User talk:Art LaPella

Hello! I'm assuming you've popped over from the English Wikipedia, so you're probably familiar with the way this wiki works. I hope you like it here and decide to stay on! Here's a few links to help you adjust:

There's plenty to do here. For example, there are a lot of articles that don't exist yet, which you can bring over from the English Wikipedia and simplify. Do have a look around and see what you'd like to do. Thanks for joining us, and you know how to contact me if you need a hand. sonia ♫ 05:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for all the work you've done over here so far. It hasn't gone unnoticed. Kansan (talk) 20:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Art LaPella (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this

Oh dear! Made me smile. Thanks for your diligent work! sonia♫ 23:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Case (grammar)

I see the edits to the intro, in which you 'translate' almost every linked term. Are we not in agreement that linking on a wiki is the basic form of explanation? I don't see how we are to work if readers don't even have the gumption to follow a link. Inflection, which at the moment does not have a page, was explained in the text.
An exception to Basic English is technical terms which are either explained or linked to a satisfactory page elsewhere. This is because it is not possible to discuss topics like science unless linked technical terms are permitted. It would be unwieldy, and get in the way of flow, for each to be explained on every occasion. Explanations apply not just to a single page but to groups of linked pages on common technical topics. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you should change Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages#Method: "Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist--someone who studies the structure of the universe (stars and space)." You are the first person to discuss my interpretation of Simple English with me, so feel free to change it back. Art LaPella (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Translating 2 out of 9 linked terms in the intro isn't "almost every linked term". And neither inflection nor affixes are explained to a Simple English reader in the text, because he doesn't know that the text's suffixes are inflections or affixes (unless he has clicked "affix"). Art LaPella (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that last is a good point! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Book

Hi Art LaPella, I see you have not yet been given a book, so here is one for you. It can also be a ribbon, or a medal, or a user box too. And 94% of edits in the article mainspace, quite an achievement, --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Art LaPella (talk) 01:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this

Agree, yes. Thank you. Jon@talk:~$ 04:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-titles

Whatever is the case on enWP, I think for this wiki subtitles, which are often quite long, should not be capitalised. They should be normal English orthography. There is no logical reason why a publisher's display setting for a book should be represented the same way here, which is both a different medium and a different audience.

It has been known for a very long time that upper case is less legible than lower case (Tinker M.A. 1963. The legibility of print. Ohio University Press). In typography courses students are well aware of the need to control excessive upper case, and some important journals (such as Nature) have moved to lower case for article titles. I was an external examiner for MAs in Graphic design, so I do have some background here. One has to remember that in book publishing display setting has the main purpose of advertising, whereas in our articles the main consideration is information.

With any readership what makes text less legible also makes it less readable. There is a common misunderstanding in Simple that readability is satisfied once simpler words are used instead of less common words. It is only one part of a more complex process, called writing.

And, I would rather you did not spend your life correcting things which are all right in the first place. There is so much to do on this wiki which better deserves your attention. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are an orthography expert, perhaps you should clarify the English Wikipedia guideline at en:MOS:CAPS#Composition titles. However, a little web surfing shows you might need to "clarify" most style guides on the same issue: mostly U.S. opinions here a British opinion.

Regardless of what the facts on my one and only one subtitle edit may be, I can't think of a good faith interpretation for your last paragraph.

Does "all right in the first place" mean all right in my opinion? I assure you I want the best for Wikipedia. A few times I have rewritten some articles altogether because they were wrong. But mostly I believe I can get more accomplished by cleaning up simple errors, which I can find almost everywhere I look.

Does "all right in the first place" mean all right in your opinion? I hope you don't have such an unrealistic expectation. I can't possibly know that without asking your permission for each edit. Unless, of course, you think I should quit or be banned. In that case, please review my contributions. You will find that they are mostly simple proofreading, and even you will agree with most of it, and that therefore Wikipedia would be worse without me.

Or does "all right in the first place" mean primarily the isolated issue of subtitle capitalization? Then that was a very dramatic way to word a complaint against one, and only one, of my 1,736 Simple Wikipedia edits. The article isn't on my watchlist, and I'm not adding it now because I don't want to know what you do with it. Art LaPella (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot the diff

Hi, can you help me out? What changes did you make here [1]? Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Space after the three dots. For more explanation, click the link in my edit summary. Art LaPella (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I often find these subtle edits extremely difficult to see. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A new book

This editor is a **Yeoman Editor** and has the right to show this **Wikipedia Pocket Edition**.

Thanks once more for your work on improving the articles here.--Peterdownunder (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For Art LaPella, a person who searches through hundreds of articles and makes the minor changes which so many others have missed. A fine eye for detail, and an important contribution. Peterdownunder (talk) 02:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Hi Art LaPella, have a short break from copyediting and come and join in this weekend's activity of trying to write a short biography. There is a choice of over 200 people to write about. See the details on Wikipedia:Simple talk#This weekend's editing challenge - come and help, Peterdownunder (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thompson Island

Hello Art LaPella,

while you were copyediting/proofreading Thompson Island (South Atlantic) I was adding material from the German language article. Could you please have a quick look at the article again? - Thanks --Eptalon (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Simple English has an ambivalent feeling about English Wikipedia's en:WP:Manual of Style, so I use some of their rules but not all of them, in addition to basic spelling etc. In particular, I don't use en:WP:NBSP which isn't used here much. Art LaPella (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]