Wikibooks talk:Simple English merger

Miscellaneous
The /Content/ chapter will have to be eliminated from many of the books as it pushes all the pages one level deeper unnecessarily and we've moved away from cover pages at this project. Simple:Algebra I needs to be reconciled with Algebra I in Simple English. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "we've moved away from cover pages at this project." They seem to still be in use in several books (and Manual of Style still raises a good point), what we shouldn't support is cover pages as defined on the GFDL licensing, for the rest I think we don't have a common defined approach (I agree with you that they aren't useful, even going so far as to state that they are a extreme annoyance on a Wikibook navigational path, on site, but agree to what is present on the Manual of Style) --Panic (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cookbook
I don't think the cookbook entries will be good to have come over. If we have a Simple: and Cookbook: namespace, a Cookbook:Simple: Simple:Cookbook: combination will be confusing. -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above statement on the cookbooks is itself a bit confusing. I take you wouldn't like to see Simple:Cookbook: or Cookbook:Simple: (it indeed seems confusing) but you do not oppose the content. What alternatives can be adopted ?
 * I've as yet to understand or find a complete distinction on Wikibooks/Wikijunior to Simple Wikibooks, I've never been on the other project before the recent notice, as for the Cookbook it seems to duplicate already existing content Cookbook/Banana bread -> Cookbook:Banana bread (I've only looked one or two items) in any case was there a proposal to keep the Simple: namespace somewhere. I haven't noticed one, and at present I don't see it as beneficial at least to the Wikibooks project and community. I'm all for saving useful content it just the distinct structure and goals that I think are superfluous and could be said already proven not to be very popular to users.  --Panic (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If the simple cookbook duplicates the regular cookbook, then the content doesn't need to be brought over at all and the issue of combining the two namespaces wouldn't be an issue. There has been no proposal to keep a Simple: namespace, as one doesn't exist.  However, creating it would allow a distinctive scope for these pages being imported, just as we have the Wikijunior namespace.  Wikijunior -> children, Simple -> English as a second language; that's how I see it.  People reading Simple pages could very well be adults.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The Cookbook should probably be moved straight into the Cookbook. There is hardly a need for a simple cookbook alongside our current one. --Swift (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Importing to the transwiki namespace
Might it be cleaner to simply put this into the "transwiki" namespace than create a special "simple" one? I checked and there is only a single clash, which now redirects to How to Learn a Language. Both it and Simple:How to learn a language seem to derive from the same parent so we might as well merge them or delete one. This would also bypass the "simple:" interwiki keyword. --Swift (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Importing to the transwiki namespace and looking at things from Panic's perspective of a merger would both result in an assimilation of content and a change in the target audience of the work being brought in. I do not look at the content at Simple as something to merge in but rather something that would be as distinctive from the main space as Wikijunior is now (and Simple is not Wikijunior, Panic).  In a sense, this allows contributors to Simple to continue to operate as a subset of English.  If this isn't how others are approaching it, then we all need to figure it out before bringing in content.  Having input from Xania and Microchip08 as active contributors to Simple would be helpful in determining how this is going to go forward. -- Adrignola talk contribs 04:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether the content gets merged or stays it's current book has nothing to do with which namespace it gets transwikied to. What I'm pointing out is that there is no need for importing to a "simple" namespace as there will be no clashes with the "transwiki" namespace.
