Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Yield (chemistry)
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Albacore (talk · changes) 14:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Yield (chemistry)[change]
Gotanda has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: This article is an almost exact copy of the En original with no significant simplification. One passive verb was changed to active and links to other complex pages are the changes. Not simple and only 3 or 4 words are different. Thank you. Gotanda (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.
Discussion[change]
- Keep. This article was created to eliminate red links in several articles. On English Wikipedia, there are 56 pages that link to the corresponding article. Any reference work claiming to cover even the most simple aspects of Chemistry would include coverage of "yield". After I created the article, it was reviewed by my mentor and we moved it into article space. I welcome community comment on how the article can be improved. The standard should be whether the article is notable, tells the reader what he/she should know about the subject, and is NPOV. We should not measure an article on whether it is exactly like an English Wikipedia article. (I understand that we have a rule that one may not just copy and paste an article from English Wikipedia, but I sense that User:Gotanda does not appreciate the work that goes into these articles.) Just because we give credit to English Wikipedia to avoid copyright concerns does not mean that independent editorial judgment and scholarly research have not been applied to the articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it is also very important that articles not be identical to En articles. There are two main reasons. One, if the articles are the same, there is no need for this wiki to exist. Two, this is Simple English Wikipedia. Articles must be simple enough for language learners and beginning readers to read. Copying and pasting a complex article from En means that it is not simple. It is precisely because I do understand the amount of work and skill required to simplify articles that I requested the deletion. It is unfortunate that Racepacket created the copy-paste article (and many others) but then could not or would not apply the time and skill to simplify it, instead leaving that to others (in this case Goodvac). Copyright and research are irrelevant to question at hand. The article was an unsimplified copy and paste and therefore needed to be deleted to meet the needs of Simple English Wikipedia readers. Leaving unsimplified copy-pastes around the wiki discourages language learners or other readers who need clear, simplified texts. They come here for clear content in simplified language and when they are instead faced with complex language, it is demotivating. Gotanda (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- And, one more comment. By writing "The standard should be whether the article is notable, tells the reader what he/she should know about the subject, and is NPOV." Racepacket shows a clear misunderstanding of this project. Articles must be simple. Gotanda (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps my friend Gotanda misses the point that I worked with another editor until we agreed that the article was sufficiently simple. We have invited Gotanda to review my articles, and I am willing to address his specific concerns. Saying "I don't think it is simple" without explaining why does not provide me with a path to resolve his concerns. (See User talk:Gotanda) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I have made many specific comments and suggestions on many of the complex articles. There are so many of them that there is not enough time to give line-by-line feedback or edits to each and every one. However, they all suffer from the same defects. These have been explained to Racepacket, but he refuses to accept that the articles are not simple. He keeps posting the same questions again and again on my Talk page as some sort of formality or delaying response, rather than actually editing pages to make them simple. I have asked to stop repeatedly, but he does not. Gotanda (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps my friend Gotanda misses the point that I worked with another editor until we agreed that the article was sufficiently simple. We have invited Gotanda to review my articles, and I am willing to address his specific concerns. Saying "I don't think it is simple" without explaining why does not provide me with a path to resolve his concerns. (See User talk:Gotanda) Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- And, one more comment. By writing "The standard should be whether the article is notable, tells the reader what he/she should know about the subject, and is NPOV." Racepacket shows a clear misunderstanding of this project. Articles must be simple. Gotanda (talk) 23:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, it is also very important that articles not be identical to En articles. There are two main reasons. One, if the articles are the same, there is no need for this wiki to exist. Two, this is Simple English Wikipedia. Articles must be simple enough for language learners and beginning readers to read. Copying and pasting a complex article from En means that it is not simple. It is precisely because I do understand the amount of work and skill required to simplify articles that I requested the deletion. It is unfortunate that Racepacket created the copy-paste article (and many others) but then could not or would not apply the time and skill to simplify it, instead leaving that to others (in this case Goodvac). Copyright and research are irrelevant to question at hand. The article was an unsimplified copy and paste and therefore needed to be deleted to meet the needs of Simple English Wikipedia readers. Leaving unsimplified copy-pastes around the wiki discourages language learners or other readers who need clear, simplified texts. They come here for clear content in simplified language and when they are instead faced with complex language, it is demotivating. Gotanda (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep I have simplified the article. Goodvac (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Goodvac, for cleaning up after Racepacket. He tends to copy-paste, make a few minor changes, then move on to the next copy-paste without simplifying. Many of the early ones have been abandoned, but still need a lot of work. Gotanda (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, since this article was relatively short compared to the other copy-pastes, I decided to clean it up. But I have neither the time nor inclination to work on the others. Your RfDs are indeed warranted; I myself would have tagged the articles for A3 had I encountered them. Goodvac (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is incorrect to say that "Many of the early ones have been anbandoned." Each one on that list was reviewed by another editor and we continued to edit until we agreed that the article was sufficiently simple. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- I moved many of the initial list of complex articles to RP's userspace as discussed in the original RfD, editing restrictions discussion (which limits he has been stretching), and on Barras' Talk page. I'd say that no edits in two months on those articles is abandoning them. Gotanda (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Let us be fair. Barras and I spent a month working through each article on the list and continued to improve them until we believed each article to be sufficiently simple. We have invited Gotanda to move any article for which he has concerns to my userspace and to then provide a review of it listing his concerns. In the past two weeks, you moved seven articles to my userspace, but have not told me your concerns. When I asked you about the seven, you responded by nominating Yield (chemistry) and Chemical synthesis for quick deletion. When that was declined, we started this discussion. We are all friends here working together. But unless I understand what you see that is wrong, I can't fix the problems. Using emotional terms like "abandoning" is not helpful, when both Barras and I have devoted many hours to this list of articles. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
- The history doesn't lie. Most of the original bunch of complex copy-pastes were not simplified and had no changes for a long period of time. I have documented the complexity, but it is not my responsibility to provide a line by line critique of every one of your copy-paste articles. That would take an unreasonable amount of time given the long list of articles. I and others have given specific examples, suggestions, and instructions. It really is quite simple: follow the guidelines. Simple sentence structure and simple vocabulary.
