User talk:Macdonald-ross/Archive 7
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
|← Archive 6||Archive 7||Archive 8 →|
- Well, I can explain what is going on. First, I unofficially overview all the higher category pages in zoology, and try and get them into a consistent shape. I can usually do this without much discussion, because a) I'm probably the only editor here who is qualified in zoology, and b) others know I usually do a good job.
- I'm careful to look after my time. Editing takes time, and I try to use mine efficiently. For example, I don't put forward my articles for GA or VGA, because I don't want to divert my editing time; I don't allow my name to be put forward for admin; I try and stay out of disputes. Usually, the only group activity I do is on DYK.
- Now to Amphibian. On reviewing it, I found it had got out of shape, too far from its similar articles. I diagnosed the problem as a) it is far too long; b) there is far too much detail; c) it had a messy reference system, and was over-referenced. The whole point of articles on higher categories is that they should concentrate on the features of the higher category, and not on the details. I decided much of the detail could go into lower category articles. As a first step I created Anura as a place to put some of the detail which had been in the article. The other orders also need editing.
- I wanted to suggest to you (and others) that at lower taxonomic levels it might be best to produce articles on genera before species. I mean, why don't we have an article on Bufo? After than, one on Bufo bufo seems natural... Be guided by English wiki, but don't be seduced into making the pages too long and complex. Well, that's just advice, and I'm only too aware that no-one listens to advice! Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
A question[change source]
Are you going to put more entries in the galaxy categories you created? You probably know that we want at least three entries in a category, so that we don't get a lot of categories with only one or two entries. Category:Dwarf galaxies has enough, but the categories for elliptical and lenticular galaxies need more if they're going to stay around. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. There will certainly be more galaxy articles; the BSW is not over, and I decided to do mine on neighbourhood galaxies, which were rather lacking on our wiki. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Osiris's talk page.
ARTICLE AMINUR RAHMAN,KHOSRU[change source]
Reply to Correct style for living things[change source]
All of the things you queried on bullfrog were my fault. I am admitting it. But I think you may have missed the point of why I did it. This is Simple English Wikipedia. Aquatic is not on the Basic English combined wordlist. Therefore, I tried to supplement it with a simpler word. You seemed to think that I am trying to invent new words, but I am not. As for the rest of the prose, I admit it is weak. It lacks rhythm and flow. I have no excuses and I am glad to finally own up to the crime. Perhaps you could edit the article until it is well-written? Regards, DJDunsie (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for your words. There are two different things here:
- If a word is linked, it does not have to be also simplified. There is a wide agreement amongst what Kennedy calls 'science guys' that we simply can't do science pages without using technical terms, but at the same time the reader must have some way of dealing with them. We offer three ways
- link to a wikt definition
- link to a substantive article
- explain on the page in simple English, either in brackets or a footnote.
- One way is enough. Since aquatic is linked to a substantive article it is not necessary to do anything more. If an editor also decides to explain it, that is risky because a) it interrupts the flow of the prose, and b) the simple translation may not be accurate. It's not forbidden to explain a term as well as link it, but consider what a mess the prose would be if you did that consistently. The ability to use hyperlinks is one of the great strengths of an on-line encyclopedia. Use it!
- 2. As to editing Bullfrog, I don't think I will. It's not on my agenda and, to satisfy me, I'd have to take it apart root and branch. That would be bound to cause more pain to Ajona. The problem is, that these pages are being proposed one after another for GA and VGA. They are far from good when proposed, and are taking up too much of other people's time and hurting the wiki overall. My basic position is, I want to work on pages in areas where I have expertise, and assist in DYKs. I don't want to hurt others by criticising their work, but when they propose unsatisfactory articles for promotion, I feel they are forcing my hand. I will, with a sense of relief, turn to helping you and others on the Space weekend. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Capital letters[change source]
Do you have an opinion about capitalizing the word prefecture when it is used as part of a category name?
Auntof6 raises questions I can't answer at User talk:Horeki#Categories for Japanese prefectures?
I'm reminded of the uncertainty I felt when we were discussing proper nouns and seamounts here and here in June. What do you think? What is "simple" and best? --Horeki (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, is the word 'Prefecture' actually necessary? We say 'cricketers from Kent' (where they were born and raised) or Kent County cricketers (which team they play for). Feels as though Kent County is more formal, and as part of a proper name, takes a capital. Macdonald-ross (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I very much liked the question about what is necessary.
