Wikipedia talk:Ab initio

Readability
Excluding the last part, the grade level is 13, and readability is 30 - which is within reason for such an essay. Collect (talk) 12:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The stated purpose of this essay is to give simple explanations of the rationales for existing policies. "Readability" may be a kernel for an essay of its own, but there is currently no policy or guideline requiring that editors use simple language. Wikipedia includes articles on many advanced scientific concepts which would be difficult to express in low grade level language. That's one reason why the Simple English project exists. I've removed the section as inappropriate for this essay.     Will Beback    talk    19:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS specifies clear writing.   I consider that to be a WP guideline, as a matter of fact. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, among other things it says:
 * Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
 * That's a small fraction of the content in the guideline, and there's nothing about readability indexes. Let's avoid adding unnecessary complexity to this essay, especially where it actually violates the guideline in the process.    Will Beback    talk    23:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep it simple
If the point of this essay is to make the basic policies and guidelines more understandable to new editors, then using the abbreviated policy names isn't helpful. That's just jargon. I don't see how referring to WP:V is more transparent than referring to WP:Verifiability, for example.  Will Beback   talk    19:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I added full names where apparently utile - I think using "|" in the Wikilinks would work as well if you simply wish to inform the reader of the exact name of any such essays, guidelines or policies. The purpose of this essay is to make the reasoning behind the existence of such as clear as possible to the reader. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to think we should userfy this essay since you keep reverting my edits.   Will Beback    talk    19:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I would note that several admins seemed to like the essay - I wot not why you seem intent on making changes which, IMO, do not aid the essay in any way shape or form, especially since I made the changes you specifically asked for. WP:MOS is an important part of Wikipedia, and it is, IMO, absurd to leave it out of this essay. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you deleted the specific mention of MOS which I added, so the question remains of why you kep reverting good faith efforts by another editor to improve this essay. The essay still seems to be grinding an axe rather than simply explaining the rationales behind existing policies. Let's aim for simple explanations targeted for new editors, and avoid off-putting references to Wikipedia politics and past disputes.    Will Beback    talk    20:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the last version I did - the Clarity section specifically dealt with MoS and mentioned it by name. Right now you have about double the edits I have on this essay, Will.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Readability indexes are not part of MOS. There's already a thread on that topic above.   Will Beback    talk    20:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you failed to notice - this is not a policy page, it is an essay. And since the MoS specifies Writing should be clear and concise which you actually deleted from the essay, I think you are now quite overreaching.  Flesch-Kincaid measures are widely used, and included in some word processing software as well.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the readability thread in one place.   Will Beback    talk    23:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)