Talk:Main Page/Archive4

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

Contents

Wrong spelled word[change source]

Antarctica is spelled Antartica in the Did you know section... Can anyone change it? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done nice find, thankyou wiooiw (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The is spelled wrong in the leetspeak page.

Simple German Wiki?[change source]

HI u all out there woukldn't it be a great idea to start a simple german wiki also, because german is the second biggest wikipedia and german sometimes is quite a hardn language.


what do u think about this???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.69.206.48 (talkcontribs)

You'd have to propose it at m:Requests for new languages, but I don't think that they are accepting any more simple language Wikipedias. (I would find such a Wikipedia useful myself, but I'm also not sure how many people would.) sonia 08:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I already did. Loudclaw (talk) 08:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should work on your English before starting to learn German. So so sorry, I couldn't help it in the least. 70.231.254.5 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you know I live in America? Loudclaw (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ja. The one and only...Mr. Berty! talk~stalk 20:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
*rolls eyes* I am also learning German. I kind of made(by unification) a German wiki account w/out meaning to.

Loudclaw (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

So, um, how did anybody find out? I'll bet CheckUsers did it. !Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 22:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)!
Done! They'll look at this thread. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 23:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anyone who speaks "simple German". How can German be simple? And you would need something like basic words that will be used for the Wikipedia. But to my mind it's a good idea. -- Hyvik (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mobile wikipedia????[change source]

Would there be a posibillity to make some wikipedia adress where the pictuaressaren'tt loaded so that it would be faster for tor and mobile users???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.69.206.48 (talkcontribs)

There is, here.sonia 08:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Simple talk is best suited for this kind of question. However, I'd like to point out that m.wikipedia.org does load images. And, if you still wanted to use m.wikipedia.org, the link for simple_pedia would be simple.m.wikipedia.org, not en.m.wikipedia.org. —Waterfox (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
http://simple.m.wikipedia.org is currently not supported, that is what was said when I visited the website. Hydriz (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can't ask meta to support Simple.m.wikipedia.org so that everyone can have the simple wikipedia, everywhere. Loudclaw (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can at least make use of the fact that I have an account there. Loudclaw (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
There we go. Now all we do is wait. Loudclaw (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Free content[change source]

In "the free encyclopedia that anyone can change", I propose linking "free" to copyleft. —Waterfox (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, I think it should be linked to free content, like on en_pedia. —Waterfox (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Good idea. Free has two common meanings: "gratis" and "libre". Here at Wikipedia, both apply, but the latter (freedom) is more important. EhJJTALK 00:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I performed the change at Main Page/Test 1. What do you guys think? Should we make it live? —Waterfox (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The link is appropriately relevant, so I'd agree with making the change. -- Mentifisto 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality[change source]

(disscussion moved to simple talk, which may be a better place for it.--Eptalon (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandilism?[change source]

Why do people vandalize topics and pages? I think it's really imature of people.

Great question, but I don't have the answer. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Because, as the old saw goes, "mean people suck". Which is really unfair to the physics of suction. (Humorous intent: Propsed new template)Wikidgood (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed move[change source]

Move to Wikipedia:Main Page "Main Page" is not an article and so it should not be in the article namespace. It is more appropriate in the Wikipedia namespace (where an identical version already exists.) Note that several other Wikipedias do this already: el:Πύλη:Κύρια (portal namespace), fr:Wikipédia:Accueil principal, ksh:Wikipedia:Houpsigk, nds:Wikipedia:Hööftsiet, no:Portal:Forside, zh:Wikipedia:首页, and zh-classical:維基大典:卷首 (Wikipedia namespace). -Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 22:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your probably going to get the same conclusion that was made here -- wiooiw (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Section on Main Page for new articles[change source]

Can we add a section like this for new articles? Maybe have 5 facts, each from a new page. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be what the Did you knows are. -DJSasso (talk) 15:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
But DYK's are not necessarily for new articles. The purpose would be to let the community know about recently created articles. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
DYKs are meant for new articles or articles that were substantially expanded recently. Though maybe its been getting away from that recently. But that pretty much is the point of DYKs. I believe they started to use not so new articles because we just simply don't have enough new articles of good enough quality from a variety of subjects to be able to do it just from that pool. -DJSasso (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I sadly must agree with DJSasso. The new articles that come out in simple wikipedia almost always need categories, expansion, cleanup, simplifying, referencing, and wikifying, considering that I always try to edit new pages. They're not good enough to put up in the main page, and our first readers may get a bad impression of our articles after they click it and find it's not as good as some of our articles would be. Warmly, Belle tête-à-tête 00:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Our of your things, my new articles need possible simplifying and referencing. That's it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
(<-) If I look at it, the last 250 new pages go back about two weeks, this means that there are about 125 new pages per week, or about 500 per month. From that perspective, creating such a section might make sense. The big problem I see is that currently, the 30-or-so active editors are already struggling to keep up the DYK. Incorporating this into the DYK might give new life to that process. Another option would be to try the "new section" for like a month, and after the month do a roundup. In contrast to the DYK candidates, many new pages will need (a lot of) work till they meet dyk standards. By incorporating this into the DYK we would give an incentive to create pages to the DYK standards. In short: try to get this into the DYK, and if it runs fabulously well, create a new section for it. --Eptalon (talk) 12:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The big issue is that of those 250. I would bet at least 75% are nowhere near the quality needed to be featured as a link from the main page. I wouldn't doubt if it was closer to 95%. And like I mentioned DYK is already supposed to try to be biased towards newer articles. So yes, create new pages to DYK standards and you will likely get a link on the main page for a short while. -DJSasso (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
  • A simpler idea would be to give a mini-excerpt each week from a GA. For new or expanded pages DYK works fine. We should be careful to put the best goods in the shop window. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The main page is already rather long as it is, and I doubt that most users scroll down all the way. With simplicity, I think, comes the desire for less on the front page. So I support keeping it as it is. Kansan (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

requested move[change source]

Please move the article Srinagar (Iqbalabad) to Srinagar since the name Iqbalabad has never been used in history of this city. (see any other wikipedia; this fictional name is not found.)

--AnonyLog (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done πr2 (talk • changes) 14:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I took care of all links (linking directly to Srinagar). We can remove the forward link created by the move now, it seems. --Eptalon (talk) 10:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Aymar (Aymara)[change source]

The Aymar (Aymara) Wikipedia now has 1,101 articles (see ay:Especial:Estadísticas), so it should be listed on the 1,000 + section. Same for the Chavacano de Zamboanga (Zamboanga Chavacano) Wikipedia (see cbk-zam:Especial:Estadísticas).Albacore (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot should catch that, I think Purplebackpack89 22:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Is wikipedia safe for kids?[change source]

How safe is wikipedia for kids? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connoe (talkcontribs)

Not very safe, I'm afraid. Even though this Wikipedia is safer than the English Wikipedia. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is part of the internet. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot guarantee its content to be safe for kids. If you are worried about this, please consider using an internet filter software to control what your kids see on Wikipedia. Hydriz (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

<-  (change conflict)  Wikipedia is as safe as most interactive online environments. Participation in Wikipedia is probably safe for young people who know basic Internet safety practices. Other editors also check on Wikipedia, so improper activity is pretty quickly stopped. Some of our administrators are also underage. Wikipedia isn't censored though, so it may have some articles with things like sexual acts inside it. Sometimes pages are vandalized with rude words, though we usually quickly remove it. On the whole, though, it's a much safer online environment than most, and an educational one, too! :) Hope this helps, —Clementina talk 12:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition to what is said above, let me perhaps point out that Wikipedia may have content you might not want to see. This includes graphics or drawings of nude people or body parts, and descriptions of subjects that are seen as tabooised in certain cultures. Wikipedia is there for information, so such content is tolerated. If this is a concern, perhaps look at WikiJunior, which is made specifically for kids. The main target of this Wikipedia is people learning English, or who only have a limited grasp on it. --Eptalon (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm underage and I'm happier here than on the "Big English Wikipedia" as I like to call it. Loudclaw (talk) 09:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"copy/paste from another Wikipedia"[change source]

I did this edit and it accused me of copying from another Wikipedia. I don't understand. This is silly. How exactly does this warning work? What sets it off? Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

that was done by an automatic filter, which was I was changing at the time; should be fine now. --Eptalon (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Highlighting non-simple words[change source]

Has anyone worked on a gadget to highlight non-simple words in articles at this wiki? Interested editors could use such a thing to flag words they might want to consider changing or explaining in an article. I'm thinking the most useful such gadget would leave words in a basic list like BE 850 untouched, highlight words only in a larger list like BE 1500 in a subtle way, and highlight words not in the larger list in a stronger way. The gadget should not force editors to change or explain the non-simple words, nor should it try to suggest alternatives, only notify the editor of their presence. - dcljr (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a Firefox extension which does this. It is a Simple English language add on that underlines all the non simple words as if they were spelling mistakes. Once installed you can swap between standard or simple English with a mouse click. I use it all the time. The word list is a compilation of several simple English lists made by one of the editors. As for IE or other browsers I haven't heard of anything similar.--Peterdownunder (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There are two dictionaries now, both made by User:Lwyx, there is the Simple English dictionary and the Simpler English dictionary. --Peterdownunder (talk) 06:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
There isn't really anything similar for IE. The dictionaries were created by a POV warrior who thought we should be shut down because we weren't kid friendly enough even though we aren't aimed at kids. (being good for kids is just a side effect of our actual mission ESL). I doubt there will be much more work on these or others created because automating making things simple is not as easy as it sounds and in fact is often wrong to use a simpler word in some situations. For reasons like this dictionaries often lead you down the wrong road and make you think you have to make changes when you don't or shouldn't. However, that being said as long as you are aware of that then its probably not a problem. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

New Bot by ???[change source]

Hi! I just decided to drop by right now to ask this- Would it be okay if I could find an Operator for a new bot, SimpleSineBot? I saw a comment on it here, so I decided to bring it here. Loudclaw (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a pressing need for it at this time, as we're a pretty small community. Kansan (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Too small to need something like that here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a tag...[change source]

How do you tag a page that has too many big words? I know in the big Wikipedia, there are tags that you can put on pages if they are too messy or whatever. How do I do that here, but for pages that use too complicated words? --MoonLichen (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

{{complex}} is what you're looking for, I believe :) sonia 05:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Simple should not mean poorly written[change source]

I'm specifically looking at the "When writing articles here:" part of the main page. It's quite poorly written, to the point that it's confusing, even to someone with a strong grasp of English; to those who are learning the language, and those who have trouble with more complex sentences, they'd be downright incomprehensible.

For instance, "This lets people who know little English read them" - this sentence does not read the way that it is supposed to. It reads as though it refers to some language called "little English", and the "them" is a dangling modifier as a result. "Simple does not mean little" involves the word "little" again, and in this case, it conveys the wrong meaning. Perhaps "short" or "basic" would be a better choice of word. A worse offender on that dot point, though, is "Articles do not have to be short to be simple; expand articles, include a lot of information, but use basic vocabulary". First, I wouldn't consider the semi-colon to be "simple english"; many fully literate English speakers don't even understand them. "Vocabulary" is the worst part, though, as that word couldn't possible be considered "simple". Perhaps "but use short, simple words and sentences" would be a better way to finish that point.

Another example is "And most importantly, do not be afraid to start and make articles better yourself" - I had to read it three times in order to get what was being said. This definitely needs to be worded better. Overall, I think the main page needs to adhere to the rules outlined in the page on how to write Simple English Pages, and then some. It needs to epitomise the wikipedia. Phrases that are unclear should be adjusted until they make sense, while words not part of basic English should either have a page for them so that the reader can understand it, or be replaced by a word that is part of basic English.

The most egregious instance, though, is "It does not mean readers want simple information" - this sentence does not mean what it's supposed to mean. Readers DO want simple information; they also want more detailed information. More than that, "information" isn't exactly "simple english", and even "readers" is pushing it ("people" would probably be a better choice). 124.185.179.17 (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Some interesting points have been raised here, and certainly need to be looked at.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
In addition, the Use the pages to learn and teach. These pages can help people learn English. You can also use them to make a new Wikipedia to help other people. bullet should be changed to remove the meta historical link. Albacore (talk · changes) 14:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is for people who don't really know much English, or is learning English. Simple doesn't have to mean short, only if that is going to make the articles, and therefore the Main Page, simpler. Simple means basic, or easy. If our main page is not easy to understand, that's yet another strike against us. People won't care what's in the article space if they keep clicking Random Article and keep getting the ones that need simplification because they will think that we are just a smaller main English Wikipedia. Loudclaw (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There are some very short articles as well. Even though they are simple and easy to read, a person can't get much information out of them. the articles should at least be as long as both of my posts on this matter, multiplied by two to provide the needed information. Like a few months ago, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption was extremely short. I noticed it and extended it by tenfold. Because of this, it is simple as well as informative, like the articles of Simple English Wikipedia should be. Also, there should be a picture of the object if available. Loudclaw (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I think you raise a good point regarding pictures. Specifically, a greater use of pictures and other graphical assistance should help to make things clearer to younger readers, who may have trouble understanding some of the concepts no matter how simply they are written. (note: the original comment, by 124.185.179.17, was me; I've since registered) Aielyn (talk) 06:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, like who in *thinks carefully* Africa knows what a DS is? We'd need a picture to show the information. Loudclaw (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Another idea[change source]

Another way of keeping pages simple and easier to read is to make sure that pages are adequately split up into sections. It can be daunting for any reader (and not just children) to see a large block of text taking up the majority of the page. Kansan (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Standard article layout as per enwiki generally means large amounts of text to small pictures, and fairly big sections- we shouldn't feel we always have to follow this format. sonia 22:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct, we are not enwiki. We can make our own layouts. A nice, easy to read layout can be this. A short to moderate length intro, 3 to 5 (short) paragraphs in a section. If that's impossible, why don't we just make a sub section? That's the entire reason these (== Hi == and === Hi ===) were made. We can even improve even the Featured articles(as an example, they are not perfect, just better than a VA article) by separating the information into subsections if necessary. Loudclaw (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia in Tatar[change source]

Dear friends, may I ask you to add a hyperlink to our Tatar Wikipedia (http://tt.wikipedia.org) to yourr Front page. Tatars - are turkic nation living in Tatarstan Republic, second biggest nation in Russian Federation. hope to hear from you soon. sincerely yours, Muhtac (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This wiki is already mentioned in the "Other languages" section. -Barras (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Header layout issue.[change source]

The letters in "Welcome to Wikipedia" appear truncated at the top, so that the serifs are missing on both capital W's. I'm viewing the page in the latest stable Chrome release on a Mac. — This unsigned comment was added by 71.194.152.242 (talk • changes) on 02:04, 24 March 2011.

Um, I'm on Firefox and it's just fine for me. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 21:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never noticed it, but I have the same situation. I'm accessing the page through Firefox on a Mac. See screenshot. Hopefully someone adept with code can figure out what's wrong here. Goodvac (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually I just lied there. I do have the same situation. And I lied about the browser, currently I'm on Safari. It really depends on what browser I'm already using that I use WP on for that session. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 00:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
How do I put it on a website? I'm trying to show the Safari counterpart. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 01:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone could be so kind as to copy and paste the contents of User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox onto the Main Page the issue will be fixed, as you can see. Please then delete (Or blank) my sandbox. Ta. Goblin 15:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man!

 Done Kansan (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Oops, I left some redundant code and accidentally dropped the font size and forgot it was in there before asking someone to copy it across; can you change the bit that starts '<h1 style=' to:
<h1 style="font-size: 230%; font-family:'hoefler text','times new roman', serif;  font-variant: small-caps; border: none; margin: 0; padding: 5pt">
Thanks, and sorry! Goblin 16:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Microchip08!
 Done again. Kansan (talk) 16:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Goblin and Kansan. It looks just fine now. Goodvac (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

tenses[change source]

--183.87.45.83 (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you know section requirements[change source]

What are the requirements for the "Did You Know" section? --SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Did you know. -DJSasso (talk) 19:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

i am here first time i got this site good and i wish to express my thougts i am astonished to see the dual and tripple policies of world powers the superpowers as they claimed theirslves and i called so it called superpowers.all the are acting the world have no realistic approach of justification just to give a new trend to make and create a new joke that the world is in danger and all civilized nations are near to destroy by the elements called terrorist we have never seen them in real life just to see what the reallly want to show to us on their controlled media and make people fool in this way and get all their vested interst and make any nation their colony and use of power in their thought is sacred and any other person or a group use the power is called genoside terrorism atrocities etc.

                                                             attorney at law
                                                              mansoor.


Simple English v. English[change source]

What is the difference? 121.54.92.137 (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the audience; SEWP is for people who learnt English as a foreign language, or who have trouble understanding English. see Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages for a guideline on how to contribute here. --Eptalon (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

"more" link[change source]

The Main Page Billy Graham "more" link goes to Blackpool tramway instead of Billy Graham. I thought this edit would fix it, but the error remains on the Main Page. I don't think it can be a cache-clearing problem, because I tried a different browser and it still linked to Blackpool tramway. Art LaPella (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It works for me. Have you tried refreshing your browser? Either way (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I thought cache-clearing and refreshing my browser were the same thing. But if it works for you, cache-clearing/browser-refreshing must be the problem. Art LaPella (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Cache clearing and browser refreshing are two different things. Cache clearing is clearing the cache on the server. Browser refreshing is clearing the cache on your computer. Usually you only need to do it on the server, but sometimes you need to do both. -DJSasso (talk)

Basic English is not Simple English[change source]

In the March 1944 issue of Harpers, readability expert Rudolf Flesch wrote "How Basic is Basic English?" in which he wrote, "It's not basic, and it's not English." The problem with such a restricted vocabulary is that the text ends up being more difficult than necessary. His main complaint is that the words in the Basic vocabulary wer arbitrarily selected, and there was almost no empirical study done on its effectiveness in improving comprehension.

Take, for instance, this article on the main page of Simple English Wikipedia:

"The Epping Ongar Railway is a preserved railway. It runs along the last section of the old Great Eastern Railway and London Underground Central line branch line. The line runs between Epping and Ongar. There is also an intermediate stop at North Weald. The line was reopened in late 2004 after 10 years of being closed. It runs a Sunday and Bank Holiday service using a Class 117 diesel multiple unit. The service runs between Ongar and Coopersale. The service is provided by volunteers who take care for the line as well as run the trains. The land and infrastructure are owned by Epping Ongar Railway Ltd.

"The branch line to Ongar was built in 1865 by the Eastern Counties/Great Eastern Railway. The eastern section of the line, between Epping and Ongar, was single track. There was one passing loop at North Weald station. Around 14 trains went as far as Ongar station each day. The rest finished at Epping or Loughton. The trains continued to finish at Epping or Loughton until 1949. At this time the London Passenger Transport Board's New Works project extended the Central line to Epping using electric trains. The Central Line would take over the railway from British Rail. As part of this change, the Epping-Ongar branch line had its through trains to London removed. Instead, a shuttle service between Epping (to connect with trains to London) and Ongar was used."

That passage has a Flesch-Kincaid score of 6.8, but it is not a well-written sixth-grade text. It is choppy and disjointed. It has too many passive constructions, is badly organized, is repetitious, lacks required connectives, and has too many changes of subjects. Ogden's Basic English, with an 850-word vocabulary, is a one-size-fits-all solution that doesn't work for any level of literacy. We know that fourth grades have a vocabulary of 3,000 words.

To write simple English:

1. Determine the grade level of your audience. 2. Write texts to meet that grade level. 24.18.127.182 (talk) 16:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome anon IP. You clearly have a lot to offer so it would be great if you'd be prepared to edit some of the pages you're most concerned about. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I would rather teach a man how to fish than... The first thing to do is get rid of the Basic English requirement. It gives the impression that the text is simpler, when often it is not. Secondly, just name a target grade level, say the 6th or 8th grade, and get people into practicing writing for that level. Simple. 24.18.127.182 (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Except that when you restrict by grade level you give the false impression that the site is for people of that grade level, this site isn't specifically aimed at children. Secondly we don't restrict ourselves to Basic English. Basic English is just a starting point for people to use. -DJSasso (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

24.18.127.182, create an account. There are many good things that come with an account. We should restrict the words to Simple words (i.e. "benefit" to "good thing" and "consequence" to "what happens as a result of an action"). Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 00:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What I mean is, we have to restrict complicated subjects to simple words. Like we have to say complex things in simple words. Loudclaw/Hey, let's collaborate!/Desk/WP:Warriors/My changes 00:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Selected article[change source]

...not a good idea. Having that banner is a really bad idea. --—SEPTActaMTA8235— (t c l) 12:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Tomorrow's selected article[change source]

Is there a way to make edits like this one before it gets to the Main Page? How do I know which article is going to the Main Page before it gets there? Is there something like English Wikipedia's en:Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow, which allows proofreading before everybody sees it? Art LaPella (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The way I understand it, is its just a looping through the topics that we have good articles for. I just forget where the queue page is located. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Got tired of looking for the queue page. But here is where you can look over all the articles that rotate through the queue. [Any that are Main Page/Article X]. -DJSasso (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Request to an admin[change source]

Could an admin update the logo from the current old logo to the new one that I have uploaded here? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/df/20110520170957!Wikipedia-logo-simple.png)

--RaviC (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

So are we doing this or not? fr33kman 15:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd support the change. (Moved to Simple talk). Albacore (talk · changes) 16:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Project status question[change source]

Question: Is simple.wikipedia.org part of the Wikipedia project, or a separate project, like Wikisource and Wikibooks are separate sister sites? For example if I wanted to create a new project under name.wikipedia.org, would I make a proposal at "m:Proposals for new projects" (at Wikimedia), or rather some place at Wikipedia.org? Green Cardamom (talk) 18:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

On the off chance you're still watching this, you'd make the request at m:Proposals, as you suggested. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Idiot: GoblinBot4[change source]

I just created a page called I-485, and it is short. I'm not done and it tags me for deletion. I need some help. --Biggie14 (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have declined the deletion for you to give you more time to wikify the article. I'd not, personally, describe GB4 as an idiot, it frankly does a very good job. Next time could you ask for help from this page. Thx. fr33kman 15:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm also having trouble with it, he keeps undoing my revision of Dr. Dre for vandalism? When I spent well over an hour turning it from a stub - to this Dr. Dre, if you could help, that'd be great, thanks, K. Djjazzyb (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Today's selected article (grammar)[change source]

I'd just like to point out that the bit about today's selected article on Dan Kelly has a slight grammar issue in the first sentence. "Dan Kelly (1861 – 28 June 1880) was a Australian bushranger and outlaw." It should be 'an', not 'a'. I'd fix it myself, but I can't seem to find the specific page that is being transcluded. It's probably protected anyway, so can an administrator please fix this? --cremepuff222 (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for pointing this out. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 07:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks[change source]

Thanks for answering my prayers, I've been wanting simple wikipedia for years. I envisioned different levels of understanding for different articles in tabs, but this'll do.

Article has wrong title[change source]

There is currently an article called Bose Einstein Condensation. There actually is such a thing, in information theory, but the article is about the Bose-Einstein Condensate. There is no way I can find that would allow me to move this article to a new title. Please fix it.Patrick0Moran (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Saturn[change source]

Could an admin please put the wikilink to the selected article (Saturn)? The wikilink is not there, it's just bold. Orashmatash (talk) 15:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
No it isn't. You can't edit the main page either, it's admins only. Still just bold, and still needs fixed. 2.126.60.169 (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Silly, you don't have to be an admin to edit the box (that is not in the main page itself). I already fixed it, try refreshing your browser. Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 15:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but it links to a disambiguation. *sigh*, I'll fix it. Orashmatash (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Evolution selected article[change source]

I would suggest two changes:

  • The earth has been around to The Earth has been around
  • The theory of evolution is the basis of modern biology to The theory of evolution is the basis of modern [[biology]] (biologist is linked above, but not biology)

DJDunsie (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Orashmatash 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. One thing, you made Earth bold. And how did you edit it? DJDunsie (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I removed the bold at "Earth". Cheers, Orashmatash 20:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It was my fault - I was trying to make things easier to see but I made it more complicated - I'm sorry. But how did you change the page? I thought it was admin only. DJDunsie (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The Featured article section is not on the main page its-self, it is in a main page subpage, and autoconfirmed editors can edit it. Orashmatash 11:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Quick note, please also make sure that these changes are reflected on the actual article itself, as the VGA leads are selected from the article's lead... (if that makes sense!). Goblin 13:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1!
Yes, that slipped my mind. Thanks Goblin! Orashmatash 13:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, Orashmatash. You have been very helpful. I found it here. DJDunsie (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity Objectivity[change source]

I have a near conspiratorial grievance with Wikipedia. There seems to be a concerted and consistent effort to purge certain unpopular facts about people's backgrounds in their articles. The facts shouldn't be altered by the current cultural marxist zeitgeist. If they are going to report anybody's ethnicity, they should report everybody's ethnicity. If someone is part "Jewish" but has "other" ancestors, they don't become just "Jewish". Their "other" ancestors' ethnicities must be reported. If you're going to report on one of their ancestors, you must report on them all, or you undermine your objectivity and credibility. All I demand is uniformity and fairness, that is all. I find these trends disturbing. I have altered multiple articles that comport to this trend. This is my official formal complaint and mandate that Wikipedia follow this paradigm. I'm left wondering, are some "special", "chosen" ancestors more important than others? And remember, you can't choose your genetic and ethnic history. It's a matter of fact, not opinion. You can identify culturally with a group but that does not render you ethnically of that group at all, let alone entirely. Don't conflate the two. That's also fact, not opinion. The website might even be wise to segregate the two. No more promoting some groups and their successes and denigrating and censoring others. Just facts, how's that? That's what encyclopedias are supposed to be about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.99.84.87 (talkcontribs)

Can you please point towards a few articles with this problem? 82.33.215.26 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Materials science[change source]

We have no article on this subject, no category and no mention under Knowledge Groups -- Applied science. The area has been advancing hugely over the last 50+ years, and is now very important in engineering, building, and science. I suggest it is added as a red link to the Applied science section. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

You better bring that up on WP:ST. This page is not watched by many people and changes of the main page should probably be discussed. -Barras (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia[change source]

The Dutch Wikipedia now has over 1,000,000 articles. The template should now be set accordingly. I'd do it myself, but I can't find where to do it and it'll probably be protected anyway. -Orashmatash- 17:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Even thought that this page is only semi-protected, I've updated it. Thanks for the notice. -Barras (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You have the words wrong way round: "Dutch" should come first, and "(Netherlands)" second. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It says Nederlands - as in Deutsch, Francais, Nederlands. Osiris (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit[change source]

"This is the front page of the Simple English Wikipedia. Wikipedias are places where people work together to write encyclopedias in different languages. We use Simple English words and grammar here." — "Simple Eenglish" links to a disambiguation page. Can someone fix this? 66.227.250.240 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, many thanks for pointing this out. -Orashmatash (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we need all of these location pages?[change source]

I notice that, just as in en.wikipedia, simple wikipedia has a bloatload of single-sentence articles about towns, municipalities, communes, etc. Is Simple.wikipedia the place for these or would it be better to just have a grid-list of 'Organized communities in Washington County' with columns for important numbers (population, established, etc.) and a comments column. If the comment gets too long it can be split off into a separate article and the comment can be blanked to 'See Article' or something. I feel like en.Wikipedia would be a better place to have an individual article for every single insignificant township. Is this a bad idea? Enthdegree (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a proposal for this at Wikipedia:Simple talk#Notability of settlements and on my talk page. But it's a bit stale, unfortunately. Osiris (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, this page is for discussion about the Main Page, so better you move this over to Wikipedia:Simple talk. Osiris (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, neat. I'll check these out, Thanks! Enthdegree (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

publish a bio about a living person.[change source]

Hi, how do I publish my father's biography? He's an artist in NYC and he has exhibitions coming up soon and I am trying to get his name out there more for the public. He has several articles on the web and is quite known for his work. I need help trying to publish his bio and I want to know the procedures.

Thank you.

If he is famous we will write it for you. You should not write it yourself, because you probably have a conflict of interest.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

sidebar languages quirk: non-alpha order[change source]

We have German placed in the sidebar above English because Deutsch with a 'D' comes before 'E'.

We have Russian spelt correctly with a 'P' but with the R's, not the P's

But 日本語 we have after Italiano as if Nihon-go started with a 'J' as in Japanese. By that logic, 'Deutsch' would be ordered as 'G' for 'German'.

This occurs in several places in English in the wiki family.

I find myself concluding that there is no 日本語 version of a given article in English and then I have to go 'Doh!'

Note that I have not seen this done to Chinese ... which is almost always among the last of 'Z' end of the sidebar list.

Grshiplett (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

They're listed in alphabetical order (that's by prefix, not the name of the language). That's why Russian is with the R's, because it's prefix is ru. The Japanese Wikipedia's prefix is ja, and the Chinese is zh. However, I'm not sure how in-line this is with the standard ordering. Osiris (talk) 01:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedias themselves use the prefixes in their URLs, so users of those Wikipedias would know where to look. - the Japanese Wikipedia is at ja.wikipedia.org, not ni.wikipedia.org, while the Chinese Wikipedia is at zh.wikipedia.org, not ch.wikipedia.org, but I don't know why that is. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Edited by Philosopher at 17:01 --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

cannot log in to my account[change source]

when I try to log in to my account Wikipedia tells me that my user name (futiwali) does not exist. I have been using the same user name for years and have not changed it. I have checked the spelling and tried a couple of times only to get the same message. When I click on the forgotten password it asks for my user names but when I enter it I get the same message.

futiwali

See this. You account doesn't exist here, you need to log in on the English Wikipedia. -Barras talk 09:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

'change' is different from 'edit'?[change source]

In the original English Wikipedia, the slogan is "... can edit". But seems here in Simple English Wikipedia it is replaced by 'change'. I don't think 'change' is same as 'edit'. Why not keep it just 'edit'? It's not a hard word. Greek Fellows (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the reasoning is that "change" is on the BE 1500 wordlist, while "edit" is not. It's certainly not as commonly used as "change". Osiris (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Might be, but still I don't think 'change' exactly fits the meaning of 'edit'. Maybe we can link some words to their Wiktionary pages. And I'm even more confused by 'Show any page'. Is this supposed to be 'Random page'???Greek Fellows (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There's no point trying to change a wiki you have never contributed to! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Coming over here from the regular English wiki, I have to agree that seeing the new terminology was a bit odd. Looking for the edit button to make contributions was a bit weird at first. However, 'Show any page' doesn't really translate to 'random'. Perhaps 'Show different/new page' would be clearer in meaning? VLifeson 14:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Change is correctly used as it does mean basically the same thing. Since we are Simple English wiki we will have different wording in a number of places, that is sort of the point of this wiki. As for the Show any page, I have always thought we should just leave that one at random because random isn't really able to be simplified any further and keep the same basic meaning. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. The Change/Edit thing isn't that big of a deal. It's mostly just an issue when first coming over from the main English wiki, I guess. I always thought of 'random' as a pretty basic word though. VLifeson 16:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The question should be "Will people know what this means?", not "Do they mean the exact same thing?" People will know that to change a page, you click "change." "Show any page" is a bit weirder, but still makes sense - and for those still confused, note that the Special: page is still called Special:Random. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The page is not setup for mobile[change source]

Navigate to http://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page for further details

Working on it... Osiris (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Why isn't the Schools Gateway (for kids) not porn free[change source]

I can't believe this! My kids always use Wikipedia for school! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE4Z9qunAc4 It should be called Wikipornea --Concerned Dad!

Well, the search here in this Wiki include pictures. But these pictures aren't uploaded here in this wiki, but on Wikimedia Commons, a sort of "Wikipedia" just for images and videos etc. All files there will be included in the search on all wikies. This is not only the problem here, although I understand your concerns. And the images don't aim to show any porn, but rather for illustration purposes. --@intforce 12:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
See What Wikipedia is not. Amogst others it is not censored. This is a fundamental princuple of Wikipedia. See the following debates:
There were many more, and you find them if you search Simple talk for 'censored'. If you want to start a new discussion, please do so on simple talk. --Eptalon (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I see the U-tube diatribe is by Larry Sanger, a former co-founder who is now a long-term critic of WP. He was actually the author of many of our policies! And is he not the founder of Citizendium, one of our (failed) rivals? It's only a personal view, of course, but I don't find English WP articles on sex particularly troubling. Our pages on Simple are even milder. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Yeah Larry Sanger is pretty vocal critic of wikipedia since he feels he was booted from it if I recall correctly. Everything he says has to be taken with a grain of salt. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
He recently made a public claim about Wikipedia that would have had strong legal consequences if it were true, and nothing came of it. He isn't the most reliable of sources. Kansan (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
And the original post in this thread is of course by him. -DJSasso (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Three points. 1) The first search I believe the term he used is almost exclusively sexual. I cannot agree that finding 'questionable' content through a search like that is a problem. 2) He highlights the part about this WP being for kids, but not the part it being for adults too. 3) The School Gateway is porn free. He went to that page then left it to search. Thats like saying the UK Government website has porn on it by going to their website, then following a link to Google where you search for porn and linking the two together. Ludicrous. I stopped watching the video so there may be more content that would get my back up but I stopped at that part. That being said, I think that searching for a cucumber and finding 'those' images should raise a debate. Its perfectly conceivable that a child could search for cucumbers, and I think it should be our responsibility to put some level of filter in place to stop that from coming up in an innocent search. I'm just not sure on how to solve that particular 'issue'. Usually I'm extreme in my opposition to content filters but in this instance I believe we have a duty of care towards our audience which tends to be younger. Kennedy (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

human rights[change source]

what are human rights

Maniesansdelire (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible Innuendo in DYK[change source]

"Female fir cones are cylindrical and erect". Really? Who wrote/added this? It even looks like a penis. I understand that Wikipedia isn't censored, but a ridiculous joke like this does not belong on the main page. --Cenedlaetholwr Cymreig (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That is sort of the point of DYK, to list interesting or amusing facts. -DJSasso (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit about language[change source]

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

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

Sister projects section[change source]

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

  • WikiData
  • regular English Wikimedia Commons

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

In other languages...[change source]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You sound like you have a very good range of english. I would suggest that you ask this at the more complex Wikipedia as you're more likely to get an answer there. 82.33.215.26 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

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

My proposal: In our sister project 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.

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)

We should all use xkcd's Simple Writer on all the pages. 71.222.82.169 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. SilverMagpie (talk) 05:43, 18 November 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)

Kk Kavuruanindrababu (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

What are you doing public Kavuruanindrababu (talk) 13:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok Christine lakin (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

JUST A REMINDER Coe ubepari (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2019 (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

98.110.19.3 (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. --174.53.34.144 (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good idea. SilverMagpie (talk) 05:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Anonymous IPs do not get their "own" talk page, users need to register for this facility. Admins have very little tolerance for vandalism, but are always helpful to people who want to learn. Check our guidelines before you start, its like learning a few road rules before you get in a car for the first time.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Persian wiki[change source]

The Persian wiki has more 500,000 articles according to List of Wikipedias, update the main page please. Regards —This unsigned comment was added by Mohsen.Fa (talkchanges) 11:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC) (UTC)

@Mohsen.Fa: The article you cited, on this Wiki, only indicates that the Persian Wikipedia has over 100,000 articles and less than 1,000,000 articles. That said, I've checked the main page of the Persian Wiki and I do see that the site now contains slightly over 500,000 article, so we will make the necessary corrections. Etamni | ✉   12:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done The change has been made. Etamni | ✉   13:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Really like the Simple English Wikipedia and the News Photos on the main page![change source]

New to Simple Wikipeia! GREAT! Thanks! Eddson storms (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Automatic LIX-numbers as default in the simple-english section ?[change source]

Just wondering if it would be possible to in-cooperate something like LIX (en:LIX) as default in the simple-english section ? I think it could be a great help for editors if they could see the automatic calculated lix-number of the article they are working on ! 179.63.240.6 (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how an automated number could be added, but here is an easy to use calculator that compares Simple English Wikipedia to the English Wikipedia, Readability of Wikipedia, --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Not being a programmer I don't know either, but its quite a simple formula so I'm sure it could be implemented, maybe even with warnings to editors when their articles surpass a given LIX-number ? Browsing around in the "Simple wiki" quite a few articles are far beyond Simple-English and this could maybe be a big help for editors and a scare off for spammers ? 179.63.240.6 (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe. We have ambivalent feelings about fixed measures for measuring Simple English here. But LIX (or something like it) might be a useful tool to start—for example, implementing a pending-changes-like approach where an admin or other experienced reviewer has to clear a page that preliminarily fails an LIX reading. That said, we are very sensitive here to anything that might discourage legitimate new contributors. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@Peterdownunder: Maybe this should move to WP:Simple talk. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

It was not intended to scare anyone off, except for spammers maybe, but more as an guidance for editors, similar to automated spelling control. Maybe just a number in a corner of the article which could also change colours from green over yellow to red depending on reading difficulty ? 179.63.240.6 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was intended to scare anyone off. It's a different question as to whether it would in fact discourage anyone. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I know those were not your words, and I don't think some coloured numbers in an corner of an article would discourage anyone either, just as automatic spell checking isn’t scary in it self :-) 179.63.240.6 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So step back for a minute and think of it this way. It's not about "scary". It's about someone coming in, making some edits, feeling good about it, and then someone else deciding to make changes solely for the purpose of getting the number to turn green. Now the truth is: If the English is not "Simple", the article needs changes anyway. No argument. But if people start playing around with edits solely around numbers, it can turn into a picky, frustrating process that can discourage people trying to do their best.
Look, maybe a metric is appropriate. I'm just worried that one size doesn't always fit all. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

ok, thanks :-) Just thought I'd share the idea 179.63.240.6 (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And we appreciate that, truly. Thanks. Let's see if anyone else has something to say here. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And thanks to you people for doing a great job on Wikipedia ! 179.63.240.6 (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"50 square miles long"[change source]

Just noticed that the Did You Know section of the main page currently says "... that the Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, Florida is 50 square miles long?" However, square miles is a measure of area, not length, and doesn't really make sense. I'm thinking it should be something more like "... that the Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando, Florida covers 50 square miles?" 2601:243:702:CB1:4CB3:3C1C:DB42:A13E (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for catching it. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on introductory text[change source]

On this page it says, "Writing in Simple English means that simple words are used. It does not mean readers want basic information". I think this should say "...does not mean that readers *only* want basic information". Randywombat (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine, but with the word order reversed: "want only" , with "only" after "want". --Auntof6 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

DYK[change source]

I can't recall seeing the Middle Passage mentioned anywhere without the definite article. Is its omission intentional here? Also, is there a separate page for reporting errors on the Main Page (as en-Wiki has), or is this the correct place? --Joefromrandb 04:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Joefromrandb. I have fixed that issue -- thanks for reporting it. The best place to report main page errors in general is probably at WP:Simple talk, because more people probably watch that page than this one. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

German Version[change source]

Hi, is it possible to create a German language version here? I think this idea is good for simple people. Greetings, European Networks (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, the policy of the WMF is to not create other simplified versions. I know that Simple French failed, and to my konwledge, there is a small community (really small) waniting simple German. In any case, this should probably be discussed at Meta, and not here. It is diffficult enough as it is to keep Simple English going; if you want support for Simple German, you need to raise an issue at Meta. --Eptalon (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply. I will think about it. Best regards, European Networks (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@European Networks: Here's what you'll hear on Meta: Unless there is a standardized simple form of German, this project will not be eligible for its own subdomain. What you can do is to see if German Wikipedia is willing to create a new namespace for content in Simple German, and start something there. StevenJ81 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Last submission on Meta was in 2011: meta:Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Simple_German_4--Eptalon (talk) 14:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that even if their was 100 percent support the WMF would not support it as they do not really want simplified Wikipedias however as the Simple English Wikipedia was made before they said that it is grandfathered Killfish23 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

The Did You Know Section[change source]

When will someone change the did you know section. Its like that since 15 December 2017. I can't change it but someone has to. If only I could change. Please, someone help to change it. --Zayyam123 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't get updated here very often because people don't submit new DYK facts. They have to be submitted and approved, they can't just be added. -DJSasso (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request[change source]

The part under "Did you know?" (From a collection of Wikipedia’s articles) should be "From a collection of Wikipedia articles" as "Wikipedia" is supposed to be an adjective.  Anchorvale T@lk  12:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you point to somewhere that indicates it should be an adjective. A proper noun makes more sense for what this line is trying to portray. -DJSasso (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you.  Anchorvale T@lk  12:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"Be Bold"[change source]

Is "bold" a little too ambigious for an English learner? Brave would retain much of the same intent.--Occono (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I think brave is likely just as problematic if not more so. -DJSasso (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This project is not reaching a target audience. Propose closure and integration with En Wiki[change source]

I am sure this will ruffle some feathers, but consider this: SEW is not read by many. It has very low visibility. The best solution would be to integrate it into English Wikipedia through a new tab or prominent button. Nobody clicks on the SEW interlanguage link, and hence very few people, including SEW target audience of ESLs and other special audiences, is aware of it and benefits from the effort of SEW volunteers. So instead of the intuitive 'object, don't close my beloved project', please consider a conditional support 'close if En Wiki gets a new feature to showcase SE content'). Closure discussion: m:Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia 2 --Piotrus (talk) 08:50, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: When you say integrate it into the English Wikipedia, do you mean continuing to allow Simple English content to be editable and maintaining it's current structure? Vermont (talk) 09:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont: Editable, yes, of course. But structure, not so much (through it depends on what we mean by it). I don't see the need for SEW to continue being a separate wiki - we tried it for 10+ years and it failed (using the measure of 'is it reaching it default audience', with the answer that 99.9% of people with special needs, widely defined, don't know of it and don't use it). Hence, my solution to integrate it into English Wikipedia. Whether it would make sense to keep simple.wikipedia.org as a host for those articles or they should all be transwikified (ex. to a new Simple namespace on English) is a technical issue that I abstain from, my point being is that SE articles should be easy visible and accessible from En Wiki, and that a lot of work on SE like categories, templates, etc. is not necessary if it was to be integrated with En Wiki, thus being able to use its richer underlying support structure. I hope nobody gets offended by the suggestion that the project is useless - I mean it is a great idea, but ineffectively executed. The effective way of bringing SE content to the masses has to be done through the site that the masses use (i.e. English Wiki). --Piotrus (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Piotrus: I believe it would be better to keep this project, but perhaps prioritize the SEW in the EW's transwiki links, or have a link to the SEW as a button next to "View History" and "Edit", so that SEW would be more accessible to people, as being the 52nd largest Wikipedia it's significantly less well-known than the English Wikipedia. Vermont (talk) 09:39, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Vermont: I believe this discussion should take place at the Meta page, not here. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Probably a good idea to move it there. We can start a discussion heading there.--Piotrus (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I commented at the Request for closure page: Merging won't work. In my opinion, many ENWP editors do not care about readabililty / explaing well. There is also a negative attitude towards SEWP, its editors, and its users. --Eptalon (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I have a feeling the worms have been let out of the can. The attitude towards this Wikipedia is that we are a dumping ground for everyone who doesn't fit in at the main English Wikipedia. @Piotrus: - I would say this to you; if this Wikipedia is closed, we are flying in the face of what Wikipedia stands for. Making knowledge available to everyone. I consider myself proficient enough in English (as a native speaker of Danish) to conduct normal daily conversation without issue - but put a reasonably levelled Wikipedia article in front of me and I'm lost. The English Wikipedia is only good for scientists, mathematicians and lexicographers (people who write dictionaries). Otherwise, it's a bust. Your target audience is a hell of a lot bigger than ours, but ours is specialist enough to be useful. I've opposed your proposal and strongly hope that others do the same. DaneGeld (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
@DaneGeld: I work on a daily basis with a lot of ESLs who are much less proficient then you (at least judging by the quality of your reply). None of them knows of simple wiki, and yet they find English Wikipedia useful (if sometimes difficult). I stand by my point that to help people like them (you) we need to merge SEW as an option into the Wikipedia used by 99.999% of the readers. --Piotrus (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Please discuss on Meta, not here. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
LangCom has reached a preliminary decision to reject the closing, based on the reasons given. Discussion regarding this tentative decision is still open at meta. -★- PlyrStar93 Message me. 13:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Update (1 August 2018)[change source]

This proposal was closed as rejected, and this wiki (as well as SE Wiktionary) will stay open.

LangCom is interested to see if this community and the English Wikipedia community can collaborate on ways to make content here more visible on English Wikipedia. But LangCom's perspective is that a way forward on that is up to the two communities, and cannot be imposed from above by LangCom (or anyone else at WMF). StevenJ81 (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Gujarati[change source]

I can Writing and editing in gujarati ? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anand Manish Parmar (talkcontribs) 07:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anand Manish Parmar: Not here. For that, you can work on Gujarati Wikipedia, at https://gu.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AA%AE%E0%AB%81%E0%AA%96%E0%AA%AA%E0%AB%83%E0%AA%B7%E0%AB%8D%E0%AA%A0. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)