Talk:Main Page

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

Other languages[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 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 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 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 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 source]

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

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

Wikipedia: is it better than books?[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 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 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 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 source]

"well written" should be hyphenated. #ironic

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

Newbie HERE![change source]

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

1) Sign your name with four tildes (these: ~). 2) There is a section on it on the left side of any Wiki Page. A Sentient Sock (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Some possible improvements[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 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 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 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 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 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 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)

Selected article[change source]

Having a selected article that begins "The Kingsway tramway subway is a cut-and-cover Grade II Listed tunnel" is going to be quite off-putting to anybody coming here expecting simple English. Perhaps more thought needs to go into the selection of articles so there will actually be simple English on the main page? Scolaire (talk) 08:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Could an admin please correct the arithmetic[change source]

On the Main page summary of American Airlines Flight 11: "92 people died in the crash—81 passengers, five hijackers and 11 crew members." I believe the 5 hijackers are being counted as passengers here, but 81+11+5 is what a reader would interpret the text to mean, i.e., not a total of 91 but 97. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything about that flight on the main page. Where do you see that? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well that's interesting! It was there yesterday. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The source has a comment "Articles rotated daily; counting from 0 to one less than the number of articles in Cat:Selected articles" which explains what is happening. I've modified the article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan and Electoral Votes.[change source]

Ronald Reagan received more electoral votes than any other person running for president in a single election. Richard Nixon, in two landslide victories for Vice President, one narrow loss for President, and two landslide (mostly) victories for president, has the most TOTAL lifetime electoral votes. Strictly speaking, as the page is worded, Reagan has NOT received the most electoral votes of any person. — This unsigned comment was added by Jerry LaGrou (talk • changes) on 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC).

Well, when you're right, you're right. So I changed the wording on that a little. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

multiscript collaboration[change source]

१२ १४
१३ ११
१६ १०
7 12 1 14
2 13 8 11
16 3 10 5
9 6 15 4
transcription of
the indian numerals
most-perfect magic square from
the Parshvanath Jain temple in Khajuraho

Hi! Some years ago (in 2008) I received a picture about a most-perfect magic square from the Parshvanath Jain temple in Khajuraho named Chautisa Yantra. According to magic square#India Magic Squares and Cubes By William Symes Andrews, 1908, Open court publish company the square is more then thousand years old / from the 10th-century. There is an additional text above the square. done I hope to receive a translation and/or additional details about this text from contributors on languages from India.
testwiki:most-perfect magic square provides transliterations for a dozen of ISO 15924 scripts as Arab, Armn, Armi, Beng, Cyrl, Cyrs, Deva, Grek, Gujr, Guru, Hani, Hans, Hant, Hebr, Jpan, Knda, Kore, Latn (including Roman numerals and binary), Lepc, Maya, Mlym, Mymr, Phnx, Orya, Runr, Sinh, Syrc, ‎Syre, ‎Syrj, ‎Syrn, Taml, Telu, Tibt, Xsux and maybe some more. The wiki source code can be used for articles / stubs in languages using these scripts. Fonts are not optimized and all comments are welcome at the test subdomain page at testwiki:most-perfect magic square. Thanks for all your efforts in advance! lɛʁi ʁɑjnhɑʁt (Leri Reinhart) ‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 06:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

PAGEID: 208307 · REVISIONID: 5468619
links here:

short update (2015-08-19) :

 : The numbers are Gurmukhi numerals written in the Guru script see testwiki:most-perfect magic square#Guru.
Thanks to @Mahitgar the translation of the first two lines is available at .
see the numerals in Latn at testwiki:most-perfect magic square#Latn
FYI: Sriramachakra (found some days ago) is another of the 384 mutually indistinguishable most-perfect magic squares.

Did You Know section -- dubious claim that U of Chicago has highest number of Nobel prizes[change source]

I removed this claim from the simple English University of Chicago article, because the cited reference to the University of Chicago website currently doesn't make this claim. I would have removed it from the Simple English Main Page, but didn't see how. Someone who does know how probably should, unless the claim can be backed up better. I'm not very familiar with the Simple English Wikipedia because I mainly edit the ordinary (or one might say complicated) English Wikipedia.CharlesHBennett (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Typo[change source]

On the fourth DYK statement, there appears to be a typo: it should read "that multimillionaire and killer John Eleuthère du Pont was such a big fan of wrestling that he was buried with his wrestling singlet?" --Rubbish computer (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for noticing! --Auntof6 (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
@Auntof6: No problem. Rubbish computer (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[change source]

Hi guys, I was not aware of this separate Wiki. I'm a bit sceptical in terms of editing here anything, because who is able to read it? Can or do I have to select the "language" simple on my smartphone to access it? Are there specific things which are better than the works? Thanks! --Huggi (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Huggi:, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia. This wiki can be used by anyone, nut it is written in simple terms which means it is really good for children or people who are learning the English language. I have left a welcoming me message on your talk page with some more links about editing in simple English. Happy editing!--Druddigon (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Druddigon thanks for that. That's all fine. Can you please answer also my second question about the visibility of these pages as "simple" is not a language code and I don't wanna waste to much time here if it's only available via Webbrowser, by people who really wanna read articles. I think it's a big difference if it's not integrated into the mobile app / web browser, I just came across here by accident. Thanks again! --Huggi (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your second question. No you don't have to select a language on your smart phone, it's just the pages here are written in simple English.--Druddigon (talk) 09:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It is available through mobile apps. Look for simple or Simple English. In general, this wiki appears alphabetically in the S listings, not in the E listings. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you know-section typo[change source]

In the "Did you know"-section there is a typo / grammar mistake. The sentence concerning the President of Cyprus reads "the last to served in WW II". — This unsigned comment was added by (talk • changes) at 10:10, 29 September 2015‎.

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK / Did you know - grammar/typo[change source]

In the Orrin Hatch DYK, should it be changed from "...but gave up on idea..." to "...but gave up on the idea..."? (add the)

Zeniff (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for letting us know, it is now fixed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 09:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm impressed how fast that was! Thanks!:D Zeniff (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Current "Do you know"[change source]

See my comment at Wikipedia:Simple Talk#Current "Do you know". StevenJ81 (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Include a new photo of Commons (with link for a usage in articles)?[change source]

My proposal: In our sisterproject Commons we have sometimes very good photos, fresh taken and uploaded to Commons, which can be used in Wikipedia-articles or even on the Main Page. On top of the Main-page in the right, there should be a place for a photo taken in the last days, eventually with links to possible articles for a usage of that new photo.

I have tried to find a solution: Similar to my edit in the Main Page/Sandbox, but with a more protected frame or subpage for a more open change for all people who want to contribute photos, or visit the Commons-Sister and find some new photos for the Simple Wikipedia. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 00:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a cool idea, but that means someone has to go looking for a photo and then update the main page. Daily. That's not going to get maintained. Osiris (talk) 03:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Visibility and Viability of Simple English Wikipedia[change source]

I happen to have stumbled on this Wikipedia a few days ago, after being a longtime user of the regular English Wikipedia for most of its 15 years. From what I've seen, so far, it looks like this was a well-intentioned idea that started in the early days of Wikipedia, but was largely abandoned when the regular Wikipedia was still only at the 100,000 mark. Now it's at the 5 million mark, but Simple has stayed frozen in time.

Part of the problem, IMHO, has to do with this Wikipedia's visibility, or rather, it's lack, thereof. There are currently 291 different language Wikipedias. (List of Wikipedias) Granted, only 58 of them have hit the 100,000 mark, and 13 hit the 1 million mark. Even so, on many, if not, most of its pages, the language link to this Wikipedia from regular English gets lost in a sea of a few dozen links, and it's hidden, quite obtusely, under "Simple", rather than "English". Simple English is not a foreign language, like French or German or Arabic. Rather, it is a subset of regular English. That fact, alone, should be cause for special treatment of Simple English.

The visibility problem is a major issue if Simple English Wikipedia is going to become a viable project. The article disparity between Simple and regular English is overwhelming. I would say the vast majority of English Wikipedia users aren't aware that Simple English Wikipedia even exists. As a newcomer, here, it looks to me like I've walked into a museum of Wikipedia Past. It reminds me much of the early years of Wikipedia, when even the most basic of articles were mere stubs. In one area, that I'm working on in regular English, it looks like the Simple English version was abandoned around 2010 to 2013. I'm not sure when WikiData started taking over the language links, but it may be around that timeframe.

I think there are two basic questions that must be asked if Simple English Wikipedia is ever going to become a successful project:

  • 1. Do we want Simple English Wikipedia to become a successful project?
This existential question may be the hardest. I see that there was a lively discussion about this question in 2008-2009 (Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (2)), which resulted in Simple remaining active rather than being shut down. But it appears that the activity that was present then has since disappeared. I'm not sure that there's even anybody here, editing, still. If an article gets vandalized in Simple, does it make a sound?? I don't think so. Heck, even the vandals don't know that Simple is even here!!
One of the problems that is apparent is that the concept of Simple was poorly defined, at the onset. It was first thought that Simple could be both a Children's encyclopedia, and an ESL encyclopedia. That's like saying a pedal car can also be a single occupant car, and be driven on an Interstate highway with other cars. Children and adults are not the same. Children have a different level of understanding. By that, I mean understanding anything, not just English. Adults learning ESL, on the other hand, have a fully developed level of understanding, they just don't have the understanding of the complexities of English. That's a very different thing. Some of the articles I've seen here have a very condescending tone. Like you're trying to explain something to a 3 or 4 year old. That may be fine for "Pre-school Wikipedia", but it's not acceptable for "ESL Wikipedia". Also, children's books are not written in a monoscaled "children's" language. The are written to different grade levels, K-12. The books "grow-up" with the children. That is something Simple English Wikipedia, as it sits, cannot do. Simple cannot be both a Pre-school and an ESL resource.
This leads us to the question of "If Simple doesn't work, what do we want to do, instead?" It's an excellent question. Which leads me to my next question ... assuming we still want Simple English Wikipedia to continue to exist in some form or other.
  • 2. How do we make Simple English Wikipedia more visible to regular English Wikipedia users?
To me, this is not a simple question with a single answer. I think the first thing we need to do is to recognize that Simple has stalled because most users on regular English aren't aware of its existence. The radical disparity between regular English and Simple English Wikipedia (50:1) is a large thing to overcome, but not insurmountable.
The bigger question is: "How should these pages relate to the regular English pages?" Simple is not a separate language. There are not grown adults who are native Simple speakers, and Simple does not have to be translated to English. The reason Simple was created in the first place, was that the Wiki software had a capacity for multiple languages, but did not have an inherent capacity for language subsets. So, instead of modifying the software to meet the new demands, they modified English, instead, creating an imaginary "foreign language" called "Simple". According to Simple English Wikipedia, Simple was created in 2003, 13 years ago, when Wikipedia itself was only 2 years old. Much has changed since then. Creating a foreign language as a kludge may have been a reasonable solution at the time. Today, it's a different story.
IMHO, Simple ought not be a "foreign language". Rather, it should be a user preference. By user, I do not mean [[User:]]s. Rather, I mean our real users, the general public, who surf our pages and read our articles. I sortta see it as a drop box that has choices like "Use Simple English when available", which would fall-back to regular English pages if Simple pages are not present. Or "Use Simple English or fall back to x", where X is another drop box that gives foreign language options. Or "Use Simple English only.", which is Simple's present mode of operation. This type of interface would be more flexible and could adapt to a division of Simple into "Children's" and "ESL" editions. For example, in this triple version, the options could be:
  • "Use ESL, when available." (defaults to regular English when not found as ESL)
  • "Use ESL or fall back to Children's"
  • "Use ESL or fall back to x"
  • "Use ESL only."
  • "Use Children's when available."
  • "Use Children's or fall back to ESL"
  • "Use Children's or fall back to x"
  • "Use Children's only."
This model could also deal with dialect issues. For example, British versus American English:
British: lift, lorry, wagon, flat
American: elevator, truck, rail car, apartment
I would expect the number of articles that would benefit from British/American versions would be rather small, but reading an article about railroads, the constant use of "wagon" for "box car" and "baggage waggon" for "luggage car" would be jarring. Yet the difference would be more important for Children's articles, where a young American child would have no clue what a "flat" or a "lift" is. In this case, we see that British/American and Children's/ESL would are separate qualities that operate independently. For example, we could have a British Children's article, or an American ESL article. Through the method of two separate fallback selections (British/American) (Children's/ESL/regular), you could still handle all cases with the same general design.

So, I guess the question is not, "How do we improve the Wikipedia of 2016?", but rather, "What do we want the Wikipedia of 2026 to look like?" In answering this question, we must not restrict ourselves to the limitations of the Wikipedia of 2003, which is exactly what Simple English Wikipedia is.

Once we answer these basic questions, our next question is, "How do we get from here to there?" But before we get to this question, we must first decide what "there" is. This is the question that was never clearly answered in 2003, when Simple was created. Simple's problems have stemmed from the failure to ask this basic question, long ago. That does not mean we must continue on a poorly defined path. We can define a clear path to follow. But we must decide to do so.

Personally, I would like to contribute to this effort. But I honestly don't know where to start, because I don't even know what I'm contributing to. Am I writing children's articles? Or grown-up articles? As I said, they are, inherently, very different things. I cannot make an article do both, at least in the area that I would be contributing in.

I have taken the time to consider these questions and write all of this because I do believe in the general idea of a Simple English Wikipedia, and sincerely want to contribute in a substantial manner ... but the lack of clarity is a definite barrier to my participation. I also believe the issues I'm raising are ones that need to be discussed and decided before we try to embark on an awareness campaign to greatly increase contributions. The way I see it, the smallness of Simple versus regular English is an advantage. It means we have less material to re-work into a new model, before we open the gateways and have a flood of new users making a bad situation worse.

So ... is anybody out there? Does anybody hear me?? If so, what are your thoughts?

Looking forward to a bigger and better Simple English Wikipedia! High-storian (talk) 04:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we are here. Yes, there is activity here (see Special:RecentChanges), although not nearly as much as on English Wikipedia ("enwiki"). Yes, vandals know we are here: after being blocked or banned on enwiki, they often come here. Before I respond at more length, let me ask you something. If you have been "a longtime user of the regular English Wikipedia for most of its 15 years", why does it look like you only started working on Wikimedia projects in late December? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah! Life!! Hello, there. Your question, though, hits a major pet peeve of mine. Not all users are [[User:]]s! There is another group of "users" out there ... a much larger and more important group of users. The users who surf our servers and read our pages. I've also edited, off and on, as an IP, and yes, I've crossed over to the [[User:]]-side before, but the times I did, I was not impressed with the childishness that dominated, at the time. And yes, all that time, I never noticed that there was a thing called "Simple English Wikipedia". Kindda spooky in here, with the dust and cobwebs and all. At least in the corner I explored, so far. So yes, who are you and what are your thoughts? High-storian (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello High-storian, and welcome. I've placed a welcome template on your user page so that you may more easily find some of our common links. Personally, I think your question would have been better if asked at Wikipedia:Simple talk (or [[WP:ST]] for short) -- more of our active folk would have seen it there and been able to jump in with an opinion or comment. Regarding your comments, I think you'll find that this project is growing -- albeit at a slower rate than EnWiki. Check out Special:NewPages and you will see a steady flow of contributions there. Some of the questions you asked are pretty significant. For example, balancing the needs of an adult ESL reader with those of a 13-year-old can be challenging at times. We do that by trying to meet the common needs: Use of simpler terms, avoiding idioms, and making sure that more complicated terms are either explained or have links. In some cases, those explanations do sound condescending -- at least to adults who are native English speakers -- but those who are still learning the language find them invaluable. (The concept is not much different than a textbook: instead of a glossary, we have links. By the way, the concept of Simple or Basic English predates Wikipedia by quite a bit. Charles Kay Ogden is credited with that. I think his list needs to be modernized, but at least it's a starting point. Happy editing! Etamni | ✉   09:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, much! Let me be clear, my concerns are not so much about the concept of Simple English itself, but more in how Wikipedia has implemented it, and integrated (or not) with the regular English Wikipedia. I do understand that there is a good amount of commonality, and you're trying to work with that, but in some areas and topics, the commonality breaks down, and the age difference is a significant factor. If your target age is 13, then yeah, I've seen stuff that would be condescending to a 13 year old. I don't know how well that target age may have been advertised. I'll explore your links further and follow up as needed. I'm glad to hear the project isn't entirely dead ... but it's clear that more life is needed, here. I definitely want to collaborate with folks here to come up with an approach that would better suit the unique relationship between Simple English and regular English, because it's clear, IMHO, that the present arrangement isn't working. A quick kluge 13 years ago should not dictate what we become in the future. Thanks again for the welcome links. High-storian (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you know[change source]

When will they change the "Did you know" section of the Main Page? —This unsigned comment was added by PokestarFan (talkchanges) 00:50, 5 February 2016‎ (UTC)

Hi. You can get involved in nominating and discussing Did You Know hooks here. --Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

How "simple" should Simple Wikipedia be?[change source]

EnWiki goes really in depth. At what grade level are we supposed to write in?Winterysteppe (talk) 19:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Winterysteppe:. I've added some links to your talk page. I think a better place to get your question answered will be at Wikipedia:Simple talk (which is our Teahouse, help desk, reference desk, etc.). Etamni | ✉   21:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder[change source]

This page is the talk page for discussing improvements to the main page. General questions or comments about Simple Wikipedia should probably be addressed at Wikipedia:Simple talk. More people will see them there and you will get a faster reply. Thank you for visiting and I hope you decide to stay! Etamni | ✉   21:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism?[change source]

Am I the only one seeing this on this page?

Long live feminism

Rolf Harris.jpg Long live feminism

Rolf Harris.jpg Long live feminism

Rolf Harris.jpg (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It's vandalism. It will be cleaned up. I reverted your post, because I thought that you were the vandal logged out. //nepaxt 00:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Auntof6 for protecting the page. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Blocked from editing by two admins for vandalism and I don't even know what I did wrong[change source]

I was messing around with my own talk page and then two admins thought I was vandalizing but I doubt I wasbecause some of my edits were helpful like the ones where I remove words in the Words to Watch list. If only the admins could be reasonable by telling me where I vandalized something so I can learn from it otherwise it would become more like one of those tests where the teachers don't want you to learn from any of your wrong answers. I think there should be a reminders / warnings for vandalism or rule violating and every moderation message should include evidence of rule violation so I can know where I went wrong. Otherwise Wikipedia will never get anything done. -- (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)