Wikipedia:Simple talk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Proposed standard wording re: movie and television reviews[change | change source]

We currently use the word "movie" instead of "film" because it's simpler. Along the same lines, I would like to see a standard wording used when talking about TV and movie reviews. Specifically, a lot of our articles about movies say that the movie "received (or got) mixed reviews". I don't think that's clear to someone with limited English. I also think it's close to being jargon. I suggest it would be better to use words along the lines of "Some movie critics liked the movie. Others didn't like it." If the community agrees, I could go through our movie articles with AWB and make the change. Comments? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not with this idea. "Mix" is a simple word, and its usage in "mixed reviews" is simple and correct. The circumlocution you suggest is ten words instead of two, and would be just as much a formula. The point to improve is the sources which support the claim of mixed reviews. If they are satisfactory, then "mixed reviews" is satistactory, IMO. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Simple doesn't always mean "short". Sometimes it takes more words to have simpler language. "Mix" is indeed a simple word, but only as it applies to the act of combining things. Movie reviews are not combined in that way: they are individual pieces looked separately. To talk about something abstract like that as being "mixed" is not a simple concept, and using the term "mixed" for it doesn't explain what it means. "Review" is not as simple a word. I think it's easier for people to understand if we just say what "mixed reviews" means. Why make the readers figure it out when we can just say it? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the idea of a review is absolutely basic to the arts. When you try and replace "mixed reviews" with a long circumlocution, it runs against almost all the published advice on how to write readable English. What you propose is much more controversial than you think. IMO it would certainly not be right to use an automated procedure to make such a change on a wholesale basis. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Macdonald-ross on this one. Mixed reviews are a "combination" of bad and good reviews so they are combined. And I certainly wouldn't use AWB for such a change. -DJSasso (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, my main point was that I think the phrase "mixed reviews" isn't easily understandable to someone with limited English. Even when individual words in a phrase are simple, the phrase as a whole might not be. The wording I suggested was just one possibility, and I certainly wouldn't have to use AWB to make any changes. But if no one else thinks this would be an improvement, I'll just forget it. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The term 'mixed reviews' tells the reader nothing of use. The vast majority of films, TV series, plays etc. are liked by some critics and disliked by others. When 'mixed reviews' is stated, it usually means that the large majority of critics disliked it; this use is a euphemism. Jim Michael (talk) 01:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
If reviews are in fact mainly favourable or mainly hostile, then of course an editor can say that so long as the sources support that point of view. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Auntof6, I like this idea. It also avoids confusion with the truly mixed review ("I liked the plot but not the characters"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppet's IP?[change | change source]

May be some suspicious page recreation going on at Aashima Kapoor. Please see this investigation at en.wikipedia. Delsion23 (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Chemical engineering[change | change source]

I created WikiProject Chemical engineering. Feel free to join or give suggestions. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting something on the page about what your goals are for the project. :) Also, I noticed that one of the pages in your list, Compressor, is a disambiguation page. You probably want to use a more specific link there. Other than that, let us know if you want any information about working on this Wikipedia. I see that you are a brand new user, so you might not understand what is required for articles here: there are several ways that this site is different. The links in the welcome message on your talk page give some helpful information. I also started a sort of list here that mentions some things that often surprise people who are used to the way things are done on other Wikis. Let me know if you have questions, and good luck with the WikiProject! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for all your suggestions. I added a section about the goals of the wikiproject. Can you check this list and tell me what do you think about it?
Do you think it is a good idea to create categories with "difficult" names like Category:Chemical engineering, Category:Unit operations, Category:Separation processes and Category:Chemical equipment? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to copy this discussion to the project's talk page and continue it there. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with templates {{Cite book}} and {{Citation}}, or maybe with ISBN magic word[change | change source]

These templates are inserting extra lines for some reason when an ISBN is specified. The extra line appears at the end of the output and has a period on it. You can see examples in the template documentation, and in the references section of Oviedo Cathedral. When I tried removing the ISBN parameters, the problem went away. The templates haven't been changed in quite a while, so I suspect the problem might not be in the templates themselves.

The templates are fully protected, so only admins can change them, but I'm posting this here because admins aren't the only ones who can trouble-shoot. Does anyone have any ideas? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I also noticed that this problem doesn't appear when the template are used inside <ref></ref> tags. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
If no-one gets there first I'll try and take a look this afternoon (UTC) to see what the problem is. I'll drop an {{editprotected}} on the talk page if I find what needs doing, as obviously I can't change it myself. Cheers, Goblin 09:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy!
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't provide any fix to this - spent a couple of hours going through the various templates that are included and I can't work out what's causing the extra bits to appear. I had a few theories but once I looked at the code, and made some tests on my own test wiki, I couldn't get any of them to remove the error unfortunately. Best thing I'd suggest would be to transwiki the EN citation templates (All of them that we have copies of) which I guess would cure it... :/ Apologies. Goblin 18:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ TDKR Chicago 101!

I don't know if that's even possible any longer. The English Wikipedia has re-written these templates in Lua modules, and I didn't see any reference to Lua on the /doc pages.
It looks like the problem is that there is a stray line break and space before the closing punctuation. The result is that what should be this:

Source ISBN 1234567890.

is instead being rendered as this:

Source ISBN 1234567890

.
A few spotchecks suggest that it's not just ISBN. Everything I tried in Template:Citation/identifier produced this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I was aware of the changes to the enwiki templates to use Lua, and there is no reason why we cannot do likewise - that is why I said if a transwiki is done it should be to all templates and not just certain ones, as they will be incompatible. The problem is definitely not just related to ISBN, but rather (it seemed) any parameter that appears at the end of the template, and is as such producing the line break issues (each parameter has a full stop separator). I couldn't hunt down where this was being introduced, although it's still bugging me and I will try and take another look tomorrow. Goblin 01:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!

VisualEditor News #8—2014[change | change source]

09:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Joseph Goebbels at proposed article demotion[change | change source]

This is a heads up to the community that one of our good articles, Joseph Goebbels, has been nominated for demotion. The discussion can be found here, and feedback from the community would be welcomed. Thanks, Goblin 00:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Barras!

strange coding in Frankrikes omvandling[change | change source]

I put this article up for QD. Frankrikes omvandling It has like an animated period as the article on read. When you go to change the article it looks clean except for the QD nom tagging. Could this be some sort of .js code or something. Please check and be careful thanks. Carriearchdale (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at the article and I can't see the problem you're describing - it looks as it should to be, unfortunately! Strange... Goblin 22:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC) I ♥ Jersey!

Selena at PVGA[change | change source]

Hello Simple Wikipedians, currently Selena is at PVGA and it would be great if anyone can lend a comment or two on the article's current state and if its ready to be promoted or not. Thanks everyone, .jonatalk 14:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Monuments of Spain challenge[change | change source]

Just a heads up for everyone. There apparently is a current contest called the Monuments of Spain challenge going on. see here [1]

The contest may be the reason a few editors were doing those cathedral and monument articles transferred from the spanish wikipedia. I guess they get an extra point for a translated one. I did not really even know about the contest until an editor from there messaged me to let me know I had made some articles that qualify for the contest. The contest runs from October 1 - 31. You might want to keep an eye out! lol Carriearchdale 18:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Timetables[change | change source]

I notice our pages on transport companies are chock full of timetables. What is the justification for the timetables? Can we not just put links to the companies' own websites? Many of the pages lack real solid content about the companies, which is what they are supposed to have. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There is no reason to insert an entire timetable to subsidise for the lack of actual content. George.Edward.C (Talk) (Contributions) 08:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. Timetable info is subject to change and is not encyclopedic. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)