User talk:Kumioko/November 2012

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello! I am assuming you have come over from the English Wikipedia, so you are probably familiar with the way this wiki works. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few links to help you adjust:

There is much to do here. For example, there are a lot of articles that do not exist yet, which you can bring over from the English Wikipedia and simplify. Do have a look around and see what you would like to do. Thank you for joining us, and you know how to contact me if you need help. @intforce 20:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to you as well and yes I came here from the English WP. I read all those already but if you had any extra advice I would greatly appreciate it. Kumioko (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happened to see this on recent changes and thought I could lend a hand. Is there anything in particular you'd like advice on? -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider adding Epistemic community to your watchlist? Over time, perhaps you will want to make changes? The subject is not simple. The article needs to be expanded, and the wording needs to be simplified.

At this early stage, is it timely to wonder if you might want to watchlist something in Category:Orders, decorations, and medals? --Ansei (talk) 21:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick replies. Actually I was thinking about focusing some effort on Medal of Honor recipients so your suggestion would be very appropriate. Is there anything special to be aware of when copying content from En.WP to here? Obviously I need to simplify the verbiage and be mindful of template differences but any other advice would be appreciated. Also, do you use AWB much here. I'm good with that as well.Kumioko (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've replied to you on my talk page. Osiris (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick deletion of Category:United States Navy Medal of Honor recipients

The page you wrote, Category:United States Navy Medal of Honor recipients, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, if you want to delete it go ahead. I was planning on creating some of the Medal of Honor recipients that correspond to that category but am having second thoughts about doing any serious contributing here. If I need the category in the future I can always just recreate it. Kumioko (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The local practice on categories is that they are only created once there are 3 or more articles to be placed in them. It is usually best to wait until you have 3 before creating the category so there are not a lot of categories out there with just an article or two in them. The quick deletion rule on categories (C1) requires it to be empty for 4 day before it can be applied. As there is an article in that category, C1 no longer applies so I removed the QD tag. --Creol(talk) 03:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok thanks, for what its worth I will be creating a lot more articles for the cat so it won't be empty/low for long. Kumioko (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Kumioko. You have new messages at Auntof6's talk page.
Message added 06:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Auntof6 (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New articles

Looking over the articles you have created, overall they are good but I have a few things to point out:

  • Keep an eye on difficult terms such as Distinguished. See if you can find some way of saying the same thing without having to use it. ("He earned the award for his actions in" vs "He distinguished himself in")
  • Link often if an article exists on the topic (soldier, officer). We don't have issues with overlinking here as its hard to know which words readers will have a problem with. Some are more difficult and need linked to a similar term (valor piped to courage).
  • {{us-bio-stub}} (biographies of US people) is likely more appropriate than {{us-stub}} (general US topics). In some case, {{multistub}} (multiple stub categories, 1 stub displayed) may also be useful. --Creol(talk) 04:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you I'll watch for those things. Kumioko (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello from en.

Hi Kumioko! Nice to see you here. I don't really get on to simple that much, but I think it's a great way to let go of any steam you might obtain on en. The sky's the limit on this place. I really hope you like it here. Would you mind reviewing Greg Jennings for DYK?Buggie111 (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and good to see you too. I only recently started editing here but it seems to be working out well. I really lost heart in EN and had planned on completely walking away but decided to give this a try for a while. Yeah I'll take a look. Kumioko (talk) 17:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the DYK looks good but I'm still getting used to things here so I don't have much experience in that area yet. It seems like here though we may want to say what he got the contract for, which is to play football. But again I'm not sure its needed as part of the hook. Kumioko (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to make a difference! Good choice of project, but I hoping to see you pop into en from time to time. Agathoclea (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful when using automated tools

Hello, I think it is great you take a tool and use it to fix spelling mistakes. Be aware however, that some of the "perceived" mistakes really aren't mistakes. As an example, I just fixed one of your corrections in Aura (here). In short, use the tools intelligently, because the intelligence of the tools are often limited. And be aware that language also has a semantic component, sometimes...--Eptalon (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that thanks for pointing that out to me. Kumioko (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-focusing?

As you find your way in our SEWP environment, I wonder if these paired images might be helpful?

  • This text is not quite in focus; and your eyes make "fine-focus" adjustments.
    This text is not quite in focus; and your eyes make "fine-focus" adjustments.
  • Constant re-focusing?
    Constant re-focusing?

As you figure out what works and what doesn't, perhaps the process may seem to be a little like adjusting for depth of field and re-focusing? --Ansei (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yeah its definately a bit different. I think I'm catching on though but It'll take a little time. Kumioko (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

For your great work in Wikipedia. Especially, your efforts in en.wikipedia.org and this wiki. (I hope this is allowed here, I don't mean to disrupt anything.) Mr T(Talk?) 13:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, yeah I think its allowed. I can't see any reason why not. Kumioko (talk) 16:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello! I am assuming you have come over from the English Wikipedia, so you are probably familiar with the way this wiki works. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Here are a few links to help you adjust:

There is much to do here. For example, there are a lot of articles that do not exist yet, which you can bring over from the English Wikipedia and simplify. Do have a look around and see what you would like to do. Thank you for joining us, and you know how to contact me if you need help. Mr T(Talk?) 14:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namesake

There is a "Namesake" section at John Willis; however, the heading is not a Simple English word. Do we need to add a Wiktionary link in a short sentence like "John Willis is the namesake of the ship"? What about re-naming this section "Legacy"? If so, do we need to add something like "John Willis' name is his legacy"? What about "Remembering the Willis name" or something else?

At Sadao Munemori, I think we should add a "Namesake" or "Remembering the Munemori name" section. Do you agree?

Please review a change here at en:Sadao Munemori? The same information is here in a "Namesake" section, but I don't think that a statue is a "namesake". What do you think?

  • Do you think that reverting of these diffs is best?
  • Could it be that duplicate information is best?

In this context, will you please take a look at an infobox change here at en:Japanese aircraft carrier Taiyō? The same information is duplicated here in the second sentence of the "Civilian service" section. IMO, duplicate or redundant information in an infobox and in the body of the article is useful. --Ansei (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm new here I don't really know what the Simple translation would be for Namesake but Legacy seems as good as any. Do you know if something else has been used in the past? It might be a good idea to have a wider discussion on this sort of thing and see what the community thinks about this in general and how it should be displayed.
For Sadao I think we can. There are several things that were named after him inclduing a couple buildings and a Naval Ship.
Regarding the statue the External link is just an extra link so its not really a big deal. I don't think we should remove the statue reference. To me its not really a namesake but others would probably argue it so as long as the article isn't going up for GA review or something I don't think its a battle worth fighting just to remove it.
For the last question, Infoboxes are usually meant to summarize the information in the article, not to act as the source so having something in the infobox and in the article isn't really duplicative. Generally it shouldn't be in the infobox unless its mentioned in the article somewhere. With that said we shouldn't pack the Infobox full of details either. Just some highlights.
I hope this helps. Kumioko (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, this is probably enough for now. A link to this thread at Talk:John Willis#Namesake and at Talk:Sadao Munemori#Namesake may be helpful if anything further develops. --Ansei (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok works for me. Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing any more?

Sorry to interrupt, Kumioko. Are you going to do any more AWB edits? I see that you're on "C" at the moment... If you are, let me know and I will flag your account so that it doesn't flood RecentChanges. Osiris (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need it now or later? Osiris (talk) 14:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I could get it now that would be good. I have about 90 for C left and I am going through D-F now. Kumioko (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. You'll have to log out of AWB and log back in again for it to take effect. Just remember to stick to the task and let me or any other sysop know when you're done and we'll remove the flag. Have fun! :) Osiris (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no problem. If someone leaves a comment here though is it ok to respond while the flag is on or do I need to remove it first before responding? Kumioko (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you can respond. No problems there. Osiris (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great thanks. Kumioko (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orders, decorations, and medals

Please take a look at User talk:Auntof6#Category:Orders, decorations, and medals.

I wonder if you have an opinion about Talk:Barney Hajiro#Victoria Cross? --Ansei (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- I made a few quick Google searches for
The results did not seem to be conclusive. For example, these are each reliable sources.
As context, I wonder if you have already read this or something like it?

"Those who hold the Medal of Honor often wince at the phrases "Medal of Honor winner", or "won the Medal of Honor." For one thing, they were not involved in a contest that delivered the award. For another, most of them lived through situations comparably hellish .... To experience something like that with bravery and honor isn't the same thing as "wining." They almost unanimously prefer the term 'earned'." -- Mikaelian, Allen and Mike Wallace. (2003). Medal of Honor:Profiles of America's Military Heros from the Civil War to the Present, p. 33.

