Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:00, 4 October 2010

Languages Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Aircraft C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Business Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the ASD Simplified Technical English page were merged into Simplified Technical English. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Revert

I've reverted this addition to the article:

Sceptics counter that Simplified English is:

• linguistically naive
• commercially astute

I've never seen these particular criticisms of simplified English and I couldn't find anything on the web. Not that that necessarily means anything, but I think I'd like to see a source. --Lee Hunter 20:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Aerospace standard

I have made some changes to this page in order to clarify the nature and history of the aerospace standard. --Rick Wojcik 20:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The reference to the "U.S. Government's Plain English" seems to indicate that there is such a thing, while the reference merely quotes the Paperwork Reduction Act that says that documents should be written "using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond...". Is there a reference to a governmental reduced English language? I know of none and it is likely that the governmental and NATO work built on the Aerospace standards is the only related effort. Jbottoms76 19:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point. The problem is that Misplaced Pages has no direct reference to the US Government's Plain Language program (see http://www.plainlanguage.gov). The Misplaced Pages entry for Plain language contains a link to the government web site, but the article content does not refer to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 February 2007

I removed the claim that Simplified English can help with second language acquisition, since that is not one of the claims made by those who advocate controlled language writing standards. --Rick Wojcik 20:07, 29 October 2007

I removed a recently-added final paragraph because it recommended products and services that are not really descriptive of the aerospace standard. While it might be useful to have a software checker and support from a commercial service in implementing the standard, these are not strictly required. rwojcik 23:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs)

We seem to be having a dispute about the Shufra paragraph, and I will refer this to dispute resolution if that dispute continues. I ask whoever is insisting on inserting that paragraph to cease trying to keep it in the section on the aerospace standard. It might be appropriate to start a different section on support tools and services for STE, but tools and training should not be included in an information section on the aerospace standard. RickWojcik 01:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Label on link to simple english wikipedia

Why does the label on the link to the simple english wikipedia render as "Simplified English edition of Misplaced Pages?"

It's misleading, since the simple english wikipedia is not written in Simplified English. I actually clicked it thinking that there really was an "ASD Simplified Technical English" wikipedia. martin 12:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Shufra

On August 18, an anon removed a large chunk of information. It was then replaced by another anon. I then removed selected portions (+list item fixes, and 1 ref fix), with the edit summary: "I agree that not all that content should have been deleted, but I also agree that we shouldn't be endorsing a specific company. +fixes". That's my entire perspective, and I'm happy to be convinced otherwise.

However, that diff is now being edit-warred back and forth. E.g. The anon who is reverting hasn't commented at all, but I assume they believe the extra information regarding Shufra should be retained in the article (?). Hopefully they, or someone else, can comment on why it should be retained. (Or, why they're reverting if it's unrelated to Shufra). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Shufra pages are more helpful and informative than any of the other links in the article. I see no reason why anyone would want to remove these, unless he/she is affiliated with one of those companies that claim to offer similar services but do not have the means to back it up. I am not affiliated with Shufra but at least these guys know what they are talking about. If anyone holds a grudge against them, get over it. 82.203.205.227 (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for responding.

I'm a newcomer to this article, so my perspective is purely that of a Misplaced Pages-editor trying to clean up articles.

The problem as I see it, is that the sentence in the final paragraph – "Most companies require the services of an experienced service provider - Shufra to successfully implement STE." – is an endorsement of a specific company. Now, if they were the only company that provides a certain service, then they would warrant mentioning. Or, if there was a reliable source citation stating that this company was exceptional within their industry, for some specific reason, then that could be stated. But at the moment, it's just an abstract endorsement.

Regarding the External Links section: Because Shufra is not the focus of the article, there should be a maximum of 1 link, to the most relevant page. It should be the page that provides the best additional information regarding "Simplified English", the focus of this article. Could you suggest which of the 2 links should be retained? (or suggest a different link?)

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the first "anon" who removed that paragraph, and I am doing so again. As the original author of that section and a member of the regulatory bodies that oversee the specification, I deem that paragraph to be out of scope with the original intention, which was to explain the official aerospace standard. The products mentioned (which include reference to a product that I am associated with) are not actually absolutely necessary for one to write in STE. They can be useful, but it is probably not a good idea to use Misplaced Pages as a venue for promoting products and services that could be useful. The aerospace STE committees do not endorse any products or services, nor do they take the position that such products and services are in any sense necessary. I certainly hold no grudge against Shufra or the products mentioned, especially since I am a developer of the Boeing checker.rwojcik 03:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickWojcik (talk • contribs)

Thank you for that explanation. That should help us move forward. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've requested advice at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Shufra. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've received unsolicited email from several different sources complaining about this paragraph, even after reference to Shufra was removed. The problem is that the paragraph makes no sense in that section even if no specific product names are mentioned. RickWojcik 23:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

External links

Currently, there are 3 links going to the same company (that is not itself the topic of this article), which is far more than the WP:External links guideline recommends. Which of the links would be the most helpful for readers, for us to retain?

• http://www.shufra.com.sg/simplified-technical-english.php
• http://www.shufra.com.sg/bsec.php
• http://www.shufra.com.sg/

Ideally, the best link of these (or a better link, if there is something even better at their website) would be used as references. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Today, someone replaced http://www.boeing.com/phantom/sechecker/index.html with http://www.shufra.com.sg/bsec.php
2. I have removed both Shufra links, and the Boeing link, from the "External links" section, primarily because they do not add any useful information to our article (WP:ELNO #1), and partially because they are primarily brochure pages at that site (WP:ELNO #4 and #5).
3. I do believe that there might be useful information within the Shufra website (and the Boeing website), but not at the links that have been included so far. Possibilities, are , , and . I would appreciate some input from a topic expert, preferably someone whom is not affiliated with the company, or someone whom is able to remain dispassionate.
4. Contributors who are affiliated with the company, should read WP:Conflict of interest before contributing any further. Contributions are welcome, but must follow our Content standards. Adding neutral content to the article, with links as citations, is vastly better than adding pure marketing links at the bottom.

Hope that helps. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

• Start-Class language articles
• Unknown-importance language articles
• WikiProject Languages articles
• C-Class aviation articles
• C-Class aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aircraft articles
• WikiProject Aviation articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Business articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles