Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Simple Spanish

Simple Spanish WikipediaEdit

main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Simple Spanish)
submitted verification final decision
  This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 22:02:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Simple Spanish (es-simple [invented])
  • Editing community: es-wp:jojoesyoyo (P)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: —
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

I think a new Wikipedia like Simple English Wikipedia, but in Spanish, would be good. I suggest the name "Español Simple", but if you have better ideas, please share them.


  1. support: I think it would be better to start more "simples" but only by the wikipedias with articles +100.000. Words from Caesarion: (for children and people who have Spanish as a second language). I just think that this is a good idea. nl:Gebruiker:Al 17:48 31 March (UTC)
  2. support: It is a good idea nl:Gebruiker:Al but it is not English conform! You have no chance: Wikipedia is a nest of English language dominators and Spanish is the greatest contestator of the domination language because it has near no inconvenients and English like French near all possible inconvenients. if you try to promute a contestator of English, you can be shure don't to have success... but if you are correct, you have to concede that wikipedia comes directly from usa... 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support: The Simple Spanish Wikipedia would have the potential to function just as poorly as the simple: that we already have, so it wouldn't be fair to reject it. They don't follow any certain limits in simple:, either.--Orgullomoore 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    I hope GWB's blunders haven't ruined the proverb; does fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me sound familiar? Simple English, just like Klingon and Toki Pona, has been a failure so far. Now, I don't think we should close it, but repeating the mistake with no attenuating circumstances doesn't seem a sensible way to address the limitations of this kind of wikis. Taragui 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    Taragüí, lo sé. Esto es lo que sucede cuando un idiota intenta emplear ironía ;)--Orgullomoore 22:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support: todavía no puedo comprender con claridad como es posible que exista tanta ignorancia en éste triste planeta... pero el idiotismo de la gente sobrepasa lo previsible; mira al imperio español: su imbecilidad le condenó al fracaso. claro que no soy tan inteligente como Einstein, quien dijo: -- hay dos cosas infinitas, el universo y la estupidez humana, pero no estoy seguro del universo... (para los que no entienden: hablo de un trastorno mental caracterizado por una deficiencia muy profunda de las facultades mentales, congénita o bien adquirida, y en el cual la persona tiene un desarrollo físico normal y una edad mental que no sobrepasa los tres años) -- Ila Flafo 08:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. support:No veo que sea una mala idea, la gente con español intermedio podría colaborar mejor aqui que en la wiki española --Jorgechp 21:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. support.--Absar 16:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


  1. Neutral Taragui 14:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (note: I'll take advantage of the multilingual status of meta to rant^H^H^H^Hargue in both Spanish and English; caveat lector). Para los que se oponen porque "no existe el español simple", creo que deberían leer de nuevo lo que se está proponiendo. Nadie dice que haya un idioma separado con ese nombre; lo que se está sugiriendo es la creación de una segunda edición en español, donde el léxico, la sintaxis, y la estructura discursiva se mantengan deliberadamente en un elevado nivel de simplicidad, con el fin de facilitar su uso a niños o personas con una comprensión limitada de la lengua. Para eso no hace falta inventar límites arbitrarios acerca de qué es simple o no, sino meramente usar el sentido común; los libros de niños o de aprendizaje de la lengua ilustran perfectamente bien lo que se propone. A mí la idea me parece estupenda, pero lamentablemente dudo de que vaya a funcionar; no marcha demasiado bien tampoco. Tengo dudas además acerca de su adecuación; mientras Simple English se apoya en el hecho de que, lo querramos o no, el inglés es la lingua franca contemporánea, no hay un estatus similar para el español. Los hispanohablantes somos hispanohablantes nativos o bilingües , por lo general, cuando no hablantes de un idioma que ya cuenta con una Wikipedia bien desarrollada. El desarrollar herramientas para el aprendizaje del español me parece excelente, pero creo que no debería implementarse de manera que reste potenciales colaboradores a la Wikipedia en español. (English version, as its author saw fit to translate: Those who oppose the proposal merely because there is no such thing as Simple Spanish are missing the point. No-one has ever contended that such a language effectively and independently exists; the proposal seeks to create a second Spanish-langugae version, where linguistics structure would be simplified to favour its use from junior or non-native speakers. I endorse the idea of junior versions, but I'm not quite certain this is the way to go; for starters, Simple English hasn't fared too well, and moreover I believe a different issue is also at play in this case. The rationale for Simple English, as I see it, is to provide an adequate and useful tool for people not thoroughly familiar with the language; this takes advantage of the factual prevalence of English as the contemporary lingua franca. Spanish's position is rather different; most Spanish-speakers are either native or speakers of another language with a well-developed Wikipedia. While I'd like to see free tools for Spanish learning as part of the Wikimedia project, I believe the creation of a Simple Spanish wiki would merely detract from potential contributors to the Spanish one. Junior needs should be addressed through a different medium, such as Wikijunior).


