User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 13

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 →

Gynoecium[change source]

Hi, that's a wonderful trimming job you did on Gynoecium. I'm thinking of making a labelled image, probably of a strawberry flower, to show a multi-part gynoecium, which hopefully would start to clarify what carpels and pistils are. I hope that doesn't get in the way of your plans. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, though it was not so difficult as I thought at first. Please go ahead and do whatever you feel like doing. Good labelled diagrams are often lacking on Commons. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added a diagram (I can replace it with an improved version, if you have suggestions). Perhaps the page doesn't need the second stigma image at this point … Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
It's very helpful, thank you. It's so good to have someone who can do these things!
It could be simplified a bit further. One could remove the upwards arrows, and the maybe plurals, because the reader's perception will recognise their mates round the gynoecium. I don't think the text about the carpels and pistils is needed. One reason is that the eye can't verify that there is (in this case) only one carpel per pistil. The other is that the problem with the original page was its use of 'carpel' and 'pistil' where it would be better to use one term. The fact that carpels are derived from leaves and that some flowers have evolved with fused carpels is really not necessary for beginners to learn. The table taken over from En wiki does include this idea, and is a starting point for more advanced students.
As a rough guide, I think our science should introduce subjects at school rather than university level. A reason for this is that we use maybe 5% or 10% of the technical terminology of a science, and if we were to go further it would mean a huge increase in our use of technical terms. It's obvious that this would conflict with our need for simple language, so we have to be disciplined in the detail we discuss. It's only an opinion. We always have people who think our articles are too complex and others who think they leave out important details.
I'll say one more thing. Our inability to try the pages out on real people limits our ability to grow and adapt as writers. It's a big weakness in web teaching at all levels. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
That's good, it also allows the font to be larger and the grey box smaller. I use a non-pro version of the Omnigraffle software, which means that I can easily make this sort of diagram with shapes, arrows, shading, and including images. What I can't really do with it is free-hand drawing. Yes, university students where I am located are amazing, they don't even seem to have ever looked at a bean seed, or have grown any kind of seed, though that is in the grade 3 curriculum. I've taught this material, so have some hunches about what will be understood, but that's no substitute for trying out the pages on real people. Where I have a problem with simplifying science is that at some point it can become false, for example, teaching children that the reason a compass points north is that there is a big lump of magnetic rock in Northern Canada, or that a pistil ≡ a carpel, or that the gynoecium ≡ one carpel. It's good to meet you. If you have ideas about what diagrams would be helpful, drop me a line (as we say in the diagramming trade). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The article Anthem of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic[change source]

When I created the article, Anthem of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic, I looked at other articles for examples such as the Anthem of the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic. I believe the article is simple enough for non-native English speakers to understand. The original version from English Wikipedia is already (and unusually) simple. The changes from the original are small. I personally favor alterations of the article instead of its deletion.

When it comes to the lyrics, that's another question. The lyrics (like in other national anthem articles in Simple English Wikipedia I have come across) have not been simplified. Should the lyrics be revised and simplified from its original version in English Wikipedia or should they stay unaltered? Any suggestions on the lyrics?

Could you let the article stay and make alterations instead of deleting it?

Thanks. (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

GA notes[change source]