- The "We"in "We invited" is misleading. You asked Barras for many many reviews. He, not you, told me to go ahead and move them to userspace. I do not require your invitation for anything. There is nothing emotional about "abandoning" the pages were discussed, you were instructed to deal with them as part of your editing restrictions and block discussion. The articles were marked. You did not follow through.
- Copying, pasting, but leaving the hard work to others (Goodvac this time) is not helpful. I will continue to move articles to your userspace if they are copied and remain complex. It is up to you to simplify them. I would suggest not looking for ways around your editing restrictions and not copying and pasting more until you clear the backlog of scores of complex copies. But we have gone well off the topic of RfD A3 at this point.Gotanda (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again, if you want to compare the article to En Wikipedia, you must look at the En Wikipedia article. I made changes before saving the first version on Simple Wikipedia. Second, Barras wrote, "If you, Gotanda, really have big doubts about the simplicity of articles in main space, then please move them back into Race's userspace and, if possible, leave him a review." So both of us have asked you to leave a review for any article that you have moved. You keep on referring me to the talk pages of the articles that you have moved, but I have not found your reviews. There must be something that concerns you about the articles that you moved. Please share those concerns, and I will work to address them. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is incorrect to say that "Many of the early ones have been anbandoned." Each one on that list was reviewed by another editor and we continued to edit until we agreed that the article was sufficiently simple. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- No problem, since this article was relatively short compared to the other copy-pastes, I decided to clean it up. But I have neither the time nor inclination to work on the others. Your RfDs are indeed warranted; I myself would have tagged the articles for A3 had I encountered them. Goodvac (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, Goodvac, for cleaning up after Racepacket. He tends to copy-paste, make a few minor changes, then move on to the next copy-paste without simplifying. Many of the early ones have been abandoned, but still need a lot of work. Gotanda (talk) 23:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I had left the following comment on User talk:Gotanda, but he asked that I move it here:
"Abandon" means give up working on something before reaching a goal. Barras and I worked on each article until we agreed that we reached the goal of "simple." I have gone back and re-read the comments that you have made before. To the best of my knowledge, I have followed your suggestions. I also examined each article regarding vocabulary. Words that are not on the WP:Basic English combined wordlist are linked. The intended audience is high school students (or above) and scientists whose first language is not English. An important goal for the scientific articles is to introduce and explain scientific terminology. In many cases, we add sentences or phrases in parenthesis to introduce or explain terms. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Racepacket has been leaving me many article-specific questions on my Talk page and spliting discussion across pages. I'm glad he moved this here. I'll move me response here as well. Keep discussions in one place, please. Do not put article comments on my Talk page anymore. This comment belongs on the other RfD discussion where it will fit in context. The initial round of Advanced Chemistry Articles RfDs from Macdonald-ross were generally not simplified. I clearly documented the amount of time you had left them without any attempt to simplify. Please move the above comment to the ongoing discussion where it belongs, not here.
- I'll just add, since this is related to the past and current RfD's. This may be Racepacket's standard of simple, "The intended audience is high school students (or above) and scientists whose first language is not English." But high high school and above? Really? The readership has never been neatly defined, but surely high school and university reading level (if that is what is meant by "beyond") is not the measure of the target ease of readability. What happened to "that includes children" on the front page? That different, personal standard may account for the lack of simplification in copied articles or sections of articles. Gotanda (talk) 07:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I care about children as much as the other editors here. However, children are generally not interested in theoretical chemistry topics or high energy physics topics. You can tell a child, "We mix chemicals inside a computer instead of in a test tube." or "We spin electrons around very fast to smash atoms." After that, you lose them. If a 3rd Grade student uses "Show any page" and lands on a theoretical chemistry article, he will stop after the first sentence. But if a foreign chemist with a 3rd Grade English reading level looks up a theoretical chemistry topic, we must provide him with valuable content. This has come up in a number of discussions on this wiki, and the consensus is that the intended audience for these articles is high school students or scientists whose first language is not English. Racepacket (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Links to that consensus, please. State whatever you like, but support it. Gotanda (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I will dig them out. In the meantime, would you agree that people interested in theoretical chemistry, high energy physics and quantum mechanics are fluent in calculus and higher mathematics? Can we agree that the chemical equations, mathematical equations, Feynman diagrams, etc. do not need to be translated or "dumbed down" for our readers? Racepacket (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Please take a look at: Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Log 11#List of mathematical symbols, Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 2#Suggestion, Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/AdvancedChemPages and diff. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Links to that consensus, please. State whatever you like, but support it. Gotanda (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I care about children as much as the other editors here. However, children are generally not interested in theoretical chemistry topics or high energy physics topics. You can tell a child, "We mix chemicals inside a computer instead of in a test tube." or "We spin electrons around very fast to smash atoms." After that, you lose them. If a 3rd Grade student uses "Show any page" and lands on a theoretical chemistry article, he will stop after the first sentence. But if a foreign chemist with a 3rd Grade English reading level looks up a theoretical chemistry topic, we must provide him with valuable content. This has come up in a number of discussions on this wiki, and the consensus is that the intended audience for these articles is high school students or scientists whose first language is not English. Racepacket (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No offence to either of you two but you both seem to be drifting far off topic. How about you both just walk away for a bit so others can comment. I have a feeling your arguing back and forth is keeping people from commenting. -DJSasso (talk)
This request is due to close on 03:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.