Talk:Main Page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit about language[change | change source]

The Italian version of Wikipedia has now more than 1.000.000 articles, so fix it in the box down the page please

I guess this section was completely missed, it's been done now, thanks. -Mh7kJ (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sister projects section[change | change source]

Could we add the following links to the "regular English" sectionn:

  • WikiData
  • regular English Wikimedia Commons

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In other languages...[change | change source]

... now shows an absurdly long list of all Wikipedias as imported from d:Q5296. Can somebody with the proper privileges please add {{noexternallanglinks}} to the includeonly portion of Template:MainPageInterwikis? —Naddy (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the notification. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition of a "Universal Background Check"?[change | change source]

Hello, I've used Wikipedia on many occasions as a reference, only recently created an acouunt for what 'should' be a simple question: What is a Universal Background Check? In the US military the requirement (for years, to joint the services) has been a NAC (National Agency Check) which checks for Wants/Warrants/Psych Issues. In the 80's, you needed nothing more than a clear NAC to handle an automatic weapon (an assalt rifle, an M16, for example). This has been the story for years. This includes 30 caliber automatic weapons as well as 50 caliber and 20mm weapons. In order to work with Nuclear, Chemical or Biological weapons, you had to enter the military's "Surety" program that involved FBI visits to childhood neighbors, school records and much more to get a Top Secret clearance. But has anybody clearly defined what a "Universal Background Check" is, beyond states sharing records, which they do routinely on a Want/Warrant request. In the request there will already be information about Felon convictions and Psych restrictions. Besides restricting sales of one private individual to another, requiring an interviening check, what is a UBT? All states require checks prior to sale from licenced dealers, and federal law already restricts the use of automatic firearms and silencers to licenced and registered and investigated dealers and individuals (with money paid to Gvt. for license stamps).

Is there a clear definition of what a Universal Background Check is?

JEX40 (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You sound like you have a very good range of english. I would suggest that you ask this at the more complex Wikipedia as you're more likely to get an answer there. (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Other languages[change | change source]

The Italian wiki has more than 1,000,000 articles according to list of wikipedias, please update the main page, regards, Nurick (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing that out. -Mh7kJ (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hindi Narendra R Tiwari (talk) 06:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Save Simple English Wikipedia![change | change source]

Our most beloved and most comprehensive free encyclopedia in the cyberworld, the Simple English Wikipedia, needs our help to improve its articles and maintain the position of Wikipedia in this industry.

Simple English Wikipedia lacks some articles in different topics that might help. And some articles here are either immature or amateur, or both. So we need to make a major improvement here for the visitors and the Wikipedia itself.

Many people around the world only understand Simple English. Because of Simple English Wikipedia, they can understand different topics. They can relate. And no false information shall ever be shared.

I challenge you, all of the Simple English Wikipedia users, to make a major change. To make a difference.To have an innovation! At the same time, maintaining its comprehensiveness.

You are the users so you have the responsibility to improve it! This encyclopedia once help you. Provide you the best of the bests information you'll never see in just a personal blog.

It is not just a letter of concern. It is a letter of concern. And at the same time, a command! Now what are you waiting for? Christmas? Stand out there and rewrite the history of Wikipedia!

IMPROVE IT OR LEAVE IT! You need it. Don't you?

Kaye Andrea Camtan Perez (talk) 03:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Two Issues with Simple English Wikipedia[change | change source]

Hi, I think the Simple English Wikipedia needs to start a massive bot work, which will place the original English Wikipedia language link on top of every "in other languages" wiki page here. It's absurd that people using this wikipedia will have to struggle to find its sister site. Any thought/suggestions about the matter? Also, even though this wiki has reached 100,000 articles(!), it still appears as if it only has over 10,000 here. Thanks, Yambaram (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Now that the interwiki language links are maintained in Wikidata, we don't have control over that. The links are in the standard sort order for language stuff. I think the order is by native name of the language. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I see what you're saying, yes I checked and you're right. But with these two wikipedias, I think there should be an exception, just like this wiki is always first on the english wikipedia. Regarding my second question, do you think it's just a matter of time until that chages? Yambaram (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Simple English may be at the top of the list on the main enwiki page, but it isn't at the top of all the pages there. It might be helpful to have it that way here. Frankly, I'm surprised it's at the top of the main page at enwiki, because I don't think many editors there care about Simple English Wikipedia. As for the article count on the main Wikipedia page, I definitely think that should be fixed! I imagine we aren't the only Wikipedia whose count needs to be updated, either! --Auntof6 (talk) 04:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the count on a number of wikis where I participate. Don't see how to do it on that page, though! StevenJ81 (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Since that's the main Wikipedia page -- at a higher level than any of the specific language Wikipedias -- I suspect most editors can't change it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I was able to put English on top for our Main Page; the Wikidata interwiki links are suppressed there to keep the length down, so I was easily able to reorder the manual links there. StevenJ81 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Because we are aimed at non-English speakers English wikipedia isn't really our sister site any more than any other language. We can't assume that a reader is more likely to go to English if they need more info. It is quite likely they would go back to their own language if they needed more info. This at least was the reasoning the last number of times this has come up. -DJSasso (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Simple English Wikipedia has now been moved to the 100,000+ section at Simple English Wikipedia will now be available in the search bar on that page as well. If the changes doesn't appear for you, please try clearing your browser's cache. Cheers! --Glaisher (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
That's great guys thanks for giving it some attention and fixing this. I actually do think we can assume that anyone using simple wikipedia regardless of where they're from will be more likely to use the enwiki more than any other language (at least I do, I prefer it over "Afrikaans" which is usually not on top). The reason being is because people using the enwiki often times switch to simple wiki for different purposes (easier language, quickly and summarized to the point) while people who use this wiki will often go to enwiki to read more details about the article. It's just much more relevant this way - the languages are currently listed in alphabetical order, and again I therefore think there should be an exception for the simplewiki and the enwiki and vise versa since they're the only ones that have this kind of relationship between them. Yambaram (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
We debated this on enwiki recently. There was no great consensus to move the simplewiki link to the top of the list. I don't even know if it's possible with the Wikidata extension. That'd probably be something to find out before we had the discussion all over again. Osiris (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What?![change | change source]

The Simple English Wikipedia doesn't have as much pages as the English Wikipedia. I suggest that we fix this problem. :) -- (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I look forward to your 4.2 million new articles. Osiris (talk) 03:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Psychology[change | change source]

Is the word "psychology" simple English? Can everyone understand what the word means? Frogger48 (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I actually think this is a good question! I too do wonder if psychology is a common word for those who do not know or understand our language very well. We actually have a fairly good article on psychology here on Simple English. So I decided to add links to it from articles that use the word psychology but do not link to our article. But, I have now been questioned as to why I am linking so many articles to psychology and psychologist (another good example of a possibly unfamiliar word) . This is why I am now commenting here. Thanks for asking this question. Fylbecatulous talk 13:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
The page is there precisely to answer the question raised. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

How[change | change source]

How can we fix this — This unsigned comment was added by (talk • changes) on 12:06, 3 November 2013.

Fix what? --Glaisher [talk] 12:11, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia: is it better than books?[change | change source]

Personally i would say wikipedia is better. But what do you think???

I agree aswell. You can only read books but with wikipedia you can edit them with just a click of a mouse (and a keyboard) --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In the News section[change | change source]

Can the Simple English Wikipedia have a In the News section like the DYK section. Welcomed readers or users can read articles and know the events occurring around them. Something similar to the English Wikipedia's news section. Just asking. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

feedback[change | change source]

Hi.. I wanted to why they named the processors like i3, i5, i7. Why didn't they name them as i2,i4. Because after the number three four comes, but here it is different. After didn't name the next invented processor of i3 as i4. Please post it. It will be very useful for many people. I will be very pleased and thankful if you post it.Thanks you.

Kiran Devi[change | change source]

Kiran devi is a good politician and a good human being. She is first chairperson of The Sheikhpura District Board.

You can create the page yourself if you want or add it to the list of requested pages.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead by example[change | change source]

"well written" should be hyphenated. #ironic

Fixed. Thanks. Osiris (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Newbie HERE![change | change source]

Newbie here! I want to write a book? but how..?

Some possible improvements[change | change source]

To make things clearer the information should be context related as much as possible, so that to learn the whole subject a person shouldn't go to different articles. For example - in a electrical resistance article there should be an real life applications section, which explains how the principles work practically.

Another thing which could be good, is a tool tip on certains words, which when hovered on by the mouse reveal a more indepth description that is CONTEXT RELATED, for example - if a sentence uses the phrase " electrical parts" you could hover over it to reveal the text " any circuits or metal,plastic parts which manipulate the force of electricity" or something simpler

Urdu Wikipedia[change | change source]

Please add Urdu wiki link in Main page. Recently Urdu wiki reached 50,000 articles. English Wiki already added Urdu wiki link--Irfan Arshad (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@عرفان ارشد: Hi! Here at Simple English Wikipedia's Main Page, we don't have a section for Wikipedias with more than 50,000 articles. So Urdu Wikipedia cannot be added to the section on the Main Page. However, I have added ur: to the interwiki list on the sidebar of the Main Page. Regards, --Glaisher [talk] 04:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for adding in Interwiki list. --Irfan Arshad (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement project[change | change source]

On the English Wikipedia, we started a project called TAFI. Each week we identify underdeveloped articles that require improvement. Our goal is to use widespread collaborative editing to improve articles to Good article, Featured article or Featured list quality over a short time frame.