 * Importing to "transwiki" does not require a merger. If "Simple:XYZ" gets imported into "temporarynamespace:XYZ" it can either be merged with "ABC" or moved to "XYZ" and become an English wikibook in its own right. --Swift (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (Moved from the top, previous reference to my perspective deals with these post)
 * Do you support the adoption of the Simple: namespace ? Is there a huge and rationally motivated objection to the end of the Simple English project, for what I've read as pointed out by others, the project had no future, even if a few liked the concept no work was being done, should Wikibooks support the pseudo survival of the project to our wound detriment ? (I can see several point where it erodes the existing community beyond the "confusion" you already pointed out) --Panic (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As you have clarified above, it seems you support the adoption of the new namespace and the "reshuffling" of the Simple English into Wikibooks. I don't see this as beneficial and am still waiting for any positive points to be put forward that would modify my position, that at this point is of objection in respect for the time and arguments others have already advanced regarding the survivability of the project. --Panic (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For what I've understood of Adrignola statement he proposes to adopt the Simple project into Wikibooks in the same way we have Wikijunior. --Panic (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Slipknot1 on the other hand appears to be of the mind that the content should stay where it is [ citation]. And from what I understand you and Swift want to merge the content without distinction to its source.  I was thinking that a separate namespace would allow work to continue on the content by any contributors who desire it.  Really, is Wikijunior any more active than Simple Wikibooks?  But if nobody likes the idea, I will stop playing devil's advocate on this. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fully in support of the merger. :) Pmlineditor (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I was afraid people wouldn't understand the point of Simple English or would be confused if it had to be merged with this project. I opposed the closure on that bases.

Wikijunior targets children from like birth to 15 whose first language is English. The language skill level varies based on the target age of the children in question. I would imagine these books would be general/broad in scope. I believe its reasonable to assume that Wikijunior books would mostly target core subjects that people are expected to know by the time they are an adult and ready to enter the work force or attend higher education.

Simple targets mostly adults with an English skill level below that of a native speaker. A person's ability to understand or communicate in English might be worse than that of a native English 10 year old. On the other hand the same person has likely already mastered the core subjects that people are expected to know by the time they are an adult and ready to enter the work force or attend higher education. Books for this audience are likely to be that for a college or university level, or higher education yet must be accessible to people with limited English comprehension.

The difference is more than just language skill level, also what previous knowledge the target audience is likely to have and scope.

I think all pages that don't consist of just vandalism should be imported if any importing is going to happen. The main page of Simple English can be used as the main page of the Simple portal just like Wikijunior is used as the main page of Wikijunior. I don't think Simple: can be used as a namespace while it remains a valid interwiki link prefix which I don't think is going to go away with the closure of Simple English Wikibooks because there are still other Simple English wikimedia projects. --dark lama  14:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Language books
I tagged the Simple:Japanese book as as it does not contribute anything past what we have at Japanese &mdash; simple English or not. I suspect the same applies to Simple:German and Simple:French. Will check those later. --Swift (talk) 04:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there are several books that are stubs. -- Adrignola talk contribs 04:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stubs are fine. Redundncies are not. --Swift (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I'm very skeptical of the wisdom and need for a textbook on one language in another which you don't have a good grasp of... --Swift (talk) 14:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * While I'm by no means a language expert, from talking to people who are bilingual I get the impression that a lot of languages share common roots and words are sometimes vary similar. I believe that language books might help not only to learn another language but might help people contrast the similarities and differences between English and other languages and perhaps help improve a person's understanding of the English language. --dark lama  15:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Language similarities unsurprisingly span the whole spectrum from dialects to completely unrelated languages that share nothing but the theorised universal grammar. I'm certainly not advocating against language books and, yes, contrasts and similarities are a large part of learning new languages just as any other subject. The contrasts and similarities of Newtons' law of gravitation and Coulomb's law help students to learn one once they've understood the other. But for that you do need to understand that other one first.
 * Someone with a mere basic grasp of English will not have the grammar and vocabulary to allow them to employ that at anything more than an introductory text, and certainly not progress beyond their level of English. Well, not the way these lessons are structured. Immersion learning projects where there isn't much in the way of a delivery language would cater to anyone with very basic language skills, but those books aren't that. --Swift (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I am thinking in terms of the language they wish to learn is similar to another language they already know. Applying knowledge they already know. For example perhaps someone whose native language is Spanish, so they read a book written in Simple English aimed to teach Portuguese. Since Portuguese is similar to their native Spanish, reading the Simple English book might allow them to not only contrast Spanish and Portuguese and use their previous knowledge of the Spanish language but allow them to contrast the differences with English. Of course the native Spanish person could choose to read Spanish in Simple English as well for another purpose other than to learn Spanish. Just because you don't see the wisdom or usefulness of such a book doesn't mean the Spanish person won't. I don't know whether the quality of the books would or wouldn't be useful for non-native speakers, but someone thought they would so we should assume good faith that they will be of use to someone. --dark lama  16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Such a book would then have to cater to that specifically (such as the very interesting False Friends of the Slavist). The Spaniard and Italian would benefit from different English wikibooks on the French language. Note that I didn't use the word "useful" as pretty much anything could be considered useful. The closer the two languages, the more specialised the material has to be (as in the case of Portuguese for our Spaniard).
