User talk:Chongkian

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia[change source]

Hi, Chongkian, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'change summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy changing! Peterdownunder (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
How to: change a page • write simple English articles • A guide for users of the English Wikipedia
Getting Help
Administrators • Ask for help from administrators
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability Citing sources • What Wikipedia is not Copyrights • Image use policy • How to copy from another Wikipedia Spam • Vandalism • Deletion policy

The Community
Assume good faith • Be kind Community Portal • Simple talk • TASERING Announcements • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Cleanup
Other
Useful templates • Stubs

Peterdownunder (talk) 06:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mosque articles[change source]

Hello, and thanks for the articles you added about mosques. Would you go back to those articles and add something that says why each one is notable? Articles about most things need to say why the subject is notable, and I don't see that in these articles. If an article doesn't show notability, it might get deleted. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I completely understand about that. I've just started to make the introductory part of the article. More detailed information will be added real soon. Chongkian (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please be sure to use simple language in the articles. The ones I checked just now are fairly complex. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages has information that might help. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I didn't realize I was using fairly complex English language when writing the article despite many simplification I have introduced compared to its (normal) English Wikipedia article. Nevertheless, I've been trying to find a balance of choosing the words that can be understood by beginner English learners, yet it still maintain its exact technical description. It's quite a challenge. Chongkian (talk)

It certainly can be. Writing simple English is not easy. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity articles[change source]

Thanks for your new articles about electricity-related things. Please note the following:

The language in these articles is complex. Please simplify them.
Please use "Related pages" instead of "See also". This is required by our manual of style, as described at Wikipedia:MOS#Related pages.
Instead of putting these articles in the general stub category, please use {{sci-stub}} to put them in the science stub category.

Thanks very much! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the input. Yes, I do realize how hard it is to find simple words to describe those electrical articles, Yet that can still maintain its technical detail. I'll try to further simplify it, or if you can help simplifying it, I would appreciate it a lot. Chongkian (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chongkian. Could you please add links for words that are not simple? Any technical term that would have an article on it should probably be linked in the first instance so that Simple English readers know what it means. The other thing is that there are grammatical corrections that need to be made. Without them, there are a lot of sentences that don't quite make sense. I'm sure that you're trying your best with that, but it's even more important for this wiki because this wiki is about clear and simple English. I don't mind copy-editing them, but the sheer volume is overwhelming me... Osiris (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to link each of 'difficult' words to their respective Simple Wikipedia articles. But along the way, I found that many of those technically-difficult words still have no Wikipedia articles of their own. So what I'm trying to do now is try to create some new articles (either related to mechanical or electrical), and I'll try to look into each of those difficult words in every article to link to any existing article or even I'll create new articles for each of that. I had tried to put the '[[]]' sign on each of those word, but many are still become the "red link". It will take some time, but I'm trying my best. At least I'm trying to put at least: definition, example/usage, types, figures. Chongkian (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to red links is fine. You can link to non-existent pages as much as you want. The pages will be created eventually. Osiris (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something that might help you decide whether a word is simple enough not to be linked is this list; there are several other lists like it. Generally, though, you might want to link to a simple word if it is relevant to the topic of the article. Or you might choose not to link a word even if it is not on that list because it isn't really relevant to the topic of the article. For example, "building" is on the list of simple words. But if you were writing an article about building and construction, then you might want to link to it anyway. On the other hand, "computer" is not on the list, but you might choose not to link to it because its meaning is not very important to your article on electricity or mining. Does that make sense? Osiris (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that many difficult words won't ever have an article on them. Like "instantaneous". In these cases, you might find it better to link to Wiktionary, by wikt:instant or wikt:instantaneous. Osiris (talk) 07:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New categories[change source]

You might not have known, but here on Simple English Wikipedia we want at least three entries in each new category. This is explained at Wikipedia:Categories#Is_there_a_need_for_the_new_category.3F. Some of the new categories you created had only one or two entries. I deleted the one on Taiwanese companies, but I haven't deleted the other ones yet. Do you plan to add more entries to them in the NEAR future? If not, let's recategorize the articles so that the categories can be deleted. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry I didn't know that. I was initially thinking to put those new articles I created into other existing categories. But I just didn't find any suitable one, therefore I created those new categories. Well noted, I'll make more new articles in those new categories really soon. Cheers. Chongkian (talk)

A Barnstar for YOU![change source]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thanks for all your hard work in creating all these articles.Keep the good work up! Thanks! Baseball Watcher 23:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![change source]

Thanks for your recent edits adding images and maps! That's an area where we're lacking, and it's much appreciated! --Auntof6 (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;) It might take some time to complete all of those very-basic minimum requirements (map, photo, native name etc) for an article. Chongkian (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it might, but all small efforts are appreciated, too! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts[change source]

I have a few thoughts. I need to use an example:

"Autotransformer is a transformer which has only one winding. The winding acts as both primary winding and secondary winding in normal transformer". [What is primary and secondary winding?]

"The advantages of autotransformer compared to normal transformer are smaller, lighter, lower leakage reactance [What is that?], lower losses, lower excitation current [What is that?], cheaper and higher apparent power rating for a given size and weight". [Far, far too long a sentence]

"The disadvantage of autotransformer is that it does not provide isolation between the primary winding and secondary winding". [Why is that necessary?]

Suggestions:

Never copy the English in English Wikipedia. Their English is often bad English.
Write for an intelligent 10-year-old, not for a technically qualified adult.
Write to answer questions which might occur to the reader.

Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the very very very basic description I can ever imagine to describe a transformer. You can't just simply say transformer is a device bought in electronic shop to be connected to electricity - that's what we will get if we want to simplify it further that what I've written. I believe a 10 year old child will only know that electricity is dangerous. So should I write: "Transformer is a dangerous device with many electricity in it." Is that what you have in mind? In the case of transformer article, I can't think of any other equivalent simpler word to describe it. At least it needs to have its basic description, usage, construction etc. And its not really 100% copying from the English Wikipedia. It's more about having the general idea in what aspects need to be written about of that article, and further simplify it with simpler words or more examples .. Of course Simple English Wikipedia is far less complete than English Wikipedia. So at least someone must just start to write an article first - the very least. Then from that article, we write further detail (more new articles) of the meaning of each word (in this case are all of those things u've highlighted: primary winding, secondary winding, leakage reactance, excitation current etc). Even if I were to write an article about "leakage reactance" first, it will heavily involve alot about physics and electromagnetic terminologies, in which I believe you will even write many more of [What is that?]s to that. So yeah, take it easy. As time passes by, things will build up the bigger picture slowly one by one. It's better to have an article about something than to have no article at all. Chongkian (talk) 06:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]