this has had a productive, constructive outcome. Apologies that I could not get around to giving you any help with the article. Goblin 14:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

I figured, but thank you. At some point I'd like to chat with you about differences between VGA and GA in terms of content requirements. (The red-links part I get, outside the discussion we are having elsewhere.)

My general question is this: I think this article as it currently stands is reasonably comprehensive. I could try to build out this article so that it is as fully comprehensive as the article on en or he. I'm not sure that's necessary, though; see my discussion on "Simplicity" with Peterdownunder above. Leaving aside the question of red links, and perhaps one reference which Eptalon encouraged me to strengthen, do I need to add more substance to the article to take it to VGA? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

American Civil War

I was wondering if you could look over at "the war" section. I'm not sure if this is really "good" yet or covers the major battles and campaigns adequately. Wild Wolf (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Major Jewish fast tonight (en:Tisha B'Av), so I cannot do this until at least tomorrow afternoon EDT. I can't really comment on substance yet, but on brief perusal, language isn't simple enough. Also, just at first glance, I would put Lincoln and Davis at the top of the "leaders and commanders" section of the navbox. Until tomorrow ... StevenJ81 (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What changes can I make to simplify the language? Wild Wolf (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

To give you an idea, I edited the first paragraph of that section. I broke down all the ideas into simple sentences. Subordinate clauses are not forbidden here, but you should use them sparingly. Have a look. Any questions, just shout.

BTW, I added Lincoln and Davis. And I went over to the navbox template and replaced "Belligerents", which is not a very "simple" term, with "participants". I think we're going to want to pare down that list of generals, too. Are you really going to create all of those articles (so fast)?

Going forward, probably best to correspond on this subject at Talk:American Civil War. StevenJ81 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Commodore Nutt

Hello! Thank you for commenting on this article. I've put your suggestions to use and have turned the article around! I've simplified voacabulary and sentence structure, added a few images, deleted a few images, and did an all-around housesweeping. I wonder if you would take one last look and let me know if you think the article is GA ready? It's getting very near the closing date (the 7th) on this and if it doesn't pass I'll need to resubmit at a later date. Thank you for the help! Oregonian2012 (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Nelson Mandela

Hey. I've been working hard about making Nelson Mandela a GA. Can you review the article and then write your suggestions in my talk page. Thanks. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)