 * I don't see the wisdom of such a book employing what would be for the reader a weak tool (English) to study anything of value. Nor do I see the need as many language books have introductory parts which don't employ complex English and suffice for these purposes.
 * As I said, immersion is a great way to learn a language. These books are on the other hand very traditional, information-packed texts that require the reader to draw information out of it. While not the best way to learn a language and certainly not sufficient, it does have its uses &mdash; but only if you can actually understand the text. --Swift (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikijunior material
While I completely understand the original rationale for Simple English Wikibooks, plenty of the content there seems to have been written for people with a very elementary grasp of elementary subjects. It often seems that the topic rather than the language has been simplified. The tone seems to furthermore be geared to engage young people (Chemistry is about the materials that make up our bodies and the whole world. from Chemistry/Content, Using an abacus is not hard. from Abacus/Manual, Babies come from their mother. To make a baby, the father must put his sperm into the mother's body. This is called having sex. from Biology/Systems/Reproductive System).

I think just about every large book on Simple would fit well in Wikijunior: Abacus, Algebra I, Animal Kingdoms, Biology, Chemistry, Geology, Numbers and Physics. I'll put a note on Talk:Wikijunior to get their input. --Swift (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That has been exactly my opinion too!. --Panic (talk) 01:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't about that. The tone may be the result of attempts to limit vocabulary used by following Wiktionary:Appendix:Basic English word list as a guide to what words to use for example. --dark lama  01:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I'm frankly not really interested in why that is the tone and level or even what the original intent was &mdash; just their current state. Simple English wikibooks are well within the scope of this project, but these books are a lot more like Wikijunior material and have a greater chance of being useful and developed there.
 * Essentially, I have more faith in people working on Wikijunior books than simple English ones. If someone wants a simple English Wikibooks, they can still go to Wikijunior and find these there (in no worse a shape than they are in now). If someone really wants to develop these as simple English wikibooks they can say so now or fork later. I just don't see that happening. We should find these books a home according to their contents, not their original scope. --Swift (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think having a new separate namespace for them is the best approach even though Simple: might not be usable. --dark lama  02:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My initial thought after looking at the content is that it would be a valuable addition to Wikijunior. I personally would love to have it included in the Wikijunior library and have a chance to develop Wikijunior for kids in the 10-14 age range. I haven't done anything more than a cursory reading of randomly selected content, though, so I would like a review process of each book before it was moved/forked to make sure that the content was appropriate. xixtas  talk 02:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The separate namespace is an option but that is not what is on the table for now, even through in my view Adrignola jumped the gun to attempt to accommodate a minority that was dissatisfied with a vote that occurred elsewhere. The original project, as I think Swift points out, isn't a problem we ought to be focusing on, the issue is losing usable content, we shouldn't bring any other complications and address that simple point. If the content is salvageable into Wikijunior great if not simply traswiki it to Wikibooks and it's done the content will not be lost. If people need/want to resurrect the closed project in another incarnation (I don't think it is fair, wise or beneficial) please put it into a proposal and lets deal with it if that is what is preventing the resolution of the real issue (in any case what Swift is stating above about Wikijunior can run in parallel, if they decide the content is wanted, great), if later a namespace is created on Wikibooks it will be that "project"'s problem and decission. --Panic (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think trying to force the content into our current structure will result in a loss of useful contents, a loss of scope, a loss of purpose, and a loss for its target audience. I think thats a problem. I think ideally we should preserve the content as is for now, try to preserve whatever policies Simple English Wikibooks has with regard to scope and target audience for that content, and perhaps give Simple English users who have extra tools those tools here, as they are probably the best qualified to help in any transition process. Later the English Wikibooks community can make changes if any changes are needed. --dark lama  03:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok so you are asking for no traswiki into Wikibooks until the issue of a namespace is resolved, I have no real issue with that but put it into a proposal that should include in the discussion the steps Adrignola seems to have already taken, for what I understood they are related to that same topic and I understand that even the creation of the namespace isn't consensual, the other project users should be asked to register here/to participate on that.