The table at Prefectures of Japan shows why "prefecture" is not optional. The name of the prefecture and the prefectural capital city are often the same. Perhaps the necessity will be made clear when you see how many there are -- see User talk:Osiris#Category changes.
- Thank you. I very much liked the question about what is necessary.
Animal assistance needed[change source]
Under the article List of amphibians, Scolecomorphinae is listed as subfamily. English has the article en:Scolecomorphidae. A quick search shows both names used, and appear to be the same thing. Am I correct that they are interchangeable? and if so which would you prefer the article under here? Thanks --Tbennert (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- Exact same issue for Typhlonectinae and en:Typhlonectidae--Tbennert (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have removed the subfamilies, all of which were red-linked, as detail not needed on this wiki. It was in any event a dubious import, word for word as En wiki. We are not helped by editors going berserk on taxonomic detail. This was discussed in my early days here, when I started to simplify the content in taxoboxes. Too many list pages here are overwhelmingly redlinked because importers fail to think about the real issues. If an editor is determined to add detailed taxonomic pages to our wiki, then lists can be expanded after those pages are written. Chances are they never get written. Anyway, thank you for raising the issue. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
More on PGA/VgA[change source]
Hi Mac, I will be on a wikibreak for a couple of weeks. I haven't forgotten my promise to help with the "clear and simple English" requirements. I will contact you on my return.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I very much appreciated your analysis here. IMO, this suggests a way to deal with the kinds of plausible, but misleading arguments which come up too often. I've shared this anecdote with some of my neighbors -- not because of any great interest in London as a port, but because of the spare structure of your explanation strategy. Your diff achieved an unexpected and tangential consequence. Thanks. --Horeki (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've put up a page on containerization. This wiki seems a bit weak on the cargo transport in general. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The thread at WP:Simple talk#Category synonyms seems to be developing into another "slugfest". I see no alternative but to withdraw from participation in discussion about Category:Transport. Sorry. Thank you for introducing me to this word here. --Horeki (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- 'Slugfest' is an example of the good, spontaneous, creative side of American speech. 'Transportation' is an example of their tendency to make words sound grandiose by making them longer. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Protein structure[change source]
Hi Macdonald-ross, I have been working at User:Peterdownunder/simplifying on a new page you brought over from en on Protein structure. I am trying to see how simple and readable I can make it. Flesch readability was under 20 at first. It now sits between 30-40 depending on the actual measure. Ideally I would like to see how close to 70 I can get. Do want to keep an eye on it to make sure I haven't got the science wrong in the process of translation. I would also value any input you may have on the process.--Peterdownunder (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- I find the RES of the text alone is 45 at present. I have left comments on the talk page of your sandbox. As a rule, I make many changes in the first few weeks after putting a new page up. Of course, no page on science stands alone. It is part of a network of pages which as a whole support each other. The related page enzyme comes up at RES 52. This one is more difficult than most linguistically. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you[change source]
Hi Macdonald-ross, thank you for taking part in my request for adminship, which closed as successful with 7 supports and 0 opposes. I promise to do my very best in this new role! Best wishes, @intforce 11:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
First sentence[change source]
We may disagree, but perhaps I just don't understand well enough yet.
I guess I don't know what you mean by an "interruption" in the first sentence of an article about a person with a non-English name.
I have withdrawn Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Hideki Katsura. This process helped me to understand that I was mistaken. Thank you for sharing your opinion about this. --Horeki (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
The username "Horeki" is now semi-retired. I formally set it aside in a manner which is consistent with Wikipedia policies.
What I have done -- and why -- was explained on my talk page in 2011 when I set aside the username "Tenmei". My reasoning was parsed in specific detail here.
The change history of User:Horeki here is consistent with that what I proposed to do at that time; and the limited change history of User:Ansei here is part of a continuing, long-term investment in our project. This is made visually clear in the similar graphic layout of the user pages and talk pages.
Layout of similar user pages and talk pages
I underscore that the change of name to Ansei draws attention to the phrase "peaceful government". This signals of an on-going investment in a peaceful working environment. --Ansei (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)