Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 51

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simple News

I'd like to propose moving Simple News from where it currently resides (in Kennedy's userspace) to Wikipedia:Simple News (in Wikipedia space). This move would have to take place after the second issue has come out in a few days, and the page would contain both archives for old issues, rules that articles should adhere to and possibly a template for Simple News itself.

The contributors have shown that they are committed to the project, and I think that it would attract attention and perhaps make the project seem more 'official' if it were in the Wikipedia: space. What do you lot think? --Gwib -(talk)- 11:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fine by me. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, good idea.Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 11:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:O You stole mine and/or Kennedy's thunder! :P Yep, the plan was always to move it after this issue anyway, I was just going to Be Bold ;).
As for pages, we already have a template for new issues, and an archive section. I don't think anything else is needed at the moment - I try and ping anyone interested in it with basic details, and I also feel that's more personal.
One thing that I would like thoughts on: Shall we go fortnightly in the New Year? It's no strain for me.
BG7even 12:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, Issue 2 is now out. There was still an issue with the delivery which I am looking into, but it fixed itself halfway through (after giving it to Samekh twice :S) but i'm confident it will all be sorted for the next issue. I'm now going to be bold and Project space it. Thanks to everyone who has supported it!
On a seperate note, as I mentioned above, what do people think of going fortnightly? Again as I said, there's no issues for me to do that, but what about others? (Can articles be churned out fast enough etc)
BG7even 17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to see it going fortnightly. I noticed that a lot of the news is old by the time it gets published. Kennedy (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, and it is not helping anyones edit count when it is in my userspace, I'd support a move. Go for it BG7, be bold ;) Kennedy (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, i'll do both. Cheers, BG7even 10:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move  Done. I'm going to tag the redirects for a QD is someone would be so kind? (After link fixing) but lets leave Wikipedia:Simple News and Wikipedia talk:Simple News as i'm not refactoring archives and talk page comments (except newsletter issues) :P. BG7even 10:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
QDing started, i'm just fixing every link as it's easier ;) shout at me loudly if you dont like it, but I won't stop :P

A Couple of things...

Hey all,

Two things really, can someone with a good knowledge of .js please look at User_talk:Bluegoblin7#Vandal_Warner_-_Help_Me, and can someone with good template knowledge please look at Template:Infobox rail line and see if they can fix the image problem?


BG7even 12:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I fixed your image problem.--  CM16   18:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm... don't think so. The image now just doesn't show up... :S BG7even 19:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It worked for me...I tested it. Show me the image and the place your trying to put the infobox and maybe I can help you..--  CM16   20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blackpool tramway - all the info is there. Thanks, BG7even 20:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed it the image is working....I removed the logo section from the infobox see my edit summary for why I did.--  CM16   21:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, (and sorry for the delay) but now there are issues with some of the ibox content not displaying. I'll look into it! BG7even 15:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmm... the Technical Details and below aren't displaying - compare en:Blackpool tramway to Blackpool tramway - there's a lot missing from ours (not including the logo). Thanks, BG7even 19:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(unindent) Should be fixed now. -- Creol(talk) 22:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheers Creol, that's great! :D BG7even 23:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Twin cities flag issue

When I go onto the twin cities of a city, I see a UK flag in place for the flag of either England, Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland. Why is this? Tharnton345 11:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technically, the country is the United Kingdom. There was a whole big argument and war over that at Personally, I am Scottish, I'd prefer to see the wee saltire next to Edinburgh, and a wee St Georges cross next to London, but I think the proper way, is really the Union Jack... Kennedy (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Wikicup Controversy

Hello all,

I'm here to propose that the Nation's Cup of the Wikicup be shut down. It's causing way too much dramaz, and is actually detracting from the whole point of the cup. People are more worried about who they are going to be on a team with rather than actually getting on with preparing and editing. The countries saga is just ridiculous as well.

I also don't see how having a team cup will help at all, except making more work for myself and Gwib.