This is the kind of research which informs my point-of-view. --Ansei (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do completely agree with you that recipient is a better term to use. I think in most cases we can just explain what recipient means or link to the dictionary term but in some cases we can also use other terms to avoid it. Kumioko (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting point! Yes, this is another example where the more complex word has good reasons for use. A more neutral term and simple is "holder". Holders of the GC (for example) are awarded the GC. Not "given", not "winners". On the other hand, ranks (such as knight) are officially "appointed" (not very simple). There you could say they are "made". Presidents of the Royal Academy are officially "elected" (there is actually an election). There you might say simply "become" PRS. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, yes. A few Google searches seems to confirm that "holder" is used in a range of contexts, such as
Holders of Medal of Honor
Holders of Victoria Cross and George Cross
Holders of other decorations
This brief, superficial research seems to confirm the helpful opinion of Macdonald-ross. --Ansei (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, holder is a much better term that Winner. Kumioko (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hyphens in English

Small point: AWB should not be used to change hyphenated words to joined-up words. This is because it is a difference between British and American usage. Most hyphenated words are written as joined words in American English. Therefore, to change the pattern in an article is to alter the spelling format from one to the other, which should not be done without discussion. Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I would suggest that the Simple Wikipedia Typos page Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos be updated. Kumioko (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AWB on templates

Hi Kumioko. Could you please review all the AWB edits you made to the template namespace yesterday? This edit unicodified a decimal code template, and the break was noticed immediately. When it comes to templates, I would strongly recommend that you avoid using AWB whenever you can and never use it to fix typos and code formatting. Osiris (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. It shouldn't do that. One should work just as good as the other so this is actually a bigger problem then just changing it. I'll report this over at ENWP and see what they say. This is actually not a problem with AWB but potentially a problem with how the Mediawiki software is interpreting the symbol. I'll go and check my edits. Just to make you feel better though most of the changes I did were changing See also or External links to the Simple equivalent and not character replacement. Kumioko (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kumioko. There are a few more from your latest run. Please have a look at the following to see what I mean:

[1] • [2] • [3] • [4] • [5] • [6] • [7] • [8] • [9] • [10] • [11] • [12] • [13] • [14] • [15] • [16]

It took me a few hours to run through the edits with popups. It's not a task I would care to repeat if I can help it. There were a lot of good corrections in there too, but if all of this is intended to change "See also" to "Related pages" can I ask that you inquire on Simple talk as to whether it's worth it? It just seems to be resulting in an unusual amount of mistakes, and that's why I don't think semi-automated typo correction should be done on templates unless the user checks each edit very, very carefully. Osiris (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's if you're doing any more... It looks like you might be finished with that now. I can see a few more mistakes from the next round you did early today. Can you please check through those edits and fix accordingly? Osiris (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I am done with all but category's. Its not a bot or anything and I was actually checking every edit and I thought I was pretty careful. I just fixed most of those above but I didn't see any problem with many of them. The only ones I didn't change were 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. I checked before and after the edit but it doesn't seem to have a negative effect. Also, there's no need to go through them all. If you see a problem just tell me what it was and I can do it. Kumioko (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. I just changed the ones you left out, and left explanations in the edit summaries. Osiris (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

stubs

The geography stubs are only for places, they are not for people or other non-geographical entities. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know but I didn't change anything to Geo stub. I assume your talking about Europe but not sure. I did change a few things from Stub to Europe stub that related to European things so the stub tag was more specific. Kumioko (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know but I didn't change anything to Geo stub. I assume your talking about Europe but not sure. I did change a few things from Stub to Europe stub that related to European things so the stub tag was more specific. I just mirrored what had already been done for others. There were already a lot of non Geo articles with that stub just as there were a lot for US-stub. If these are supposed to be Geo only then we should probably note that in the templates. Kumioko (talk) 11:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only stubs that are geography only are {{Geo-stub}} {{France-geo-stub}} {{US-geo-stub}}. See Wikipedia:Simple Stub Project for more info. We are much more restrictive on creating new stubs than en. So you are correct that most stubs are very generic. The Europe stub for example would include anything about Europe including geography. (as long as its not a geography article from france since it does have its own stub). The only thing I can see that Macdonald-ross might mean is that its preferable for example to put a bio article in {{bio-stub}} than {{Europe-stub}}. But there is no reason they can't be in both and someone recently created {{multistub}} for the cases where there are a lot of relevant stubs. -DJSasso (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks, I was just trying to refine some of the 6000+ articles under Stub to a more specific and appropriate one. A lot of them can't be refined because we don't have a more specific stub though. Also, for what its worth I was going to go through and work on converting some of the articles with multiple stubs to the Multistub template. Which I also think would be a useful feature to add to AWB; to merge multiple stubs in to Multistub. Kumioko (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah one of our Simple "quirks" is keeping a low number of stub templates to keep the stub tagging less complex. There will always be a bunch under the generic stub template because we don't have the numbers yet to justify a full out stub for them. Every so often I scan all the stubs to find articles with more than one stub to see if the combination of the two stubs justifies its own stub. I did this recently so there probably aren't any currently. But its been awhile since I have gone through the generic stub template to see if there is a new topic that looks like its around the 1000 stub rule of thumb for its own stub. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem I completely understand. In fact I have long thought ENWP had way too many stubs templates and have suggested the Multistub concept there a couple times. I was rather glad to see it had been done here. Kumioko (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kumioko/November_2012&oldid=8904584"