Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Misplaced discussions moved to talk:MediaWiki, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians, and Wikipedia:Simple talk.
/Archive

Contents 1 Policy issue 2 My views on policy 2.1 Apology and explanation 2.2 Confusion 2.3 Response 2.4 Links and miscellany 3 On a related note: 4 Basic Global English 5 My Views 6 Online tools 7 Introductory paragraph issue 8 This article IS disputed 9 Good feelings 10 Article 11 What are the simplest words? 12 Comment 13 Should Simple Wiki be like this? 14 Move description of Simple English to the page Simple English?

[edit] Policy issue

This page is linked to directly from the Community Portal page, and is therefore tantamount to official policy. However, there is more than one reference (particularly the last paragraph) to creating dictionary-like entries here in Simple English Wikipedia in place of doing it at Simple English Wiktionary where (IMO) it belongs. If and when that becomes concensus, this page can become an official policy page. Until then, either 1) references to creating dictionary-like entries in Wikipedia should be removed completely, 2) they should be changed to refer to creating them at Simple English Wiktionary, or 3) there should be a big warning at the top of the page stating that this is either disputed policy or not an official policy or guideline, as concensus has not yet been reached. As you can see, #3 could or should be implemented right away, whatever ends up happening in the near and far future. I'll do #3 (as soon as I get the chance, I have to go now) as the least combative (and as a consession to those who feel strongly one way or another), though I will admit that I really advocate #2. --Cromwellt|talk 23:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Simple: makes use of what on En: would be called "dicdefs", especially as part of disambig pages. We do not (and never intend to) create full distionary entries (with pronunciation, etymology, etc.). That is better left to the Wiktionary contributors. -- Netoholic @ 08:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am fully aware that the idea of using dictionary definitions here is your policy. Your reasons for a) not putting those on SEWiktionary (as well as deprecating SEWikt in general) and b) choosing to link to those definitions and/or English Wiktionary instead of SEWikt, even when SEWikt has an entry on that word, have never been made clear. Phrases like "just to keep it central" are extremely vague, and you seem to directly ignore my comments that SEWikt avoids difficult words in definitions, etc., as well as sharing SEWikipedia's mission. English Wiktionary is not "central" for SEWikipedia. English Wiktionary is central for English Wikipedia. English Wikipedia is a separate project, whose coordinating dictionary project is English Wiktionary. The only Wiktionary project that would make sense with English Wikipedia is English Wiktionary (though perhaps links from English Wiktionary (not English Wikipedia) to SEWiktionary, which could provide simpler definitions, would not be a bad idea). Simple English Wikipedia is a separate project, with a separate goal (as you are happily, and correctly, eager to point out). The only coordinating dictionary project that makes sense with Simple English Wikipedia is Simple English Wiktionary. This works the same way as Spanish Wikipedia and Spanish Wikcionario. It would make no sense for Spanish Wikipedia to link to English Wiktionary. Even English words it uses should be linked to the appropriate entry in Spanish Wikcionario. In the same way, it makes very little sense to link Simple English Wikipedia to English Wiktionary. We use what is effectively a highly reduced form of English, and therefore it makes sense to link to a Wiktionary which also uses a highly reduced form of English. It does not make sense to link to a Wiktionary which uses regular (and often even complex) English. I am still absolutely astounded that you, who are a major advocate of SEWikipedia, for all the right reasons I think, consider SEWiktionary unnecessary, useless, and deletable, regardless of the fact that SEWiktionary should exist and be a useful resource for SEWikipedia for all the same reasons that SEWikipedia should exist. Please tell me, WHY? In one place (I can't remember exactly where), you mention that definitions are ultimately just definitions. If you take that step, why not say that encyclopedia articles are (ultimately) just encyclopedia articles, and trash this project too? I agree with you that the previous statement isn't true, which is why I repeat that just as encyclopedia articles can be expressed in complex and difficult terminology (as is often the case on English Wikipedia) or can be expressed in simple English (as is generally the case here), so dictionary definitions can be expressed in complex and difficult terminology (as is often, though I fully admit not always, the case at English Wiktionary) or can be expressed in simple English (as is generally the case at Simple English Wiktionary). The fact that my idea disagrees with yours and that no one else has shown an opinion either way (which means that there cannot be consensus) makes this a disputed policy, which is why I put the template at the top of this page, and why I think it should be put there again.

I would like to make it clear that I respect you as an editor, etc., and think that you are acting in good faith with the best interests of the project at heart. I mean this as anything but a personal attack. I simply want to either convince you that SEWiktionary is a good thing and that we should link to it (rather than, or at least in addition to, English Wiktionary) or at the very least, understand why you think the way you do, in opposition to what seems to me to be logic and common sense. I would even be highly gratified if you gave me a convincing argument against what I'm saying here, and changed my mind completely. I hope that, whether or not you agree with me, you can recognize that I am speaking (and acting) entirely in good faith. Although would like, and in fact, strongly request, your response to this, I am also very highly interested in getting feedback from other editors on this project. Maybe a large part of this extended comment/request would fit better under Simple Talk, but because I started here, it seems to make sense to finish here.

As I mentioned in my first comment in this section, I think we should either take out references to making definitions here at SEWikipedia (which would logically be coordinated with moving the definitions that are here to SEWiktionary where they belong), change those references to say that the definitions should be made at SEWiktionary (with similar movement of definitions seeming logical), or, if nothing else, put back the Disputedpolicy template to show that we have not been able to agree. As an example of how it might look with option B, see Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles, where I, in good faith and some time ago, changed the reference to Simple English Dictionary to refer to Simple English Wiktionary. Whether it was below the radar or met agreement, that reference has not been changed, even though other changes have been made to the page. I think most people would agree that the reference is neither illogical, offensive, nor even particularly notable. It is just going along with what makes sense and seems natural, like a reference to English Wiktionary in English Wikipedia. If it happens to have been changed before you see it, and you would like to see it, look at the version from the time I'm writing. I really think we can work this out, if everyone is willing to be openminded and reasonable (including me, of course).

Incidentally, I believe there was also strong opposition when English Wiktionary was first proposed, but that was eventually overcome when the value and utility of the project was recognized. I can only hope that a similar happy ending is ahead in the story of Simple English Wiktionary. --Cromwellt|talk 19:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia uses English words (though not all of them) and simpler grammar -- it is our choice of English words that makes us Simple English. English words are defined on the English Wiktionary because, on a word level, only one dictionary definition page is necessary. We also tend to link more complex words to internal pages that can give longer descriptions (but not full dictionary entries)... see Against for an example of what I think is best. I am sorry you put time into SEWikt, since that project was supposed to have been closed down long ago. -- Netoholic @ 20:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your condolences regarding my time spent (or possibly wasted) on SEWikt. If you ever happen to stop by there, you may notice that, though there are not many active contributors there, I am not the only one. I believe that the requirements for keeping a wiki rather than deleting it are whether it is active (has active contributors) or not. Fortunately for the time I spend at SEWikt (and I still do periodically), it is somewhat active. I believe that means it no longer qualifies for deletion according to Meta policy. Also, its usefulness (whether or not that is mostly potential at the moment) should be an additional factor which keeps it from deletion.

Thank your for your clearer explanation for why you choose English Wiktionary over Simple English Wiktionary. If all of the words, or even the vast majority, on English Wiktionary were expressed in simple English, I would agree with you, and would try to help scrap the SEWikt project. However, the sad fact is that only a small percentage of the words on English Wiktionary are expressed in simple English (not even considering if they use words outside BE850 or BE1500), which means that, for target Simple English Wikipedia users, the English Wiktionary is not a very valuable resource. To put it another way, it is not true that only one definition page is necessary if that definition page is in a form (or uses language) which is not helpful to target users. I would not at all mind linking to English Wiktionary in addition to linking to Simple English Wiktionary, because as I mentioned to Freshstart, I am all for giving people as much information and as many resources as possible, which is why I always link from Simple English Wiktionary to English Wiktionary, in case someone wants a more complex description. Even if you don't think of SEWikt as particularly useful, how about allowing others to link there (or move definitions there) instead of actively opposing it? Whether extra definitions are necessary or not should not be a deciding factor, because, as I am fond of pointing out, Wikipedia is not paper. It isn't as if having two forms of a definition (especially if one form is more useful to certain users) is going to do any harm, and it might (I think does) do some help.

Your edits to Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles (you are amazingly fast!) are interesting, but I'll comment on them over there. --Cromwellt|talk 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

(changing indent) I would also like to point out that SEWikipedia was originally a sort of hybrid only because SEWiktionary didn't exist, so they didn't have a good place to put simple definitions, as can be inferred on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Since that now exists, I think it is logical (as I mentioned there) to separate the two. The fact that you recognize that simpler definitions (or descriptions, as you prefer to call them) are necessary (since you want those here) contradicts your statement about only one definition page being necessary. If not, why make a page here at all? Why not link the word where it appears directly to English Wiktionary? Wherever you want them, your statements reflect that you feel that descriptions/definitions that are simpler than on English Wiktionary are necessary. But other statements of yours lead me to believe that simple descriptions/definitions are unnecessary and should be removed. These two things are contradictory. If you feel that only one definition page is necessary, link words directly to a Wiktionary and cut out the descriptions/definitions here (even if you link to English Wiktionary, at least you'll be consistent), but if you feel that separate definitions/descriptions are necessary for simple users, then Simple English Wiktionary is the place for them and has a purpose. My basic point is that Simple English Wikipedia is not a dictionary (as with all wikipedias in existence), and Simple English Wiktionary is. If the Quechua Wikipedia (for example) places its definitions of words in Quechua Wiktionary (such as amañachiy) rather than explaining them in their Wikipedia, even though the majority of users and editors to their Wikipedia know very little of Quechua, we, who are specifically directed toward users and editors of English as an alternate language, should certainly do the same. Another, related point is that the definitions in Quechua Wiktionary (for example) are in Quechua, not in, say, Spanish (which is the native language of the majority of editors there), so in the same way, even though the majority of editors here and at SEWikt have English as a native language, we should have our definitions (wherever they end up) in simple English (the language of the readers), not regular English, as English Wiktionary has them. --Cromwellt|talk 22:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello,

I'd like to add my opinion on this, if I can. I think that both SE Wiktionary and SE Wikipedia have different objectives, so having both an encyclopedic and a dictionary-based definition shouldn't be a problem (just like en:wiktionary and en:wikipedia).

But ignoring each other is silly. It would be really good to have links between the two. For words like A and Adjective, using something like the {{wiktionary}} tag on the page would be useful to the users. At the moment, that tag links to full english wiktionary, which is good, but not very simple.

It would also be really cool if there were some links to sister projects in simple english on your front page - I think pretty much all the other wikis have this kind of thing.

I also commented pretty much the same on the community portal - please feel free for anyone to comment on this. --H2g2bob 01:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, H2g2bob. If I understand you correctly, you think that we can leave the short descriptions here while adding them at SE Wiktionary, that we should link from here to SE Wiktionary, and that we should have links to other Simple English projects (like SEWiktionary) on the Main Page.

I agree with you almost entirely. My only reservation is that (as on English Wikipedia), when an article is a non-expandable dictionary definition, it should be moved to SE Wiktionary. Many, many such definitions have been moved to English Wiktionary from English Wikipedia, and it is a continuing project. But as long as there is encyclopedic information about something (meaning it is not just a definition), I have absolutely no objection to having an article/entry both places. I notice that Ricky agrees that we should link there, that Eptalon is not against the idea, and that Blockinblox thinks some stubs (or short pages) should be moved to Wiktionary (which I think means SE Wiktionary), as reflected later on this page. --Cromwellt|talk 00:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My views on policy

Hello there. The section above is far too long to read, and even without indentation, a few (sub)headings would be good to the formatting. But that is not the point of the discussion here.

As a more or less active (last check revealed about 1500-1600 edits, about 20 a day, about 2 edits per page), I have often taken an article form english Wikipedia, and imported it. Only in the second step did I simplify the article. When I simplify, I try to watch out for common pitfalls, replacing difficult words by easier ones. I have no idea what is in the BE850 or BE1500 wordliat, but I take the approach that if a word sounds complicated (to what I perceive to be a SEWiki user), I put a link to it and try to explain it. Sometimes, this explanation is very short, like 1-2 sentences, and then has the usual template links.

What I also see is that many of the articles, when they are started, fall in the less than 20 words category.

Such an article would end up in a wiktionary definition, until someone tries ot extend it (when it would need to be moved, copied, etc). All that work of the moving, copying, deleting in one is wasted time that can better be spent improving the article.

IMO, an aricle only belongs in (simple) wiktionary, if it is likely not to be extended beyond the 3-4 sentences it started with.

Given the current (non-vandal) level of activity, I therefore think it is too early to worry about Wiktionary.

Rather than worry about wiktionary, we should look to get 10k articles. Each of those articles should bel onger than 3-4 sentences.

And yes, our definitions, as our articles, should be as simple as possible.

And please bear in mind that it is the links that help the audience. An article without links is useless. On most topics, at least a link to the normal english wikipedia should be there.

Also, only by being challenged do people learn.

-- Eptalon 23:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology and explanation

I apologize if the section was too long, and that neither I nor Netoholic put in subheadings. My reasons for doing so were: when I have a lot to say, I take a lot of space; all of the comments were closely related, and therefore I didn't think they should be separated by subheadings (though perhaps I was mistaken, since clarity is very important); and I wanted to include all my differences with Netoholic in one place (not counting core vs. non-core articles), partly because they are interrelated. I would still recommend reading through it if you aren't too busy, but that's your call.

[edit] Confusion

I must admit that I am slightly confused by some of your comments. So do you think that SEWiktionary should not have any words that are explained here? You think that SEWiktionary should just be a supplement to this project, rather than a separate, complete, but related project? Interesting concept. I think that is very different from the idea of the English Wiktionary in relation to the English Wikipedia (going by precedence is usually a good thing), but if we end up following Netoholic's opinion, that doesn't matter at all. Not that I'm making a judgment call on Netoholic's opinion: he may end up in the majority, and if that is the case, that is what we will do, and I will a) try not to complain too much and b) follow the policy to the letter, as I do with all other official policies that I'm aware of. But back to your comments (and thank you for them).

My thoughts are the following:

• Moving articles (or whatever you call them) between SEWikipedia and SEWiktionary, based on the content of the article takes manpower. More than one move (from Pedia to Wiktionary) is impractical, since it implies deletion (etc) at wiktionary
• We currenlty get 20-30 NEW articles a day. I think about 30% of those is vandalism related, so dont count them
• We should currently focus the available manpower on improving (quality) what is there. A vaild high/quality article is more than 4 sentences.

At the current rate (I am pessimistic), we get 450 usable stubs a month. This means 2.5 months for 1k articles. This means the 10k mark will be hit somewhere early autumn. So our aims should be:

1. Get more manpower to help out
2. Improve what is there
3. Steadily work towards the 10k marker.

In that context, as I said, this wikipedia is not ready for a wiktionary of its own (ie. has other issues to be solved first) -- Eptalon 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clearing up my confusion. This response was very clear and easy to understand. I am with you in your goal of improving what is there and adding articles. However, I happen to like also working on SEWikt. Would you mind if I linked over there, etc., periodically, since it does exist anyway? --Cromwellt|talk 14:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all, but bear in mind that the moving back and forth of stubs will take up manpower (which we dont seem to have, atm). -- Eptalon 16:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I would like to make it clear that I am not against Wikipedia having articles that are encyclopedic. That would be silly. Development of short articles is a great idea, which I do not oppose. It is not the length of the article that matters. An article on Fermat's last theorem would not belong in SEWiktionary, regardless of its smallness, and an article on "against" would not (and does not) belong in SEWikipedia, even if it were fifty or sixty sentences. However, if there were a significant organization with "Against" as a name or nickname, that would deserve an article here, with a link to the word at SEWiktionary. Length or lack thereof does not make an article either encyclopedia or dictionary material. But I think that SEWiktionary should have entries on all of those words as well, so moving them (if they don't belong here) or linking them (if they do) is not a waste of time. I agree that getting this Wikipedia to 10k articles is a good goal to have, but why not do both at once? If you are "not worried" about SEWiktionary, hopefully that means you would not oppose appropriate links and moves to SEWiktionary by others such as myself.

[edit] Links and miscellany

I 100% agree with your statement that links are very important. That is why I think we should link to SEWikt, in addition to English Wiktionary. If people only learn by being challenged (which seems true), I guess Netoholic and I must be learning a lot.  :D My apologies if this response was also too long, but at least I included subheadings! --Cromwellt|talk 00:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

First, this should really stay under one heading (or be moved to a separate page completely) to keep this under control. It's currently very difficult to follow. I agree partially with Cromwellt; we should link to Simple Wiktionary if there is an article there and then to English (or just to both). English Wiktionary is not going to be simple ever so it would be best to connect this Wiki to Simple Wiktionary. Also, in regards to the moving of stubs back and forth, one could always use a bot, assuming that the article is formatted somewhat here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Ricky. I was trying to follow the suggestion of Eptalon by adding subheadings, but I guess it complicated things rather than simplifying them. Thank you for your opinions and suggestions. They are good ones. I think it is a very good point that English Wiktionary will never be simple. --Cromwellt|talk 03:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Ricky, what part do you disagree with? You seem to agree with all my main points, but maybe I'm reading something into your comments which is not there. Please enlighten me. I hope you don't mind that I listed you as agreeing with me below. You did say you partially agree with me, at least. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 22:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On a related note:

I was just looking through some of the shortest pages on this wikipedia at Special:Shortpages to see if there was anything that could be deleted. I am reluctant to go deleting these, as they are neither blatant vandalism nor nonsense, but it is tempting, and I still wonder what possible use they could be, if they are going to be just dicdefs that don't really tell a reader anything. Especially the ones that are verbs, adjectives, or other non-noun parts of speech. Take a look and let me know if you have any comments on what should be done with this sort of thing (some may more questionable than others):

Cycling Barrel Sweet Method Product (multiplication) Programming Born Dropper Planck mass Dialogue Beginner Fullback Waste Envy Sorcha Coastal Dissolve Bake Spacecraft Singer Visible Underwear Study Hating Popular

..etc... you get the idea, and there's tons like this on the database! Regards, Blockinblox 23:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Blockinblox. As mentioned above and in other places, I think that the ones which are dictionary definitions that cannot be made encyclopedic should be moved to SEWiktionary, while the ones that can be made encyclopedic should be expanded (avoiding a definition here) and linked to SEWiktionary, where the definition should be. However, Netoholic seems to hold the opinion that dictionary definitions should stay here and should remain incomplete, without links to SEWiktionary but with links to English Wiktionary. He is quick to point out that these are not full definitions, which I think makes them even less useful here and makes it more logical to move them over there. So now you have two opinions (and if I'm not telling your opinion right, Netoholic, I apologize; please correct me if I'm wrong) on what should be done with those. Either way, I don't think the information should be lost through a delete. What do you think, Blockinblox? --Cromwellt|talk 00:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree that no information should be lost. I listed the above articles because I thought they were a little short on information. I think someone should go through those carefully and decide 1) If they have any actual information 2) If yes, does it belong here or on wiktionary 3) If no, can any be information be feasibly added, or should it just get tossed. Repeat this process for all of them. I see "Sorcha" is gone already, because all it said was "A girls name meaning Sarah" or some such. Not really encyclopedia article material there, not even a "simple" encyclopedia, although this info might conceivably be usable in the right place for some other article eventually, there is still no "Sarah" article, and its just not important enough to save hoping that someday there will be a "Sarah" article to merge it into.... Blockinblox 02:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you think should be done. I am assuming that #2 is referring to SEWiktionary (since it wouldn't make sense to change English Wiktionary (which has plenty on these things) from the articles here). If I am correct, I would like to infer that you feel that SEWiktionary is a worthwhile project, that we should move dicdefs there, and that we should link there rather than to (or in addition to) English Wiktionary. Is this a correct assessment of your ideas on the subject? --Cromwellt|talk 03:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic Global English

Maybe my system of Basic Global English might be helpful for writing articles in the Simple English Wikipedia. - Sinatra 21:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My Views

I will be brief. 1. It is the goal of Wikipedia to catalogue and to educate. 2. The internet is a resource vast enough so as to fill in any gaps wikipedia misses. 2a. Wikipedia is centralized and reliable. Thusly, when we wish to learn we use wikipedia. 2a. Corollary: Dictionary.com is also centralized and reliable. If we wish to learn, we will use both Wikipedia and dictionary.com 3. When an individual, regardless of intelligence, age, or simplicity finds a (for example) reference to some concept, person, or historical even of which he is unaware, and wishes to educate himself, he will visit Wikipedia. 3. Corollary: When a like individual finds a word and is unable to produce a definition suitable for his understanding, he will visit dictionary.com Presumption: Anyone who is educated enough to navigate wikipedia will more than likely be aware of one or more databases in which he can find a facsimile for a dictionary.

Thus: A person who is intent on learning will not be swayed by large words or complexity, if he is true to his cause he will further educate himself by thickening his vocabulary. Following that: An abecedarian approach to linguistics will only hamper a prospective reader's vocabulary. By limiting the words we are allowed to use in everyday speech, you limit the prospectives of the reader. If Wikipedia is presenting information aimed at children and adults alike, then it will not stymie the growth of a reader's vocabulary by dumbing the language.

Second Point: Point: Brevity is not clarity. Proof: Simplification is abstraction.

Also...on a more personal note, I find satisfaction in investigation, learning. Often times, this activity is spent at Wikipedia, and, when I find myself reading an article I random'd, I notice two things. As expected, I learn about the articles which I had been reading, and, perhaps more importantly, expand my vocabulary, whether through contextual analysis, or simply through looking them up at one online reservoir or another. It would be a shame to see a day when we all write and read in blurred and truncated newspeak. Oldmanpanda 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I'd say that this really belongs at Wikipedia:Simple talk, since it is much more about English Wikipedia vs. Simple English Wikipedia than anything else. Second, many people use Dictionary.com, but many people also use Wiktionary (especially Wikipedia users), which is directly associated with Wikipedia. Third, we are trying to provide information here, not teach people vocabulary. If they have limited English skills (for any reason), they can come here and find articles they can understand more easily. Fourth, we have nothing to do with newspeak: for those who want to learn more, we are a stepping stone; for those who do not, we provide encyclopedic information in simple English. Fifth, simplification is often not abstraction, but clarification. Like the Calvin & Hobbes strip where Calvin sums up his attitude in one word: uncomplicated. If we simplify that to the word "simple," we are not abstracting it at all, but we are clarifying it. While brevity is not a synonym of clarity, it is still true that shortening something often makes it clearer. Sixth, Simple English Wiktionary (and Simple English Wikipedia) is not a project designed to dumb down the language. It is a project for those who do not know the language well (not created for fluent English speakers), so that they (the people who know less) can understand. It defines things in simple English, but the words it defines are regular English words, just as SEWikipedia has articles on regular things, and even uses more complex words with explanation of those terms or links to appropriate explanations. Seventh and finally, if you don't think this project is useful, don't read it and don't work on it. No one is forcing you to. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 07:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online tools

I would like to recommend the following online tools which you might decide to use when you write articles in simple english : [http://www.online-utility.org/english/simple_basic_helper.jsp Online tool which detects complicated words . Simple english article should have simple sentences. To find sentences which are not simple one could use : Online tool which finds complicated sentences. --Onliner 12:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory paragraph issue

I really feel that the introductory paragraph (among others) is misleading. It mentions that this wiki is here for English learners and English teachers. While those do make up a part of our target audience, this makes it sound as if our goal is to teach English. This has never been the case. We are here to share information to those who do not know much English. I definitely think this page (which newcomers view more than anyone) should be changed to accurately reflect our goals here at SEWikipedia. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 05:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Well, be bold and change it! =) -- euyyn @ en.wikipedia (1:25 am, 22 june 06)

Thank you for the recommendation, but because I am in sharp disagreement with someone over the content of this page, among others (as you can see by some of the other conversations on this page), I would prefer to recommend changes here which others implement if they choose, at least for now. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 18:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article IS disputed

