Talk:Simplified Technical English/Archives/2012

Proposed page move, to a more accurate/exact title
Is the current article title "Simplified English" the clearest wp:Article title? I suspect we should be moving it to "Simplified Technical English" or "ASD Simplified Technical English", per WP:AT's nutshell explanation, and a little google researching. Please give feedback. (Once a few people have replied, we can request an admin to do the required technical shuffle (that a move on top of a redirect requires)). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll cast my !vote for "Simplified Technical English", which makes it clearer that this is a proper noun intended to refer to a particular mode of English (the article isn't about 'simplified English', lower case). This also seems to be the title used in a variety of sources. I would expect to be a likely search term, quite probably more likely than "ASD Simplified Technical English", which might be a bit too formal. NTox · talk 19:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it should be renamed to "ASD Simplified Technical English". This is how it is introduced on the official website and in the specification. Tobias Kuhn (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tobias Kuhn on rename to "ASD Simplified Technical English" and with NTox on search term, which can be fixed with a redirect. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind per below. Let's go with "Simplified Technical English" and a redirect from ASD...&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have done more research about this topic in light of the above: I'm still not sure ASD is best to include in the title. It seems that the formal name for the topic is "ASD Simplified Technical English, Specification ASD-STE100" - obviously, we wouldn't want that. It seems, however, that when abbreviations of the term are used by sources, one of the most common used is "Simplified Technical English", or "STE". For examples, see   . Looking at the criteria of article titles I would say the STE wording would be most natural and concise. It is also recognizable as mentioned and precise, as nearly every Internet search for "Simplified Technical English" outputs information about this topic. NTox · talk 20:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, Good point, and compliant with WP:CRITERIA. There seem to be other specifications for STE besides the ASD one, and perhaps there's a place for those in this article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. I am OK with "Simplified Technical English". Tobias Kuhn (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's now ✅ SmartSE (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Some comments

 * First post copied from WP:COI/N.
 * I asked Uzma to copy his comments here, but he did not reply, so I will do so. I'm not sure which parts, if any, are useful. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The article should be stubbed to only what is in reliable sources and moved to a title such as Simplified English (technical documents). The phrase "simplified English" is a widely used term with many meaning and the title of the article implies that all s implified English uses mean " S implified English." It isn't and " S implified English" usage is minor in reliable sources when compared to s implified English. The article should be moved to a title that reflects the topic. The Simplified English topic of the article merely relates to "writing technical documents allows non-English speakers to understand the documents". Simplified English was a system created and used by the European aerospace industry in the 1980s and there was a software, Simplified English Analyzer, that went along with Simplified English. In response to the investigation of the January 2003 crash of an Air Midwest Beech 1900D, the United States FAA required the rewriting of an advisory circular because, "to the consternation" of the FAA advisory committee members, the advisory circular was written in a Simplified English format that was very awkward to read, more difficult to find what you want, and required the reader to second guess the real meaning of the guidance material. The only information I found on Simplified Technical English is in press releases, so any mention of Simplified Technical English in the Simplified English (technical documents) article is not supported by coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)