Talk:Aryankavu

Quick Delete nomination[change source]

@Gotanda: - Pinged you as you were the nominating editor. This article requires some work, but has been simplified for now. I acknowledge I'm a bit of an inclusionist so saving articles is a higher priority to me then purging them. Thank you for all that you do here. Operator873^CONNECT 23:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Operator873:, as you can see from my edits and history I tend to put simplicity of update: over inclusion: quality over quantity. Reading English as a second language can be very hard and EnWP already exists so I really want things to be simple here. Everything after the heading "Nedumpara" (most of the article) was a complex copy paste. I think it could still be simplified further. The continuing issue is one of asymmetry. It akes only a moment to copy and paste articles here, but it can take far, far longer for someone else to clean them up. So, I tend to not to want to give copy-pasters much leeway. --Gotanda (talk) 01:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you mean. The article was not and, in my opinion, still isn't in great shape. I'll add it to my list to work on in due course. Operator873^CONNECT 02:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873: If you're not going to get to it right away, could I move it to your userspace where you can take your time? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6: Yes, please move to my user space. Operator873^CONNECT 15:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873: Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873 and Gotanda: We do have (at least) two schools of thought here.

Quality over quantity: Articles should all be in good shape. Those that aren't should be deleted or userfied if they aren't fixed up quickly.
Quantity over quality: If articles aren't in good shape, leave them because someone will fix them up eventually.

I think there's room for both, but I'm in the first group. The second way of looking at it probably made more sense when this wiki was smaller, but now we have so many articles that, as Gotanda says, it can take a long time for someone who wants to do that work to find and improve things. In the meantime, the wiki isn't living up to its purpose because so many things aren't in simple language and/or have other issues. That makes people look at us and think we're not worthwhile, and they have a point. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Operator873 and Auntof6: Thanks for summing up, Auntof6. There are at least two ways of looking at this. Userfication may be a good middle road. The main thing I look for is if I send my students to Simple English Wikipedia, and they expect to find something easy to read, it should be simple. Reading is hard enough. And, if learners go to a site that is labeled "Simple" but they cannot read it, that can be very demotivating. The boost from success passes quickly, but experience of "failure" sticks with a language learner. Thanks, all. --Gotanda (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotanda: Thanks for mentioning your students. Since we rarely hear from people who only read here, I sometimes wonder how many readers we have, or whether we have any at all. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Auntof6 and Gotanda: - I truly appreciate the discussion that took place here. I'm still very new to simple and have a journey to make before I understand the schools of thought here vs the en:WP when it comes to content. I do like this project and see this being my permanent home. This discussion has also opened my eyes to the position you both take and, I'll admit, I'm swayed. I believe you both make very valid points and my opinion has shifted more towards the first group as a result. I invite both of you to continue giving me your feedback and enlisting my assistance if it's ever necessary. I'm not the best copyeditor that ever logged in, but I will do my best. Operator873^CONNECT 15:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[change source]

I've gone through the article and cleaned up the things that were not pretty. Not much is left but I think it's a good foundation to build on. Operator873^CONNECT 20:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete[change source]

This article is needed because of it is about a place cum a tourist centre in India.--Path slopu^(Talk) 14:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Path slopu: There is no delete nomination... Vermont (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Vermont:Thank you.--Path slopu^(Talk) 00:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]