Wikipedia talk:How to write Simple English articles
From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change
Simple English might also use dot point to explain difficult words as soon as they occur.
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat".
-
- Tears fall from our eyes when we are sad;
- sweat is water which comes from our body when we are hot.
211.30.78.145 02:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"I also have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat". I know wingeing is probably a bad idea but "blood, toil, tears and sweat" is a terrible example. That is an idiom (that I remember as "blood, sweat and tears" but anyway...) which is good to use only if it is the subject ie it appears in Blood Sweat and Tears. If it must appear then explain its sense not its literal meaning: 'He said he gave "blood, toil, tears and sweat" (He worked very hard.)' (But better than that)
I would much prefer some guidance on how to simplify scientific or culture specific entries.
Also I question the idea that the simple encyclopedia would be primarily for non English speakers, don't they have there own language versions? If the simple version is to exist it should be for English speaking children or people with learning diabilities. </rant>
What if they don't have such articles in their language versions?Noelle1995 (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Noelle
Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I always understood that quote to mean he was offering the British _their own_ "blood, toil, tears and sweat", not (only) his; a warning of difficult times to come, and a call to face them squarely. 207.197.128.52 18:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC).
I agree, so an alternative phrase might be: "All I can promise you is hard work, sadness and pain"212.98.32.30 09:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I do not understand the example (and I have no problems understanding difficult English). Perhaps it only explains part of the sentence? 85.227.226.168 20:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a simple typo under the header 'Method' sub point 6 -- "...and one Interwiki link (to s version of Wikipedia in another language)" -- the 's' is supposed to be an 'a'
- Scothonix 01:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
[change] Milton Keynes
I'd welcome peer review of my first SE article at Milton Keynes. --Concrete Cowboy 16:16, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest using natural language rather than Basic English and monitoring whether you are staying within your word limits with a tool like Vocabprofile: http://www.lextutor.ca/vp/
Extensive reading of graded readers with limited vocabulary is an effective method of language learning advocated by experts such as Richard Day at the University of Hawaii and Nation at Victoria University Wellington
Jon Fernquest
-
- Web VP (Vocabulary Profiler) is a well done program to look for common words, but may I give an experience. I learned the most common Dutch words before going to Holland and was able to get the filler parts of every sentence, but not the meaning of any sentence because the useful words with substance were not there. Does WebVP have an option to use our vocabulary (Basic English) so that the non-Simple English words are highlighted ? Answer -- Yes !!!
-
- Paul Nation, VUW, gives the program and wordlists as a Zip download . The documentation is complete -- 15 page in word.doc . The word lists are simple text files. Therefore, it seems able to add the Basic 850 words in the same format to basewrd1.txt and the Basic 1500 words and/or Special English 1500 to basewrd2.txt. The program will then give color coded results for pure Simple English in blue ; for advanced Simple English as green ; and for non-Simple words as red.
-
- These non-Simple words can be looked up with the IDP Companion Translator from full English to Basic.
Manor 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
[change] Changes by Netoholic
I was not at all surprised when you (Netoholic) changed this page as soon as I mentioned it on Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia, but that does not mean I am against the two main changes you made. I like very much the fact that you chose relatively neutral terminology when you changed my edit, particularly in the second place, where it now says "link to a page which gives more detail on the word." I hope you don't mind if I add slightly to that, since it is rather vague where they link to. I'll say ", such as Wiktionary. That page mentions/links to both wiktionaries (my change, I'll admit), and therefore won't bother anyone, I hope.
The first place you made a change, however, I don't like so much, because it says "If no other word is good, add your word." I think this doesn't work, because even though it sounds like neutral terminology ("you can add it wherever you see fit"), the implicit assumption is that they will add it to Simple English Wikipedia, rather than Simple English Wiktionary. But I won't change it until we all make a collective decision on Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia, and even then only if that decision is in favor of my position. Edit wars and actions without consensus are counterproductive, which is why I haven't gone all over SEWikipedia, moving definitions to SEWikt and linking words where they appear to SEWikt. I am very ready and willing to do so, but I will not until there is consensus to do so. I suppose the main reason I think that linking to English Wiktionary doesn't make sense in any of the ideas I have regarding SEWikipedia is because in my ideas, the words would not have their own page here, and therefore it would be very clumsy to link to both whenever a word appeared. Since I feel that SEWiktionary is the preferable choice, that is what I would link to, with a link on the corresponding SEWiktionary page to English Wiktionary for those who want more. However, if at the end of everything consensus decides that we should keep short descriptions here, both wiktionaries should be then linked.
