User talk:HSTutorials~simplewiki

Hello, HSTutorials~simplewiki, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia! I hope you are happy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Some helpful pages to start you off are Wikipedia:Useful, Help:Contents and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.

If you want to meet and talk with other members, you can visit our version of the "village pump" at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Just remember that you should sign your messages on Talk pages by typing "~~~~" (four tildes) at the end of your words.

We have a special page that describes how to write Simple English articles. If you want some ideas of which pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted pages.

We are also focusing on core articles until this Wikipedia grows. This list of topics will be helpful if you want to start such pages.

Even though it is a good idea to research an article (like looking at the discussion page) before making large changes, do not be afraid to be bold! Any changes you make that are not perfect can be fixed later.

If you need any help, send a message to an administrator on his or her talk page. Administrators on Wikipedia will try to help you with your problems and resolve them as soon as possible.

Finally, if you have any questions on how things work, don't hesitate to ask me. The best way to do that is to leave a message on my talk page. Good luck and happy editing! --Bhadani 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks for calling back. By the way, I am not an adminitrator here, but one at the English wikipedia. Yes, it is helpful to be an administrator. Hope to see you around. Regards. --Bhadani 14:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Please do not create stubs because, by doing so, you are leaving a lot work for everyone else. One well-written page is worth dozens of stubs. Red links are beautiful. Someone who is really interested in a topic will see the red link and hopefully devote some time and contribute a really good start to the page. By "filling in" red links with really short stubs, you fool the reader into thinking there is a full article if they click the link. We should not follow what is done on other Wikipedias. We should make really good core articles. Think of this way... we now have about 10000 articles, but about 5000 of those are stubs. That's not very good. -- Netoholic @ 04:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, given a choice between newly written stubs versus articles copied from EN with some attempted simplification, I'd much rather see stubs. I'm guessing it was things like end that triggered the comment. Five words and it's really a dic def anyway (note no incoming links other than word lists)--at EN it's mostly a disambiguation page to some specific 'ends'. Also, pressure isn't worth creating a single sentence article for because it is on the BE 1500 word list, so it is assumed that readers already know the most basic definition. A single sentence article for a fairly basic topic such as names for different family members doesn't add much, either--there's usually not much that can be said about such near dic defs. If you go to Special:Newpages and look at Espresso's contribs, you'll see they tend to be a similar length as yours tend to be, but aren't self-obvious from the title, are articles that can be expanded greatly, and aren't deadends. Eptalon's 400-800 byte articles (the ones longer than that tend to include more text straight from EN than I think is ideal) tend to be quite nice starts--some context, background, and/or importance, plus one or more pictures if available--printing press and snail are good examples. Hikitsurisan's recycling might not be long enuf by Net's standards, but I think it is a good example of a minimum stub--it goes beyond the basic definition with a few sentences giving the reader an idea of its scope and other things it impacts. Mezzo-soprano isn't bad (IMHO) either--it provides some context beyond the strict definition. Entries that provide a bare, one-sentence definition (especially for topics that can never be much more than a dic def) are probably better suited for Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Freshstart 03:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]