Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia

message: I've moved this out of the main namespace as I don't think it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure there's a lot of point having an article on one version of Wikipedia anyway. Could the information not be consolidated with information on other languages, or in the Wikipedia article itself? Angela. 10:11, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

message: I had to make it external to get it to work - I tried to emulate the link type used in the other similar link, with no luck.  Spalding 16:50, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
"For children, students and translators". Why do the latter need wiki pages in Simple English? A capable translator from English into any other language should always be capable of understanding English in normal formulations at least passively. (Being able to write complicated phrases is quite a different thing: I, for instance, am Dutch, and as you can see, making natural sentences in a more advanced idiom really is a kind of a problem - I understand virtually anything the normal English Wikipedia features, however). Simple English articles will, as a matter of facts, lead to simple Estonian, Cherokee, Swahili, Ukrainian etc. etc. articles when they are translated, and it is likely that this can irritate those who read the translated articles in their native tongues - they aren't children, after all. Let the translator use a dictionary, and everything will be alright, if only he speaks the language into which he translates fluently! (anon)
:Yes, if translators need Simple English, they don't deserve to be employed as translators.  On the other hand, I'm not even very convinced of its usefulness to children or students.  OK, beginners and elementary learners can't be expected to deal with fully normal English, but they still need material that's both authentic and natural, and very little of the stuff I've seen here is that.  I see no point in a Simple English Wikipedia except as an aid to beginning or elementary students of English, and what's been made so far is of very limited use in that regard.  garik 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I tried to fix link named Main Page 

message: I'm puzzled by this sentence. "Most articles will require about 2000 words, a full defining vocabulary that is useful to explain English idiom."  In an article about simple English, perhaps its meaning could be made clearer, as I really don't understand what's intended. Adrian Robson 16:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: =========

message: I look at articles on it, such as the one about Socrates, and see that it gives a very oversimplified and inaccurate portrayal. I don't see how simple language should mean inaccurate/slanted(biased) information, but it seems to be that way on a number of articles. Smeggysmeg 22:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: philosophy can often be a difficult topic to present to EAL students or simple English speakers as one must normally be fluent in the language to understand the ideas being presented.  even a great deal of primary English speakers have issues understanding it, so at times oversimplification is necessary for a subject like Classical Greek Philosophy.  if the article is truly biased, though, then it's a matter of rewriting the thing, which is easier said than done Filter1987 19:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Simple English Wikipedia biased? 

message: "Simple English is like English but only easy words are used." really? does anyone in the whole wide world not think that sentence deserves to be shunned and forced to live in the desert? Janemansfield74 01:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simple English 

message: Why would anybody want to contribute to wikipedia for people who are too lazy to learn the language right? I think it is cool that there are wikipedias in everything from Chinese to Manx, but surely simple English is incredibly stupid and a waste of everybody's time. If people are too slow to learn from wikipedia, than maybe they are just too f***** stupid in the first place. No offese. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 12:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean offense. Mark Chovain 10:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who don't want to contribute in the SEWP, don't have to; so, Elvisandhismagicpelvis, stop wasting your time on criticizing that Wikipedia in here (mostly because the talks are to make better the articles, not to insult their matter. Happy editing. Twicemost 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Ghaag (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Orthorhombic, why not have a Simple English wikipedia? In Exemplum (i.e.),If I was a an ESL student, and I needed a source for my history project, I think that I would try to use English, if I could not under stand that, Simple English, and then my native language. I feel that one reason for Simple English wikipedia is there to be an english wikipedia for people who do not understand english as well as others. I respectfully disagree with your reasoning for eradicating the Simple English wikipedia, but I do agree with the point about the cultural imperialism. However, this could be helped by making more "Simple (Place Language Here)" Wikipedias, and not deleting this one. There is more than one stone that can kill the bird. 
Poker5463 Repeater  21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: After I added seven links to articles in other languages, I discovered that :fr:Wikipédia en Simple English has interwiki links to the following.
::ar:ويكيبيديا الإنجليزية البسيطة
::cs:Wikipedie ve zjednodušené angličtině
::en:Simple English Wikipedia
::es:Wikipedia en inglés simple
::fa:ویکی‌پدیای انگلیسی ساده
::ko:쉬운 영어 위키백과
::he:ויקיפדיה באנגלית פשוטה
::hu:Wikipédia:Egyszerűsített angol nyelvű Wikipédia
::ms:Wikipedia Bahasa Inggeris Mudah
::nl:Simpel Engelse Wikipedia
::ja:シンプル英語版ウィキペディア
::pl:Wikipedia w języku Simple English
::ru:Википедия на упрощённом английском языке
::simple:Simple English Wikipedia
::sh:Pojednostavljena engleska Wikipedija
::th:วิกิพีเดียภาษาอังกฤษอย่างง่าย
::tr:Basit İngilizce Vikipedi
::yi:סימפל ענגליש וויקיפעדיע
::zh:簡易英語維基百科
It seems that there are two sets of articles about Simple English Wikipedia.
: -- Wavelength (talk) 23:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two sets of articles about Simple English Wikipedia 

message: I would like to request that the English wikipedia is split into two. This would create a UK English section and a USA English section. This would stop a lot of arguments between users on how to spell words - and make articles more relevant to that region.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.4.224 (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:ENGVAR. Professor M. Fiendish, Esq. 12:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  English English! 

message: It should be called Simplified English--82.134.154.25 (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name! 

message: The simple:Life article begins with a list of qualities that living things possess, then immediately starts listing exceptions to the criteria provided, to narrow the definition.  Using strawman arguments to construct a definition is not conceptually simple, even if the language of the text is restricted to simple english words.  An adult trying to learn a second language might be comfortable with this kind of logical grammar, but I doubt it is appropriate for a user with learning disabilities.  I would think that the mere fact that the simple english wikipedia is not sufficiently focused in its purpose will lead to articles being written with different intention.  66.69.246.143 (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  In addition to generally being terrible ... 

message: There has been a discussion on EN Wiki's Women in Red on collaboration with the Simple English project. See here. Reactions welcome.--Ipigott (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration with EN Wiki's Women in Red