Hey Mac, I got your notes on Ronald Reagan and fixed them. Do you think the article is GA ready. Would you agree of the article needing a further reading section which just show bibliography relating to Reagan or should I leave it the way it is? Plus I was wondering if you can check Nelson Mandela for the GA because that was a nominee for a while. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to say the obvious: I give what time I can to Simple, but time is limited, and I tend to have priorities. GA and DYK are not top of the list at present. One problem with the GA system is that it is so long-winded. I have suggested before that we should use the En wiki system, which is much simper and faster, but as usual nothing happened. So I'm rather disinclined to spend time on it, though I will try to look at those articles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
^This. GA (And VGA, and DYK) are all the victims of continued add-ons as time has progressed and are becoming rather unfit for purpose. I fully agree that something needs doing - and that we should take inspiration from the enwiki system, although I'm not sure that unilateral approval based off of one review is helpful. Based off past experience here I have grave doubts of the content going through being of adequate quality, particularly due to the number of drive-by nominations we have had. However, I am getting off-topic, but just wanted to say that you're not alone in your thinking, Mac. I'd be happy to open a dialogue and start to build a replacement system in due course. Goblin 17:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
I didn't realize the DYK and GA system were in a mess. What can I do to fix it? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
In short...
VGA is dead because it's too complex and long winded, and there seems to be no 'reason' for people to nominate articles anymore. We have lots of content creators but none seem to want to get their work recognised.
GA is dead for similar reasons to above, and that there's not enough difference between GA and VGA. It should be easier to get articles to GA standard than it currently is. A problem of both is 'drive-by' nominations that clearly aren't ready because users are nominating articles without paying due diligence to the criteria. An article that is nominated should be extremely close to the criteria already, and have had a "peer review" take place before the nomination happens, not after.
DYK is broken because it is, once again, becoming full of drive-by nominations, that is, people trawling the wiki for articles with references and nominating those, and then removing their nominations the moment they realise they may actually have to do some content work. It also is pretty broken in regards of our 'needs', and is a mishmash of bits built up over the years but without too much thought.
So not a lot. </sarcasm> Goblin 21:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ TCN7JM!
(talk page stalker) I also get tired of editors nominating things for DYK without bothering to first make sure they meet the requirements, particularly the ones about length and being easy to read. If they're asking people to review their suggestion, they should do the courtesy of checking that background stuff first. This is one reason I don't review DYK very much: when I point out that the language is not simple, I end up having to simplify it myself. I'd much rather be asked to help simplify an article before there is any kind of deadline involved. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Entirely - sadly though this seems to be more of an "attitude" problem rather than one specifically related to the criteria and process - at least in the case of DYK. I think some "simplification" of the rules may help (That is to say keeping the current criteria but laying them out in an easier to understand manner), but beyond that I am out of ideas. Anyway - should we perhaps move the discussion over to somewhere more prominent, such as Simple talk, rather than clogging up Mac's talk page? ;-) Goblin 22:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

Naming nebulae[change source]

(Continued from User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 12#Naming nebulae)

I am sorry for taking so long.

I agree with this, but I think we should have a policy, if possible. I think this discussion is going in the right direction. If we had a page, we could incorporate things such as this, and it would make things easier for us and newcomers alike. This is good, in my opinion: "we should try and carry the idea through, limited only by the need to represent the subject-matter in a broadly accurate way." I understand that it "might be endlessly debated without any clear result", but I think that if we are open-minded we should get somewhere.

With regard to a policy on celestial nomenclature, even the English Wikipedia has "Meteor Crater" and "Chicxulub crater". And in languages such as Hebrew, Thai and Chinese, there are no capital letters to worry about! I agree with contractions such as Sag DEG. How about a policy based on the IAU's recommendations, but modified for Simple? --Thrasymedes (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also hoping to get time for this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Kennedy quote[change source]

Hey, Mac, with this edit you added the same wrong quote that we have been reverting over and over from the Kennedy article. Maybe you didn't realize that the IP vandal was adding something Kennedy didn't say. What he did say is backward from what that editor has been adding -- easy to overlook if you don't look closely. Not only that, but it's arguable whether the thing he actually did say is his "most famous" quote -- it's certainly famous, but we don't need to say it's his most famous. If you really want to add that quote, please get it right. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Rupert Vilzmann[change source]

You deleted this page under [[WP:QD#A1] (little or no meaning). Did you mean to use A4 (the notability one)? A1 did not apply to this page -- there was definitely meaning there. It would be great if you would restore the page and delete it with the right option, just so we don't give the impression that single-sentence articles aren't allowed. (They aren't ideal, of course, but we don't forbid them.) Don't feel too bad, though -- I've had to restore and re-delete a few times myself! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. We are facing a problem with this user, who is evidently not reading or not caring about our fairly gentle comments. I think lack of notability discussion is the overriding problem, and lack of reliable sources is also very important in biographies. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please could you undelete "Stellar (payment protocol)"[change source]

Hi - it is now notable as 3/4 million Facebook users have received stellars according to

Background explained by Wall Street Journal at

Please could you undelete "Stellar (payment protocol)

Regards Geoff Jzlcdh (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You could put it up again, and someone else will look at it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it easy for me to see the deleted one so I can copy it and add citations? If not I can recreate it but that would take me slightly longer. Also I did not get any email saying you had replied to me. Maybe if you write your answer to this on my talk page I get an email automatically? Otherwise I would have to keep checking back here which would be tedious. Jzlcdh (talk) 08:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The text was: "Stellar is a communication protocol for sending money through the internet." + Tech-stub Category:Internet protocols Category:Finance
The grounds for deletion was lack of notability. If you put it up as it was, it will probably be deleted again, though not by me. A claim that it is notable in some way, a reference to its notability, and a bit more about it would help. If you are in any way connected to this product, then be aware that we permit no advertising.
Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. Stellar is not a product. I do not work for Stellar Development Foundation (which is a non-profit) and I make no financial gain from stellar. I will add some citations but I do not have time to add more detail so I will mention the article to others in the hope they will expand it. Jzlcdh (talk) 09:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Admins[change source]

What do you think the admins aren't keeping up with? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy! Important discussion do not get input from first-rate people who could help with their views; closing of discussions is often dilatory because all the regulars have contributed. Some areas of the wiki just stall, sometimes for months. I think the handling of day-to-day vandals and good faith but inexperienced editors is quite good, however. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure all of that is strictly admin work. For example, how is it the admins' job to make the "first-rate people" contribute? (Never mind that we probably shouldn't be ranking people that way.) However, I think I see your point. I wonder if the way we sometimes discuss things makes it hard to figure out how to close discussions. I know I've tried to summarize the discussion about deleting user pages a couple of times, but I keep getting lost in the different tangents. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
What I was saying is that some of our inactive administrators are exactly the people who should be commenting on important policy issues even if they can't spend time on routine maintainance. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

asked for quick deletion about Mitra Jashni article[change source]

Hello! I think there is enough proofs to not delete this article . I insert about seven links as references in official and credible websites.if it needs somethings more , please let me know. [1] [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Palete (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)palete

  1. self-report. [1]
  2. newspaper article in Dutch. [2]
  3. newspaper article in spanish. [3]
  4. news in spanish.[4]
  5. newspaper article in spanish.[5]
  6. the interview tv in spanish. [6]
  7. National news article in spanish. [7]
  8. National news article in spanish. [8]

The IP vandal you blocked --[change source]

I saw that you semi-protected this user's talk page. I assume that was to keep him from changing it. The way to do that is to change the block parameters, not to protect the page. I have unprotected the page. Before you consider changing the block, keep in mind that users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages. When they do that, it is presumed that they have read the warnings. I don't really see a reason to block him from changing the talk page at this point because he hasn't done anything offensive there.

I also went through the rest of this user's changes and hid most of the ones you hadn't already done. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Pictures with a promo link watermark[change source]


While looking over new changes I came across this page. [[9]]

A user has replaced the photo there with one that has a promo link to his facebook page. On en.wikipedia that would not be allowed, but I see that here many items are differently. What needs to be done in this case?

Thanks for your time. Carriearchdale (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the change. However, if an image is accepted on Commons, then we can use it. All pages on popular culture are swamped with PR puffs pretending to be objective. On the whole, the wiki has been lenient about this. There's almost no such thing as a cool, neutral review in that scene! Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Michael Brown deletion?[change source]

how was that a test page? --3nibxx (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Not constructed with the basic minimum needed for any biography. A biography must have enough information for the individual to be identifiable, and sources which support the noteworthiness of the article. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "Test page" might not have been the best option for deleting it. I'm not saying it should have been kept, but WP:QD#A1 or WP:QD#A4 options might have been better. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)