Talk:Nature

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

The definition of "Nature" as presented here is arbitrary and totally inconsistent with the scientific meaning of nature, which of course is what scientists study. Why does the writer exclude humans from nature? This is ridiculous. If humans are not part of nature then everything in the evolutionary chain is not part of nature. Nature is the entire physical universe including the biological and physical realms. It only excludes the "supernatural." -- Gil Gaudia, Ph.D.

This is a very important article. It has the difficult job of being accessible to a new English user, but also directing the experienced professional who is new to English, at the many different articles on related topics that will have to be here in the long run.

As it stands, it's very link-heavy, since there are going to be at least 100 articles on many aspects of human views of nature (economics, ecology, purchasing, nutrition, wellness, etc. etc.), many of which need direct links from here, since we just don't know what kind of Simple English User has come here, or where they want to go next. I liked the article that was here already, and kept all of its text. But, it was not good enough to do the above job, and so it had to drastically expand. I would like to consider having Simple English (the maximum required for all Simple English Readings), Simpler English (say 2000 words and odd ones defined on the fly) and Simplest English (say 1000 words including E Prime and some of the basic names of fields of study that we need to use often in links). Comment on that idea in those articles.

  • Your ideas about how to do this seem to be wrong to me. I think the article was much better before you changed it. -- RJ208082.user.veloxzone.com.br
It was "better" to the Simplest English user. It was USELESS to most Simple English Users.
There is a very difficult balance here. However, now science links to models of nature, which can have the more exact stuff that you somehow don't want here, but DO want in our universe?!? To me separating models of nature and models of our universe is the best way, but maybe we need actually THREE articles? Simplest (really basic like what was here), Simpler (nature issues an ordinary person may encounter, like politics of consumption, diet), Simple (models of nature, using correct English terms for these sciences etc.)? Let's have a strategy before we try this.
I don't say the article is finished, or even good, yet. But the time to figure out how to finish it is when there are articles on about a dozen of the topics it now links to. These are more specific and much easier to write about clearly.
No doubt, it will become simpler as time goes by, and we decide that some articles won't be here, or will be named something simpler. But we have to use the real words real English speakers use to explain things, or people here will not learn the words they need to look up the right articles in other-language wikipedias, or with search engines.
I think on this subject we do want three articles: one in Simplest English for primary school users, one in Simpler English just to explain the views and basic ways to approach the subjects, and all the dictionary definitions, and one that is more or less like the one now there, to provide direction and terms of reference for the more advanced users. But if you don't start from the most complex of the three, you don't figure out what articles you need, and what they must focus on. So it's a necessary evil.

I agree with you, whoever you are (by the way, please sign your entries. You can do that by typing ~~~ for just your name, or ~~~~ if you want to include the time and date, useful for knowing when comments were added). I think this article is very well written, with a reading level I would approximate at Grade 4 (or what an average English-speaking 10 year old could handle). One issue I'm finding it difficult to deal with here is exactly what the target audience is. There's a huge comprehension gap between someone fluent with a 1000 word vocabulary and one with a 2000 word vocabulary, and I'm really not interested in seeing three separate Wikis for Simplest-, Simpler-, and Simple English. Not only does it strain already existing resources (how many people actually contribute to this one? My user number is 314, and there hasn't exactly been a rush in the door), but you can bet that SimplerEnglish users/writers are going to want to break it down further into SimplerA and SimplerB, and maybe even SimplerC.

I propose we set a standard of, say, Grade 4 (10 years old) as a reasonable goal. This sample is at a Grade 4 vocabulary level:

Our extended family went to the beach every summer. We had a few favorite spots. Sometimes we would bring our tents and camp at a campground. Other times we would treat ourselves to a fancy hotel. This year, we got to use a friend's beach house. They offered it as a way to congratulate my mom and dad on their fifteenth wedding anniversary.

I loved to go to the shore and pick up shells among the pebbles. The best time to do this was during low tide. The waves would wash up on shore and leave many things to discover. I was always excited about beach combing because I never knew what exquisite thing I'd find.

My cousin and I headed out early the first morning. We walked along the shore in front of the beach house. It was so quiet and peaceful. There was no one to be seen for miles at this hour. We could hear only the abrupt crash of the waves.

As I looked on the beach, I found several things. I saw a dead shrimp, a large conch shell, and even a sock without its mate. It made me wonder what the unknown story was behind it.

I asked my cousin, "Who do you suppose lost a sock?"

"I wonder," he replied, engaging in conversation. "Perhaps it was someone who wanted to protect their feet. Maybe they wore their socks into the water!"

"Maybe." I replied. "Or perhaps they were sailing and hung their feet over the edge while the driver hoisted the sail..."

There should be very few words in this passage requiring linking, except those which might require cultural knowledge (beach house, for instance) and a few that have been included as vocabulary extensions (exquisite, abrupt) for some readers. The article on nature strikes me as falling fairly close to this one. I personally am in favor of an article with a slightly more demanding vocabulary, but well-linked to explanatory articles and items. I am also in favor of allowing dictionary-type entries in SimpleWiki, partly because outlinking to a dictionary means extra work for the writer, and partly because until there is a critical mass of articles here, just about everything is going to have to be linked anyway. I would also like to see color coding employed more effectively. What miniscule portion of one percent of the world's computer users must deal with monochrome screens? Difficulty levels of articles could be indicated by their link colors, thereby allowing writers to set a difficulty level for their article and allowing readers to decide whether to pursue a link or not. But I'm going on... Denni 02:47, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Gil Gaudia and have added a paragraph at the bottom attempting to rectify the problem. DJDunsie (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)