Wikipedia talk:Simple English Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] I tried to fix link named Main Page

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)

[edit] =========

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)


[edit] Is the Simple English Wikipedia biased?

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)

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)

[edit] Simple English

"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)

[edit] Why?

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)

I think you mean offense. Mark Chovain 10:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
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)

I must express my deep concern in this latest trend to reward the inept. Language is civilization, why break it down? Noserider (talk) 12:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language, content, or both?

There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) on introductory articles, and some editors (myself included) think that they are redundant to Simple Wiki. Others disagree. One of the problems I have is that the page talks about language, but implies that content can/should be simplified as well. If it's meant to be exclusively linguistic, would anyone mind if I added the phrase 'in language only, as the content covered should be as comprehensive as the equivalent page on English Wikipedia' somewhere appropriate? I like my policies and guidelines like I like my profanity - explicit : ) WLU (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading Simple:Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia, which makes it pretty clear that SEW is about simple English, not necessarily simple content. However, using simple English (in particular, a limited vocabulary) probably does limit the depth of content you can cover. If so, this is a consequence of SEW's stated purpose, not an addition to it. In any case "Introduction to" article are not redundant to SEW because they involve simplifying content without using a reduced vocabulary English style.
As far as I know, SEW is not explicit about whether it is intended to be as comprehensive as enwiki, so this page should not be explicit either. However, this page probably needs to be clarified, as it diverges from SEW's own description of itself in several respects. Geometry guy 18:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)