BG7even 13:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I do think it should happen. There is always drama at the begining of projects like this (remember DYK policies... which I still don't totally agree with, but I make do). Once it'll be started (two weeks time) the drama will be gone as users will be concentrating on making edits. Also Users are excited as we're coming up to christmas, normal. They aren't editing at full capacity at the moment as they might want to keep some ideas until the cup starts so they get the points. I hope it won't create too much work for you and Gwib (I don't think so), and if so, maybe ask for anothre judge. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 14:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has the potential to work, granted (and I said that all along) but in it's current state I don't think it will work. The easiest thing is to probably go away for a year, think it through further, and then have it from the offset next year. It's just creating too much drama - people care more about who they are with rather than the editing from what i've seen, and it's not working. I await further input (but i'm also going to come up with my own proposal that might work.)
BG7even 14:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I vote that I do not think it's useful and vote for the Nations Cup to be closed. For one reason, users don't normally edit as teams. This should be about building individual editing skills and knowledge. Also, it will be harder for the judges to well, judge. ѕwirlвoy  14:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, then forget the idea, do it another time, whatever suites you. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 14:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tell you what BG, I'll run it myself. I'll only have to add the points. It won't be that hard, just don't worry about it. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 21:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm - that could then be seen by others as cheating, you could fix the scores. I'm going to consult Gwib on this, but from what i've seen I might just be bold and pull the plug. BG7even 00:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Judges won't be able to compete, and vice versa. Same as in the Editors'. --Cheers, Gp75motorsports REV LIMITER 14:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're not talking about that. I'm fully aware of the fact that judges can't participate, I had not intention of doing so. What i'm saying is that another competition makes more work for the 2 judges and also its detracting from the point of the cup. Currently I see consensus for closure. BG7even 15:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would I even start thinking about cheating? Other users would start noticing very quickly. I think working in pair on a common project makes editing more fun and easier. For example, with Gwib we had to change located to found in all the bouches du rhones communes, and it was much faster together. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 16:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not even suggesting that you would, what i'm simply saying is that other users may think the you are if it's you doing all the updating. Some users might not notice to quickly for whatever reason actually - and if the rules aren't clearly outlined (which at the moment they are not) then people could think that extra points were being added/taken away for legitimate reasons. I'm trying to look from the Point of View of a casual editor here. I understand that working together sometimes helps, but what if you're partner isn't interested in your articles? What do you do? I know for a fact i'm the only active SEWP user who likes transport and Derbyshire - and not much outside of that area, so I wouldn't be able to help if I was in a team. A WikiProject could work much better for collaborative editing and working together. BG7even 18:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Essentially, I think that with the current level of activity, as well as the lack of clarity in the rules and the teams themselves, a closure would be best. Two people working together brings up potentially tens of different rules about how they are to cooperate. Would they edit similar articles? Similar categories? Do they simply have to agree on which articles to edit and how prior to undertaking the task? A duel Wikicup is too ambiguous.
There is also the problem of one person doing all the work, whilst the other does none (out of laziness or that he feels that the other person is raking in the points either way). Group work can have good outcomes (as Yotcmdr and I have shown with our bot-work on his Communes of France), however, outside of changing one work to another in a large list, group work needs a myriad of rules and regulations to adhere to.
Finally, (*intake of air*) it's soon Christmas and the New Year, so you Christians, Pagans and Merrymakers presumably won't have much time on your hands. I think that it's best to postpone this until a less busy time of year and rules have been properly written. --Gwib -(talk)- 19:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm atheist, so nothing to worry about for me, and if we did reschedule it, it would probably be around spring or summer break, when some people might go on vacation or something. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 19:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To BG: I could not participate in the nations cup if that's what would help. And about trains, derbyshire, etc... I would become interessted, as long ther's editing involved, I usually am quite interessted in things.
To Gwib:I think that if we don't have it, re-schedule it to april - may - June, or something like that. Thanks, Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 19:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok then. What I propose is the following:
  • Wikicup (Editors') goes ahead as planned.
  • Wikicup (Nations') is postponed until this time next year, during which stage the rules can be properly thought out.
Thoughts? I'll wait about 20 minute (i know it's not long) and then i'll Be Bold and tag all the Nations' Cup pages for deletion and message those involved. Thanks, BG7even 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
S3CR3T: I don't think the time of year for the cup is wrong - just the time of year to get things right. It could possibly happen next year, but as Gwib said, there is too much that could "go wrong".
Yotcmdr: Some of what was said above, and also you are still participating in the Editor's Cup and I think if you are in at at all then you shouldn't be able to judge either. For example, the National Lottery adjudicators cant (afaik) judge one form of the draws if they were involved in entering it or another one of the draws. It's a fair point about becoming interested but I was talking about editors in general - some just won't want too. I'm sorry, I just think it's too much hassle. BG7even 19:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To BG: OK, but be sure to keep the editors cup! Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reset Yes! Of course! Nothing is wrong with how that's happening, I only have an issue with the Nation's Cup - perhaps next year, i'll draw up a detailed proposal. So, can I officially close Nations? BG7even 19:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not the person who decides, although, I can delete pages, as I have the flag. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 19:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was aimed generally, but I think consensus shows it as such. Not all the page need deleteing, i'll ping you with the ones that do, but perhaps you could message those involved of it's postponement? Cheers, BG7even 19:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll ping them. [[user:Yotcmdr|Yotcmdr]] Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 19:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Many thanks - I must apologise about this though... but I promise i'll get something drawn up in the New Year and we can run it then! BG7even 19:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Nations Cup and WikiCup are two projects, all at the same time. =\ So, we could have Nations Cup odd number years and WikiCup even numbered ones. --<font=Comic Sans MS>S3CR3T (tell me a secret.) 19:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that would just confuse things even more. And actually, the Nation's Cup runs off the Editor's Cup - that's where we were going to get the points off, adding certain bonuses. BG7even 19:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK... Yet Again

Hey all,

I hope that this can be the last time we bring this here, as I think it can solve all remaining issues.

It relates to the update process.

What I suggest is:

  • Hooks marked with for 48 hours or more without any user input are "archived".
  • Hooks with for 72 hours or more without any user input are "archived".
  • Hooks with remain at the nominations page until they have been there for at least 48 hours and two editors have add the template - one of which can be the same user that moves it to the Next Update page provided that first they add to the page their support, so it is there in the history.

If any editor has a discrepancy with any hook, they can remove it from the next update page as long as the discussion is re-added.


BG7even 00:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, yes, yes! That seems fine. Please let us get back out of process before we lose ourselves in it. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Process?!?! :S BG7even 00:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its fine, I suppose. For now. Once we have more editors involved I'd like it better if 2 or more were placed before removing. Also, I'd love to get a bot in there to do the clerking one day. Synergy 10:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree on the two or more but I disagree on getting a bot to do it. To do the updating from Next to Live, maybe, but I think the clerking needs to be done by a human to avoid any errors - bots do screw up. It might also be subjective at times as a user could see potential and change it to a maybe. If a bot does do it, it doesn't get a flag. (I will look into all forms) Cheers, BG7even 10:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Place Names

Here on Simple English Wikipedia, I see place names being wrong with en.wikipedia having the right title (i.e. Scarborough, England's en equivalent is en:Scarborough, North Yorkshire). Why is this? Tharnton345 23:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Carelessness?— Now be bold and fix it! :) A redirect will do, IMO. Lwyx (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's worse than Vandalism. They even think that there is one Newmarket in England. I hate it. And anyway, when I'm fixing it, it comes up with it being a bad edit. Tharnton345 11:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article promotion process...

Hello there...

I just wanted to remind you that we currently have 10 articles waiting for comments/input the GA proposals page, and 7 on the VGA proposals page. Originally we have fixed a "deadline"; please have a look and leave your comments.

Thanks. --Eptalon (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey all,
Should I enforce the time limit on all of them? Those gone to voting I will close also. Cheers, BG7even 12:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the community has not focused on GA/VGA, I have extended the delays; for Good articles, September 11 attacks, Barack Obama, Crich Tramway Village and 1997 Pacific hurricane season have to start with the voting process this year; I will do similarly for VGA propositions --Eptalon (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When I go onto the sandbox and edit, people say that my edits are vandalism. You are allowed to do anything on the sandbox. So why is this? Tharnton345 12:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sandbox is generally seen as a place for people new with Wikipedia to test. It's generally considered that experienced editors don't need to use the sandbox. Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 17:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just create a sandbox under the name user:Tharnton345/sandbox and edit on there. Then nobody will complain. Yotcmdr Sign up for the wikicup =talk= 18:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have already created a sandbox. Tharnton345 18:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing out the word 'the'

When I go onto most pages, people ALWAYS seem to miss out the word 'the'. Why, oh why, is this? Tharnton345 13:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you provide an example? - Just for reference going to prison is not the same as going to the prison ;) --Eptalon (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The editor who wrote it may not use definite articles the same way that English does in their language. Jonas D. Rand T 15:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mumia Abu-Jamal and related articles

