Talk:Main Page/Archive3

Doesn't list some languages!

For example cantonese wu, those language has articles about 5000-7500. But did not list.However, some language only a few hundred articles are list.

(time stamping for archive - mC⁸ 20:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Image on the top right

This image is used on the top right of the Main Page right now: .

I think it is not appropriate. The Chinese letters over it may even be a little confusing. I am going to remove it or replace it with a better image. In case you have a suggestion about what to use instead, I'd be glad to read you! - Huji ^reply 18:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god. They are fine. there is an A and an E, too. LIAM !

Fine. I won't touch it for now. - Huji ^reply 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters, but perhaps the wikipedia globe could replace it, but that may be too light. My suggestion. :) --Isis §^(talk) 13:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Huji that the globe of letters isn't really the best icon to have there, especially since it is usually used on pages that have to do with translation. The "a" and "e" are almost invisible unless you look closely for them. There are lots of other icons that would be much more appropriate there, especially since it is the main page and all. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here, but I have editted English Wikipedia for about a year and agree that the image is not good.Tourskin 19:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this image would be lovely!

, but that's just my opinon.

Gwib^-(talk)- 19:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, that's cute, dear Gwib :) But it's very distracting, imho. I personally prefer the one on the left; elegant, discreet, and its colors are appropriate to our Main Page's scheme. My opinion, too :) Phaedriel - 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooooo, pretty. I like the globe, Gwib, but I agree with Phaedriel. It's a little distracting. :) In any case, though, it's better than the one we have. I like Phaedriel's suggestion, though. --Isis §^(talk) 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tested it at Main Page/Test 1. I personally like it very much... what do you think? Phaedriel - 20:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great, Phaedriel! But, please remove that useless, ugly border square around the "welcome" tab. Ionas Rand [i.'ɔ.na.sız tɔk] 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...isn't there a nicer way to phrase that? Perhaps..."I don't really think the border around the welcome tab looks very good. Can you please remove it?" I feel like I'm picking on you, but the way you phrased it came across as a little harsh to me. --Isis §^(talk) 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Isis. I'm too mature to take your statement personally, Ionas, but I certainly find it to be rude, nonetheless. Try to remember that everyone on here has feelings and opinions. That border has been on the main page for weeks without opposal. Frankly, it looks a little silly without it, imo. The picture on the right makes the "Welcome" message off-center, and with the centered words below it, there needs to be some sort of a divider. But that is just my personal aesthetic opinion. I am willing to go with whatever the majority of users prefer. I just hope everyone else will express their opinions in a more respectful manner. · Tygartl1^·talk· 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can fix that issue and test it, Tygart. Let me try, and I'll get back to you. Phaedriel - 20:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=== The discussion was left alone without reaching consensus, I think. I changed the image to the static globe suggested above there. Check it out, and comment about how you like it and how it fits with the rest of the page. - Huji ^reply 14:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sister projects

I'd like to know why we still don't have a direct link to EWP among the icons at the bottom of the page. I know it is in the sidebar, but that is much less visible, and if we're going to have links to other projects there at the bottom, that should be the most important of them, IMHO. We also don't have a link to E Wikiversity. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I am going to edit the sister projects box a lot, to make sure it no more uses imagemaps, and to add English Wikipedia there too, as you notified. - Huji ^reply 20:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no sign of a direct link to English Wikipedia (except in the sidebar) or English Wikiversity. I'm not blaming anyone, but it has been over a month. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both have now been added.-- Creol(talk) 00:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Well I'm not sure why, but Main Page was no longer on my watchlist, so I didn't follow the discussion here. Anyways, I've added it now, and I think I owe a "thank you" to Creol for covering this. - Huji ^reply 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Seriously, this much text in Main Page is extremely unhealthy. Templates listed at the top of /Archive 5 should be reused or new ones created. ...Aurora... 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I think I'm going to create new subpages (rather than templates) for that soon. - Huji ^reply 07:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By moving the text to subpages, the main page itself was shrunk from 15K down to 2K. Each section got its own subpage to make editing a specific section easier than searching throughout the code. The box's themselves were not changed in any way, all formating for the actual layout of the page is kept on the main page. Only the contents of each box was moved to a subpage. The subpages are Header, Introduction, Knowledge groups, Other languages, Sister projects and Footer. The Article of the week section is a transcluded link already, so that was left alone. The page also uses {{MainPageInterwikis}} to manage its interwiki links. The coding was also tweaked to comment which sections are used for which subpage. -- Creol(talk) 11:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Templates

Seeing this is a simpler version of Wikipedia, wouldn't it be wise for the {{fact}} template of this page to easier to understand than "^[source?]"? Maybe something like "^{[confirm please]}" or "^{[needs proving]}" would work better. --96.229.151.16 09:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have asked this on Wikipedia:Simple Talk. Anyways, I agree with your idea, and am going to change the template to "^{[needs proving]}" - Huji ^reply 10:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, thanks and well done. You should also change the suptitle while your at it. It currently says "The text in the vicinity of this tag needs citation." --^^Upper Hands^^ 07:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done- Huji ^reply 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong link

Main Page/Other languages: The link to en:Multilingual coordination in "Languages working together" is wrong. Change it to en:Wikipedia:Multilingual coordination. 200.147.244.249 15:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. Thank you for pointing it out. · Tygartl1^·talk· 15:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So white, (not) so right

I think that my test project must be added IMMEDIATELY. The White on sister projects table, etc. reminds me of Simple's roots. LIAM | LIAM !

VGAs

How does a VGA become a selected article? Should I just add short pages for the 8 missing ones, and update the code? Adam Cuerden 10:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genrally, yes. But I think it is better for us to wait untill we have, say, 20 VGAs. - Huji ^reply 18:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough =) Adam Cuerden 18:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, indeed I noticed we already have 20 VGAs! I think it is the time. I suggest you to restart this discussion on the Simple Talk. - Huji ^reply 19:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple Talk"? Adam Cuerden 19:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Simple talk · Tygrrr^·talk· 21:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To difficult

I think main page is to difficult, what do you say? Uswibèta 19:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (from WikiQuote Simple English)[reply]

Which parts are difficult? Let us know, so we can make them more simple. - Huji ^reply 19:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not parts. The name of the main page: 'Main Page' is to difficult. I donot understand it? Maybe something like First Page is easier, what do you say? Uswibèta 14:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (from WikiQuote Simple English)[reply]

