User talk:Simplegoose

Would you please explain each of the moves you made to these pages? There is usually no need to make the page names more complex, and some of the pages now do not match enwiki. We do not have to match enwiki, but they have good standards for names of this kind of page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well I did it as when articles are in categories it would make is easier to locate a queen or duchess makes sense to be fair. Simplegoose (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. You can put those articles in categories such as Category:Kings and queens or Category:Dukes and duchesses to make them easy to find. There are several similar categories under Category:Royalty and nobility. By the way, when you reply to something on a talk page, it's best to put your reply on the same page so that the conversation stays in one place. I have moved your reply from my talk page to here for that reason. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

sorry still a newbie to this :/

Can we consider undoing those moves, please? They just make the titles longer and more complex, contrary to WP:PRECISION. Osiris (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Simplegoose. I assume that you meant to move User:Louise Diane d'Orléans, Princess of Conti into article space? It was in user space. I've moved it back to User:Simplegoose/Louise Diane d'Orléans, because I wasn't sure since the categories were still disabled and there were a few things that were broken. It probably needs simplifying a bit more, the readability scores are quite high and there are a fair number of complex-compound sentences and complex words.

When you are ready to move it into userspace, on the "To new title:" line, there is a tab that will say "User". Click the down arrow next to it and select "Article" instead. That will move it into article space. When you've done that, you should follow the steps at WP:TA to give credit to the original authors (since the content is from the English Wikipedia, originally). If you have any questions, please ask me. Osiris (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have put some notes on the talk page, here, that might help you get an idea of what's needed. Osiris (talk) 04:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Did you read the notes I added? If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Osiris (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you :)

Hello. You probably didn't know, but here on Simple English Wikipedia, we want at least three articles in each new category. You can read about this guideline at [Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category?]] This new category that you created had only one, so I have removed it from that article and deleted the category. You are welcome to create it again when there are three entries ready to go into it. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what direction you intended to take with this article. Is this about the last category of counts of Soissons? The one that enwiki has as the second-to-last group in their article w:Count of Soissons? Or is this about the w:Princes of Condé? If so the title should be 'Princes of Condé'—you're showing their arms. As the article is now, the text doesn't seem to match the title. I just wanted see what you thought before doing any editing. Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Rus793 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for that new category. I was wondering, would you be interested in writing an article to explain what "style" is in this context? I'm sure people (including me) would be interested in the difference between a style and a title. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I deleted this category for two reasons. First, it was misspelled. I would have created one with the correct spelling, but it didn't meet the 3-item minimum for categories. Feel free to recreate it if/when there are at least three entries to go into it. You can read about that requirement at Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category?. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

LOL I'm so stupid I did not even notice I had spelt it wrong. :/ moron. Thank you anyway I literally just made a correctly spelt cat. :)

But are you going to put another entry into it very soon? If there are only two entries, it doesn't meet the requirement and can be deleted. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and deleted it again. Please be sure to have at least three entries for it before you create it again. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Simplegoose. I moved this sandbox page to your userspace, at User:Simplegoose/Royal place of turin/sandbox. That was because we don't keep sandboxes in mainspace. Let me know if you have any questions about this. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

You created another category (Category:House of Noailles) with not enough entries. I couldn't find another entry for it, so I recategorized the two pages it had and deleted the category. Before creating a category, please make sure there are already at least three things to put in it, and put them in right away. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Simplegoose. is there a different between the category you just created, Category:Japanese Imperial family, and the one we already had, Category:Japanese royal family? If so, would you please put some information on each of them to explain the difference? I also see the article Japanese Imperial family tree under the royal family: maybe it should be under the imperial family? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm retarded and completely forgot I had made a royal family category, so that is my own mistake. the family are Imperial as the family of an Emperor not a king or queen like the UK for example. so Japanese royal family is wrong and as I said it is my own fault I openly removed the royal family category from pages in the hope it would be deleted as empty cats are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravave (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Empty categories aren't automatically deleted, but that category isn't empty anyway. If you empty it, then after that you can either put a quick deletion tag on it or let me know and I'll delete it.

