Just noticed Simple English Simple News and, in particular, the line:

"Wikipedia now has 53,746 articles owing to the deletion of over 6,000 articles."

Though that looked quite dramatic, but it seems they've deleted all but a few of the asteroid stubs and Romanian river stubs.

A sensible more, a step against their "ideal" or, as most of you will probably say "irrelevant crap as nobody gives a damn about Simple"?

Probably a worthwhile decision - I don't think the folks who read simple (are there any?) care about asteroids and tributaries.

*read: "individual asteroids and tributaries"

What makes you believe that?

It just seems like something someone would look up on the Complicated English Wikipedia.

When I was a kid, I was interested in space, but not to the point where I would look up, say, 13208 Fraschetti

And if you did, would you want to read it as written for a 5 year old? (Heh, neither "asteroid" or "tributary" is even in Simple's preferred vocabulary.

I think Simple Wikipedia is a terrible name -- it suggests a dumbed down version (which, of course, it is). If it was Wikipedia Jr. or something else, it may have a better chance at being relevant.

No, I would've probably looked it up on the regular Wikipedia. I suggest "flying space rock" and "little river".



<gasp> We find ourselves in agreeance! It's a terrible name.

I've always had trouble finding a way to gently suggest to the folks who lack the competence to contribute to en.wiki that they should head on over to the "simple" wiki.

Wikipedia Jr. sounds awfully Americanised. Then again, so does Wikipedia. Encyclopaedia has an a in it that whoever came up with the word Wikipedia forgot about.

1. Never say "agreeance".
2. Least of all when criticizing others' use of language.

That is not a cromulent word.

eh... obsolete my ass

I would like to embiggen it.

So says Wiktionary, sourced to - ugh - dictionary.com (it claims that dictionary.com got it from Webster, though that allegation isn't backed up by anything currently on dictionary.com's page).

Meanwhile, the closest thing to an authoritative dictionary available for free over the web doesn't even acknowledge the word's existence. Because it doesn't exist.

I too was interested. I do like the fact the detail is included and it would make sense on a project intending to be the sum of all human knowledge. But I don't think Simple really adheres to that tag. If they were to focus on the "core" articles and make them accessible to all, they could be on to something.

Indeed, and I'm quite pleased with the deletion of those useless stubs. I've been trying to get rid of them for, what, six months now? Once we have the basic core topics past stubs, then we can worry about the millions of individual rivers and asteroids and whatnot.

So you were unable to decipher what I meant by "agreeance" ? (Is there a better word?) I knew what you meant by cromulent! If The Simpsons uses the word "agreeance", will you then let me use it? =)

You are familiar with the concept of practicing what you preach, yes?

To the extent that "cromulent" has joined the English language, it serves a specific and unique purpose. While it overlaps with other words - "legitimate", for example - I am not aware of any other words that mean "valid, as in a disputed word". Even if there are others, which would not shock me, cromulent is not merely a bastardization of them, but a new synonym (as in "huge" and "enormous", for example). It enriches the language.

To the extent that "agreeance" is a word, it means exactly the same thing as another, virtually identical, word (as "ironical" and "competency", for example). It adds nothing but tears.

In ze Engleesh, ve be sayingz "agreement'. Iz goot vord, ja?

I did a stint at simple so I could have a better claim to "Xeno" than the inactive no.wiki:xeno. ( http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Xeno ) I couldn't stand it.

Incidentally, someone moved a page I created "Stroller" to "Baby transport". Go figure.



"We find ourselves in agreement" ? I dunno, I don't like it... I'm fine with occasionally bastardizing the English language, that's how it grows.

This my point: there is a difference between an embiggening that is enriching and one that is the linguistic equivalent to urban sprawl. Acquiring new words that can add nuance and increase your range of communication options is the former. Saying "agreeance" when you mean "agreement" is the latter.

There is a decided difference between healthy growth and metastasis.



So move it back. You're a grown man, stand up for your work. You're a Canadian, damn it -- the land of the lumberjacks, Mounties and Gordon Lightfoot. Show your rugged spirit, flex your muscles and take back what technically doesn't belong to you.

Can't be arsed, to be honest. I don't think "baby transport" is simpler though.

It's not simpler. That's a stupid move. Stop being lazy and move it back.

bah. only 'cause you helped me figure out how to do userlinks. thanks for that.

FWIW it looks like the move on simple was related to our more expansive article at en.wiki that covers "baby carriages" as well as strollers and summarizes infant car seat.

That's more like it. I believe in take-charge, no-holds-barred, kick-'em-in-the-balls proactive, progressive action that would make Ayn Rand sit up her grave and say "Who the f**k buried me...I'm not dead yet!"

Now go indef block Malleus for incivility and wait 10 hours before claiming it was an accident -- I wasn't able to score tickets to the Metropolitan Opera and I need some high volume entertainment.

nicer to use verbs anyway - could have said "We concur", which has slightly more ooomph than 'we agree' - both of which are a few letters and syllables shorter than "we are in agreement/agreeance"

I just hate going and correcting everyone saying "....to Mr X and I" rather than "me" - or slotting in a reflexive pronoun where an objective will do "the suspect was seen by myself"


............


PS: Which is why I highly recommend Tony1's essays on language which I have found one of the most helpful things on the 'pedia to writing clearly and concisely.
Cas

Simple wikipeida is there for people who dont have English as a first language. Its not very good at it (and of course I speak from original research) but its even worse at being a Childrens Britannica.

Still its setting a good example. Now if only the main site would delete 100,000 crap articles ...

(I know there are a lot more but that would be a start.)

No, no, no. Simple Wikipedia is a gulag/farm team for people who have been deemed "not ready" for the English Wikipedia. It's where they send admin wannabees who haven't quite learned the precise form of immaturity that Wikipedia wants.

Simple has no pretense of being an encyclopedia; the articles there are absolute crap.

Simple shrinks by 10% ... and nothing of value was lost.

I'll say it again, for good measure. The Simple series shouldn't exist. At least not as a project of the Wikimedia Foundation. I have this crazy notion that they should put their resources behind real languages. Leave simplified versions to another organization that can create Simple German, Simple French, etc.

And for the love of God, do not ever repeat the failed mistake that is the Simple English Wikiquote. I would say that society as a whole is (albeit, negligibly) a worse place because of Simple English Wikiquote.

so what you are saying... is that the Simple English Wikiquote is double-plus ungood?

Why didn't you just say so! It would've been a lot simpler.

Well, yes. I don't think anyone is crying about the loss of all those asteroid stubs. And I agree - the "simple" projects should not be part of Wikimedia. But they are. There is an ongoing discussion to close one of them, I forget which though.

Theres also Simple Wiktionary and Wikibooks. Why isnt there a Simple Wikisource, Wikinews or Wikiversity? The last might actually be useful!

What makes you think that?

I am curious: is Simple only for the English Wikipedia? Are there simple versions for the Wikipedia projects in other languages?

No, just English.

The Simple English projects were created before the ban on Simple projects at the Requests for New Projects page, and were essentially grandfathered in.

Thanks for the facts.

Hey, NW, get someone to nominate you for adminship. It is your time to shine.

(Yes, there are some people that Horsey likes.)

What makes me think what? That there are also Simple Wiktionary and Wikibooks? They are on the web and easy to find. That theres no Simple Wikisource, Wikinews or Wikiversity? The sites with the expected names dont exist. If Ive made a mistake withthe names what are the correct ones?

That the last might actually be useful.

Oh you should have said.

Because wikiversity is basicly for simple people anyway.

Are you a simple person then?

Thats a weird logic jump. Did I say I use wikiversity?