User talk:Macdonald-ross

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

Words[change source]

Every now & then we get editors changing words on the basis of their ideas on what is simple. Words also have to be accurate (we are an encyclopedia).

  • Big: certainly simple and popular with children, but a term almost never to be used about living things. Is a giraffe bigger than an elephant? Think about it. It is almost always better to use a more exact word, such as longer, heavier. Is a star big? Does that mean its apparent size or its intrinsic size? Ditto stars being bright.
  • Rich is an ambiguous word. A cake can be rich, and a person can be rich. However, only a person can be wealthy, so prefer that word. Neither word is on the extended list of simple words, incidentally, so use the more precise word.
  • Very: another childhood favourite. In spoken English it is an intensifier, but it has almost no function in prose. It may be the most frequent word copy editors cut out as redundant.
  • Die: we all die, but species become extinct.
Now here's the tricky bit. Technically, a species which is not extinct is extant. Extant is the opposite of extinct. However it is a very rare word, and we use the common word "living". So we talk about living species. It sounds natural, and is right for us.
  • Animal: that includes jellyfish and beetles. If you mean mammals, say so.
  • Reside: On Simple you don't reside somewhere, you live there.
  • Rare: an essential word in ecology, and supported by definitions in the literature. Steaks can also be rare, but that would not be good to use on Simple.

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![change source]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

Carom billiards[change source]

Hey there! About 6 months ago, you nominated Carom billiards for article status demotion but the discussion never went anywhere. I'm just hoping to get more of your thoughts on why it should be demoted so that maybe we can get a new discussion going and get some quality standards in place for our GAs/VGAs. Best, Griff (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my main complaint was the language, which I thought was not simple enough. The article was obsessive in its coverage, and its main points could have been said more simply. And it could have been shorter without the loss of any important content. I think we tend to ignore the effect of length on readers whose language skills are limited. Some of the refs are not working, and one I picked up on was the "green can be seen more easily". It wouldn't surprise me if it were true (primates in trees), but the link failed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree. I reviewed the article, then ran it through several readability programs and I could see many improvements that were necessary. I simply don't know enough (and honestly don't have the time) to essentially re-write the article in a more simple tone, but if you bring it back to PAD, I'll support demotion. Thanks for your quick response, Griff (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was really using Carom as an example of how we're pretty severe on new proposals, but are lax on keeping older titles which have obvious defects. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Tala[change source]

Hi again! I'm going to take a look at billiards in a moment, but I noticed that you deleted Hope Tala, an article currently at RFD. While I agree that articles obviously not meeting the scope of the project should be deleted, I felt that Hope Tala had a legitimate reason to be included on the project. She is getting quite a bit of attention and significant coverage in the UK and is scheduled at a major festival in France later this year. Do you think that that article is recoverable so that it can be worked on? Best, Griff (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that if the biog being discussed on En wiki is kept, then we should do likewise. We can safely follow En in cases of specialised expertise. The present status of the En wiki draft is "waiting for review". Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Atanes[change source]

Hello. Please undelete this article. It wasn't eligible for A4 (winning an award is a claim) and it was at RfD. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm actually okay with keeping it deleted as G4. I didn't realise it had already been through a previous Rfd and the current discussion doesn’t look like its going to change the outcome either. Griff (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, didn't notice the RfD either. Thanks. --Ferien (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Star systems[change source]

Hi there! My attention was recently brought to this revert you made to an addition of a navbox. While I wasn't quite sure about its relevance either, systems science does appear to apply to star systems, and as a result, it is linked in the navbox, both here and on enWP. In addition, the navbox is included on the enWP version of the article. What are your thoughts about adding the navbox back in? Griff (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll explain. The navbox, when open, is largely red-linked, which means it has not been adapted for our wiki. In many cases we do have topics covered but they are not covered in the same way as En wiki. We are not a direct copy of En wiki page for page. In order to have simple content, it is often necessary to have one article in place of two, or to have a simpler title and content. This mainly applies to the non-biog content where I do most editing. I'm not against En navboxes which suit our content, I'm just against navboxes whose complexity looks pretty scary, and undoes much of the psychology of our simple text.
I also think (and have long protested, and long been ignored) over the excessive complexity of the infoboxes on the right side of pages. Many of them are almost insane in their complexity, and can't possibly be understood by a typical reader of Simple. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So to be clear, is the issue with the navbox itself or the placement of the navbox on the article? I don't disagree with your points, just trying to work towards a solution. Griff (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The box removed was "Systems science" which in any event is not appropriate for the page (IMO). En wiki Star system has a box "Stellar systems". I would not object to that, especially if it was set closed. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Systems science not good term for star systems. Not used traditionally in astronomy, and not indicated on the page itself. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that and the removal from the navbox. Thanks for explaining! Griff (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LTA[change source]

This user that you blocked is actually an LTA that has been active for a very long time. Same person that changes my name to BadgerFartFart and similar names. Hockeycatcat (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Hockeycatcat: It doesn't really matter too much, you can treat most of them the same really. And, WP:DENY, let's not talk about them. --Ferien (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Little Trees[change source]

Hi, I noticed you removed Other Websites and Category:1952 establishments in the United States in your edit to Little Trees, I'm a somewhat new user and you didn't put an edit summary, could you explain why? -- Lallint (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Segawa Market[change source]

Hello, user talk pages shouldn't be deleted under G8, please can you restore it? Thanks, --Ferien (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[change source]

Hi, I messaged you using the "email user" link on English Wikipedia, please check your email. Thanks! Golunov (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to your suggestion is "no". Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Osmoregulation[change source]

Hello, I've noticed that you're interested in biology topics, so I was wondering if you could review the article on osmoregulation that I expanded. Thanks! Lights and freedom (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you couldn't have chosen a more difficult topic! Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing what I say[change source]

Could you do me a favor and not edit what I say. It is one thing to correct an edit to an article or fixing an error in how something is rendered ( [blah]] instead of [[blah]] ), but to edit my opinion on a matter is entirely different even if it is just poor spelling/typos. --Creol(talk) 18:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Category:Female scientists[change source]

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Female scientists, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Category:Female scientists and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Lights and freedom (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]