I'm looking for editors to help me with articles relating to Mumia Abu-Jamal. In the next few weeks, I will be working on articles relating to that and the subject article. I am not very good with simplification, and I have what may be perceived as a 'bias' for his release (though all I want is a fair trial, it just so happens that a fair trial, where all evidence is carefully reviewed, would release him and find him not guilty), so I would like people to scrutinize my edits. Can someone with knowledge of the case please help me out? Jonas D. Rand T 15:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, either this or this is incorrect. Also, I see a not on that edit page while that is a bot free list. I'm tired. Is it just me or do others see this? ѕwirlвoy  01:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two factors I can think of: lag time with the server and deleted edits. Check your edit count in the "my settings" link. How does that compare to the other two counts? Either way (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pakistan editor

Last time a discussion about this was started, there was some consensus about writing him a message. However, it has been quite some time already and no action has been taken. He's back again and is going to create a lot of work for us with his mass categorisation. A number of them seem to be biased towards Pakistan (Kashmir is currently disputed territory). What should we do now? Chenzw  Talk  02:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block on sight? Majorly talk 03:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Proposed message, last discussion, contributions list (one of three). Look at Crescent and star to see a current edit. That particular edit in my opinion shows the improvement the editor is making. In any case, it would be good if we could establish communication in some form. Other than that, happy holidays to those who have them. --Eptalon (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub category

I'd like to first, create the stub category, and second transclude the category to the template, so all stubs will fall into one category. I'd like to do this so I can find stubs easier (for example: all stubs starting with the letter "f"). Any objections? I'd like to start fixing and adding info to a number of stub pages and this seems the most sensible idea. Synergy 21:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any problems!! Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 21:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also. This will give us an exact number of stubs (almost exact; since many articles may not have the stub tag on it). So we can compare that number against how many articles we have. Then, hopefully we can add more content to these pages so we have fewer stubs. Synergy 21:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 21:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you know how to implement it, no objections. Sounds good. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This: <includeonly>[[Category:Stubs]]</includeonly> would be added to Template:Stub, so all stubs would then be in Category:Stub (like 71 other wiki's have). Synergy 21:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go for it ;) No objections here, easier for everyone! BG7even 21:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll wait for more editors to chime in first. Synergy 22:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to also say that once this is done, the Simple Stub Project will begin. Anyone is able to join, and we'll be judging the need for any new stub types, depending on how many articles we have for that specific subject. Synergy 02:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it time for this discussion again already? See Simple Talk archives 1, 2, 17 (minor issue caused by its use), 19, and 37 (and likely a couple others) as well as multiple RfD archives and several user's archives (google Category Stubs for suggestions on where to start) . "We need it" and turn it on, "we don't need it" and turn it off. Salt it. unsalt it because it is needed again, but it turns out unneeded and gets deleted and resalted.. rinse, lather and repeat. -- Creol(talk) 03:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Links 1 and 2 do not matter since they were from the year 2005 (July) well over 3 years ago while this wiki was small. Pulling up Wikipedia announcements shows we had just under 5,000 articles in July, so a stub cat would be pointless. We're at 41k+ now and its going to be more difficult to implement this later rather than sooner.
The third link has nothing to do with a consensus for a single stub category.
The fourth link, again, was at around 21k articles (by this) and at this point I would have suggested at least one cat to keep track of them but you've always had this link to locate them so there wasn't a need. Isis raises the conern that it would not make locating articles easier but... this is not so. If you add {{CategoryTOC}} (table of contents) to the category for locating articles alphabetically, it will do the work for you.
The fifth link is about define a stub, and has nothing to do with this conversation.
Also, the RfD's were about a "stub type" not the stub category. I think it was a bad idea to just delete the category because a few people thought it wasn't needed. I have a number of editors who have signed up for the project (more than there were in the discussion to delete the cat) and we'll be getting started so long as there are no more sarcastic outbursts. Synergy 06:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The third is very important to the discussion as it points out one of the biggest issues with a stub category - the fact that any new article with a stub tag will no long be tracked as uncategorized by default. Unless the {{uncat}} tag is used (which is rare at best) these articles can be lost for a long time. #5 should have been pointing to video-game-stub heading. It covers the numbers of articles we are dealing with and the needs to further expand 25,000+ stubs into smaller groups. This is the next logical step after consensus of a single category that includes over half of our articles. This is also the second step of your wikiProject. The TOC is less useful being as there would be over 125 seperate 200 count pages, clicking a major letter (S, M, etc.) is likely to narrow it down to about 25-30 pages. Back when there were only 5000 articles, Category:Stubs could actually have been of a use. Now that there are over 5x as many stubs as we hade articles at that time, just lumping half our articles into a category does nothing to help the situation. -- Creol(talk) 08:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to more editors in your project than discussed the deletion, your 10 (9 and a bot account) compared to Eptalon, Phaedriel, Isis, Creol, Blockinblox, Huji, Oysterguitarist, Aurora (July 07 - current) as well as the original people discussing it (5-6 back then) as well as the others (Tygrrr, Sean Williams) involved in actual deletion of the article multiple times. Not more than even without taking into consideration the size of the community which was making the decision has grown greatly since then. Many do not even bother to deal with a situation the third/fourh/fifth time it crops up. It has all been said before and realy is not worth repeating yet again for a lot of people. The category, like history, just keeps repeating itself. -- Creol(talk) 08:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well maybe this time it needs to stay. Deleting it was never the answer, as you yourself point out. Theres more work that needs to be done since it was never stayed implemented, but thats what my project is for, to take care of what should have been there years ago. 71 other wiki's have this category. Its foolish to think its not needed. The what links here link is in no way a suitable categorization system for as many articles as we have. The issue in the third link posses no problem because the stub cat is a cat, a temporary cat. It will allow us to locate, expand, categorize, and fix any issues with all of these articles. And when I made mention about how many people are involved in compared to how many wanted it deleted I was only talking about the Category:Stubs, not the individual stub types. If you recall, fewer people were in the discussion to delete it. When people say "history repeats itself", they are really saying "learn from it, and use it". And thats what I'm doing. Synergy 08:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Synergy, if you want to know how many stubs there are, check Special:WantedFiles—right now, we have approximately 27,344 stubs. Maxim(talk) 13:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, but Special:MostLinkedPages says 11,224... it's still a big chunk of all the articles. Maxim(talk) 13:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple Wikinews

What does everyone think of creating a Simple Wikinews? I think it would be a good addition to the simple projects, and i'm going to start up an incubator version if enough people like the idea.



BG7even 22:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The idea was proposed and rejected at m:Proposals for new projects. Already been done. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh - no harm in trying again! BG7even 22:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you re-propose it and it passes, I'd be happy to co-run it with you, :D Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 22:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well it doesn't really need co-running, as it's like a whole new wiki, but I will need help to get an Incubator version running before I propose it. It would use the KISS principle, and we want to avoid drama ;) BG7even 22:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I really meant was helping out, ;). Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 22:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hehe ;) I knew that :P BG7even 22:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry to spoil it, but there's no way a Simple Wikinews project will ever get created. There's too many who want the Simple English projects closed, because Simple English apparently is not a real language. That does not mean we can't have a subproject on Wikipedia that covers news. Majorly talk 22:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well if you don't try, you don't get. And if you don't get it the first time, you try again! (It may be a good idea to have a sub project if it did fail) Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 22:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(e/c) Hmm... i'm aware of that, and perhaps it could work that way. I'm going to create a demo project either at Incubator Plus (revive the old one) or on my own server, and perhaps run it as a seperate entity for a while - I don't know (The WMF might shout at me...). Anyway, it can't hurt trying. BG7even 22:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"This request does not meet the minimum requirements for a new wiki. It does not have an ISO 639 code separate from English (which has its own project), and there is no standard orthography, literature, or other indication that this is a distinct language or dialect. It also fails the uniqueness requirement, as there is high mutual intelligibility between simple English and English, so that simple English could be written on the English Wikinews and English articles simplified. Note that this does not affect simple English wikis created before the language subcommittee was established, and those wikis do not affect this or any future decision. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:02:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"

I suppose you could do propose it on Wikia, but you can't run it as an affiliation of WMF without approval. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm... in that case... i'll run it at the Wikia site before eventually asking for permission to run it seperately, unless they give it approval by then... (I'm digging my heels in on this :P) BG7even 22:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need less useless projects destined to fail, not another one. Look at what happened to Simple Wikiquote. It's become a playground for SwirlBoy, American Eagle, and there have been no (correct me if I'm wrong) non-native-English speakers that contribute in its history. This is obviously not worth the bandwidth, time, or space to discuss, let alone set up the project. Jonas D. Rand T 01:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the projects are destined to fail, then why are you editing them? Why not go somewhere else? If you are that bothered about Wikiquote, why not go over there yourself? BTW, that statement could also bee seen as a Personal Attack towards Swirlboy and American Eagle - surely it is better also to have someone contributing than no-one at all? Why does it matter if there are no non-english speakers also? They will come with time. Patience. Can I ask why it is not the bandwith, time or space? One reason why projects fail is that the user(s) that started it get bored once it has been approved, and leave it. I won't do such a thing - especially seeing as I am looking to a career in journalism and news in general - this would help me in that. And finally, calm down! Thanks, BG7even 02:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Donate" banner

Can someone please allow non-registered users to completely remove the "Donate Now!" banner, which is virtually pushing one, coercing them, to fill Jimbo's pockets. Can you at lease give the anonymous users the opportunity to get a break from this annoying crap without having to create an account? Forcefeeding them an exaggerating, saccharine beg for money from Jimbo isn't helping. Just as one can remove the Wikicup notice, can that option please replace "collapse"? Jonas D. Rand T 01:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's controlled via meta's m:Special:CentralNotice; no technical way to do it locally. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yecch, Jimbo's overpowering kool-aid has been spread all over the place. I'm not thirsty, and I'm sure many readers aren't either.

Edit 01:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC): I may come off as too harsh, but I just don't think we should be forced to donate, or pushed so hard.

Jonas D. Rand T 01:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, a little harsh, Jonas. I do agree with the sentiment though. I contribute to Wikipedia by helping to write the encyclopedia. I do not wish to pay for the privilige (sp?). But chill out a bit, please. Kennedy (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does it really harm you that much? I mean just ignore it. Do you think it costs nothing to maintain this site? I mean everyone is welcome to contribute in their own way, either by editing or donating or whatever. If you don't want to donate, then don't do it, no one is holding a gun to your head to make you donate. The banner isn't going to harm you and is a necessary evil to you know have a wiki that can actually be edited... -Djsasso (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(e/c) Jonas, when you are logged in you can turn it off by going to your preferences. And logged out users also have a "collapse" button (I think...). Besides, its just another reason to create an account... BG7even 14:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dsjasso: I was actually talking about logged-out users, who happen not to have an account, for personal reasons, or those who have not pursued account creation yet. And yes, it is quite annoying, especially since Jimbo got rich off of futures trading and that WP gets enough donationa from the "E-yuppie techie" crowd like Roger McNamee. I 'donate' by writing articles and contributing to discussions regarding community governance.

Bluegoblin: The collapse button is just the lesser of two annoyings.

Kennedy: For your reference, the word is spelled "privelige". Jonas D. Rand T 15:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fail to see why you are complaining though. It can be collapsed, therefore why complain? And considering most anons do not contribute to the encyclopedia constructively, why remove it for them? If it wasn't for contributions via finance, then there would be no encyclopedia.
BG7even 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't matter. It can't be done locally, so no point in discussing it. By the way, it's "privilege". PeterSymonds (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, Peter. Bluegoblin: I'm tired of seeing Jimbo beg. And "most anons do not contribute to the encyclopedia constructively"? Can you please show evidence of this? I don't believe it. Also, some users (hi, Majorly) don't contribute to the encyclopedia much at all. I am complaining because I don't think that anons should be pushed to give to Wikipedia. You've already got 3 million dollars, give it a rest for those people who are tired of seeing you ask for money. Poor Jimbo. Jonas D. Rand T 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jonas I am warning you. NPA. I am the second person now to warn you about comments on other editors on this page alone. I have also already told you to chill out. Your comment re Majorly is out of line. Continue and I have no issues with blocking you. Control yourself. Kennedy (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not personally attack. I did not state that Majorly was not constructive period, I stated that he was not that much of a contributor to the encyclopedic part of Wikipedia, which I did on the basis of a statement that Majorly himself made. "I barely edit the encyclopedia on Simple" Please do not misinterpret that as a personal attack, as it would be no more of a personal attack than to accuse me of not contributing to the encyclopedia more than I do to discussion. Jonas D. Rand T 16:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just because a person chooses to not have an account and edit from an IP doesn't mean they shouldn't be asked to donate any less than someone who has. They read the encyclopedia just like anyone else. Just because Jimbo does or does not have money doesn't enter into it, the foundation is a seperate entity. Just because you don't like to read a banner that can be collapsed doesn't mean it should be gone. It isn't harming you in any way, nor is it harming IP editors I am sure. And yes Jonas you comments towards majorly were a personal attack because your whole basis of arguement is that you can contribute in many ways to the encyclopedia and not just one. Majorly doesn't edit articles much but he does other things to contribute to the encyclopedia. -Djsasso (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(e/c)I still advise you to hold your tongue, Jonas. These comments help no-one. My warning still stands. You have been accused of personal attacks three times recently on your talk page. I suggest you re-read your comments so as not to offend, or rile people. I will not warn you again. Kennedy (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(e/c) Dsjasso: I did not mean it as a personal attack, the same can be said about me. Contributing to the discussions is not the "encyclopedia". Wikipedia is both a community and an encyclopedia, and that is the community part of it.
Kennedy: Okay. StaticFalcon's accusation, as he already acknowledged, was a mistake. I was warning a vandal. Jonas D. Rand T 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not bring this any further, eh? Jonas' question was answered in the second sentence, further discussion on unrelated (and opinionated, above all) topics are not necessary. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could someone please advise me? I have just created the page Opéra-Comique (opera house). This is a page about the opera house. The enwiki page on this subject is called Opéra-Comique. I would normally give my new page the same title as on enwiki. There is already a page (which I created a little while ago) on Opéra-comique (small case c). This is about the genre of French comic opera. It links to the enwiki page of the same title. When I wanted to create my page about the opera house just now I was unable to do so, because typing "Opéra-Comique" in the search just redirected to the existing Opéra-comique page. I could see no way round it other than to change the title to Opéra-Comique (opera house), which is what I did. However, when I then went to the Opéra-comique page and clicked on the red link to Opéra-Comique it opened up a box headed "Opéra-Comique" for me to create an page. So I could have done it that way? Two questions really: why did this happen? Secondly: having done what I have shall I leave it or should I change (move) the title to conform to enwiki title? Indeed, will I be able to move it? Thanks in advance. Hikitsurisan (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Hikitsurisan!
When you use the Search bar it automatically goes to a blue-linked page similar to the title you type in the box and pressed enter with. If you press the "Search" button instead, it will not go to that page but rather search the wiki and display a list of results, as well as the link you searched for at the top. The easiest way to get to a specific non-existant page is to either click on a link to it or navigate to it in the URL bar.
As for the page move, I have moved the page you created to the title that en-wiki has.
I hope this answers your questions!
If you need more help, just give me a shout!
BG7even 22:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks. Happy Christmas.Hikitsurisan (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problems. I'm going to keep the redirect there as well, as it could be useful. And Happy Christmas to you too! BG7even 23:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple Wikipedia Dynamic Issue

I noticed that unlike the [wikipedia], which adds a tag "unsigned comment" whenever a user posts a comment and forgets the Resident Mario (talk) 17:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC), Simple Wikipedia doesn't do anything. It might be a fluke on me, but if this is an open problem we might have trouble tracking down maligent users editing Talk pages innapropriatly. So, is it a "just-me" issue, or did anyone else notice this?Reply[reply]
Hey Resident Mario,
That is added by a special bot, called SineBot. We don't have such a bot here at the moment, and neither is one needed. Not a lot of users forget to sign posts, and those that do often go back and add it. If a user does forget, there is a template that can be added manually.
Hope this answers your question!
BG7even 17:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wouldn't that encourage unananoumous (or however you spell it) vandalism? After all, not all users are "good." Resident Mario (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see what you mean. Could you possibly explain some more? BG7even 17:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example. someone could figure out the loophole, and exploit it by going through talk pages and writing "GAY" across them without being caught.
It's not really a loophole. You can still find out who wrote the comment by looking at the history tab of the page. There is also an anti-vandal bot that would pick it up, and many user would see it in Special:RecentChanges. Thanks, BG7even 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh...but then what? If the user is not signed in is consistently vandalizing, are admins allowed to block a user via IP adress :o? Resident Mario (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, IP addresses can be blocked in the same way as users can. As a general rule though, IPs are blocked for shorter time periods than users, often starting at a day and going up to about 6 months, if the IP vandalises after being unblocked. IPs are rarely blocked for ever, but open proxies are.
Hope that helps, if you have more questions just ask!
BG7even 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi everyone. The simple news team has decided to have a special edition released on the 28th or 29th of December. It will be announcing plans of users on wikipedia in 2009. But we need your help!! If you would like to help, then tell us about your plans or write about something else!! Write an article called [[Wikipedia:Simple News/Special Edition/your username]] and add it here and I or BG7 will add it to the edition. Thanks for your help, Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼> 18:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Merry Christmas to all wikimedians! Have a nice holiday! God bless. *sings "Silent Night"* -- CM16 MLB  07:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy Christmas to you all, here is Night before Christmas adjusted for modern times.
--Gwib -(talk)- 08:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Merry Xmas to all! Kennedy (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For those of us celebrating Christmas, try putting up the template "subst:User:Flaming/MC2008" to your page. {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}}

Note- might only work for the English wikipedia, i retrieved it from there.

Merry Christmas! :) Resident Mario (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, it won't work here. Here's the Simple Wikipedia one: User:SimonKSK/Sandbox/Christmas

Now it is Christmas. ;-) RyanCross @ 00:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gwib, that is very funny, I enjoyed reading it. ;) And Merry Christmas to all! American Eagle (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should the simple wikipedia have a rating standard on the content?

The problem that I have with the simple version is that if this project is intended for children, then there needs to be a rating level. Articles that would not pass a movie rating of PG or PG-13 should not be in here. Does a child really need to see a video of a man ejaculating or even read an article about a man ejaculating or see diagrams of men and women masterbating? IMO, if a child is interested in that content they should read the adult article with their parents. Maybe include a simplified sub-heading on the main article that is intended for high school and middle school children.

Why do we need an wikipedia in simple English for ESL adults? Why can't they just read an article in their native language? Or why not just read the regular article? How many adults do you know of who can't honestly figure out what the adult content articles are talking about especially with the pictures and videos that people like to include in these type of articles in the name of understanding the topic?