By the way, when you reply to something on a talk page, you should reply on the same page so that the conversation stays in one place. If you want, you can leave a talkback message on the other person's talk page after you reply, but I'm watching your talk page so you don't even need to do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So, should everything in Category:Japanese royal family be moved to Category:Japanese Imperial family? --Auntof6 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes as I said they hold the rank of Imperial not royal. Plus I only created it to show the present imperial family not just random members of the past Imperial family.

OK. If you let me know when that's done, I can delete the "royal" category afterward. --Auntof6 (talk)

Yup. Oky doke. :)

Sorted......................

There are still two things in Category:Japanese royal family. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating this category. You probably didn't know, but some of our standard time-related categories use a template to get a standard setup. I have changed this category to use the appropriate template. If you create any more categories like this, first look at an existing one to see how it's done. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

An editor has requested deletion of Category:Palaces in France, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Category:Palaces in France and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

But surely that is just ridiculous it has more than one article in it. :/

Auntof6 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at the articles you created recently. The text in them is not nearly simple enough for this Wikipedia. One, House of Colonna, was copied from English Wikipedia without being simplified, so I have deleted it. When you bring articles here from English Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter, you must do two things: simplify the text and give credit (attribution) to the place the article came from. You did neither of those for House of Colonna. Some of your other articles also have unsimplified text from the enwiki article, and other non-simple text. Before you create any more articles, please simplify the ones you have already created and add the attribution for the ones that were based on another source. Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

The article on "Princess of Lamballe" was another example of this. I have moved that article to your userspace for more work. Let me know when you have simplified it and I will move it back. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

When you say something like "It was the former residence", you're saying that the place was former but isn't former any more, which would mean that it's now currently a residence again. Instead, say either "It was the residence" or "It is the former residence". Thanks. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Thank you for creating Category:House of La Tour d'Auvergne. However, we normally need at least three pages in a category before it is created. Because categories are a way to group together similar articles, there is no need to create a new category for just one or two articles. If you think there might be more pages to add to the new category, please add them now. Thank you. Auntof6 (talk) 04:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Simplegoose. It looks like "Prince Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans" was derived from the English Wikipedia or another version of Wikipedia. If that is indeed the case, please make sure you add some form of attribution, either in your change summary or on the article's talk page. This must be done, even for derivative works, or the article will be deleted in time. More instructions on how to do this are at Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution. Thank you. Rus793 (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi Simplegoose. I noticed you made a statement on Talk:Prince Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans as to where the information came from but it is not enough to satisfy the legal requirement. There are some required elements that are missing like the names of the articles and their version numbers. The Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution page explains this. For English wikipedia articles, it says use either {{enwp based}} or {{based on}} templates. Then it explains how to use them on the talk page. For the French (fr) wikipedia, use the {{translated page}} template per the instructions. Since this article used information from both wikis, you satisfy any copyright concerns by placing both attributions, one for each wiki. If you have any problems just ask here. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Actually that is a completely valid attribution statement. The page you point him to is just giving examples, we only require that a message noting that it was copied from en.wiki or whereever they got it from. -DJSasso (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

An editor has requested deletion of Louis Philippe, Crown Prince of Belgium, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Louis Philippe, Crown Prince of Belgium and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. Rus793 (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Once again, please don't create a category until there are at least three entries to put into it. I have recategorized the entries in this category and deleted it. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. But had you bothered to wait I was actually going to try and make a page for his son today therefore adding another page. Simplegoose (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

There's no way to know an editor's intention. It's best to wait to create categories until the articles exist. Also, please keep conversations in one place by replying on the page where they start. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that this article was a copy of the enwiki article, and was not simple enough. I know you have been working on it, so instead of deleting it I have moved it to your userspace. It is not allowed to copy articles here without simplifying them.