BTW, one of the things I like about disagreeing with you (yes, there are some, even though I don't like disagreeing!) is that even though we (or at least I) have gotten a little ruffled, we have succeeded in keeping personal attacks and heated words out of our conversations and discussions. Whether I agree with you or not, your words have been civil, and I thank you for that. --Cromwellt|talk 22:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why did you revert my edit? And why did you revert it without explanation? And why did you revert it as a minor edit? I can understand doing so when it is vandalism or patent nonsense or something of the sort, but my edit was made in good faith and improves the page by specifying a possible location to link to, rather than leaving that up to the reader's imagination. Perhaps it would have been better for me to not mention that I changed the Wiktionary page to include both English Wiktionary and Simple English Wiktionary, so that you wouldn't know the difference and wouldn't object? I don't think so either. In fact, I specifically mentioned the fact that I changed the other page, because I knew it was something you might disagree with. But I expected you to talk about it, not to revert without comment. My mentioning the change I had made is in keeping with my policy of making sure that all my edits which someone might disagree with are not marked as minor, to give others a chance to disagree, etc. I am trying my best to be absolutely fair to all parties, to explain my edits, and not hide any of them, etc., even when to do so exposes them to possible reverts, etc. by people who disagree with me. Why don't you do the same? I think you called it a minor edit because it was not something large (I am again assuming good faith), but that makes it appear as if you are attempting to hide the edit from people who might disagree with you, like I might. I agree that marking small edits as minor and not clogging the Newest Changes page with tons of tiny changes is generally good policy, but to avoid appearing like you are pushing an agenda or hiding your edits that others might possibly disagree with, I recommend never marking those particular edits as minor, and always giving them explanations (not just a revert summary), especially if you could explain them on the talk page. Of course, you are free to do what you think is right, but these steps would help keep others (such as myself) from being tempted to feel that the edits/reverts are made in bad faith. Once again, I will not revert your revert, because edit wars are counterproductive and I want to reach a consensus on this, but that doesn't mean I agree with you on this point (although I don't know exactly what you think about it, due to your lack of explanation). As always, let me know what you think, and comments from others are certainly welcome, too. --Cromwellt|talk 23:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, I think the section you removed had some valuable extra information, but I'll let it go. However, the rest of my comments, including the value of telling them other places they can link to, such as Wiktionary, still stand. That one would especially apply when the article linked to is only a description/definition. --Cromwellt|talk 23:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[change] Dictionary definitions
Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Project direction, in which it was agreed that we should link to the Simple English Wiktionary, I am going to add another point (2.5) to the method section, stating:
Not all words are encyclopedic. If you want to link to the dictionary definition of a word rather than an encyclopedic article, link to the Simple English Wiktionary using [[:wikt:this]] (put your word in place of "this") to link to this. For a more complex definition, you may also link to the English Wiktionary like this: [[:en:wikt:this]].
I am also adding the guideline template, but this should not be construed as an attempt to legitimize my edit. If it is a bad edit, talk to me about it here or on my talk page, and let's get it right. Thanks. --Cromwellt|talk 00:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
- Looking at it on the page, perhaps it would be better to leave out the markup for linking. They can look that up under the appropriate help article. What do you think? --Cromwellt|talk 01:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[change] Is this really "simple english"?
I just looked at the page Brandenburg and to my ears it really sounds bad. The grammar sounds as if it was translated directly from german to english. I would like to change those pages but since I'm really new to "simple english" I could make a mistake by doing so. In fact I just followed the link to the "simple english" version from the german version of this article and then looked at some other pages and realized that there was something like "simple english" - I haven't heard of it before. (BTW: Do we have to use "simple english" on the discussion pages as well?) 217.197.85.180 06:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed it a little bit, mainly grammar. Don't know much about it, so I can't really help develop it. Torte 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
[change] Latin words
Often, for difficult words that are from Latin (like "perspiration") there will also be a native (Old English or Anglo-Saxon) word like "sweat" meaning the same thing, that is much more common and basic, but this is not always the case.
