Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia (2)

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
< Proposals for closing projects
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by Colonel Warden (talk | contribs) at 09:08, 28 December 2008 (→‎Support: +1). It may differ significantly from the current version.
see also Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikipedia

The Simple English Wikipedia was intended to create a Wikipedia using Simple English. However, many of the articles on the project have drifted towards mainstream English and the project is thus becoming surplus to requirements as the English Wikipedia already exists. On the previous discussion to close there was talk about who may be using Simple. But, by the name alone, the idea of the project was to use Simple English, not a basic or simple version of English. A project specifically aimed at those who do not have English as a first language may have some merit, or a project for children, but neither relate to Simple English itself.

Support

  1. Support - George The Dragon 12:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support To be honest, I thought about making a closure request, too. People who aren't native speakers of English shall write in their native language where they are probably much more efficient. Native English speakers have enwiki with plenty of stuff still to write. It's absolutely not necessary to have all the content twice in the very same language. --Thogo (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, why have two English Wikipediae. I am en-2 and would never look at simple.wiki when searching for an article, better merge the good things and the people there to en.wiki, no doubt they are doing good work, but imho it is too much redundance, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - I have never understood the rationale for having a Simple English Wikipedia in addition to the English Wikipedia. While the project is grandfathered, it doesn't meet the requirement of being a real language. For that reason alone, it shouldn't have been created in the first place. Shall we have a simple version of every language? I rather think not. Furthermore, the redundancy between simple and en is an issue, the usefulness of which has yet to be determined per Birdy. And again, even if it were useful, that's not a good reason to have it open. It'd also be useful for Wikipedia to be a link farm. But it's not. It'd also be useful if Wikibooks could be a dumping ground for everything that fails AFD. But it's not. Lots of things would be useful, but that's no better a reason than "But I worked really hard on this."  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Thogo and Birdy Sir Lestaty discuţie 00:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support There are no clear standards of what is "simple"; unless clear conventions on grammar, vocabulary, and extensions are made, this project is a redundant version of English. See arguments below. Lwyx 15:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if there are standards and they are followed, the fact remains that Simple English is not a language and as such should never have had a project in the first place.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are clear-cut standards, somehow restricting and redefining "standard" English, "Simple English" could count as an artificial auxiliary language, like BASIC, and thus, a language like Esperanto or Ido, which have their own wikipedias. So if "simple" is a wikipedia in a semi-artificial auxiliary language it could stay. But in its current condition it looks like an English wikipedia, duplicated and shaved. Cheers. Lwyx 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple English wiki was created when wikimedia was open to ideas and allowed users to request various kind of non-language wikis that wikimedia could host, most were rejected but some passed such as Commons as an Image host, species wiki as a scientific wiki dealing with organisms etc, the Incubator wiki for the creation of newer wikis and Meta, a wiki to co-ordinate with all these projects but simplewiki stood out of these non-language wikis because it was created taking in mind for those users whose English is not really a first language and probably not even second which ironically makes up for over 4 billion of the world population. Try not to see this as a language wiki but more of a "special" wiki created to help improve the english of people in this 2nd or 3rd world country as well as to help children in the first world english speaking countries, to grasp their english language and to better it in the future..--Cometstyles 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand why it was created, I simply disagree with that reasoning.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If "simple" is not a language, natural or otherwise, its contents may leave the wikipedia namespace; but if the project is so dear to some people, it may be moved to wikia. IIRC, that's why the wikia namespace was created. Check the toki pona "wikipedia". Lwyx 17:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, these persons all have a solid point. Academic excellence is slowly changing Wikipedia from a fantastic source of information to a masterpiece of academic excellence. It is a bias which has been structuring science and history articles (in particular) to reflect 3rd level educative structure, banishing and nullifying anything which seeks to improve or differ outside that perspective (example: en:English language). I see it as a striking alteration in the last year particulary. Latin rules the day and concepts such as helpfulness, simplicity and purpose are open to damning debate. The uneducated are slowly unsupported, changing not only the content but the nature. The trend is merely a reflection of the community. The persons required to maintain the wiki will ultimately encapsulate it in their own design, unfettered by others and without rhyme or reason. I suggest the story of the unediting reader has scarcely been written and never been told. ~ R.T.G 06:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I take your point. From that perspective a "simple english wikipedia" makes more sense to me (WP for dummies ;-): more seriously: for K-12); however, if some expert (say, a college professor) tries to contribute to SEW, how would you keep control on whether the contribution is "simple enough".--- That's it!: how do you measure "simple" without clear criteria on grammar and vocabulary? Lwyx 21:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Last year I was trying to get some info off en on genetics and biology for a year 10 class (14-15 year olds), and while the articles were good, as a science graduate even *I* had problems understanding them. Orderinchaos 23:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Granting RTG's point, perhaps a project name change is in order: there are proposals for "juniorpedia", "easypedia", "simplerpedia", or alikes: that project name change would allow to start mirror projects in other languages, removing the appearance that English is somehow favored. Please notice that "simple" it's then not a wikipedia in another "language" anymore, but another project altogether, and the domain "simple.wikipedia.org" shall go anyway, being replaced by "en.simplerpedia.org", or something like that.--- And by the way, the actual "simple" is quite a proof that this new project ("simplepedia", whatever...) will perfectly fly: it doesn't need an incubator (the project is already running), but a proper name. I'll add a new section to discuss this point below. Lwyx 21:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm considering switching my vote: after a little of research and consideration, a Wikipedia for second language/middle school students now looks reasonable. What I'm not sure about is the name "simple.wikipedia" and the criteria for grammar checking. Lwyx 21:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Per Thogo and Birdy. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This „wikipedia“, where blatant PoV-pushers can safely do their job for months without any resistance, must be destroyed. Even my attempt to correctly attribute some territories was obstructed with some help from an administrator[1]. They reverted[2] even categorisation of simple:Punjab (India) to simple:Category:Punjab (India), rendering the category empty. Incnis Mrsi 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After some thinking I realize that this must be not destroyed, but reorganized as a subsidiary of en.wiki, as latter is known for good NPoV level. Reply of Majorly (which is a sysop in simple.wiki, but nobody in en.wiki) gave additional arguments to such decision. Incnis Mrsi 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you bothered to give a proper edit summary when editing articles, confusion wouldn't occur. I can't believe you're calling Gwib a blatant PoV pusher, when it is you who is. Majorly talk 13:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, give some evidences confirming your claims that Incnis Mrsi is a blatant PoV pusher, or apologize. The fact that simple:User:Majorly is a sysop is quite indicative. BTW I did not mention any PoV pushing directly from Gwib. Incnis Mrsi 16:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also should mention that simple:user:Da Punk '95 appeared to use the rollback feature (quick reverting) against my edits. In Russian Wikipedia only edits which clearly look as vandalism may be reverted by this way. The use of the rollbacker flag in such manner (i.e. in an edit war) would be a subject to removing the flag. Incnis Mrsi 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unexplained edits can be considered vandalism. Next time, you should use an edit summary. Majorly talk 18:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What edit summary might I give to explain including the «Punjab (India)» to [[Category:Punjab (India)]]? Also, Mr. Majorly, remember that I yet expect evidences or excuses. Here is not your „wikipedia“ where flagged users have all possibilities to „proove“ that my edits were unconstructive. Incnis Mrsi 18:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't understand you, so I think it's best this conversation ended. Majorly talk 18:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Part stricken above, with apologies. This is simply a misunderstanding, and not something to suggest the entire project needs removing. I've left a note with the blocking admin. This should be discussed over on Simple. Majorly talk 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Why have two English Wikipedias? I think the mostly people looks on the "real" English Wikipedia, so why have two (nearly) identical Wikipedias? M.M.S. 17:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly you haven't ever looked at Simple English Wikipedia. They're very different. Majorly talk 18:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per above. The existence of simplewiki doesn't make sense. ~ Aleksandrit 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. There is no "Simple English" language. Why we should have two English Wikipedias? Is it necessary to us? No, it isn't. Simplewiki delenda est should be closed per all above.--Аурелиано Буэндиа 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support No language, no standards, no sense. And en-1 is bad english, not simple english. It's a wiki, somebody will correct it! --FritzG 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Thogo. --Ahnode 22:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: Move the content to Wikia or some other site / organization. Wikimedia should stick to real languages. --MZMcBride 17:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: There is no valid purpose for this project; there is no "Simple English" language. Two english wiki's is not beneficial. Merge content, if unique, to another existing wiki. Jerry 19:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Per Thogo, I did not really ever like the idea of there being a simple english fork. Two projects same language, not needed. NonvocalScream 19:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support largely per Mike.lifeguard. Roux 19:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support per Mike.lifeguard. IMatthew 20:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per Spacebirdy and Mike.lifeguard. Stifle 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support If the articles there were actually written in simple forms of English, I would be convinced. However, they are not. Captain panda 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I happened to read its article Violin which was featured recently. This is not written in simple english and I said so on its talk page. Noone has responded. The project seems to be a failure and the effort would be better devoted to beating back jargon and bad writing within the main English wikipedia. Colonel Warden 09:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strongly. Although the Simple English Wikipedia is a smaller community, it is working hard with the articles that exist. We have currently over 39100 articles, a large number. As well as this, we have an established community (slowly growing in numbers). I urge rejection of this proposal, because the simple English Wikipedia is not necessarily drifting back to mainstream English. PeterSymonds 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I'm not sure how this all works, but have you even brought this up to the community? I have no doubt that this specific project may benefit by any suggestions to reduce the complexity of its articles, and I'm sure you will be welcomed upon arrival. The idea that this project encourages, is basic or simple English (obviously by the name). So you can see why (hopefully), that this sounds ridiculous and contradictory right? In most cases, a few of the the very people who would fit our audience's description, are editing these very same articles. Simplifying English is no simple task. I believe this proposal to be very ill thought out, and a waste of time. As PeterSymonds, I urge rejection. Synergy 19:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong oppose, for the above reasons. Majorly talk 19:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I notice the proposer hasn't even bothered to inform the community about this. Majorly talk 19:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose very strongly, per above comments. Shapiros10 19:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strongly Oppose It does help both children and people whose mother tongue is not English. Because its quite a small community we are slowly getting towards more simple articles. Take a look at the good articles and very good articles Kennedy 19:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strongly Oppose There's no reason to close it. IT does wonders....including in my case for banned English Wikipedia user to go for editing and a place to improve their attitude (for lack of a better term).--  ✧ ChristianMan16  19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose We can modify the SEW's objective, if need be, but oppose a full closure of the project. Cassandra 19:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose
    • We're currently #48 on the list of most accessed Wikipedias out of 713
    • We're in the top 10% most viewed Wikipedias (≈ 6.7%)
    • We're getting ≈ 188,000 hits /day from various countries
    • Our search bar is used ≈ 10,600 times /day
    We're quite popular, guys. It wouldn't be the best idea to close us down (stats taken from here). --Gwib 20:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Stong - very active, growing, and many articles which are simple. If it not being perfect was a reason to close it, you might as well close down English Wikipedia for its vandalism, poor MoS, uncategorization, NPOV, etc. Simple English Wikipedia is still very useful and active. -- American Eagle (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Stongly oppose per all of the above. This is like Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Simple English Wikiquote but with even less merit. --A. B. (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong This is insane! We are a very beneficial community SwirlBoy39 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, "But, by the name alone, the idea of the project was to use Simple English, not a basic or simple version of English." Yeah, isn't Simple English and a simple version of English the same thing? Therefore, a simple version is used in the Simple English WP... SwirlBoy39 00:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose I have to Strongly oppose. Simple English Wikipedia has a very active community. This community is small, but growing; at the moment we are looking at about 30 active, named editors. These editors have contributed almost 40.000 articles (currently at 39.200-odd), we get about 2000 new articles a month. I will not deny that there may be problems, but these are related to capacity, the editors we have are working as much as they can. Note that SEWP is not about making an enyclopedia that only uses BE-800 or BE-1500 vocabularly, but rather to make one that is easy to understand by those people who use it. To the outsider it may look that what SEWP covers is already covered by the regular English Wikipedia, and that in order to stifle competition, SEWP must be closed. This overlooks the very basic fact that there are many people who contribute to SEWP, which will not contribute to the regular English wikipedia. Regular English Wikipedia has a much larger user base. To be able to keep afloat it needs many more rules, not to say a bureaucracy. At the moment, many of these rules are simply not needed in SEWP, which makes the project more dynamic. But go ahead and close it down, you'll probably lose many of the editors of SEWP. --Eptalon 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. strong I feel that the community is growing although it is small at the moment it is growing and should be given a fair chance to grow. WashingManwithwings 21:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose A guy called Jimbo Wales owns it and all his public work seems to be towards making a wiki available for non-english countries and for children. I think he does a good job and this is the very place to do anything to help it. An equally worthy cause to the en.wiki, so if you want to close one, start there. RTG 22:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose mainly following Gwib's and RTG's arguments. There are a lot of articles in SEWP that are a better basis for a start of a new Wikipedia than the articles of en:WP are. --Cethegus 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note the above vote belongs to me. I have perhaps a thousand edits on the simple.wiki. I only created the meta.wikimedia account now (this page was reached in such a way I thought I was still logged on to simple.wiki) so please leave it here, thank you RTG 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong Oppose Per all of above, and the fact that the local community was not notified. Mww113 00:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong oppose - The Simple English Wikipedia also aims to allow people whose native language isn't English (or students) to use it. Even some of our contributors do not have English as their native language. Many people use it, as seen in some cases where anons would just create a talk page giving their feedback on the article. Chenzw 01:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Oppose - although some articles require cleanup, the majority are far simpler than on enwiki. - tholly --Talk-- 07:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this is a not very well thought out proposal - it simply states about closing the Wikipedia, but if Simple Wikipedia has to close, that surely the other (smaller) Simple projects should close too. Just because one editor doesn't approve of an admin (below), there is no reason to close the whole project. - tholly --Talk-- 14:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong Oppose vector/ --.snoopy. 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Oppose project is active, if there are editorial issues the community there can address them. xaosflux Talk 11:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strongest Possible Oppose Project is active, has lots of editors, and while some articles may not yet be simple the majority are simpler than en-wp. It is high up the list of most visited Wikipedias. BG7 14:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Curiously enough, the only thing thing that went through the mind of the bowl of petunias as it fell was, Oh no, not again. What exactly has changed since last time it was nominated, this sort of time last year? Microchip08 16:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Strong Oppose - has an active community of editors, gets plenty of hits. To cap it all though, we are ahead of Meta on the most accessed wikipedia list. The Flying Spaghetti Monster 16:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Oppose - Why would we get rid of it? Malinaccier P. (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - although some may observe many of the articles on the project have drifted towards mainstream English and the project is thus becoming surplus to requirements as the English Wikipedia already exists, the aspiration is to have articles which are readable by those with only a few years of education, either because they are children or because they are learning English as a second language. If we don't always meet our aspirations, that is not a reason for deletion. From what I have observed there is a focus on writing simple English and ensuring readability. I have also seen contributions from some whose first language is obviously not English.--Matilda 06:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose JurgenG 07:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - I think tht some of the points outlined in this request might be valid, but that a propose to close is quite ridiculous. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose The Simple English Wikipedia is still a small community. Sure, it has its problems, I'd say the English Wikipedia probably has more problems than Simple, but these are issues that can be ironed out over time. We don't tear down a house just because it's not finished and perfect immediately, so why should we do the same with a Wikipedia? סּ Talk 03:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose ARE YOU F****** KIDDING ME? ShockingHawk 13:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose I'm starting to become a contributor there. Working on translating English articles into Simple English. Techman224Talk 22:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strong oppose The editors in favor of getting rid of Simple have yet to provide a compelling argument, other than "I don't like it". Juliancolton 00:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strongly Oppose - The Simple English WIkipedia has 10000+ pages (grouped in the 10000+ section with many other notable languages just below the 100000+ page section where the normal English Wikipedia lives). It's got more pages than most of the other-language ones, so why the heck would you delete it? There are other emptier other-language (some of them are just dialects) versions to delete, so there's no point. Æåm Fætsøn 05:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose While I strictly disagree with its blatant silly Linguicism ("just dialects"), I agree with my predecessor otherwise. --Purodha Blissenbach 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose The Simple English Wikipedia is just starting. We can always improve it over time. And so far, the pages I've seen are perfectly readable for kids. KevinJi9 04:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Strong Oppose per all above. -- Da Punk '95 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Per all above. --Tdxiang 06:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Per all of the above. No reason to close it, and there is no deadline: if the English is too complex, it can be simplified. SunDragon34 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - Why close this when it is helpful for people whose English isn't very good? Soxred93 04:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose per above — vvv 19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose strong keep, The number of users alone proves the need for a simplified English version. This proposal had very weak grounds considering we just had one like this that was a landslide "keep". --MarsRover 19:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per all of the above — Ferrer 10:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose for all reasons above.Ghaly 22:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Per all above.--1j1z2 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Massive Oppose I couldn't live without it. 62.24.251.240 16:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose - Intend to do a bit of work myself improving the SEW in the near future, after more than a bit of a delay. It seems to be useful and used, and that's enough for me. John Carter 19:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Oppose It's not important whether the name is simple.wikipedia.org or en.simplerpedia.org. The important thing is for it to continue to exist.
    If you think it has to be a language, fine: Basic English and Globish are languages, and Simple English Wikipedia is a place where people can write using those languages and other languages like them.
    Or, let's not say it's a language; let's say it's a different project with a different reason for being. We don't want to close Wikibooks just because it uses the same language as Wikipedia.
    Here's a strong enough reason to keep Simple English Wikipedia: some Deaf people use a sign language which may have no written form. I think there is no sign language Wikipedia. Some of these Deaf people can read and write simple English but can't read hard English. We can say that Simple English Wikipedia is the Wikipedia for these Deaf people. Maybe the number of Deaf people who read only simple English is bigger than the number of people who speak some other languages that we have Wikipedias for.
    There are also children; adults who are learning to read; and people with learning disabilities who may be able to read and write simple English but not hard English or any other language.
    There are projects for kids in other languages. They aren't on Wikimedia, but I see no reason why not. They are good projects. They are good for children. They are also good for people who want to learn the languages, Deaf people, people who want easy-to-read information, people who have trouble understanding the normal Wikipedia page in their language for any reason, etc. Translators can use them to help check their understanding of hard language.
    The proposal says "A project specifically aimed at those who do not have English as a first language may have some merit, or a project for children..." That is a reason to keep the project, not a reason to close it. I see no strong reason why the same project can't be used by more than one kind of person who wants simple English.
    I laughed about Microchip08's comment. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 14:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Weak oppose While I am not a native speaker of English, I have somehow managed to become an en.wiki sysop. Although I have never felt any need in simple.english wiki myself, I admit it can be useful for many people. This is the main reason why I am opposing the outright closure. My oppose is weak because I think that the arguments of Lwyx should be seriously considered. Ruslik 17:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And, BTW, none has been seriously addressed. Two examples: two target audiences, kids and foreign students, are clearly divergent: recently I've read (I'll try to find the reference) someone suggesting the use of "grown-ups" instead of "adults": that's certainly childish, but not in the best interest of ESL students. Another example: someone above suggested supporting this SEWP for some readers (the deaf) who can't follow "difficult" English, but gave no clue about how to serve this audience (a dictionary, a vocabulary, something...). So SEWP seems to be a portmanteau for children, foreigners, the disabled, and what not; there is confusion even in the statement of the goals of this project, without mentioning the fact that "simple" doesn't meet the criteria for language inclusion ("simple" is not a valid ISO or IETF language specification). The project may stay, but requires at least a rename, and certainly better criteria for edition. Lwyx 19:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lwyx, That may be an over-concern. Let's say that ESL students, children and deaf people share a large set of basic vocabulary. They may diverge at some points, but these are the edges, and the choice of "grown-up" or "adult" may actually depend on the context or intended target audience. Hillgentleman 02:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My problem, Hillgentleman, is that I can't see where this "large set of basic vocabulary" shared