Wikibooks:Simple talk/Archive 2

From Wikibooks

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

[change] Usability idea

I would really like it if there was a direct link to the BE850 list on the navigation bar. It seems to me that anyone writing articles should be consulting it often, and that would make it alot easier. --HSTutorials 21:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, HS. I'll add it, as I did previously at Simple English Wiktionary. Please remember that the BE850 is only a basic guide, though. We do not have to completely restrict ourselves to those words, just make sure that our words remain simple (along with our grammar, etc.), which would keep us at about the level of those words. If we find a better standard to go by, we can even switch. In any case, if we need to use more complex terminology, we should explain the word in parentheses and/or link it to the SEWiktionary or both. Does that make sense to everyone?
BTW, even if we are limiting the difficulty of our grammar and terminology, that does not necessarily limit the length of sentences that we use. True, we should use shorter sentences on average, because simplified syntaxis requires it to some extent, but some sentences can be fairly long and still be perfectly simple in both words and grammar. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 09:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[change] BT templates

editors may have noticed the fact that many templates starting with BT are popping up on articles to provide links to the contents pages relative to those pages. I did this to place easily noticed and read links. if you dissaprove with this idea, feel free to remove the templates or change them. -This was not done by a bot, even thought the similarities may mislead one to that conclusion- WillieWallieWoo 10:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed all BT templates I found, and explained why they shouldn't be there on this user's talk page. If there are any I missed, please remove them. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[change] Name of Staff lounge

On the other Simple English projects, we have avoided complex words and phrases as much as possible in the names of pages like this one. There, we call this Simple talk, regardless of whether it is the village pump or tea room or whatever on the English projects. I think we should follow that here also, changing the name of this to "Wikibooks:Simple talk". That will help us conform to the standard and also be simpler in its own right. Thoughts? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 10:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

- Done! Gerard Foley 15:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[change] Accessing SE Wiktionary Within SE Wikibooks and/or SE Wikipedia

If I were not a native english speaker, what I would really like from a SE Wikibook or Wikipedia article would be to be able to look up any word I don't know without having to navigate away from the article I'm reading. What I've noticed in SE Wikipedia is that links get created for terms that need explanation. That's great. But unless a full article is written, people get upset that a stub has been created. The reader loses out because there is a term that needs explanation that has none. I anticipate this problem to be even worse in SE Wikibooks as it develops.

I have seen the suggestion of putting alternate words or definitions in parentheses, but that doesn't take advantage of our database. Here's what I'd like to see. Could a window be put inside SE Wikibooks and/or SE Wikipedia for people to access SE Wiktionary definitions? --HSTutorials 14:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty complicated. A better idea is to link to SE Wiktionary. I know that that requires navigating away, but only for a moment. I also know that not all words are there, but we're working on it and you're free to help! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Its not very hard to do. If you want I could whip up a template. ~ Wikihermit 01:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[change] Simple Sentence

What is the simple subject in this sentence?

1. Its subtropical wilderness is the largest in the continental United States.

Please do not ask us to do your homework for you. Someone may answer you, but that is not what Wikiprojects are for. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[change] Can we just start writing a new book?

I'm just wondering, can you just start a new book on here or do you have to put it to the rest of the group? I was thinking of writing a wikibook on programming... Jordanhatch 20:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you never received a reply but yes, you can just start writing a new book. Please make sure that it uses simple English and that it is based on fact and not an original work. Xania 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[change] Importing from Wikibooks English

I would like to add a few more Cookbook recipes to this version of Wikibooks. Am I allowed to just copy and paste them from Wikibooks to here (and then obviously simplify the language) or should I request that the page be transwikied? The first page I'd like to transwiki is [Cookbook:Chicken Vindaloo].

Also do we have a button or template that can be added to other Wikis to provide a link to this Wiki? I mean something that says something like "Wikibooks Simple English has an article on this subject..."? Xania 14:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not copy and paste, please transwiki. You can even do that yourself. In this case it would be more of a "copy/transwiki," since the recipe won't be removed from its source project, but usually it would be a regular transwiki. The ideal in other cases (it doesn't fit here) would be to export and import (I don't mind importing), but I just asked that import be added today, so it hasn't been enabled here yet. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 01:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[change] Small technical issue (broken link)

There is a broken link on this page.... English/Differences_between_British_English_and_American_English

Here is the section that the broken link appears in. The broken link is on the word 'tap'.

"Vocabulary. Some common things have different names in Great Britain and the United States. An example of this is the front part and the back part of a car. The front part of a car that you lift to see the engine is called the bonnet in Great Britain, and the hood in the United States. The back part of the car that you lift to store luggage is called the boot in Great Britain and the trunk in the United States. The place where you get water from is known as a [[wikt:tap|tap] in Britain but called a faucet in American English." —This unsigned comment was added by 208.60.35.95 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 27 February 2007.

Thanks for letting us know. I fixed the link. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 19:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[change] Ingliz-simpl-viki

MattisManzel 20:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC):
Hi, I started the Ingliz-simpl-viki. I should make a wiki-node here, I know.

Except for a similarity in name and that it is a wiki, this other site appears to have absolutely nothing to do with SEWB. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[change] Wikibooks:Basic_English_alphabetical_wordlist

There's a (minor) typo on this page and a user mentioned this on the talk page last October but it hasn't been corrected. I can't correct it myself as the page appears to be protected from editing. Can someone do this please. Xania 22:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this is now fixed. Michael 03:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I also just fixed several problems with alphabetical order that I had previously found while working with that list. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[change] Covers

Should all projects have covers? I created a cover for the cookbook, and the link on the main page needs to be fixed. An administrator could do that. Thanks, --Isis 15:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The amount of inactivity on this wiki is horrible --Isis 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Any admin issues can now be directed to me directly, on the admin page under requests for admin attention, or put here for all to see. I will be more active here from now on, so that should help. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the links on the main page to point to your new covers, it seems the main page is only semi-protected you should be able to edit it in a couple days.--Ezra Katz 23:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. I just saw "view source", so I assumed it was a full protection. I'm not used to being a new user. --Isis 23:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the cover should be the main page. For example, Chess would be the main page/cover, and it would lead to the table of content. It doesn't work if there is a page like chess/cover, because when a person searches for chess it leads to the article chess, not chess/cover. ~ Wikihermit 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you doing something with that. That makes sense, since the first part of a book you see is the cover. --Isis 18:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I was trying to redirect/move/ect. I had to undo it because I needed to delete a redirect page and their aren't any active admins to delete that page. :-( ~ Wikihermit 18:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think I like the idea of the cover being the main page of each book. That seems logical. Maybe others feel differently, though. Which redirects do you need deleted? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead with Wikihermit's suggestion. Look at the Animal Kingdom to see what I mean. PxMa 18:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[change] Admins

Does the "three month, 1000 edit" standard apply here to become an admin? --isis 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Its really your own standard. If you think the candidate is good, then you support. Its a matter of trusting the editor, not the editor meeting standards. ~ Wikihermit 02:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but on wikipedia, usually users are promoted only if they have at least 1000 edits and/or three months experience. --isis 02:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. Greeves has less then 1000 edits, but his RFA is going pretty well. ~ Wikihermit 02:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh...look here:[1]. Is this the Greeves that you mean? --isis 03:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He less then 400 main space edits. I guess he has more then 1000 total edits. ~ Wikihermit 03:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
You have a point, but it's still more than 1000 total. :) --isis 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer the main question posed here, yes, we generally stick to the SEWP standard of about 3 months and about 1000 edits before making someone an admin. Wikihermit is correct in saying it has to do with the trust of the community, but that is why the edits and the time are a very good idea. With less than 3 months, the editor's commmitment may not be firm. With less than 1000 edits, the activity/commitment of the editor to the wiki may be questionable. With less than both, the editor has shown neither commitment nor much activity. Better to wait until you're close to both before requesting admin status. One should be an admin for a while before even thinking about requesting bureaucrat status. Oh, and we're not SE Wikipedia, nor English Wikibooks, and we're definitely not English Wikipedia, so comparisons should be limited, even if some things have been taken from there. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[change] Policies

I've gone ahead and placed {{hard rule}} on "hard rule" pages. Since hard rule is something that most editors have to agree on, please look over the pages in Category:Hard rules? ~ Wikihermit 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look in the next few days. As I said on your talk page, I think it is better if we call them "rules," "hard rules" (policies), and "soft rules" (guidelines), since that is simpler English. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 02:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[change] Voting templates discussion

Copied from Wikibooks:Administrators For the record, voting templates are a very slippery slope. I'd advise the community to get rid of them completely. PullToOpen 23:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. The RFA here is based off of the en.wikibooks RFAs. They use the {{oppose}} and {{support}} templates. ~ Wikihermit 23:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    Is there a good reason for using them, other than "they look pretty"? PullToOpen 23:54, 22 June 2007(UTC)
I think it makes it easier to tell the supports from the opposes. --Isis 00:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the bold Support is pretty clear. Majorly 00:04, 23 June 2007

(UTC)

Alright, can we get back to the request discussion? Just want to stay on topic. --Isis 00:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this off-topic discussion to Simple talk, where I will add my own comments. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that it's in a more appropriate venue, I'd like to say that I see nothing wrong with voting templates. They do no harm and they do "look pretty." Why did you call them a "slippery slope," PulltoOpen? What do you have against them. I also agree with Isis here that they do make it easier to tell a support from an oppose, without even necessarily having to read a word. I just don't see the problem. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So I put Support This user would make a terrible admin. You would count that as a support comment? Majorly 08:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No you would use Oppose. PxMa 14:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I could write Oppose Good user. But then you only look at the pictures, why would my comment matter? Majorly 19:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you would read the comments, but in the final tally, the pictures make the votes easier to see. --Isis 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be the same as Oppose Good user. PxMa 20:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://simple.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Simple_talk/Archive_2"
Personal tools