In general, I would like to see you simplify your articles better. I know that in articles about nobility, there are a lot of commonly-used words and phrases, such as "issue" (meaning children), "succeeding to" a title or position, being "created" a duke or count or whatever, and others, but those terms are complex and need to be changed to simpler words. I also see other complex words, as well as compound sentences that need to be divided.

You also have a few other articles in your userspace. Here is the list of all of them:

• User:Simplegoose/Ferdinand, Duke of Parma
• User:Simplegoose/José, Prince of Brazil
• User:Simplegoose/Princess of Lamballe
• User:Simplegoose/sandbox/Princess of Lamballe

At least one of these has been there for a while without being worked on. If you aren't going to work on them, you can ask for them to be deleted if you want.--Auntof6 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

you can delete the Duke of Parm one but I'll work on the others momentarily.

Some of the articles you create still need to be simpler. I did some work on Princess Élisabeth of France, so you could look there to see what I'm talking about. There are some vocabulary issues (using complex words and phrases), but what I see most often is compound sentences. One example of this is sentences like "Born at the Prince's Palace in Monaco, she was the second daughter of Antonio I of Monaco and Marie of Lorraine" (from Louise Hippolyte, Princess of Monaco). That's not a typical compound sentence, but it should still be two sentences, something like this: "She was born at the Prince's Palace in Monaco. She was the second daughter of Antonio I of Monaco and Marie of Lorraine."

Please write in simpler language here. If you would like to work on articles in your userspace and have someone look them over before moving them to mainspace, I'd be glad to help. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

This article was not in simple language, so I have moved it to User:Simplegoose/House of Austria-Este for simplifying. Please be sure articles you create are in simple language. Let me know if you'd like any help with this. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would have thought it was simple enough? If not yes help me please. :) Simplegoose (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

OK. I've moved your reply here to keep the conversation in one place.

You could start by dividing the sentences that have multiple clauses. Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages has some information on that in the section "Simple sentence structure". That page also has information on other aspects of writing simple language.

Some specific words and phrases that could be simpler are cadet branch (if we don't have an article that explains it), due to, ducal, the idea of the houses "creating links", and "created" in the sense of receiving a title.

Do what you can with those and let me know if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just a reminder that when you create a sandbox for your contributions, you must insert User: before the page name so that it will end up in your userspace.

• Correct: User:Simplegoose/Sandbox
• Incorrect: Simplegoose/Sandbox

--Chenzw  Talk  15:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Simplegoose, I saw you made several edits to House of La Trémoille after it was tagged complex and no sources. If you're attempting to simplify the article, start by looking for sentences with words like "and", "or", "for"—these are an indication that you have a compound sentence. An article should have simple sentences and as few as possible compound or complex sentences. Compound sentences can usually be broken up into two or more simple sentences. For example, "The family has been known since the middle of the 11th century, and since the 14th century its members have been relevant to French history." This can be broken into two simple sentences. "The family has been known since the middle of the 11th century" is a simple sentence. Then, " Since the 14th century its members have been relevant to French history." This is a simple sentence also, but it's not particularly easy to understand for some of our readers (including children and those new to the English language). 'Relevant to French history' is ambiguous and can be confusing. Try being more specific in sentences like this. Is there a family member who did something important in the 14th century? Replace it with a simple sentence about that person instead. Look at the examples in the article House of Noailles as it is now. It's been simplified and more specific examples were used in place of ambiguous statements. See also that it has source citations proving the information. Your articles are usually informative but, the information isn't coming from memory. It's coming from somewhere else. The principal is "say where you read it", as in cite your sources. You know where the information came from; use source citations to tell the readers what sources you used. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. You can also reverse engineer the information—do a search for sources that say essentially the same thing as a sentence in your article. Anyway, anything you can do to make the articles you started better would be very helpful. Thanks User:Rus793 (talk) 16:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply