Wikipedia:Simple talk

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

Simple English as a language in its own right[change source]

Does anyone actually speak or write Simple English as its own language, as opposed to using it temporarily as a way to learn normal English? I mean using it consistently and understanding the grammar, and being able to write in Simple English without mistakes. I know lots of people communicate in English without being totally fluent, using limited vocabulary and grammar, but they would make some mistakes so I don't see that as Simple English. (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is that Simple English, or Basic English is a recognized language, but it's purpose is as a stepping stone to a fuller understanding of the English language. I'm sure others here can provide more technical answers, but you may find the articles "Basic English" and "Simple English Wikipedia" to be helpful in understanding the purpose of the language and this wiki. Etamni | ✉   01:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Basic English is English with a severely simplified word list (vocabulary). It was a formal project by Charles Ogden (C.K. Ogden) in the 1920s, who organised a number of books written in Basic English. He foresaw that people round the world would choose English as a common tongue, and thought they could use his version. Simple English wikipedia has developed differently, though at its start Basic English was supposed to be used. The most obvious difference is that Simple vocabulary is more extensive than Basic English, and its concentration is more on writing English clearly and simply. Because anyone can edit, in practice standards of writing are variable. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think either Basic English or Simple English is actually a "recognized language". We treat it as a separate language for purposes of this wiki, but that's just for convenience, to let us explain how things work here. Our article on Basic English says that it's a constructed langusge, but it's actually a controlled language. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Per Aunt and Mac. Computer Fizz (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Something just occured to me a few weeks later-- we don't really all agree on this. For example, on the front page, it says that simple does not mean short, but several admins have told me that simple *does* mean short. I feel like this should be cleared up and put onto *one* page that everyone can agree to. I don't really care what it is *too* much as long as it doesn't change very often. Computer Fizz (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
It depends on what you're talking about. Simple English uses shorter sentences, but articles do not have to be short. Does that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me that, but the problem is that everyone has a different idea of what it is. I think different admin (wasn't you) told me that the articles are short, or that people don't want very much information. I personally agree with you on articles not having to be short, though. Computer Fizz (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's quite one fixed idea, truthfully. Some here—Auntof6 included, I think—don't fully agree with this, but my perspective, expressed elsewhere, is as follows:
  • Definitely shorter, simpler sentences. Not necessarily shorter articles. (Everyone agrees this far.)
  • To make an analogy with printed encyclopedias, I see enwiki as (at least potentially) being able to be an online Encyclopaedia Britannica. I see simplewiki's target for content as being more akin to the en:World Book Encyclopedia. There is room for both in the Wikimedia world.
  • The information should be complete, but on many subjects, I'm not sure the level of detail needs to be quite the same.
  • I think that our target content should be such that a non-expert reader can have a complete picture of a subject. I don't think we need some of the really rigorous detail included in some enwiki articles. I will not say that it is impossible to provide a high level of detail in Simple English. But it is often awkward to do so. I'm inclined to think that once an article gets to a certain level of detail, either the user either speaks English well enough to use enwiki or s/he is going to switch to a different language wiki where s/he understands the language better.

Possible edit filter[change source]

From time to time, well-meaning new editors create articles within the Draft namespace, which we don't use here. Is there a simple way to create an edit filter that blocks all of these, preferably with a non-bitey message that explains that we don't use this namespace? If there is, would this be something that the community would want to use? Etamni | ✉   05:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes! In fact, we don't even need the abuse filter. The below entry in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist will work fine:
 Draft:.* <errmsg=titleblacklist-custom-draft>
Here's what the error message could look like: User:Chenzw/Sandbox/Titleblacklist-draft. It looks a bit wonky due to the use of {{FULLPAGENAME}}, but will work as intended otherwise. Chenzw  Talk  15:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
That looks perfect. The wording of the message might need to be slightly simpler, but the solution appears to be exactly what I was suggesting. If there are any other namespaces we don't use, they should probably get the same treatment. Etamni | ✉   14:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone object to making this change? Etamni | ✉   15:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Chenzw: since nobody seems to object, I'd say go ahead and boldly change it. Etamni | ✉   03:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 Done I have implemented this in Special:Diff/5477402. Chenzw  Talk  04:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

RevisionSlider[change source]

Birgit Müller (WMDE) 15:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Need help regarding semi protected link[change source]


I am a new user to the wikipedia.. Recently i am migrated to autoconfirmed user through software by meeting the requirement.

Now i am able to change the semi protected pages if i find any incorrect information .

but i am not able to edit the sources in simple.wikipedia pages

Can i know why this is happening.

Example Link :

Regards Hareesh — This unsigned comment was added by Doppalapudi.hareesh (talk • changes).

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia. I'm not sure what you mean when you say you can't "edit the sources". Exactly what are you trying to do, and how are you trying to do it? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
@Doppalapudi.hareesh: you are not autoconfirmed yet. Please use the talk page instead if you need to propose any changes, and do remember to sign your comments by typing 4 tildes like this: ~~~~ Chenzw  Talk  11:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Template help[change source]

We have Template:British monarchs and Template:United Kingdom monarchs. They don't quite match up so I think they are meant to cover different things?

We also have Template:English monarchs and Template:Scottish monarchs which makes sense. Wondering if the 4 could all be replaced with the one from en at Template:English, Scottish and British monarchs? The dates make it easier to understand and I think would help with navigation. Alternatively I could just put dates in the box header. Thanks for the help! --Tbennert (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

They show two different things, one are the monarchs of Britain, and one are the monarchs of the UK. In a number of cases the monarchs are both so they look similar. But there isn't any reason you couldn't make that other one here and redirect the others....other than you really shouldn't use such a big template when smaller ones would do. -DJSasso (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought they were different. I think what was confusing me yesterday is that the link for United Kingdom monarchs on the header redirects to British monarchs. The British monarchs page matches the British monarchs template but of course not the United Kingdom template. --Tbennert (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
If any of these get redirected, please make the appropriate changes in Wikidata. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Grants to improve your project[change source]

Please help translate to your language:

Greetings! The Project Grants program is currently accepting proposals for funding. There is just over a week left to submit before the October 11 deadline. If you have ideas for software, offline outreach, research, online community organizing, or other projects that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers, start your proposal today! Please encourage others who have great ideas to apply as well. Support is available if you want help turning your idea into a grant request.

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)