I reverted the previous two edits as essentially unsimplified content from En. See diff [1]. Better to work out the simplification elsewhere, rather than leaving large stretches of complex content copied word-for-word from En. Gotanda (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I continued to simplify the article and copied the new text back into the article. See diff. The sentences look simple to me, but people can disagree and others are welcome to edit this further. The geography and ecology of the lakes are too important to the topic to leave out of the article. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not even close. Whole chunks are there unchanged and complex. See the diff [2]. Nothing is "too important to leave out" if it is a complex, largely unsimplified copy from En. And the vocabulary. Bathymetry? Seriously? Gotanda (talk) 06:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is important not to import excessive detail from enWP. This is the key issue: If a reader wants more detail, they can find it on enWP. But if a reader wants to find a simpler version of something on enWP this is the only place they can go to get it. It is why we were created. The more we look like a mirror site for enWP, the less we are doing our job. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is also being discussed on WP:Simple talk. I respectfully disagree that we should rely on enWP for more detail. I accept that Simple English wikipedia may be less detailed that EnWP. However, both have adopted the news story format for articles. All essential details are in the lead paragraph/lead section with the central idea in the first sentence. So a reader can stop after one sentence, after one paragraph, after one section, or can skip to a particular section that is important to him. I ask myself, "Who will read this article?" In some cases it could be a child. In other cases, it could only be a well-educated person whose first language is not English.
We owe our readers a reasonably comprehensive account. For example, a Simple English biography of Richard Nixon should not leave out Watergate and his resignation. An article on asbestos should not leave out its health effects. Similarly, Great Lakes must cover pollution and invasive species. If Simple had as many volunteers as enWP, we could have as many articles, sub-articles, detailed tables, custom illustrations, etc. Because we don't have many volunteers, I agree that we should confine ourselves to the more essential aspects. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No-one in their right minds would leave out Watergate on a Nixon article, nor the health aspects of asbestos. They are central to those articles. The phrase 'excessive detail' is obviously not meant to describe such central themes. I would add that, because of its huge readership, virtually all our readers will use English WP before they meet us. Therefore they will know where to go for a more complete account. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The problem is that the editors of this wiki owe a duty to the readers of Simple once they find us. Those readers should not have to double check with the corresponding enWP article to see what they are missing here. Macdonald-ross and I agree that pollution and invasive species should be covered in the Great Lakes article. I have not reverted Macdonald-ross' shortening and simplification of those two topics. There are other people who have used the "excessive detail" banner to delete all mention of pollution and invasive species from Great Lakes, delete the discussion of what Mormons think of the King James Bible from Mormonism, etc.
One real barrier to a non-native speaker using enWP is its detail-oriented structure. There is a separate article for each Pokémon character. I would not be surprised if enWP ends up with a separate article on each decade of the Hundred Years' War.[1] I believe that one article on Pokémon and one article on the Hundred Years' War is enough for Simple Wikipedia. But those two Simple articles should be longer than the current Great Lakes article.
The question is not what do we have the time to write. The question is what should we produce when we take the time to write. I think our ideas are close to each other. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just respond to this strawman argument. I "delete[d] all mention of pollution and invasive species from Great Lakes, delete the discussion of what Mormons think of the King James Bible from Mormonism, etc." because they were word-for-word, complex copies from EN or very close to it. Long, unsimplified, transwiki content is clearly not appropriate for this wiki. I never cited "excessive detail" in those cases. These are two separate but sometime related issues. I would agree with Macdonald-ross about the excessive detail, but the deletions you cite were for copying and pasting. Gotanda (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
