Talk:Simple English Wikipedia

"When Simple English Wikipedia started making pages and allowing changes in 2003, the English Wikipedia already had 150,000 articles. Seven other Wikipedia in other languages also had over 15,000 articles. Because the other Wikipedias already have a lot of articles, most Simple English articles are not new. They are simpler versions of articles from the English Wikipedias. Right now, the Simple English Wikipedia has 257,677 articles. The Simple English Wikipedia started on September 18, 2001, " This is a bit confusing. Apparently, the SEW was initiated in 2001 but only had any pages first in 2003. If that is so, then how about putting the 2001 info first? Kdammers (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A year on, and this paragraph is still a problem. This is supposed to be simple -- i.e., to understand -- and it is not. Kdammers (talk) 16:59, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Kdammers ~2026-25219-54 (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I tried to make a small edit but ended up removing a large portion of the article. Please could somebody fix this. GeorgeM2011 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to document this, but Simple Wikipedia is also used by ordinary adult speakers of English who want a quick and simple explanation and don't want to wade through a long, often complicated article on the English Wikipedia. Kdammers (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Kdammers: I'm not sure we need to specify that. It's true that it can be used by ordinary speakers of English, or anyone else, for that matter. However, the target audience is people with lesser English skills. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

That may be the target audience, but this is an encyclopedic article, not a project page, and it should explain what reliable sources say about it, not what Simple English Wikipedia wants to say about itself. 2601:644:907E:A70:D82A:CB84:8712:47AA (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

I suppose Reddit doesn't qualify as a source, but if it does, the use by ordinary adult English-speakers is attested to at https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/7cfpvk/ysk_there_is_a_simplified_version_of_wikipedia/ . Kdammers (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Here's an article from The Guardian talking about ordinary speakers of English and simple Wik: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/jan/14/wikipedia.web20.Kdammers (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

Is there any evidence that this was started on September 18, 2001? The claim here is cited to a wiki page on meta, which is obviously unreliable. 2601:644:907E:A70:D82A:CB84:8712:47AA (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi @2601:644:907E:A70:D82A:CB84:8712:47AA, We have this which Enwiki links too however that was only created 4-5 years ago, Apparently pre-2003 the Simple was archived for some reason, Anyway imho we should go with the creation date of the Main Page which was 17 November 2003 but I guess that'll never happen, Thanks –Davey2010^Talk 20:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Davey2010 That's the oldest revision of the Main Page but the software may have been different in the early years of Wikipedia. Personally, I doubt it was created with that much content already. I mean, the oldest revision from English Wikipedia's Main Page is from January 2002, and we know Wikipedia existed before that. 2601:644:907E:A70:F907:162E:FCB3:916D (talk) 22:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, I just thought my way was simpler but I guess not :), –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks IP for pointing that out! I added some proof. Sadly, it's Reductio ad absurdum, which means that my proof is: "I couldn't find anything created or edited before September 18, 2001, but found something from that specific date". While digging the depths of the Internet Archive like an 22nd century archeologist I also found Jtnelson who created his userpage and the article about the SUV on 18 September 2001. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 00:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

"Articles in Simple English Wikipedia are simpler versions of articles from the English Wikipedias." - Why WikipediaS? Is an apostrophe missing, or what? Also, this assertion is not completely right. There are a few SE articles that do not have matching EN articles. Also, even for articles that do have EN equivalents, it is possible that, though simple, the SE article is not necessarily simpler. I think the general idea behind this sentence is already covered earlier in the article anyway. I think this sentence should be removed. Kdammers (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kdammers (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)Reply