Would it be better to hide the title of the Main Page. Oysterguitarist 14:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to do you mean? Uswibèta 16:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you add the code below to the sites CSS, it will hide it. Oysterguitarist 19:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading {
    display: none !important;
}

Well, to my knowledge, "main" is not in BE 850 or BE 1500, but it is in VOA Special English Word Book. I don't think it is our "first" page; may be "home" page could be better, but not 100% sure about it. - Huji ^reply 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the Main Page listed in its "About us" section says it's the Front page of the encyclopedia. For the sake of continuity :) I propose either that Front page be redirected to Main page, or Main page be moved to Front page. Cheers, and happy editing, ( ar ky ) 21:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is good. Uswibèta 14:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be discussed on Wikipedia:Simple Talk so more users can comment on it. - Huji ^reply 15:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'main' is fine, since front and first page are different. --Yegoyan 03:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Headings

Agriculture is not just "growing crops" - "farming" would be more accurate. 86.42.217.78 12:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture redirects to farming and the farming article says that farming is the growing of crops, I am not sure what you mean by farming would be more accurate can you explain some more? Oysterguitarist 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Langue d'Oc link on main page

Langue d'Oc is actually the French for Occitan, not the Occitan! I believe lenga d'òc is actually what you're looking for. Mglovesfun 17:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm confused, because I cannot find the link you are speaking about on the Main Page. Can you please describe more? - Huji ^reply 21:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Sorry, got it! I'll check it against what is used in English Wikipedia. - Huji ^reply 21:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done In this revision. - Huji ^reply 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No category on main page

I suggest it should go in Category:Main page and/or Category:Project. adit 15:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look around you will notice no wikipedia has it's main page categorized ('cept them crazy Danes.. but they likely did it by accident as it is trancluded there from their date page). Generally speaking, it tends to clutter up the main page and just all around doesn't realy help. -- Creol(talk) 16:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, didn't realize it was intentional. :-) adit 16:33, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main page should definitely not be categorized. Razorflame (contributions) Talk 16:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Language links

Could you please put the language links in some order! It's quite difficult to find the right langauges. I propose alphabetic order. Thank you--85.5.149.136 22:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are in alphabetical order and by their size. Oysterguitarist 06:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are in alphabetical order but use the local name. So German is listed after Finnish because the languages are Deutsch and Soumi(?). Likewise Cornish is not at the begining but the middle (Kerenwyk)--Bärl iner 18:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Longman Defining Vocabulary

I think some people will find it difficult to use just the BE 1500. The Longman Defining Vocabulary has a defining vocabulary of 2000 words, which is used to explain all the terms in their dictionary. Could we add this list in as a sort of "upper level" for Simple English Wikipedia? 121.7.195.43 06:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not be bold and do what you want? Only you know what you want exactly, but we will do our best to help you out. Cypher ^T_C X§ 01-11-2008 • 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction needed

The second sentence here is a fragment, in the featured article: "No hurricane has ever made landfall in California in recorded history. Except for two tropical storms that were thought to have hit California, one by direct landfall from offshore, another after making landfall in Mexico." The two could be combined to make a full one. Seraphimblade (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I will fix it right away. - Huji ^reply 10:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image Uploading

Hey! I am new to ~~Wikipedia~~ Simple Wikipedia. So, when you upload images, do you have to upload them to the commons wikipedia and then copy the URL of the image uploaded on commons? I am kind of stuck here. Please help. --*JasPerTheKid ^(talk) 12:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should upload the image to Commons, and then use it here like this: [[Image:IMANGENAME.JPG|...]]. So we don't use the image URL, we just use its name. For more help about images, see Help:How to use images. For other questions like this, please ask in Wikipedia:Simple talk. - Huji ^reply 13:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little help!

Hey! I know how to edit a wiki, but can someone please give me a link to the rules of simple wikipedia -(if there is one). I would be greatfull! Thanks! ;D! --*JasPerTheKid ^(talk) 10:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Simple Wiki is not. --Gwib^-(talk)- 10:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RULES - Huji ^reply 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About...?

Who created simple wikipedia. Was it jimbo wales or...? --*JasPerTheKid ^(talk) 10:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales co-created it, I think. --Gwib^-(talk)- 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty sure it was Angela. Oysterguitarist 00:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change link

Shouldn't someone change the Defence link to defense so it doesn't redirect? Birds Army Talk 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep it "defence", but I'm a brit so I'm violently for normal good old English spelling. --Gwib^-(talk)- 23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, huh? When a page redirects it takes you to another page, right? (eg. let's say you search for 'wikipedia' with no capitals but it redirects you to a page called Wikipedia with capitals.) Does the user make a redirection or does it automatically make redirections? --*JasPerTheKid ^(talk) 14:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

It says on the article of youtube that the article is a stub. But the article is long enough, to be honest. Should I remove it? Is there a limit to how long a page should be without a stub template? --*JasPerTheKid ^(talk) 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I insist, Jasper. This page is only used for talking about Main Page. For such questions, please use Wikipedia:Simple Talk. - Huji ^reply 16:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish is in 100,000+

Please move Turkish wiki on the main page to the 100,000+ section. Thanks in advance. —This unsigned comment was added by 88.235.25.200 (talk • changes) 15:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Done-- Lights talk 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Sister Project Links

Under the Sister Projects section of the main page, the links to the English Wikisource and to the English Wikinews are broken. I'm not sure how to fix them, maybe someone else could. They seem to be linked to the simple versions of those projects, but since simple versions don't exist an error message appears. Maybe you're already aware of this, I just thought I would let someone know. Thanks. --From-cary (talk) 07:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed them, as well as a few others.-- Lights talk 15:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page problem - needs an admin to repair

Today's selected article has the same paragraph repeated twice. ie the one concerning the violin being the highest pitched instrument. Victuallers (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.-- Lights talk 14:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian and Catalan Wikis

These two wikipedias have 100,000+ now.

About us

This is the front page of the Simple English Wikipedia. Wikipedias are places where many people work together to make encyclopedias in many languages. We only use very simple English words and simple ways of writing here.

This is our frontline statement. And it's not a very good one! If I could edit it, I would.

This is the front page of the Simple English Wikipedia. OK

Wikipedias are places... No, they are not. They are not places. They are websites.

Wikipedias are places where many people work together to make encyclopedias in many languages. Convoluted. Makes it sound like a factory printing books.

We only use very simple English words and simple ways of writing here. The last noun/subject that was mentioned was the word "Wikipedias". Therefore the word "here" relates to "Wikipedias", not to "Simple English Wikipedia".