Netoholic, please put the disputed tag back at the top of Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia. It is definitely disputed. You and I disagree over it. When I placed a disputedpolicy tag on it before, I noted that your professed reason for removing it is that this article is not policy. Fine. I've now placed a disputed tag which has nothing to do with policy on the page. You removed it without explanation, though I do thank you for your note on my talk page. How do you defend removing the tag? --Cromwellt|talk|contris 21:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I defend it by pointing out that, while you spend a lot of time on creating disputes and commenting verbosely on talk pages, you've made no appreciable effort towards the main focus of this wiki - its articles. I admit that I've been away, been tied up with admin-tasks, and allowed myself to become distracted from articles as well. -- Netoholic @ 21:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do spend most of the Wikitime I devote to this project on talk pages. That is actually not as I would wish it. I am excited that we almost have the big 1000 done, and I am also excited that we're close to 10000 articles. I want this project to succeed. But I find myself in unwilling disagreement with someone on this wiki who does not usually respond to negotiation/arguments and silently prevents any changes he disagrees with. If this person and I could a) work out our differences, b) agree to disagree (this would involve not getting in each other's way, which could be tough), or c) take our disagreements to a third or even fourth party whose decision we would follow, I could move on and would be happy to work mostly on articles. That is what the project's about, isn't it?

Thank you for being willing to admit something. I really do appreciate it.

However, my question still stands. I am not fomenting dispute. I made a legitimate change to this page a long time ago, which you reverted. Other users who have commented either agree with me (e.g. Ricky81682, Blockinblox) or are neutral (Eptalon). Archer7, though he has not commented on this exact page, has done more than agree with me: he has started editing on the other SE projects. You are the one fomenting dispute here, by trying to quash links/references between this project and the other, since you can't quash the other project itself. Also, you still have not responded to my arguments earlier on the page, which directly address the validity of SEWiktionary's existence (something you've brought up at Talk:Simple English Wiktionary). In any case, if this article is disputed, there should be a dispute tag on it, so that new users (the majority of those who read this page) will know that this is not accepted by everyone. That's what the disputed tag (which I neither created nor imported) is for. --Cromwellt|talk|contris 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good feelings

I have just discovered this project, and its mere idea made me feel good. I hope it succeds. -- euyyn @ en.wikipedia (1:31 am, 22 june 06)

[edit] Article

Why does the article redirect here? The "Wikipedia" namespace is more for policies and guidelines related to Wikipedia. Why is it like this?-- Tdxiang 11:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are the simplest words?

This article says we should use the 1000, 2000, or 3000 simplest words in English, but what are they? --P3d0

Most people here think of the BE850 or the BE 1500 when we talk of those. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Does anyone else see the reference to 'children' in the article as ageist? I see it as a stereotypic generalisation. 202.156.6.54 10:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page for article-specific comments. Thanks. Billz (Talk) 10:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should Simple Wiki be like this?

A person from Wiki told me that this article I came across may sound strange to me because it's meant as simple English. I don't find it acceptable, however. Any comments? Complement (if that is not the link to the SE page, then try http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complement.

Why don't you have a go at improving the article yourself, if you don't find it acceptable? Blockinblox 00:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Taking a look at the history of that article, it seems to have been added mainly in three parts by three different users over a three year time. That may be why it sounds strange. Feel free to make it more acceptable to you in any way you can. Blockinblox 00:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move description of Simple English to the page Simple English?

Now, the page "Simple English" is not a real page. It goes to this page. I want to change the pages. I want to move the description of Simple English to the "Simple English" page. I want to move it because I want to make a language link from the English Wikipedia. Now the English Wikipedia has a page about Simple English, but that page does not have a language link at the left side going to any page in Simple English Wikipedia. I don't want "Simple English" in English Wikipedia to link (go) to "Wikipedia: Simple English Wikipedia" in Simple English Wikipedia. I think it should link to "Simple English" in Simple English Wikipedia, and that page should be a real page. What do you think?

Also, on English Wikipedia I asked for a link from "English Wikipedia Main Page" to "Simple English Wikipedia Main Page". We need those links. Then people will know there is a Simple English Wikipedia. --Coppertwig 04:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)