I disagree with the criteria behind this. It's not always better chosing that way. If the reader's native tongue is some of the many romance languages (the ones that came from vulgar Latin, like Spanish, French, Portuguese, Italian, etc.), it will always be easier to understand, for example, perspiration, than sweat. That will also occur if the reader's mother tongue happens to be any other language but he or she has knowledge of any romance tongue.
[change] Does anyone else find the term 'body water' hilarious?
Full English "I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat" in Basic English is "blood, hard work, drops from eyes, and body water".
What makes body water equate to sweat and not tears, urine or blood?
what has body water got to do with hard work? and wouldn't foreigners find it hard to understand, too???Noelle1995 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It is not funny; just bad translation. The goal of translation is to relate the author's sense. In Simple English : Blood is blood or danger. Toil is work. Tears indicate trouble or pain. Sweat makes the point of very hard work, or in this case, more work. "Blood, work, pain and more, very hard, work." This might be made more poetic, but it is a direct translation. idk wat that means- pls help!
[change] E Prime
I don't usually participate in the Simple English Wikipedia. I found this page and was surprised to see it suggesting learning to write in E Prime. E Prime is not simplified English -- it is English that was changed to express a philosophical point of view. "Is" is a simple word and is a good word to use in "simple English." 207.176.159.90 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[change] A Small Reformat of Simple English Wikipedia...
I think it would be a good idea to change the abbreviation for Simple English Wikipedia from "simple.wikipedia.org" to "simpleen.wikipedia.org". It's possible that there are people who speak other languages and would suggest the same idea.
- If any French people share the same idea, another example would be Simple French (Français Simple). This would be called "frsimple.wikipedia.org".
- All other languages could work the same way.
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat" does not at all mean, "All I can give is my body, my work, my love, and my life.". It means "If you follow me, what reward will you receive? You will receive nothing but the opportunity to toil, to spill your blood, to sweat and to weep" I am not proposing this as a simple English alternative. I'm just pointing out that the version offered on the page totally changes the meaning of the original.
- Instead of "simpleen.wikipedia.org," I think it would be better organized if we could put the language abbreviation first: "ensimple.wikipedia.org." This would also better follow Wikipedia's current organizational style. — This unsigned comment was added by 206.188.174.1 (talk • changes) on 01:11, 18 February 2008.
[change] Second person
I think the guideline about writing in the second person should be removed. Writing in the second person is often more engaging and readable than writing that consciously avoids it. There are numerous encyclopedias for young people that are written in the second person. Also, many dictionaries for learners of English (yes, I know they're not encyclopedias) also employ the second person. Apart from some notion of gravitas, what is the advantage of avoiding second person. What for example is better about "We say X" as compared to "you can say X"?--Brett 12:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we should avoid using the second person in any form of English: written (simple or otherwise) as well as spoken.
Many of the people reading the articles obviously do not speak English as a first language. From my background in Romance languages, it would simply confuse the readers and encourage poor grammar use. In French, they commonly use "on" as an equivalent of "one" or "we" to describe something. For example: "on devrait manger des légumes" means "one (we) should eat his or her vegetables." Likewise, in Spanish, one would use "uno" or "nosotros" ("one" and "we," respectively) to express the same thing. In Spanish, it would not be acceptible to use "tu" ("you") because doing so would make the sentence more like a command than a suggestion. "Tu" also implies that the sentence is directed at one specific person, instead of a general group of people. 72.37.171.52 (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[change] The Longman Defining Vocabulary
I think some people will find it difficult to use just the BE 1500. The Longman Defining Vocabulary has a defining vocabulary of 2000 words, which is used to explain all the terms in their dictionary. Could we add this list in as a sort of "upper level" for Simple English Wikipedia? 121.7.195.43 06:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
[change] Broken link
The link to http://writeidea.smallwhitecube.com/ under "Other Websites" at the end of the page ("WriteIdea: writers' tool for writing simple text. Both java and web-based versions.") seems to be broken... Maybe it should be removed. 201.53.2.251 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[change] Typo
There is a simple typo under the header 'Example'. The first sentence includes "... insist in using ...". This should be "... insist on using ...". --Cicero (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
[change] Avoid Pronouns
English is my second language and I have also taken lessons in other languages. In my experience, one of the things which make reading difficult to understand is the use of too many pronouns in a text. Using proper nouns repeatedly may seem dumb, but it really helps people with little English understand articles. Maybe "avoid pronouns" should be added as one of the guidelines of "how to write in simple english". SurferRosa 22:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
