Wikipedia talk:How to write Simple English pages
down in Ohio swag likeEdit
I recently created a article on Rossford, OH, but I think I screwed up. Can anyone tell me how to fix it? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I do. 799987scarlett (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
How should a simple encyclopedia work?Edit
It seems to me that the project page focuses on writing pages in simple English, rather than writing pages for the simple English Wikipedia. If that is the page's sole purpose, I suggest it would be better called: How to write pages in Simple English. It could then link to guidelines for writing simpler pages. GrounderUK (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- I think we can all agree that our goal is to have an encyclopedia written in simpler English. I am not one of those people who think we should have only a simple encyclopedia. But what we have now is neither and, given that, my question is: how do we fix that? My preference is for making existing content simpler, but that's just me.
- When editing, I pay most attention to the Lead Section and the first paragraph above all. It is from here that the reader can be prepared for what is to follow. It is a guideline that the subject should be established here as notable; I would go further and suggest that there should be some idea given of how notable it is. (There are proper nouns that would not appear at all in a selective encyclopedia, but some would appear in the least encyclopaedic of dictionaries; citations from such tertiary sources would be a guideline I think I would support.)
- If the subject is not a proper noun, it is likely to fit into some broad category of knowledge. Some sorts of "expert" have published primary sources on the subject and (for the subject to be notable) these sources have been referenced somehow in secondary sources. So this broader subject should be identified early on: both generally (is it physics or linguistics) and more particularly (is it syntax or phonetics). I think of this as the container/contains model: what is the subject in and what is in the subject. Again, I think this should be clear in the first paragraph or two. A good choice of Categories supports this.
- Less simple words can be explained when they are needed but I think we should think about inheritance here. The necessary words may also be needed for the broader subject and we would like the parent and the child to share their use of words, if that is what the experts do. Or there may be controversy, lack of mutual understanding, entrenched positions... so we should note that and perhaps agree about the extent to which we can agree here! Another approach would be to refer to a shared glossary, where all the less simple words could be organised, with links to Wiktionary where it can do the job. --GrounderUK (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Link for AECMA Simplified EnglishEdit
The article currently contains:
> For writing special to science or trade, do as asked by the process of AECMA Simplified English
The target of the link is Simplified English.
Would a better target link be the (standard) English-language Wikipedia page Simplified Technical English? That seems more useful, but I don't know your conventions for inter-wiki links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Espertus (talk • contribs) 19:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Psychology and PurposeEdit
Bigger picture... i want to finish what i started when i was supposed to start it. Now what~~~~ 2600:1700:C180:5F30:782F:8634:8830:F54F (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
"Every day, Simple English changes, and does not have only one-word list"Edit
I have a good understanding of the English language, it's my only language, and this sentence... "Every day, Simple English changes, and does not have only one-word list" is so confusing, that I genuinely don't understand what it could be trying to mean. Please fix it. I can't because I don't know what it means. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Focus on explanationEdit
I think what is missing the guidleine is the fact that writer should focus on explanation. Sometimes, in a scientific conctext, it may be important to use a word, because only that word has the very specific meaning that is neeed. It is ipmortant to focus on explanining well. In physics there's no use givbing a formula, which allows to calculate the exact value of a force or effect; people will not use the formula before they understand what it is for. Btw: this is exactly the same in an article published in a scientific paper (except perhaps that the audience is different). I therefore think we should add something along these lines to the guideline. Comments? Eptalon (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)