My gripe is the articles in this project that are not content appropriate for children. I just don't see the need for a simple English wikipedia for adults when this issue can be addressed by simply adding a sub-heading on a given article. Zzmonty (talk)

Sorry, but we don't censor wikipedia. People can see what they want to see. The type of articles you mentionned represents a fraction of the total numbers anyway. Regards, Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 14:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the purpose of this wikipedia if it is not rated, censored, or moderated. Why would anybody need this version if they could just look up the same material, in better articles, on the main English wikipedia site? Without moderation it is redundant piece of data that adds no value. The argument that this is needed for ESL adults is a joke, because an adult who truly is looking to learn would understand that some images and content don't belong on a version of wikipedia that has in its target audience definition children. And if they really wanted to learn that material, I am sure that with enough effort on their part they could figure out the main wikipedia's article. Zzmonty (talk)
Well: that's one problem with the current, vague definition of "simple": I still haven't figured out who are the target audience for this project. Thinking on partly illiterate adults and ESL students, I figure that many words and topics should go uncensored, like the names of sexual organs and reproductive health. If you want a project explicitly aimed at kids you should propose a "kiddipedia" or something. Lwyx (talk) 16:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Three versions of English seem a bit much:standard, simple English, student? I don't have a problem with including the technical definition of penis, scrotum, breasts, etc. Every teenager at some point looked up those words in a dictionary or encylopedia, but there were simple diagram drawings, not actual photographs or videos. Does a child or illiterate adult really need to see a picture of two people physically having sex do understand the general idea of the topic? An adult can just rent an adult movie if they really need graphic demonstrations. And most children are very capable of figuring it out on their own when the time is right. Zzmonty (talk)
Simple English Wikipedia is not aimed at children. It is aimed at those learning English, or those who do not have a good grasp of English, and cannot fully understand Children are a part of that group though. There are many adults who would read Simple.Wikipedia, if they cannot understand a great deal of English. Regards, Kennedy (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Children read the wiki, yes. But this Wikipedia is written for people who are learning English (Yes, children included). Plus, Wikipedia is not censored. ѕwirlвoy  16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can anybody actually tell me of an actual human being (somebody that they personally know, as opposed to the fictional ideal person that does not exist) who is an adult and needs to read this site that is not capable of understanding the topic (in a general sense) on the main wikipedia site or on the site in their native language? If a person wants to learn English, wouldn't it be more beneficial to just open two browser windows? One would be an entry in English and the other would be the entry in the native language. Then you read the entry in English, and when you don't understand a statement, you look it up in the native language. Usually the first paragraph of an entry is a general entry that would serve this purpose. Zzmonty (talk) (talk)
I seriously doubt that the intro for a single wikipedia article is the exact same for all other languages. And if the intro isn't the same, then neither is the rest of the article. Synergy 21:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bit off topic, but...

Well, I've been working like hell in my [1] sandbox, and have no clue how to insert a scrollbar to deal with a hoard of Userboxes! Anyone can help me??? Resident Mario (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikicup poll

Hi, I'd like to have a poll for our simple News special edition about the Wikicup. It would be who do you think will win the wikicup? Please reply underneath, and before the 28th of december. Thanks, Yotcmdr✼ Merry Christmas ! ✼ 12:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References (or lack of)

I've recently chucked in editing on the English Wikipedia for various reasons (that I won't bore you with right now) but I can assure you I did so for my own reasons and was not forced. I may disclose my EN account at a later stage, but I'd rather not be prejudged, in whatever way, for now.

Anyway my query is about the lack of references in articles on Simple. I want to create a number of articles in the Simple English manner, and wondered if not using references was official policy here? Thank you all, Soup Dish (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All articles should be referenced. We do have a policy on verifiablity, but unfortunately, a lot of articles do tend to get created without following it. -- Creol(talk) 13:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I will give some refs to Hypergiant. Thanks again Soup Dish (talk) 13:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rollback feature

Is it possible to make our rollback global? Just wondering... MathCool10 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Previous discussion on global rollback located at Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_49#Opt-in_global_rollback. RyanCross @ 20:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I misunderstood what a global rollbacker is. Thanks for the info! MathCool10 20:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Back again

Hello there all! Sorry to have been away for so long again, but I just felt like I needed more time off from this site. This site still gives me a few bad memories and I'm not sure if it will even help to make people believe that I would be a good administrator in the future, but I just think that I will give it one more shot. Cheers, Razorflame 20:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome back! I hope that your bad memories soon go away soon, but rest assured I will welcome you with open arms, almost as a new editor (mainly because I don't know the background and i'm too lazy to find out :P (and also because i'm a forgiving person ;) )). Now... get editing!!!
BG7even 23:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've already started editing again :). Anyways, thank you for that warm message and I hope to help you out in the future! Cheers, Razorflame 23:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WB! :) Shapiros10 Flap the Yap 01:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

UK flagicon

I am rtrying to get the 1606 UK flagicon, but I come up with the 1801 one. Why is this? Tharnton345 13:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Flagicon}} does not support alternate versions, {{flag}} does. -- Creol(talk) 17:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is Simple?

Excuse me if I stir up things a bit, but apparently nobody has effectively replied the two main objections raised against this project in the proposals to close this project, namely,

  1. "Simple" is not a language;
  2. There are no clear standards as to what counts as "simple".

I'm not opposed to the goals of this project: yesterday I was trying to find info for a homework for my second grade niece (on rubber for more information), and found that the "Standard" English was way above her understanding level, and the article on this project was vague, incomplete, and still not quite "simple".-- I'm willing to cooperate, but at this stage of development the name "simple" is misleading (it is not a language), and I have no clue about how to fix the article in question without clear criteria about what is "simple". I also tried to add an article on controlled languages, and found out that someone tried to make it "simple", but without any clear idea about how to do that. To me this seems to be a matter of taste, and taste is a bad standard.--- Slightly annoyed, Lwyx (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are correct, that article (Rubber) is not simple at all. Unfortunately, there is not many editors here to have such a complete encylopedia as Try looking at our very good articles and our good articles to see what simple english should be. Regards, Kennedy (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're also right that simple isn't a language and I believe others have to tried to show how our articles differ from En wikipedia's. Our aim and goal is to build an encyclopedia that anyone can understand, as well as edit. While there are very few who can simplify effectively (as in, to everyone's liking) as you point out, we can't stop editors from trying. A few of us are still working on a decent system for simplifying articles that are not GA's or VGA's. But this takes time and patience. In the meantime, you are more than welcome to help out and give it your best shot. Synergy 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Brace, this may be longer) Hello, as you say, simple is not a language, so let's define what we want by looking at who we are catering for:
  • Users who learnt English as their first language (most often: these will be children, or those growing up)
  • Users who learnt English as an additional language (called EFL crowd usually)
  • Those who need to translate from English into another language, or to English, but who are not good at understanding/writing it (and need a simpler version of an article)
People have defined "sublanguages" of English, with a limited vocabulary. Probably the best known are BE850 and BE1500. The problem with these is that there are word lists. On the one hand it is difficult to determine how many words a person needs to communicate intelligibly in a language, at a given level; on the other it is difficult to write texts that conform to word lists.
Another approach that can be taken is to assess the "level of difficulty" of a given text; the problem there is that this often turns out to be "bean-counting"; shorter words are often seen as better, shorter sentences with an easier structure are more likely to be understood. In my opinion an approach there would be to look at the information added by a certain word, and with this to assign a certain score. I have in the past proposed an approach based on this (also taking into account that "filler words" from word lists add little information; the problem of my proposal at the time was that the "score calculated" was not independent of text length.
For our Good and Very Good Articles we base this on a community decision; it is not a criterion per se, but an implicit one. To express certain scientific concepts, you need a language that is adapted. So what we do at the moment is to avoid words with multiple meanings, and to make short sentences. That way we use "movie" instead of "film, not because we prefer the Americanism, but because "film" has more meanings that can confuse our target group, while "movie" has not.
So in short, sorry, but I really cannot answer your question. What I have written above perhaps comes closest to what this community believes to be Simple English--Eptalon (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tried BE850 and BE1500, and both strike me as strange (Basic is interesting but weird). BE850 is clearly not enough for a general purpose encyclopedia, and several words in BE1500 may not be "simple" at all. Still, from different sources I collect that having a somewhat "controlled" vocabulary makes the work much simpler: the other word list recommended in the Wikipedia:Simple English Guidelines page, Special English, has a core 1600 word dictionary for international broadcasting, and from my old ESL books I see that the Longman Simplified Series uses a 2000 word vocabulary for short stories and novels, and several Longman dictionaries use the 2000 word Longman Defining Vocabulary, whereupon they build all other definitions. So IMO it is necessary to start a Simple English Project to define a core vocabulary for spellcheckers and thesauri as writing aids for writers of Simple Wikipedia articles. Feeling is a bad guide. Lwyx (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still the main page carries the following statement:

Simple doesn't mean little. Writing in Simple English means that simple words are used. It does not mean readers want simple information. Articles don't have to be short to be simple; expand articles, include a lot of information, but use basic vocabulary

which implies that the articles need only to use simpler words. They do not need to be simpler themself. I find a few contradictions here. The first contradiction is that children if fact need simpler articles, not only simpler language. Even more, they may not need simpler language, but still need simpler content. Adults on the other hand may need simpler language, but not simpler articles. So what is simple wijipedia about? Is it about simpler language or simpler content as well? Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't follow. How do you mean? If you mean simpler content as in a small article then no. We would try to provide as much content as possible to understand each subject. We don't force the reader to go on reading, I believe we'd prefer to have "more" content than less. Now, that content needs to be able to be understood by all who read it. That's the tricky task we as editors have. Synergy 21:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's really simple: children don't need only "simpler English", but also "simpler content" (I see the point there). So this Paedia (oh, the irony!) is defective in the sense that it tries to serve two (maybe more, if you include people with certain disabilities, as some people have suggested) widely divergent audiences as if they were the same. What is "simple" for one audience (children) may be childish for another (ESL students); what is simple for one audience (extensive, well written articles in simple English for ESL students) may be complex for another (children).-- In any case, I haven't seen anywhere some clearly written criteria to ensure that some particular audience is rightly served: it's all based on feeling, and feeling is a very vague guidelines.-- It's that simple ☺ Lwyx (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you, I just tried to say that that is trying to serve several different audiences with different, may be, even opposite needs. Ruslik (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lwyx is correct, except for his allusion to the similar etymology of "paed" and "paedia". "Paed" was the Greek word for boy, and is the root word of paedophilia, paediatrics, etc. "Paedia" is the Latinization/Romanization of Greek Paideia, meaning Knowledge. Wikipedia is a en:Hybrid word in Hawaiian (Wiki == Quick) and Greek (Paideia/Pedia == Knowledge), thus "Quick Knowledge".
... and the romanization comes from the Greek use of "paideia" as "learning" or "education" because the assumption was that you got your first "learning" or "education" as a child, from your "paidagogos" (child-leader, roughly, the equivalent to an elementary school teacher). So the very word "Encyclopaideia" (roughly, a book containing "global learning" or "education") suggests that it should contain, literally, global education for kids. Lwyx (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to Ruslik's question above, I don't understand the difference between the use of simple and easily readable language in articles and "simple content". Jonas D. Rand T 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still don't know what you guys are talking about by simple content. Do you mean we shouldn't have articles on things like Physics and Calculus because some people might not understand them? You're going to have to define this before we can even begin to discuss this. Synergy 20:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, keep it simple: many kids won't get the "simple language" fit for teen/adult ESL readers; many adults will get annoyed with the "simple language" fit for kids (talk to adults as if they were kids at some mildly formal occasion and check the reaction). So the former will also need simpler content, while the latter may only need simpler language. It is this anomaly what Ruslik and I are pointing out, among other things. Lwyx (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer your question, I don't think we're talking here about removing articles on complex subjects; what we mean (well, what I mean anyway) is that some subjects are so complex that it is impossible to make them simple as for children. Children may need a kiddipedia (despite the redundance, as I've explained above), not a "simple.wikipedia", which certainly may be written in a simpler language for ESL speakers and their relatives. So the stated goals are partly unattainable. Lwyx (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In any event, nobody has yet explained to me how do I make sure I am writing a really simple article for whatever audience this project is aimed to. Lwyx (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no "universal" simple-english. You have seen (and edited the talk pages) the articles we have to facilitate or instruct editors on how to write. We have tools to gauge articles for reading levels (noted in the archives for this talk page). We have examples in the form of PGA and VGA. If you want to "start" writing articles, then I'll thank you and welcome you to this wiki (since I notice you've only created two articles, copies from without properly attributing them for GFDL). But you can at least try to write and find the best way for you. Or, since you haven't found your answer maybe you should try to suggest a proposal or write out a method you think best suits the wiki, and we can discuss it. Typically, I believe, we are writing articles for an audience that is 1, new to english; 2, have some english skills but not that much; or 3, have a disability that confounds or restricts them from comprehending articles from I didn't add children to this list because as they grow up, they progress in reading and naturally wouldn't need to use these articles (this is of course dependent on the children and their reading level; plenty of children probably read our articles). Synergy 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've read several proposals at the manual of style's talk page and the ongoing discussion to close this project. Over time I've come to see the merits of this project, but it still bothers me that the project name fails to meet the language inclusion criteria, and that there is no clear definition of its target audience. Lwyx (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To summarize my opinion expressed elsewhere, I'd say that this vague definition of "everyone" in "everyone can understand" may be narrowed down to children in the 5-9 grade level (roughly, 10-15 years old), or the equivalent in ESL training (given at this age and stage, at least in my country). So it seems to me that a good way to reach this level of language skill or schooling may be agreeing into using a well defined word list taken from different sources, including Ogden's Basic 1500 level, Longman's Defining Vocabulary, the Voice of America word list, or the like. Anything failing to pass this word list will require a valid five word description in the text, or a link to an entry either in the wiktionary or the wikipedia itself. Lwyx (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with a lot of the things you have written about simple english - but I do disagree with the notion of narrowing it down to "children" - we should say people with an english reading level in the 5-9 grade level, these are not always children. I like the idea of using a well defined word list. I like the idea of trying to describe other words within the article, and we are not making anywhere enough use of links to the wiktionary. Simple english also means short, to the point sentences. Lower skilled readers also lack the ability to scan pages quickly, so the simple wiki should have a lot more sub headings than appear in the wikipedia. I would like to see a lot more use made of pictures and diagrams in the simple wiki. The simple wikipedia is one of the few areas on the internet where people can find articles written at a simple level. Sure there is a lot of work to be done, I often am very disappointed at some of the pages I see (too short, not complete) or pages that I want that haven't been written. Yet when I came across the simple wikipedia there were only about 26,000 articles - now there are 40,000. Everyday it gets better, let's all get writing, remember to keep it simple, because there is nothing else this good on the web! Peterdownunder (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right: I meant to say that the reading level should be 5-9 grades, regardless of age. This criterion may help to serve two target audiences: children and ESL students. A well defined controlled vocabulary (perhaps somewhat "specialized") of about 2500 words may help. I'm working on that. Cheers, Lwyx (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've written installers for Mozilla projects you may find in the Experimental section at Mozilla website.— However, I'm not positive whether this appraoch is right, so that's why I've started this thread. Any comments are welcome, Lwyx (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(<-) Perhaps very simply put:

  • There is no forbidden knowledge; it is possible to build a petrol bomb from the information in the article at Molotov cocktail. Carrying one around is probably illegal in many countries (outside controlled military or police training exercises); we do have an article on nudity, which also shows many pictures of nude figures, covering socio-cultural aspects of it.
  • The language we use to write such articles should be simple - thats where we are different from regular english Wikipedia. --Eptalon (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand there is no censorship in this Paedia either; but you still don't answer the main question: what is "simple"?. How do I know I'm writing "simple English", simple enough? What is "simple enough"?-- You're simply re-stating the "goal", but give no criteria other than "taste". Lwyx (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article suggests a combination of Basic English and Simple English Soup Dish (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The opening paragraph states: "We suggest that articles should use only the 1000 most common and basic words in English." Both Basic and Special have more than 1000 words (1200 and 1500 at the bottom level of either); moreover, the documented "Basic 1500" word list suggests that words like "buoyancy", "birefringeance", and "shale" are to be considered "Simple" (do you know what they mean without looking in the dictionary?), while fails to include words like "can", "sweat", and "cousin". There is some logic behind those choices, but they seem to fail the "suggested" criterion of including "the 1000 most common and basic words in English". Lwyx (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please don't edit my posts. The article linked makes no mention of Special English, but it does of Simple Soup Dish (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies. I thought you were talking about the suggestions in the article on how to write Simple English articles, suggesting either Basic or Special as guidelines to write Simple English. In fact the article you mention doesn't talk about defining Simple in terms of Basic and Simple, which doesn't make much sense to me (defining Simple in terms of Simple itself (!)). Instead, it suggests to understand Simple in terms of Basic alone, without even mentioning Special English. I was confused by the similarity between the two articles. Sorry, Lwyx (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So IMNSHO none of these criteria ("taste", Basic 850/1500, Special English) seem to work. I'll try to compile another word list and spellchecker for Mozilla (as an aid to help writers to stick to the well-defined "Simple" that may come after these discussions) on these holidays, so suggestions are welcome. Lwyx (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The risk is, as with many moderately enjoyable things in life, if you are determined to find the reason for doing them, it's easy to discover no reason exists Soup Dish (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other risk is that, if you don't know exactly what you are doing, you may think you're doing it without actually doing it. Put it positively: the better you know what you're doing, the more the chances you are actually doing it, and doing it well.-- In my case, I'd like to know how do I know I'm actually writing "Simple English", and for what kind of reader. I'm not trying to find the reason to do it. I think I understand it: I've tried to use this Paedia for a couple of things and tried to edit a couple of things. But somehow I can't find my way to know if I'm writing Simple English at all. As I said, I'm not trying to find a reason to contribute here, but a reasonable way to know I'm actually doing it right. I can't trust my "taste": I tend to complicate things, as you can see :-). Cheers, Lwyx (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redefining Simple

I have an idea: I'm setting up a WikiProject so that discussion may take place there. Just follow the rabbit! Lwyx (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me take that back. I'll put it very simply before going any further. The vocabulary for an encyclopaedia can't be smaller than 3000 words, given the wide range of topics to cover. Online tools to check readability may also help. So, based on the current tools, I'd say that the standards may be the following: Lwyx (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Ogden's Advanced Basic for Bible. This is the least specialized English in Ogden's system. It was used by Ogden to translate the Bible. This fact proves that Ogden's design works for a small library. It also helps for a good number of religious topics. However, there are two changes. One is that verbs are allowed, against Ogden's design. The other is that Ogden's "First Steps" words towards "Full English" are included. The combined count of this system is about 1600 root words. Lwyx (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Voice of America Special English. This system proves that a limited vocabulary of 1600 root words can be used to broadcast news and culture programs. It includes the basic vocabulary for economics and politics. This word list is completed with some words borrowed from Specialized English. Specialized English is based on VOASE, and include more words for grammar, science, and religion. Lwyx (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Rick Harrison's Universal Language Dictionary. This is a project to define a small vocabulary (1600 words) to design artificial languages. This dictionary includes many words for plants, animals, actions, and body parts missing in the other dictionaries, and may help to write articles on biology and medicine. Lwyx (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mix these three dictionaries you get a root vocabulary of about 3000 root words. Lwyx (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This root dictionary may be completed with other word lists to guarantee that the articles look familiar to readers. These lists may be Dolch's 300 words for younger readers, Fry's 1000 Instant Words, and the first 1000 words from the General Service List. The total count of mixing these lists is around 1500. However, many of them are already counted in the 3000 words from the previous lists. Lwyx (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking Dolch's and Fry's rule that one grade is equal to 100 words, the reading level is that of a Middle School graduate (10th grade). So the target audience may be either Middle School students (7th-10th grade), adults within that range (the average reading level in the U.S.A. is 7th grade), or ESL students in that level (advanced intermediate). Lwyx (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm testing a spellchecker for Mozilla browsers based on this design. Those interested please post a message in my talk page. Lwyx (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]