 * I think you would have no problem (and I can't see a reason for you to block that) for Wikijunion editors to access and decide to use the content (as Swift, myself and Xixtas have stated valid arguments for), am I right ?
 * As for the last bit I'm strongly opposed to a simple granting of the tools to other community members or accounts that have so far not been active enough to get the tools from our normal process, but that is me, and I will argue about that if we get there, even if I agree that it depends on the namespace thing (and how complex/complete would the move be), considering all the listed pages here I don't see it as an absolute need. --Panic (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Which of these books do you think will require much "force" to fit into Wikijunior? Ask yourself if you would rather offer any of the books I mentioned above to a foreign exchange college student, or a twelve year old.
 * The point is precisely that the content fits Wikijunior much better than Simple. The vocab is repeatedly above the Simple:Wikibooks:Basic English alphabetical wordlist, assumes no prior knowledge and speaks in a tone like that directed at children. I've given examples of all of these (and can easily give you more if that might sway you). Perhaps you could explain how you arrive at the conclusion in the comment above? --Swift (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wordlists aren't exactly the best means to draw your conclusions from. See Simple:Wikibooks:How to write in Simple English instead. I would rather offer the books to foreign exchange students and people with learning disabilities first. If children can benefit from the books than that is fine too, but targeting children shouldn't be its main focus which is what will happen from being placed in Wikijunior. Are you proposing to broaden the scope of Wikijunior to include foreign exchange students, people with learning disabilities, and anyone else still learning English? This would mean no longer assuming a specific age range for Wikijunior, and allowing books that may not exactly be interesting to children. --dark lama  12:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I neither am nor do I understand how you could have drawn that from my comments. I thought I'd been quite explicit. --Swift (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you mean No you are not proposing to change Wikijunior than I hope you can better understand the problem. Wikijunior would either need to change to accommodate the indented scope of the books which includes foreign exchange students, people with learning, and other people still learning English, or the direction of the books have to change to accommodate Wikijunior. I don't think either approach is really fair, reasonable, or wise. BTW my question was mostly intended as rhetorical to have you express whether you intended to accommodate the books in any way. I think it would be better to keep the books in the main namespace like Algebra I in Simple English if nobody wants a new namespace. --dark lama  12:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That is what I meant, but you'll have to explain better why Wikijunior would have to change. I've argued why it would not, not just stated that it would not. Most seem to agree. It would be more productive if would do us the same curtesy. --Swift (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to be productive and explain why. Maybe I don't understand your stated reasons why than. All I get is that you think they look like a orange, and smell like an orange so that is why they must be oranges, without considering they might be tangerines. The books are not just for children. Wikijunior is just for children's books. The books audience includes foreign exchange students, people with learning disabilities, and people still learning English. Putting the books in Wikijunior would effectively change them to be for children only. This is why the books don't fit in with Wikijunior. I also get the impression that when I say the books are intended to be for more than just children the attitude is "who cares?". I guess I care. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! Now we're getting somewhere. You're mostly getting my train of thought, but there is a bit missing: They look like oranges, they smell like oranges, but are labeled as lemons. As such, I think they are more useful for making orange-juice than lemonade.
 * I've pointed to the features in several books (note that my comments are restricted to specific books, not all of the Simple English Wikibooks content) that make them well suited for Wikijunior. More suited than for adult readers with a limited grasp of the English language.