by all audiences is specified. There are informal attempts to define "Simple" in terms of Basic and Special English, which mostly serve ESL students. I've not seen anywhere any guideline stating how to write contents for children and people with disabilities, or how to serve such divergent audiences together. Please, don't take me wrong: I think I see the worth of the project (I've tried to use it a few times); but without clear criteria to state what is Simple, or without stating clearly how to serve such divergent audiences, it all seems to me too vague, even close to mere wishful thinking. Lwyx 17:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose, per the rest. SE WP does no harm, and should therefore be kept. --Aqwis 17:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose; there are arguments to be made for specifying exactly what Simple English should be or to formally adopt one of the existing variants of simplified English — but those are needed fixes to an existing project not reasons to axe it. Given that SE has the capacity for having a very high educational value, and that there are no unsurmountable obstacles to fixing what problems may currently exist, I can think of no reason to use the thermonuclear option. — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 18:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose - It was originally being developed for a specific audience (which, arguably, are not the people reading this discussion!) and I don't see that audience as decreasing in the future, indeed it is increasing in size. Let's support it instead of talking of scrapping it. --Alison Wheeler 19:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose, rather strongly. From the main argument at the top of the page: "However, many of the articles on the project have drifted towards mainstream English and the project is thus becoming surplus to requirements as the English Wikipedia already exists." If the main thrust for deleting simple is that the language is too complex in articles, use your edit button to modify the page to use simpler language. That's not a reason to use the nukeSite button to close the wiki. Titoxd(?!?) 20:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose, simple.wiki is lovely, especially for foreigners. --M/ 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose, Is useful for foreigners and ESL students. --Patar knight 22:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose per cetera. Flaming 22:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. It has existed for quite a time. It is reasonably successful. The dominance of English means that a lot of people will find this useful and that justifies a special project for Simple English. --Bduke 22:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose I think there is scope for such a project - my views align with AlisonW's here. As an educator dealing historically with children with learning disabilities and today with adults for some of whom English is far from a first language, I think a project such as this is useful as long as it is being maintained. Evidence suggests the maintenance could improve, but the same could be said for en - more members and more watchful eyes will see that project improve similarly. I think the proposal to rename it per Lwyx could have merit. Orderinchaos 23:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose: Per Orderinchaos. Rgoodermote 23:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose, many people with little command of english will find this wiki useful. English is nowadays the de facto lingua franca in the internet. Also useful as an alternative wiki for recovering vandals. --Enric Naval 23:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I'm unmoved by the arguments for the project's closure. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Definitely not. The scope is there, the editors are not. We don't have enough editors to have anything dramatic done, but we still have enough to keep this alive. Don't ruin it for everyone. Cheers, Razorflame 00:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose The problems can be worked upon, we don't need to set the whole house on fire to solve it. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I suggest that the proposer talks to the community to solve the problems that e has perceived. Hillgentleman 12:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question What does this mean "the idea of the project was to use Simple English, not a basic or simple version of English?" That seems directly contradictory. Koavf 17:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, what a well written and carefully thought-out proposition this is... --Gwib 20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Comment - the user who proposes that SEWP is closed (User:George The Dragon), has made 4 edits to Wikimedia, 2 of which are to propose and vote on this page. --Gwib 20:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is the same as simple:User:MindTheGap. Their edits to Meta are irrelevant. Majorly talk 20:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See:
--A. B. (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this user doesnt reveal themselves to be a wiki contributor, they should make some efforts to produce Simple English articles from the more complex ones, if they beleive that is what they should be (and you have my full support in that matter). At present, open source projects of information and software are fast catching up to their commercial counterparts and I would suggest that in this rush (of which en.wiki tops all the lists) the simple.wiki is not yet forgotten because it is not yet discovered. Perhaps you (user:George the Dragon) do not have time to contribute, but you do have time to wait. I would urge everyone here who has a good understanding of english to pick at least one en.wiki article every week, check it is not vandalised, and do your best to make it simple. At present, this and of course vandal correction, is the best help that the simple.wiki can recieve. RTG 22:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) Please stay civil. A request has been made to close down Simple English Wikipedia, for the reasons stated above; That the user who made the request is possibly someone who was (at some point in time) annoyed by Simple English Wikipedia, does not invalidate the request.(see en:ad hominem for these kinds of arguments). Please judge the request based on its merits, not based on who proposed it. --Eptalon 14:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That topic is up for discussion here [3] and with that discussion I should point to the category of Proposals for closing projects which are roughly 30% disruptive, so, while I remain respectful of User:George The Dragon, I highlight his notability, and his lack of improvement ideas/debate is reflecting it now. (surprised this wasn't closed prematurly... look at it.) George should contribute to simple to bring his ideas to its strong support, I myself have put in about two pages in a couple of days to say what I think would improve it... I ought to state my ideas... also I am entirely civil (above) so, I may be a dog but I am a sleeping dog :) RTG 01:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An Example of why a simple wiki is required. RTG 15:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

back to the beginning

A project was started by a community with a purpose. To close an active project, you had better go back to the original approved proposal and see if the community is still striving towards the goals that were set out. Personal opinions of whether "I don't use it anyway" or "we shouldn't have a simple for every language" are, well, personal opinions. Wikipedia is at the end of the day written for the readers, and we should concentrate on this perspective - whether it is going to be useful for its target readers. I have seen from time to time how a word that is just a little harder or a sentence that is a little more complicated obstruct the comprehension of a reader whose command in English is not strong. And, after all, if the set of articles in simple wikipedia were to be "merged" into the english wikipedia, I fear that they would be a "corrected" into more difficult version with harder a vocabulary and sentence structures. Hillgentleman 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back from a long break to find that there is this proposal to close it, and I support the proposal, though somewhat mildly. Getting rid of it makes sense to me as there are a few things worth considering:
  1. the natural overlap between this project and "standard" English leads us to ask how to measure what counts as "simple"; a good rule of thumb would be to enforce, somehow, a basic vocabulary (somewhat à la Basic or Special English), or a simpler grammar (somewhat a la Simplified English); but since there is no clear standard as reference, it is easy to move unconsciously from simple to full English overtime, and then this project is redundant;
  2. the extension of the articles doesn't make it "simple" as well, if the target audience are K-12 children and students of ESL. Moreover, a convention on shorter articles would also cover other project proposals like essentialpedia, minipedia, or concisepedia.
So IMNSHO there is a need to discuss a redefinition of the goals: a clearer statement on what counts as "simple" English, and perhaps a convention to make it shorter. Otherwise it could be closed as well.- Lwyx 21:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously an article on simple:world history cannot be short and useful, an article on the simple:Uncertainty principle cannot be easy and useful. But the simple world history is much less abstract than the one in en:WP and it leads to a lot of rather simple articles (not all links lead to simple ones) that can give an impression what world history really means. And the "simple" uncertainty principle, not being simple at all has a comparitively simple beginning and leads to comparitively simple articles. Both articles can be improved, but you cannot have an encyclopedia that covers modern life and is really simple. --Cethegus 12:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your remarks lead me back to the main question: how simple is Simple?--- Kindergarten kids need no encyclopedia, perhaps up to 4th grade: they're really learning to write and read, perhaps even to talk, so writing an encyclopedia for kids under, say, 10 years old is nonsense. ESL students, on the other hand, start to develop their second language ability around middle school, at least in my country. High schools (10-12th grade) guys need to point to the upper 3rd level education if they want to make it to college, so the "standard English" WP is in their best interest (and they don't want to be treated like kids anyway). So my best guess for the target audience of SEWP is kids 4th-9th grade, both native speaker or ESL students. That's the level they usually begin to get interests in, say, history or science.--- Maybe we need an expert to tell us what is the word level best suited for them. Lwyx 20:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word level should be as low as possible for the lemma that is delt with. People with English as second language may be beginners even if they are fifty. But you cannot write meaninful about all subjects they may be interested with a vocabulary of 850 words only. --Cethegus 08:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. In fact, that 850 word list is misleading: the referenced source is en:Basic English, which in fact states that the minimal word level expected is a 1350 word vocabulary for everyday life plus a specialized area of interest for work. Still below the vocabulary needed for a general-purpose encyclopedia. The 1500 word vocabulary is slightly better, though by no means complete. You may consider it a guideline, not a prescription. Lwyx 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the question of "how simple is simple", and the idea "as simple as possible", I shall point out an example: most English-speaking mathematicians can learn to read mathematical French very quickly, and, with some more work, mathematical German. But they wouldn't be able to engage in everyday communications beyond basic greetings. So a key is to identify the core vocabulary set of the particular subject and try not to go beyond that. Hillgentleman 10:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proponents of en:Basic English point to this fact thus claiming that their project covers both goals at the same time: a required Basic for everyday life (about 1200 general-purpose words) plus a specialized Basic for Mathematicians (150 minimal specialized words). Theoretically, a merge of Basics from the Arts and Sciences should give the minimal vocabulary for the Simple Wikipedia. (though the vocabularies may have a level above my proposed target of 10-15 year old kids). Lwyx 17:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here for Lwyx is the 1500 word list as defined by some group of experts in America or Europe (or something). I speak English naturally so I try to believe I can judge between complex and simple only referring occasionally but the link is on my page at en.wiki to find easy. I will use Hillmans "Example" to simplify as I would on an article:
    1. most English-speaking mathematicians can learn to read mathematical French very quickly, and, with some more work, mathematical German. But they wouldn't be able to engage in everyday communications beyond basic greetings. So a key is to identify the core vocabulary set of the particular subject and try not to go beyond that.
    2. Most mathematicians who speak the English language can quickly learn enough French language to help them with French mathematics. Enough German language can be learned to help with German mathematics but more time is needed to learn the German words. Learning enough French or German language to help with French or German mathematics does not give enough language to have French or German conversations. The easiest way to learn a small part of a language, such as enough to understand mathematics in a foreign language, is to learn the words that are used most often for that purpose without learning any more words.
Usually stuff ends up a lot shorter. ~ R.T.G 19:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanations

Could anybody describe to me the difference between being helpful and being useful. I know this will make a spark but I won't lose track of the debate if this is explained properly. These words are often so close together but a dictionary puts them so far apart. Sorry for the interuption, but most contributors here are involved in the simple.wiki so hopefully clear terms are not off topic, thanks RTG 19:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest: (Webster)

Main Entry:use·ful Function:adjective Date:1595

1: capable of being put to use ; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose <useful tools> 2: of a valuable or productive kind <do something useful with your life>

Main Entry:help·ful Function:adjective Date:14th century

1: of service or assistance : useful <helpful advice>

I have no idea how helpful, or useful that is to anyone...

but compare

do something useful with your life
do something helpful with your life

Can YOU see any difference, and do YOU see any different shade of meaning between the two?

To Me:

useful -> normally creative, learning a trade helpful -> normally helping people

What say you now? Foolestroupe 09:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I understand the words but the distinction is still difficult. Is of use generally distinct from the term of help? Does the term useful suggest a degree of inactivity or a lack of assertiveness? Does the term helpful suggest a lack of will or perspective? I cannot recall seeing ever the terms helpfully useful or usefully helpful. Or conversely uselessly helpful, helpfully useless, helplessly useful and usefully helpless. ~ R.T.G 16:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more step in this direction and we'll start splitting hairs :o).--- More seriously, discussion on the level of expertise seems to me more relevant. See comments on R.T.G.'s comments on my cautious support above. Lwyx 21:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

simple.wikipedia as a subsidiary of en.wiki

Of course, I agree with RTG that this „wikipedia“ may not have a status of different language. But also I think that Simple English Wikipedia may not be an entity separated from English Wikipedia. It should be a subsidiary of the English Wikipedia. This implies following points:

  • No local accouts there, only such SULs that include at least an account in en.wiki.
Seems to me that's impossible: SULs imply different accounts in different projects. Lwyx 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep confilcts should be mediated by en.wiki community, including Arbitration Commitee.
They may help, but that's not necessary. A conflict in Simple wouldn't need to propagate to the other WP, and viceversa. Lwyx 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Meta serves that role ~ R.T.G 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sysops also should be elected (or, in transitional state, confirmed) by community of English Wikipedia.
No: they're different projects, so they should have different administrative bodies. (Many members of one community may not have the slightest interest in the other.) Lwyx 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No ~ R.T.G 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naming of articles, categories and templates should striclty follow their names in English Wikipedia, unless the community of English Wikipedia permitted different naming for some reason. There must not be such a thing as simple:Zira Tehsil while in Wikipedia it is w:Zira, India.
That's easy to do with a rename, and any member of Simple can do it (BTW the changes may occur also the other way.)
No. I have concerns against that particularly the use of (disambiguation) which is not a simple word ~ R.T.G 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any article, category or template in simple must have English interwiki. No articles, which have hot yet written in Wikipedia.
That's a good suggestion, but doesn't need a merger between the two projects. Lwyx 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any blocks in Wikipedia will imply blocks in simple, if such feature will be supported by the engine.
It's not supported, and it's not necessary. They're different projects. Moreover, the SUL system already makes it easy to hunt for trolls and vandals. Lwyx 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these measures will help to reduce the danger of PoV pushing. Incnis Mrsi 17:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing will occur anyway. Lwyx 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a community blocking scheme provided by Meta. ~ R.T.G 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is? What are you talking about?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every Wikipedia language version probably has bias or POV slant (to a lesser or greater degree) toward the perspective of its native speakers. I cannot imagine how many times the ar and fa, or ur and hi Wikipedias totally contradict each other. --Kralizec! 20:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with everything stated above. -- American Eagle (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In short, this idea of a "subsidiary" is either impossible, or unnecessary, or both. Sorry, pal. Take a Wikibreak and think it over. Lwyx 18:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a bad idea but more suited to a project that has just started. Simple has been going long-term already. Isn't this closure nonsense a new thing started anonymously? ~ R.T.G 18:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Simple English projects

There are three other Simple English projects:

Can you make a quote by Blake "simpler"? Lwyx 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you can attemt to define it. But not change the quote itself, that's not what's it's about. -- American Eagle (talk) 08:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! So the Simple Wikiquote project's endeavor is to explain English quotes... That's odd! Lwyx 18:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple English Wikiquote is different from other projects. We have quotes in English, and under each quote we have the same quote explained or translated in Simple English. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these books written in an identifiable subset of English? (Basic+Special+Simplified+... English) Lwyx 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This one makes sense to me. Lwyx 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"simple" as a different project, not as another language

Earlier comments by RTG lead me to suggest that perhaps SEW is not quite misguided (a suspicion like that lead me to state my "mild support" above), but the URL name might be misleading or dispensable for at least two reasons.

  1. it gives the false impression that "simple" is another language (or dialect, or whatever), when the difference is the target audience (K-12 and ESL students);
  2. it bars the ability to implement sister projects in other languages (espanolsimple.wikipedia.org is at least cumbersome, and equally misleading).

So IMO "simple" is really a viable project (proof is number of current articles), but somehow needs another name,

  1. to state better its purposes or audience,
  2. to allow the implementation of sister projects.

Still, it seems to me

  1. that the issue of clearer standards to measure what is "simple" needs to be discussed,
  2. and that the current URL (simple.wikipedia.org) must be replaced. Lwyx 21:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although my opinion on the namechange is fairly nuetral, "Easypedia" did have a sort of ring to it. Complex pages get tagged but I do not think the manual of grammar is set as you asked, only the wordlist. There is a guide to writing articles in Simple English. I am not such an established user but I can link this idea to the wiki talk (most users perhaps have forgotten this page as concensus is snowballing to keep). The thing is.. Simple Wikipedia doesnt get huge floods of editors but perhaps wikis like Deutsche would make one and popularise the project a little. ~ R.T.G 01:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing Simple English as a seperate language as justification of the Simple wikis

Quote of Wikimedia Foundation goals which I hope is quite a good goal and beyond reproach (I hope no-one can say it's a bad idea). I have highlighted areas.