We only use very simple English words and simple ways of writing here. This should read "We use only simple English words...." "We only use..." can mean a couple of different things, but not the correct one.

Can I suggest:

"Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. Simple English Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is written in simple English words, and simple sentences. Simple English Wikipedia is part of a group of "online" encylopedias called "Wikipedias". They are written by many people and are in many different languages. Anyone can be a Wikipedia writer. There is a list of Wikipedias at the bottom of this page.

Amandajm (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2

As I keep commenting, the list of Simple English Words contains a good number that are not really simple at all. A glance at the "A list" will reveal that "apparatus" appears on it. This word list dates from 1922. It is extremely narrow in its scope. Particularly where the Arts are concerned.

We need to include, for example, the most basic computer terms such as "website", "online", etc. Each area has its own vocab. We have just had a page moved from "Egyptian Mythology" because someone thought that "mythology" was too hard a concept. However, the word itself is widely used and understood in many European languages, and English-speaking kids usually pick it up the year after they learn the word "dinosaur", which is generally the year after they learn "Thomas-the-Tank-Engine".

Where this preamble is heading: Every page on Wkipedia has a menu option with the invitation "Change this page". So when some kid gets on a page and writes "poo poo bum bum", we really have no call for seeing it as vandalism. We invited them to "change the page".

The word for doing what we want them to do is "edit". It should have been included in the "Simple English List" along with "apparatus" and a lot of other equally hard words, but it wasn't.

My suspicion is this: if a person's English vocabulary is not sufficiently good enough to include the word "edit" then the person's vocabulary is probably not good enough to make really useful edits in English.

I would like to see the tabs that say "change this page" changed to "edit this page". Our several editors who have English as a second language generally have less trouble with precise and technical language than with basic Anglo Saxon. The Italian for "editor" is "editore", the French is "editeur".

Amandajm (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selected article: proxy server

The selected article states: "Proxy servers are named this way because they act like a proxy (an agent or substitute) of the client computer."
This should be changed from "client computer" to "server computer" or just "server". As I noted a couple of days ago in my edit summary on the article, because proxy means "substitute", a proxy server is a substitute server, not a substitute client. Samev (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple wikipedias in other languages

Is there such a thing as simple wikipedias in other languages but English, e.g. simple Spanish or simple German?

--Jasu (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Claimgoal (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. But there's not "Simple" in the other languages.

Wikipedia Romania

Romanian Verson of Wikipedia already has 107.378 articles, and you can put it in the category 100.000+.

Thanks! --79.116.199.93 (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done and congrats to Ro:wp editors for breaking the 100K milestone. -- Creol(talk) 07:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error.

"Use easy words and shorter sentences. This lets people with little English read them." One can't have little English; it should be: "This lets people who know little English read them." · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and that's located here. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Majorly ^talk 13:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Better, thanks. · AndonicO ^Engage. 13:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Spanish....

I would be really happy if they made simple spanish. I would do it...but I am not good at spanish.

Just an idea I am putting out there.

72.186.102.187 (talk)Alex

Todays featured article

why does evolution suddenly segue into Jimi Hendrix?

And does "trait" really count as simple english?

Selected article

The article has been the same for many days already. Ought it be changed? Prime Contributer (talk) 12:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The selected article is changed on a weekly (rather than daily) basis. · Ty grrr... 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we only have about 8 VGAs...-.- TheWolf 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's VGA? Is it some kind of admin? If so, I'm sure that it's quite easy to have at least one admin online each day to change the featured article. Prime Contributer (talk) 08:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good article, or the Simple's version of Featured articles. As we only have eight of them, there's no point in featuring a daily one. Cass andra 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the first words be linked to the article? That way, readers can just *click* and there there. Mm40(talk | contribs) 10:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched Wikipedia many times, and I have spotted many VGAs, or many that are going to be VGAs. But yes, I agree with you on the point that this Wikipedia has too little articles to feature. Maybe in the future then.

What do you mean by "linked"? Prime Contributer (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means a normal wikilink for the bold-faced type that is the article's name. For example, change Cuban Missile Crisis to Cuban Missile Crisis. Most of them are already like that, so I'll just change the few that aren't. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Some wiki links under Knowledge Groups redirect to other wiki pages: Agriculture redirects to Farming; Cooking redirects to Cook; Movie|Movies and films redirects to Film; and Theater redirects to Theatre. I can't edit the Main Page, or I would change them. Thanks. - BigDaveB (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fixed. -- ✰American Eagle 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed BigDaveB (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Article

The selected article on "Proxy Server" is highlighted to be difficult to understand. Why is it selected? Is it a work of vandalisers? Prime Contributer (talk) 08:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be vandals is all I know. There is a fully protected page that transludes a copy of the selected article to the mainpage. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but how can the "bad" article be explained? Prime Contributer (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rotation of about 10 articles (which are picked from the very good article list). This has list has not been updated; since then, procxy server has been demoted (to regular, I think). --Eptalon (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the rotation uses 13 articles. As there are currently 13 on the VGA list, and only one was not in rotation, I just replaced Proxy server with Timpani. -- Creol(talk) 03:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think that more articles need to be created! Prime Contributer (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Hello. I am having some trouble with an infobox for a football club. I can't seem to get the latest one to work. Can someone have a look at it for me, and tell me what I am doing wrong? Its in my Sandbox. It worked here and here, but for some reason I can't get it to work now... Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ ^(talk) 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comments that were in this section have been moved to a different place at WP:ST.

Microchip 10:13, Tuesday, July 1 2008 Utc

New Format

I see you have changed the format of the main page. I want to point out that the sister projects template should be below the other languages template. I don't know how to change it. Please see if you can. Prime Contributer (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did that on purpose. We're probably going to fix it up more soon on the main page itself. -- RyanCross (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, almost all of the other wikis have the sister projects template at the bottom. I think you should keep the format. Prime Contributer (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the change was basically brought up here so we're going to have to fix the design a bit to fit all browsers. -- RyanCross (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto

Esperanto Vikipedio now has more than 100,000 articles and should be moved up.

EoGuy EoGuy (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This probably isn't the best place to ask... -- RyanCross (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given it is a request for an edit to the page this is a talk page for, this is the perfect place to ask. -- Creol(talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Creol(talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for SE Wikipedia

The guidelines box used to have a title and a picture. What happened to it? It's looks a bit strange without it. Someone put it back please. Prime Contributer (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page

Oh no! Help me! Minor Contributer (talk) 10:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, I did. --Gwib^-(talk)- 10:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia in the news:

Is there any point in having this thing (at the bottom)? I'm not sure what relevance it has to an encyclopedia, and most (if not all) of the hits would be about EnWP anyway. Can we remove it? —Giggy 10:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the sites and couldn't find any articles concerning Simple English Wikipedia. IMO we can remove it. --Gwib^-(talk)- 10:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should remove it. This prevents confusion between Simple English Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia. Chenzw Talk 10:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and removed it (it was Main Page/Footer, detranscluded). —Giggy 10:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Main Page/Footer. --Gwib^-(talk)- 10:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the I on the front page is blocking the text

The picture of the blue round "I" on the front page is blocking the text.--Megaman en m (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of that box changes every now and then. I think no one is able to resolve the problem until the new main page design comes out. Minor Contributer (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page changes

Looks really good. Better than any other layout, in fact. Using the classic skin the top-left of the main page has the following text: "From the Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can change." This probably isn't needed on the main page - only in article space. Also in the intro, "Welcome to WikipediA the free encyclopedia that anyone can change," how come 'anyone can change' is not linked? Is there not a suitable page to be used as an introduction? the_undertow ^talk 23:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, I do not believe that we have a suitable introduction page for this Wikipedia yet. If you would like us to have one, you are welcome to create an introduction page for us to use :). I agree with you about the fact that we don't need the From the Simple English Wikipedia.... on the main page, and that we only need it on the article pages. I agree with you that that is not needed. Cheers, and welcome! Razor flame 23:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to remove the text from the classic skin. I use modern, monobook is the default. It would probably have to be removed from the skin itself, but I have no idea about any of that. I designed this page from the ideas of many, and just tweaked them together. As for the intro, we do have an intro. Unlike en, it's on the main page, where you would normally find the featured article on other wikis. That is why I didn't link it in the banner. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 03:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to remove the inevitable height differences between the intro and the TFA, I asked Krimpet to tweak the code. The current design now is to have them be on a blue background if any skin other than Monobook is used. Personally, I think it looks fine, but others may not agree. Any thoughts on this? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 17:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the code a bit to make it easier to tweak and maintain - the CSS magic now lives in {{Main Page panel}} and {{Main Page subpanel}}, keeping formatting and content separate. :) krimpet✽ 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes it more uniform too, well done. - tholly ^--Talk-- 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedias --> Wiki

This is the front page of the Simple English Wikipedia. Wikipedias are places where people work together to write encyclopedias in different languages.

That is the first line of one of the boxes. Wikipedias Should be wikis. I don't know if this for simplicity or not. Also, the definition is inaccurate. Again, I don't know if this is for simplicity. Mm40(talk | contribs) 10:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except Wikitionary is a wiki, but isn't an encyclopaedia, and neither is Commons. mc8 11:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I reconsidred. Mm40(talk | contribs) 19:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Conversions

I love Simple English Wikipedia, it's good for the rest of us who don't know quantum physics. Anyways, Is it possible in the near future that all articles on Wikipedia could be put on Simple English Wikipedia? 67.165.71.138 (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're working on it. --Gwib^-(talk)- 07:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed header 1 to a header 2 in order to tidy the page up. Microchip 15:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Section, prehaps?

How about a category tree as a new section, such as

Category Main page not found

? mC⁸ 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Or we could create a section and break it into Applied Sciences (how we use the sciences), People and Social Studies (geography, history, education (knowledge), language, people), Daily life, Art and Culture (Every day life, culture, literature), Natural Sciences and Maths (the actual science themselves), Government and Law, and Religions and beliefs (religion). We could call it Knowledge groups.. wait.. never mind. -- Creol(talk) 06:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I always found it strange why we have a single section for Literature; not really a big topic, should be put under the Arts. Minor or Prime 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Creol: but a category tree would list all the articles; the Knowledge Groups appear to only have links to the main articles. Microchip • talk 09:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit like a contents page, whereas the Knowledge Groups are the same, but with only the section headers. No detail there. 09:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Format

Why did we remove some of the books on the Main Page header? The introduction box is also cut off. Am I the only one who's seeing it? Minor or Prime 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I see it too. Can someone fix the intro box?--CPacker (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about S.E.

Is Simple English for kids to understand Wikipedia articles, or is it designed for foreigners to understand? The reason I ask is because the "F-bomb" is mentioned on the SpongeBob SquarePants article. It's not vandalism, either. It's a good faith edit (I think), because supposedly there was a movie in 2005 with the above mentioned swear word as a title. I personally think it should be removed. I'm wondering if it should be removed in case it wouldn't be good for kids to see. It's a really trivial mention, so it doesn't seem to have a place. I ask here because I'm not too sure anyone would see it on the SpongeBob Squarepants Talk page. Any insight would be appreciated. 98.202.38.225 (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ask on simple talk - that's checked far more often. I'll have a look at it now though. - tholly ^--Talk-- 15:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) 98.202.38.225 (talk) 06:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Very good articles/by date - wrong article showing?

Why is Violin showing on the main page as of today when according to Wikipedia:Very good articles/by date it should be Jessica Alba? --Matilda (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mark up was too complicated so it was stuck on article 13 - I have forced it to article 1 - the Jessica Alba article (I didn't know that non-admins could edit the page). The sequence will have to be manually update each week unless I have muisunderstood and the markup does indeed work. --Matilda (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been insisted arrogantly and rudely that Violin should display ! The mark-up doesn't work but Ah well - they like to discourage editing here --Matilda (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Layout

Bravo. The new main page is amazing. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 17:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bork

The Main Page has completely borked, so I've reverted it several revisions until we got to normality. Microchip • talk 20:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to mention that. like we did last time, discussion to reach consensus to weather we should redesign the Main Page again should take place before any action to actually redesign it occurs. -- RyanCross (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's been way to long

some one needs to change the jessica alba thing artivle on th maine page

It's supposed to stay up there for exactly one week. I believe it should change tomorrow. – RyanCross (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agriculture (growing crops)

Agriculture involves animals as well as crops. Could it say maybe Agriculture (farming)? Fribbler (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable idea. LIAM / LIAM ^mailbox 15:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Protection

Shouldn't we fully protect the main page (like they do on en.wikipedia)? Tharnton345 10:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't normally get enough vandalism on the Main Page -- most vandals can't be bothered to wait 4 days before they start to vandalise. Microchip • talk 10:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how come some vandals have come and vandalised it now? Tharnton345 (talk)

That vandal created the account last week and came back this week to vandalize.. While most will not do this, very rarely someone will do it. This did cause Majorly to fully protect the page. -- Creol(talk) 05:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something is wrong

Using Classic skin the About Wikipedia and Selected Article boxes have their outer blue borders extending inward so as to make the boxes have a blue background. Very difficult to read especially for those with visual challenges. Thanks in advance for your attention to the problem. -Hydnjo (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydnjo, I highly suggest switching to "Monobook (default)" until the problem is fixed.

Others, here is a sample of the Main Page in "Classic". --Gwib^-(talk)- 14:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done - should now be fixed. Gwib, is the colour the same the whole way down now? - tholly ^--Talk-- 14:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from DYK - which is slightly darker on every version - it's the same all the way down. --Gwib^-(talk)- 14:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you very much for your prompt response Gwib and quick fix Tholly. We only prefer Classic because both the font style and size makes it easier for Heidi to read :) -Hydnjo (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errors and breaks

On September 21, the main page was reverted to old, unoptimized code because of an error that suddenly appeared. Following that, there was the above issue where the code did not properly display in other skins.

If you find that the main page has suddenly "borked", attempt to find what changed. It's not just going to create an issue for no reason. In this case, someone made a good faith edit to a subpanel template. The change added an opening bracket which made the template look complete. However, as it is part of a series of coding, it was basically like throwing a ratchet in the design of the main page. Reverting the edit to the template fixed the main page. I have now reverted back to the optimized code and added the DYK section.

In the future, if it's not easily found what has caused an error on the main page, rather than revert to old code, please drop a message to me on my en.wiki talk page, by e-mail, or in IRC and I will fix the problem. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, perhaps Template:Main Page footer, Template:Main Page panel, and Template:Main Page subpanel could be protected? Jennavecia ^(Talk) 20:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Synergy 18:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4 questions

1. If a user is blocked on one wikipedia project... example. If a user was blocked on Spanish wikipedia, and they had a unified account, could they be blocked on all wikipedia projects?
2. regular english wikipedia has the wikipedia toolbar. Is there something like this for simple english wikipedia?
3. Is there some sort of way to try and "translate" regular english wikipedia articles into simple english articles? 4. On english wikipedia, there are tools such as Twinkle that help users edit, are they here too? Reply on my talk page please.

LukeTheSpook (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be blocked/banned on here unless you decide to follow up what happened on en, here. We have twinkle, and rollback (but I don't feel comfortable giving you rollback at this time) and most things like this can be found in the gadgets section under "my settings". Synergy 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the link for twinkle.. i tried copying it from english wikipedia, but that didn't work. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 01:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same question.. let's see if somone answer's it this time... - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Adults" to "Grown-Ups"

Since a lot of children view this site I think it'd be best to change "Adults" to "Grouwn-Ups" in the phrase "The Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone! That includes children and adults who are learning English." What do you think? --Cheers, Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 11:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grown-Ups seems ... well, childish, for want of a better word. It condescends (in my opinion) to the adults who also use SEWP. --Gwib^-(talk)- 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know we might have something here.-- ✧ CM 16 02:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about older people. PS I am a christian too CM16 Builderman rox (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Perhaps good idea would be "advanced english book" at wikibooks to understand normal english wikipedia instead of simple english articles. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.184.117.64 (talk • contribs)

Moving this page into Wikipedia: namespace

I propose moving this page to Wikipedia:Main. Turbo Golf 20:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Synergy 20:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, it'll be Wikipedia:Main Page. But I think this has been discussed and rejected before. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urk, where's the benefit? Write a notable article about "Main Page" and then, and only then, can this be considered worthwhile. MC8 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving it out of article space is a very sensible and logical thing to do. Majorly ^talk 20:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed it on Simple talk. Turbo Golf 18:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to oppose. The Spanish Wikipedia did that (es:Wikipedia:Portada), but the link doesn't look clean and nice. In fact, it makes the link look ugly and I don't see the point. What would you make for an article? (A main page is the front page of the Wikipedia. It may also refer to: ) obento musubi 06:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaks to the Main Page

For the most part, I'm comfortable with the aesthetics (although, IMHO, it looks a bit plain and boring). However, I am not satisfied with all of the Times New Roman text. It may be my least favorite font, especially for publishing. I suggest that it be reverted to Arial or that its size be changed or that it be bolded, etc. Right now, it looks weak. obento musubi 07:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of SE words?

The home page states the following. SE articles should use the 1000 most common English words. But it does not give a list. Is there a list of the 1000 most common English words? Is there a list of the 850 Basic English words? If there are these lists, please add links to the home page. (David Spector from full English Wikipedia, Feb. 7, 2009)

Repition of English

In the other languages section, there is a repetition of English almost four times . --41.248.21.106 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversimplification

Let's stick to the facts.

I think that it is harmful to try and simplify some subjects. Political subjects are particularly susceptible to (often unintended) distortion and bias through simplification: try reading any of the current articles on Communism, Capitalism, Libertarianism and Anarchism... you will find them full of "Anarchists mostly believe" this and "Capitalists tend to" that and other weasly worded phrases. I don't think this is because they are badly written (although they are undoubtedly badly written), more that it is just not possible to simplify some complex and nuanced subjects without unfairly distorting them. Care ought to be taken that this project, who's aims I am sure are laudable, doesn't unwittingly turn into the newspeak dictionary. 74.72.199.84 (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)Roger Heathcote[reply]

did you know?

Not to be a prude, but if:

The Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone! That includes children and adults who are learning English.

and you expect different cultures to be viewing this, why have interesting facts about penis size on the front page?

WP:NOT#What Wikipedia is not explains this. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think there is a difference between a policy of no censorship and discussing human penis length on the front page. Having that fact in an article about penises, or about penis length would be fine, but having it be one of the 5 cherry-picked facts that are examples of the type of information that is available here may not be as good of an idea. Out of the thousands of facts available, couldn't another one suffice? This would not involve censoring Wikipedia, it would just be avoiding putting potentially offensive information right on the front page, for all to see as their first impression. 24.206.233.32 (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that interesting facts about penises do not belong on the front page. Since there is a small picture for the Lenzburg castle, maybe the penis deserves one too?!? Whoever put that there was acting immaturely. 138.73.147.36 (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question went through the DYK process and was found to be sufficient enough for use on the main page. If you are offended by this, then simply don't read it. Wikipedia cannot be censored because then it would not be open content. Cheers, Razor flame 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it did. I'm sure children of all nationalities and creeds will be thrilled to discover the length of a penis when they do their English homework. If I don't like it I'm not going to read, that's a good policy for articles - that's why if you go through my browsing history you'll find I've never looked up the Child Pornography article, I don't want to read that either. We're not talking about an article though and it's a terrible policy for the front page. The front page means it's not if you don't like, don't read. It's if you don't like, don't vist and I don't think you want that outcome, do you? Wikipedia has lots and lots of articles about the penis - it's up to the contributors to decide what they want to write, but that doesn't mean they need to be on the front page.

The fact you're so utterly against censorship makes me wonder why EVERY fact on Wikipedia isn't on the front page - why are you "censoring" all those interesting, legitimate facts? Simple - you don't become fascist Russia if you pick out a few facts instead of every single one. It's not censorship to pick a fact that's not about a sexual organ.

Linking to regular wikipedia

I think Simple Wikipedia is a great idea. Each article should also include a link to 'regular' wikipedia for those seeking more detailed information. — This unsigned comment was added by 69.49.165.176 (talk • changes).

Each article does. It is in under the "In other languages" section to the left side under the "toolbox". Look for "English", that will take you to the English Wikipedia article for the page. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that distinction needs to be made considerably clearer. What reason would someone have to look at the Language Box for extra content, and particularly to click on the English tab - it's already in English! It's a link to extra content, true, but people will never, ever, think to look there. I don't want to sound ungrateful for the work that's gone into it but that's bad design and it's not good enough for a children's research tool.

I would prefer this wikipedia to be a side of the English wikipedia, but that would have to be mutual, and it would probably require editing both wikis significantly. Still, I appreciate your reasoning. -Kingreaper (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

misspelling in header

"such as a username, your own user page and he ability to vote in discussions! "

Shouldn't it be 'the' ability to vote in discussions?

Also, I was under the impression that discussions are never votes.

165.123.185.28 (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's still wrong! Somebody fix it! 189.62.113.53 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. It wasn't on the main page is was a typo at MediaWiki:Anonnotice. Cheers,--Fair field Deleted? 00:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest human penis?

Is it really appropriate to put that on the homepage of "Wikipedia for Children?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.154.57 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This in not just 'only for children',
You'd want to say that here, and
We are not censored, so don't look, and just ignore it if you don't like it. - Æåm Fætsøn ^{/ˈaɪæm ˈfætsən/} 04:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not very simple

We only use simple English words and grammar here.

I think what people really need is simple spelling.

And we are all working on that! :) Versus22_talk 21:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Write good pages?

"Simple" English shouldn't mean poor grammar. May I suggest "Write concise pages," or "write pages well." Or something that doesn't teach "bad English."

I write a page. I write a good page. You write a page, you write a good page. I write good pages, you write good pages.

Where's the error in the grammar? I believe you misread it as "write good when writing pages" (which is bad grammar) rather than "when writing, write pages that are good" which is the correct reading. -Kingreaper (talk)

Saturn on main page problem

Hello, the article on the main page is about Saturn (planet) but the word "Saturn" goes to the Saturn (disambiguation) page. Please fix this. Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 10:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It was an error on Saturn (planet)/VGA stub. Cheers, --Fair field Deleted? 12:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.191.20 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. EhJJ^TALK 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hard to speak it english is not mine but where more like people start to lady to rest?

Can you try: 1) Find a Wikipedia in your language or 2) Write the question in your own language (please say which language) and I will try to translate. EhJJ^TALK 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother much about this user. He seems to be a vandal. Pmlinediter ^Talk 09:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is an Internet meme; ignore it. 24.255.26.228 (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Bobby

His name doesn't link the the actual article itself. Ruyter (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've made the change.

Done EhJJ^TALK 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward wording

"There are 59,105 articles on the Simple English Wikipedia. All of the pages are free to use. There is a discussion in the GNU Free Documentation License."

That is incredibly awkwardly worded. Anyone got any better ideas? — neuro^(talk) 19:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with: "Simple English Wikipadia has 59,105 articles. All of this pages are for free use." And no idea for the last sentence. Barras (talk) 19:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple English Wikipedia has x articles. All of these pages are for free use and have been released under the GNU Free Documentation License." Not as simple, but more clear - "There is a discussion" is hopelessly inaccurate. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of released could we use published. I think this would be easier. Barras (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I personally think "who cares?" can sum up the mention of the license. It's at the bottom of every page on Wikipedia, so I don't think we need to put it front-and-center on the Main Page, especially given that we're going for "simple" here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more changes

Since it has come up, I'd like to suggest two more changes:

"We only use simple English words and grammar here."
- We remove the word "only". We try to use simple words and grammar as much as possible, but the "only" isn't true nor necessary.
"You may change these pages and make new pages about whatever you want."
- Pages must meet our inclusion criteria. I'm open for suggestions, but people may not "make new pages about whatever".

I'd like a second opinion before making changes to the Main Page. EhJJ^TALK 15:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support this idea by EhJJ. In fact, these things have appeared inappropriate to me as well. Pmlinediter ^Talk 10:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coastline of India re DYK hook

You cannot measure the coastline of a country. Its a maths problem that has no solution. Imagine if you measured it with a metre ruler, then you looked harder and used a centimeter ruler, them you measured every move in or out by a millimetre. Then you measure every atom etc... Coastlines have fractal numbers... not lengths Victuallers (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vic, thanks for the heads up. Perhaps the addition of "approximately" or "about" would work? BTW: Help would be appreciated at the DYK area from an experienced user such as yourself to try and prevent things such as this. But thanks again for catching it. Gob lin 19:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

Coastlines are not true fractals. Only loose approximations of ones. The issue is that coastlines are not distinct lines. Tides, winds, waves,etc, all make the line "fuzzy". Below a resolution of a few meters coastlines are no longer fractals, but only ordinary approximations, and entirely possible to measure definitively.

Measuring a coast with a "centimeter" ruler is not actually possible with any real-world coastline, the precision of the "coast line" is at least a meter in most places.

Virtually all natural phenomena used to illustrate fractals suffer from this problem, but coastlines make particularly poor fractals, even if they are a very common example. 72.10.110.109 (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, in many ways, the same thing could be said about the circumference of an oak tree. While it seems like one could easily just place a tape measure around it, in actuality, there are countless tiny bumps and dips in the bark that would create a much larger number. Ultimately, coastline numbers are only useful when comparing them to other countries, if measured in the same way. EhJJ^TALK 15:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the Day

Has anyone else thought about doing like, an image of the day or image of the week? Just a thought I had. Exert 00:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shappy was thinking the same thing on IRC today. I think it's a good idea to make our front page a bit more interesting while still being encyclopedic and free. EhJJ^TALK 02:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of mixed feelings about this one personally. Yes, it might make our page look more "interesting", but none of the photographs are actually "ours" and so don't really pull in people for our site. Further more, it can open a can of worms of people uploading inappropriate images over the selected one - though I don't expect it to be much of a problem. Perhaps, rather than starting up our own process, and therefore further diverging the small community, who remember are only just getting processes such as DYK, GA and VGA going again, using the Commons picture of the day. This way, there's still a picture, but we don't have to worry about it personally. Or, perhaps we could limit it to photos uploaded by Simple's users, and perhaps in a way how Very Good articles work - instead of having one every day or week, just have a list that cycles round? Thoughts? Bit of a mixed bag there, but I cba to re-write my post so that it makes better sense ;). Gob lin 10:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I was actually thinking that we should just use the commons picture of the day, as you said. That way there is no hassle about uploading images here. Exert 18:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't say "no hassle" - we still open the can of worms of having pictures on the Main Page. Sure, we already do it with VGAs, DYKs etc, and so far there have been no troubles with people uploading images over them, but it could happen. I think this needs a wider community input and so i'm moving it to Simple talk. Hope no-one minds. Gob lin 18:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I ♥ Kennedy![reply]

I suggested this months ago and it was shot down. I would support it if it can be sustained. Perhaps a rotation of every three days or so would be easier to maintain. fr33kman ^talk 19:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of it being pictures taken by SEWP users. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 20:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading could be restricted to admins, and others who want to upload could be given the uploader flag. Seeing as it's a group in Special:UserRights. Exert 20:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Million

The german wikipedia now has more than 1.000.000 articles. Philipp Sauermann (talk) 10:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. It was updated. --Barras ^talk 12:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew Wikipedia

Has already more than 100,000 articles. If this can be fixed in the main page. Cheers, Ori (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thanks for informing us! -Barras ^talk 16:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDITING SIMPLE WIKI

When editing and writing for Simple Wikipedia we should bear in mind that it is written for "children" as well as adults learning English. I think we should try to keep it interesting and even fun as well as just scholarly. Ken Van Cleve

Other simple wikipedias?

Hello. I was thinking that if there is a simple english wikipedia then there should be other simple wikipedias like simple spanish and so on. Whom could I talk to and make this start?

Thank you very much! 75.71.198.223 (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably looking for http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages :) Cheers, Lauryn^☆ 02:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English Wikiquote

Per a userbox at User:Juliancolton, there is a simple wikiquote. Anyone want to add it next to simple wikitionary on the main page? Buggie111 (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Simple English Wikiquote is in the process of closing. --Bsadowski1^{(Talk|Changes)} 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On this Day...

Any thoughts about starting on On this day.. on this wiki, similar to the one on en.wiki? I can't set the thing up, but I'd like some opinions.

TIA, Buggie111 (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though not a bad idea, I doubt it would ever get off the ground. There are times when we have trouble updating DYK (every 7 days), so it is doubtful that we have the articles/personnel to update something daily. Lauryn (u • t • c) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have an idea. Create in a user page, and see whether you can keep it updated for a week or so. If it works, we can put it on the main page. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if we could get it set up well in advance with queues similarly to what we do with DYK, and get a bot to update it. Otherwise, I have similar concerns relating those expressed by Lauryn. Kansan (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo boy, so many answers. I;ll stick with the up idea, however, I will have to hunt around to find some events. I think about three per day would be fine. Buggie111 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've set somnthing up at User:Buggie111/On this day.... Feel free to comment. Will need some pics. Buggie111 (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well done so far! Kansan (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A question about Beta?

Have tried both Wondering about BETA. Is it faster or simpler etc? Cant see difference .New To WikipediaDUBLINLAD (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beta is easier to use in some ways, and is based on feedback from users (i.e. what they thought would make the Wikipedia interface better). Click "Try Beta" to see what it's like. If you don't like it, just click on "Leave Beta" (the link will appear once you change the Beta) and you'll be back to the normal interface. EhJJ^TALK 22:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On reading your note better, I see you have tried both but didn't notice a difference. The skin (the page lay-out) should look different when you're using Beta (it uses the Wikipedia:Vector skin, instead of Monobook). Also, the edit bar is different. It isn't "faster" but some people think it is simpler to use. EhJJ^TALK 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social Sciences Section

Why is economics under gov't and not Social Sciences (if I'm out to lunch, and there's a logical reason
Shouldn't we have a link to Social sciences under the the Social Sciences section?

Just a few thoughts Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chamoru Wiki interwiki

Hi. Can you add an interwiki to the Chamoru Wiki ch: at the Main Page?. I constantly watch this wiki and want to promote it in some form. Thanks in advance. --Диего Грез (Diego Grez) (разговор) 02:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I so no reason not to, thus

Done. Lauryn (u • t • c) 08:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil wiki (ta.wikipedia)

Tamil wiki already crossed 20K+ but still showing in 10K+, please move to 20K+ area. thanks Mahir78 (talk) 19:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Thanks for letting us know! We don't always have time to constantly update this list, so thanks for letting us know. Gob lin 20:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Thanks Mahir78 (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of children on the main page

Could we remove children from the people who read Simple English Wikipedia? It's really for adults with limited English skills, not children. Children have unlimited potential to learn and succeed in life. Flayof (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it is read by children. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children are one of our target audiences. Either way (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children with learning disabilities not gifted children. Gifted children want more of a challenge. The Simple English Wikipedia is not accommodating gifted children. Flayof (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I was a gifted student in school, and I am a college graduate, and some of the English Wikipedia articles, especially on scientific or technology subjects, are difficult even for me. Think of how confusing they could be for even a gifted junior high or high school student. Kansan (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should say this encyclopedia is for middle school and high school students. Children are pretty general and most people refer them in elementary school. I can't imagine a first grade student reading the Simple English Wikipedia. The topics here are very inappropriate for a first grade student to read. Flayof (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one's forcing them to use our website then. We're not going to remove the word just because not all children won't use this or find this "challenging". Either way (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is difficult but the words can at least be harder words. What's wrong with linking to the dictionary? That's how people learn by going to a dictionary. If I'm learning ASL, I go to a ASL dictionary to learn more. It can be annoying to have to go to dictionary but if you don't understand the word, you are going to have to. Flayof (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To use an example with the word that you linked to on Autism, not knowing what the word "extraordinary" means isn't going to stop somebody from understanding what autism is. Again, our job is not to teach people what words mean; that is Wiktionary's scope, not ours. Kansan (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]: Read number 2 under 5. They said we can link to the dictionary. Flayof (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we can link to the dictionary, especially in cases where there isn't another word that we can use. I'm not saying we can't. However, in the case with "extraordinary", there are other words, so we should just use the simpler word and spare the reader the trouble of looking it up. Kansan (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saying some people with autism that are clever just means that they are a little bit smart. Extraordinary is something even more. I was using it to describe savant syndrome, which clearly some editors are against. Flayof (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specific discussion about the article should be on the article's talk page, not here. Either way (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) Perhaps this is a different perspective: A scientist that knows a subject well enough can explain it using words that are easy to understand. Difficult explanations/concepts are not hard to come by, easy ones are. As to linking to the dictionary: I have learnt English as a foreign language; for people like me, a link to a dictionary can be helpful. English has many words from German, but in English some have taken a different meaning. Hence a link to the dictionary is useful. As to the children: What would it really help if we removed them form the target group listed on the main page? - WP is not censored, so there goes the most obvious reason to not list them? ;) --Eptalon (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change children to secondary school students

I like to propose a change on the main page. Instead of saying children, we can say secondary school students. It is highly inappropriate for a first grade student to read the Simple English Wikipedia. Of course it's for anyone but I like it to say that it's geared especially for secondary school students and adults who are learning English. Currently it says it's for children and adults who are learning English. Flayof (talk) 06:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a rather inappropriate idea. Simple English Wikipedia should be open to all people, especially because our goal is to make wikipedia simple and easier to read, like students and children can read it. As Either Way said above, "children are our target audiences". ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like Kansan said, it's for the "gifted junior high or high school student" to read which is why I would want to change it to secondary school students instead of children. Flayof (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but you can just write "children and all people". ♥ Belinda ♥ 06:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did not read my proposing rationale that was changed, now bolded. Flayof ([[User

talk:Flayof|talk]]) 07:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I still object to it, Flayof. Sorry, but Simple English Wikipedia is not especially for adults and students, but children too. Thanks, and I hope you understand. ♥ Belinda ♥ 08:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per the discussion above, no. Don't turn everything into a vote either - I have taken the liberty of removing your 'survey'. I suggest you leave this one be; the Wiki has had the same target audience since it's inception several years ago, and if you continue to pursue this - whilst also coming across aggressively with excessive bolding such as that above and your responses, you may well be blocked or banned for project disruption. It seems clear (To me) that you don't understand that concept of SEWP, and, if that is the case, then I must ask why you edit here... Gob lin 09:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Nifky![reply]

I didn't specifically say that it was only for the "gifted junior high or high school student"; what I meant were that there were specific situations with articles that are complex on the English Wikipedia where these students could still be served better by Simple than English. As it is, I think the current wording is adequate. Kansan (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You or Wikipedia are trying to erase all my hard work that I did on some pages; Stonehenge, Neptune, Newfoundlands!:( Why? One of you said I was hurting Wikipedia! I am NOT. I am only trying to help like it said on the FRONT PAGE! "Be bold!" I don't do that to you because it is not very nice! Also, I know how hard you put into doing that. I have always wanted to share my information of my knowledge with others. I am sorry, but that isn't nice.

Unless you undelete Stonehenge, Newfoundlands, and maybe Neptune, I will NEVER use Wikipedia again! Well, I probably will use it because Wikipedia is really cool and I think it has really good answers.

I just wanted to help.:(

about wikipedias

Hi, in the main description of main page it's written: "Wikipedias are places where people work together to write encyclopedias in different languages.", which is kind of misleading. Wikipedia is not the place to do writing...it's the encyclopedia by its own! Thu current sentence sounds like, here we write and publish it somewhere else. ‫‫Adler.fa (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That implies that it is published on the Wikipedia. PiRSquared1 7 21:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's right. But in the next paragraph. What about "Wikipedias are encyclopedias, which are written by us" or something like that...anyway Wikipedia is not a place as far as i know! ‫‫‫‫Adler.fa (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There are 250,557 articles on the Simple English Wikipedia." That is true. PiRSquared1 7 21:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsway tramway tunnel

Whoever added this to the main page as the featured article reverted to a much earlier version that waffles on in the second sentence about the demolition of slums etc. This is not the key point to make about the tramway tunnel. This is not the right stuff for an intro.

Moreover someone changed the word "them" to "it", thus making nonsense of the sentence. I presume that the person hadn't read further and though that the "it" was a correction.

Rightly or wrongly, the word "them" referred to the "slums". It was "them", the buildings referred to as slums (ie cheap housing, that was going to be rebuilt, not "it". "It" can only refer to the tramway tunnel. However it didn't exist, so "it" couldn't be rebuilt. Amandajm (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Main Page too long?

I think Main Page is too long. Don't we have anyway to make it shorter? --Horus (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove some of the "Other languages'? Griffinofwales (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To remove some random links means we decide about what other should see or not. This is for me something like censorship... I don't like this idea. -Barras ^talk 17:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sister Project box can be made shorter. And I suggest to choose only the big Wikipedia to be shown like English Wikipedia. (no random choosing) --Horus (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make "other languages" a show/hide box. Would that work? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 04:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia's idea strikes me as excellent. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a big fan of this idea. Our target audience might not understand the concept of a show/hide box easily. I think putting the collapsible box on the front page would not be efficient. Either way (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The sister projects box could be organised with less whitespace, though. And I think, maybe show the other Wikipedias with 2,000 and above articles (or some other arbitrary limit), and have a clear header that says More languages... or something like that, as the title for the [show] bar. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the other languages are at the very bottom of the page anyway, I don't frankly see them as a major problem. Kansan (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(<-) In the knowledge groups section:

No explanation for the knowledge group entry (click to get an an explanation)
Same number of entries for each group (5), and a "more.." (to list all entries of that knowledge group)
Re-arrange knowledge Groups (Split: Art and Culture / Daily Life, Natural Sciences / Maths)
Move some entries (to be discussed, economics is a candidate)--Eptalon (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Main Page is too long. There are only a few section that are prose and the rest is bullet-point lists, which are very easy to skim through. I have no objection to shortening it a bit, but I'm quite happy with it the way it is. EhJJ^TALK 12:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can make it "compact-sized", but why we don't?!? --Horus (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interwiki sorting

Why is (for example) Esperanto interwiki over Español interwiki? It's not alphabetically sorted? 81.202.138.83 (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's sorted by IPA code Esperanto have 'eo', Espanol 'es'