 * I'm really sorry if you get the impression that some don't care about what happens to this content. I think the reason may be the difference in our perception of it. Before looking closely at the content of the books, I figured we could set them up like Algebra I in Simple English and maybe make a category and a portal for readers with that level of English. You seem to have that opinion and that's why I'd like to see which elements in specific books you feel make them inappropriate for Wikijunior without major editing.
 * You see, having browsed these books I changed my mind and think they suit juniour learners better than adults. The grammar is usually quite simple, but the vocabulary can be difficult (sometimes more so for non-native speakers than children) and the tone is usually of the encouraging sort that on occasion just sounds condescending to adults. The content is furthermore often so simple in that it doesn't assume any elementary education. Squeeze these suckers and you'll get orange juice, no matter what was on the label.
 * That of course, does not stop people with limited English proficiency and a preference for lemons from drinking the juice. It will still help quench their thirst &mdash; no less than if we offered it as lemonade. --Swift (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Our differences seem to lie in that you see oranges mislabeled as lemons, while I see tangerines being mistaken for oranges. I think whether an encouraging tone is considered condescending for adults is culture specific. As for the vocabulary I'm the wrong person to comment on that. I was reading books for college students when I was very young even while still in the process of learning to speak. I might of made a mistaken in suggesting that elementary education would be assumed. My concern is that people often have a certain limited or restrictive expectation of what children should be taught and what should be covered and the possibility that the original contributors to the books might of intended to go beyond whatever limited expectations people have for children. The most straight forward solution that I can see is to fork the work. Import a copy to Wikijunior and do whatever you like to it, and also import a copy for use in the main namespace (or a new namespace if that is what the community decides to do). --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe there's a bit of decent content from simple that could be incorporated into this project on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think everything should be imported to its own namespace. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Merging content
I will support agree to merging content from simple wikibooks to here under one of the two conditions.


 * The content from simple wikibooks can be merged into the main namespace if the language is unsimplified into regular English, or
 * The (appropriate) content from simple can be merged strictly into Wikijunior, keeping its simplicity, but not into the main namespace.

As people discussed above, Wikijunior is a likely candidate where the content can be transferred to. However I am strongly against a Simple English wikibooks subproject here. Regards, — § stay ( sic )! 07:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Support is always welcomed but it is not needed for merging content with other source material that is license compatible. It is up to editors to just use it or if seen as useful and possible request any transwiki they need to willing admins (I haven't yet see a direct refusal, nor a board of inquiry created to decide what editors wish to do with the imported content). I think you are misunderstanding what is being discussed here(determining what useful content there is and finding the best location for it).
 * In any case what you don't say seems to be of more relevant importance, to what did you intent to object to? --Panic (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just throwing in my two pennies. Regards, — §  stay  ( sic ) ! 09:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "agree" and "regular English"? There is nothing about Wikibooks that requires books in the main namespace to use any particular type of language. Whatever fits the target audience best will do. --Swift (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay? I'm currently at a lost so disregard this thread. — §  stay  ( sic ) ! 04:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed
Simple English Wikibooks had been deleted, it seems. — μ 09:49, Wednesday February 24 2010 (UTC) 09:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. So why weren't any of the other closed wikis deleted?  So much for avoiding any loss of material... -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 22695 filed regarding the issue. Pmlineditor (talk) 09:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple English Wikibooks has now been made available for importation of pages. -- Adrignola talk contribs 11:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Result of this discussion
What was the result of this discussion? Are we going to import all Simple WB pages into a Simple: namespace here? I would be willing to help and contribute to such a project as I used to contribute to the Simple Wikibooks (and still do at Simple Wikipedia).--ЗAНИA talk 13:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Xania, you're a bit late to the party. All the usable content has been imported either to new standalone books or merged into existing books.  You can see which in the status column of the content page.  If it says n/a, the "in scope" column to the left will tell you why it wasn't brought in.  There were only a couple hundred content pages, so they're all listed on the page this discussion page corresponds to.  the "en:" column links to either the place content was merged to, the place it was imported to, or the content that was superior to the simple content (depending on context). – Adrignola discuss 13:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)