This is all about improving important articles in a collaborative manner, and also inspiring readers of Wikipedia to also try editing. We think it is a very important and interesting idea that will make Wikipedia a better place to work. It has been very successful so far, and the concept has spread to the Hindi Wikipedia where it has been well received.

We wanted to know if your Wikipedia was interested in setting up its own version of TAFI. Please contact us on our talk page or here if you are interested.--Coin945 (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I am going to move this to WP:Simple talk. --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thankyou. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Update on behalf on midterm elections[change | change source]

Since the results of the midterm elections are here then its time for a major update for the senators, governors, representatives, majority leaders, state inboxes, and templates. Can this happen sometime tomorrow or if anyone is available then now, but this needs to happen. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am moving this to WP:Simple talk. Please make any replies there. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous comment[change | change source]

Ī love it here on wikipedia. Its a place where the truth wants to always come to light, where the dumb can be silenced at an edit.

Request for information[change | change source]

I am a longstanding wikipedia editor in the sciences, both as a logged and an unlogged contributor. I would like to understand the expectations at the simple English wikipedia with regard to article sourcing. The few articles I have seen are without any sources. Is this the case, are no sources required? Once being directed to the policy, where do such high level discussions take place at this new arm of the en.WP?

It seems a course toward disaster, to fail to address the matter of a required further reading section before the number of articles in existence make it impossible to expect or to achieve such. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Few things, sources are required. Secondly on the right hand side you will see a link to Simple Talk where discussions take place. And thirdly we are by no means new. We have been around for over a decade. And we are not an arm of English wikipedia we are completely separate. -DJSasso (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I thank you for the reply. Your "sources are required" statement is encouraging. Can you provide a link to the requirement, and your thoughts on how to address articles failing to meet the requirement?
Otherwise, I've already placed a link to this discussion at the main Simple Talk page (so full discussion occurs here), and, formalities aside, the association of SEW to the en.WP is clear, as is its relative newness, and the importance of acting early in the evolutionary course of this site, before scale makes achieving a standard impossible. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability might be relevant, along with the guideline Wikipedia:Notability. Ever since I started working here, I have also been concerned about the lack of references. There is little effort to encourage the use of them. The result is that it appears that references are neither required nor particularly wanted. (I even remember one editor saying that his article didn't need references because they were on the English Wikipedia article!) That makes it frustrating for editors when we do try to get them to include references -- so many other articles have none, so why should theirs? --Auntof6 (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
One thing to bear in mind is that for biographies of living persons, we work under an exacting requirement: BLPs must have references, especially to any claims that might be contentious.
In areas bearing on school and college subjects, the issue is rather different. Here also, references are needed, but their function is somewhat different. The function is more to help people with limited English learn the particular subject, rather than represent every nook and cranny of the latest research. References have to be proportionate to the needs of the text, and since out texts are usually simpler and shorter than their equivalents in En wiki, that means they should have fewer and more carefully chosen sources.
Now we come to the fact that most of our pages are very short, only a paragraph long, and sometimes only a sentence long. We have decided to keep such pages on the wiki, even though our six to ten active editors could not possibly turn all these stubs into real articles. Putting a "stub" notice on a page achieves nothing. Likewise flags for sources. If you think any of us have spare time, think again. The problem with sources is borne of the same root: we have too few regular editors.
My own thoughts are that English wiki is good on sources, but full of bad writing -- much worse that Encyc Brit is ever guilty of. We also find some of our would-be editors cannot write simply. When the need for clear writing occurs in a subject-matter we have no expertise in, we are defeated. To summarise, the frequent lack of sources is but one of a series of problems caused by our small base of regular editors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK[change | change source]

Since there is no one even checking DYK or nominating I recommend to either remove DYK since it has become dead weight or let me at least update it by letting me add my own approved hooks into the queues. I can even do all the updating and approving if we get more nominations. In my perspective I think DYK should be removed. If that's going to leave a gap on the main page maybe replace with a "featured image" or "In the news" section. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Or just slow down the expected schedule for updating. There's no real harm in letting things be there for a longer amount of time. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
That can also work out. The expected time of an update is usually two weeks and since that is not getting done it gets annoying. How about changing it to a month or two. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)