" The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.

In collaboration with a network of chapters, the Foundation provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of multilingual wiki projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. "

~ R.T.G 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to meet a current policy

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Simple English Wikipedia clearly fails to meet the current policy for language inclusion. I've posted a question on that article's talk page to see whether this policy applies retroactively. If so, it seems to me that the project could move to the incubator temporarily, while some discussion on a more appropriate name for the project takes place. Cheers, Lwyx 02:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. Simple has been around for over four years. It's an established project, like it or lump it. Even if it does get closed, which is unlikely, moving it to the "incubator" would be so much more hassle than it's worth. There's over 41,000 articles on Simple, and a very active community. Majorly talk 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that projects which already exist are grandfathered, and needn't meet the policy. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter for discussion & you can see my views above.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just received confirmation. So the current policy doesn't affect this WikiProject. Lwyx 21:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content of articles does not meet needs of children, project is a failure

Due to the fact that the articles are not rated, this project cannot meet the needs of children. I as a parent would include simple wikipedia as well as en wikipedia on the list of forbidden sites. This is due to the inclusion of a video of man ejaculating, pictures of men and women masterbating, and probably a lot more than I have personally seen.

Although these items are fine for adults, they are not for children. It is irresponsible to say that simple wikipedia is for children when there is no rating standard for the articles.

As for adults needing a separate English wikipedia, it is a waste of resources. An adult can read in their native language. For adults that cannot read English and need to read articles about adult content, they can always hire a tutor. Altough, IMO, I don't know of any adult that cannot figure out the idea of the adult articles based on the pictures and videos in the regular en wikipedia. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.120.135.108 (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: that precision would help to specify the audience, and perhaps to determine if this "simple" paedia is really needed or should go the way of the Rex. Lwyx 16:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To 69.120.135.108: Different parents make different decisions about what their children can look at. Many children look at English Wikipedia, and many children also edit English Wikipedia.
To Lwyx: I don't think we need to choose one group of people that the project is for. If we write a project for children, then many people who are learning English as a second language will use it, too. If we write a project for people learning English as a second language, then many children will use it, too. When I learn a language, I read books that were written for children. The needs are not the same, but they are close enough that the books are useful. I think it's useful to have a project which is used by many different groups of people who can read Simple English.
By your argument, you could argue that we need to close English Wikipedia because it doesn't say whether it's written for people who work in a subject, or for people who finished university, or for people who finished high school but not university, or for people who have not finished high school. It's used by all those people. Again, the needs are different, but they're close enough that the same articles are useful for all those people. I don't think a project needs to be closed just because it's used by different kinds of people.
The Simple English Wikipedia uses the most common words more often, and the rare words much less often. It's easier for people who only know a small number of English words.
This page tells how to write in Simple English: wikipedia:simple:Wikipedia:How to write Simple English articles ☺Coppertwig(talk) 16:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links

The following discussion is closed.

MZMcBride has linked to this proposal on English Wikipedia (though not specifically asking for support/oppose). This will probably skew the discussion. Majorly talk 20:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you serious? That is about as bad faith as I have ever seen. This action affects the project there and the note that MZM posted was neutral. Do not poison the well. I'm surprised and disappointed at you. :| NonvocalScream 20:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Posting just to English Wikipedia makes it pretty biased in my view. If he wanted a fairer view he should have at least posted to a few other projects. (If he has done so, I take this back). Majorly talk 20:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. You did. "Posting just to English Wikipedia makes it pretty biased in my view.". NonvocalScream 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't show me saying "the ENTIRE Wikipedia" is biased. I said posting to just to enwiki is biased. Majorly talk 20:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you if you were stating the ENTIRE English Wikipedia was biased. You said you did not. I said you did Congratulations. You just alienated eight million accounts, 150,872 which are active at the time of this writing. NonvocalScream 21:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you're congratulating me, since I did nothing of the sort. Majorly talk 22:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did. See above. NonvocalScream 22:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcBride has a habit of posting stuff on enwiki to counter something on meta, nothing new, I'm not sure of the implications of his actions but I do think he should not have done that and one of the comments that I have seen on the discussion on that page by Mbisanz makes me realise how much faith enwiki admins have on other projects (zilt) "If" the consensus is in favour of closing, you can be rest assured that nothing will be moved to enwiki, the wiki will be locked and deleted or stuff may be moved to Wikia, a wiki which accept wikis closed down by wikimedia.--Cometstyles 21:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You speak for the faith all admins have on other projects outside the English Wikipedia? For those tracking, currently this is 1,623 admins that Cometstyles is speaking. I don't think you speak for them all. NonvocalScream 21:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1623 is not really a correct number to use, try 200 which makes up about 12% active admins..not a good number to compare with and I'm not talking on behalf of them, they can do it themselves by opposing or supporting closure...--Cometstyles 21:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite your statistics. You did speak on the behalf of other administrators here. "makes me realise how much faith enwiki admins have on other projects". I assure you, the general usership, or the administrators as a whole, are not biased. NonvocalScream 21:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bickering like children.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 06:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Simple_English_Wikipedia_(2)&oldid=1326442"