  1. Oppose: This is a bad joke, doesn't exist a "Simple Spanish" or "Basich Spanish", don't exist a simple grammar or vocabulary in Spanish, neither Real Academia de la lengua Española or some association promove this.--Taichi - (あ!) 18:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    Er... Taichi... we're not discussion a different language, we're discussing a different Wikipedia. Perhaps you don't know it but there is a wikipedia in simple English as well (simple:), so give me one reason why a Wikipedia in simple Spanish (for children and people who have Spanish as a second language) should be denied while we keep hosting a simple English Wikipedia. Caesarion 19:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - One reason for denying it could be that Simple English doesn't work very well (Just for laughs, I hit their "random article" button a minute ago and the article I got starts: "ELISPOT stands for "Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Spot Assay." This is a laboratory technique for detecting biological cells that generate (or "secrete") various substances. These substances can include specific types of cytokines or antibodies. The ELISPOT method is typically used with blood cells, and is a helpful tool in studying the human immune system and various treatments for disease (e.g. vaccines)." - Simple, isn't it?). Of course, writing an encyclopedia for children is a very good idea, but that's not being requested here. For people who have Spanish as a second language? Isn't it Wikipedia's aim to provide users with online encyclopedias written in their first languages? Frankly, I don't believe Simple Spanish, Simple Japanese, Simple Dutch, Simple Czech etc. is right way. Arbeo 14:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Well, personally I am also against a Spimple Spanish Wikipedia, but rather in favour of a project called Wikijunior, or the like. However, Taichi clearly had misunderstood the intention of the proposer so I had to clarify it. So opposefor now. Caesarion 15:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    I'm native spanish, and never heard about Simple Spanish or Español Simple, sorry but if think about the children, exists Wikijunior; is ridiculous about create "simple" wikipedias for all the languages, because none has a structure of simple vocabulary as the Simple English; and don't exist a limit about how is simple or not.--Taichi - (あ!) 14:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose: What the hell is this?? Spanish Simple?? C'mon, "spanish simple" does not exist at all. We can't invent new languages! That's ridiculous! We already have one wikipedia in spanish, so I (as everybody) really do not see the neccesity to create a new -but lower quality- encyclopedia. In fact, I totally oppose the proposal and i want to encourage the promoters of the idea to colaborate in, instead of inventing weird things. --Dondiego 02:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 22:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose: in my opinion a language should not be written as simple as possible, this impoverishs a language, ones mind and soul. Even for those who are learning Spanish this is nothing good, because how could they ever improve... --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oposse: es: No tiene sentido, no existe un Español simple, la persona que lo propuso no indicó los límites que tendría un proyecto como este, ¿Cómo diferenciar donde termina es: y empieza simple-es?, no existen patrones definidos. Como dice birdy, sería antes un perjuicio que una ayuda para las personas que quieren aprender Español.
    en: How would you define the boundaries of simple-es? There are no rules written about that because nobody speaks simple Spanish. I speak Spanish natively, and I can't envision this proposal. --Alhen 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oposse: Siguiendo la línea de Alhen, quería comentar en español, ya que compete más que responder en inglés. Esta propuesta me parece algo totalmente innecesario e incoherente. No existe algo como "Español Simple", nunca he oído hablar de ese dialecto, o de como se escribiría si existiese. Apoyando también lo que dice Birdy y Alhen, ¿cómo saber donde termina simple-es: y es:? Esto no tiene cabida ni coherencia. Saludos, Gizmo II 04:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oposse: I like the idea of creating content for children. But, for that purpose exists and, at the moment is not sucessfull at all. --Javier Carro 06:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oposse: I think even Simple English shouldn't exist. es:Usuario:Gothmog 12:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oposee: is it a joke, no? "Simple Spanish" doesn't exist. I think that is a bad idea. Loco085 12:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
    Loco, look above for comments on the case. We're not discussing a different language, but a different target group. Caesarion 15:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose: Simple: I don't think we don't need a simple encyclopedia. Spanish Wikipedia is already "broken" with other parallel projects (Catalan, Gallego, Asturiano, etc, etc). Besides, I don't think Simple English should existe. --B1mbo 16:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose: Primero que nada, voy a hablar en castellano por tratarte este de un proyecto plurilingüe; además, la simple-es sería una versión en español. El hecho es que no hay necesidad de tal cosa, ni me consta que sea un pedido frecuente. Como apuntó Taragüí, el inglés es en este momento la lingua franca, pero el español no ostenta tal condición. Los hispanoparlantes nativos, inmensa mayoría de los usuarios de la es:, no necesitamos bajo ningún punto de vista una versión simplificada, con menos datos y menos mantenimiento, que encima absorba recursos humanos con los que ahora contamos. A los que hablan español por haberlo aprendido como segunda lengua tampoco les hará ningún favor esta hipotética versión; más allá de que rebajar el vocabulario no aporta nada, el español tiene un sistema fonético y ortográfico casi perfecto y bien diferente del del inglés. No se dan entonces los mismos problemas que con él, y eso debe tenerse en cuenta. Por lo demás, es bien cierto que si el simple-en progresa poco no puede esperarse más de una versión con menos razón de ser y editores. Saludos, Galio 16:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose/en contra: No creo que debamos simplificar el idioma español, es cierto que no es fácil hablarlo y escribirlo, pero esto sería como simple. Es una edición muerta de en. Saludos Superzerocool 19:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC) (I don't think a simpler version of Spanish is the way to go; even if Spanish is difficult to learn, Simple English shows that simplifed editions have no life of their own)
  14. Oppose. Simple English was (IMO) a mistake, so would this be. Jon Harald Søby 19:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose: I´m not able to find how a simple version can be useful. For children, it will be better a "wikijunior" or some project specific. Education is more than write simple. For people who haven´t got an es-3 or es-4, simple won´t be a good source (Probably, their native language will be better, or the es version). And if you want to improve your spanish, you can look up in wikibook (there courses for foreign languages) or help en es. An easy version won´t have new words to learn.--FAR 19:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose: I don't think that simple spanish really exists. I agree with Alhen's comment. --Equi 04:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose: As several people have said above, simple spanish doesn't exist and creating this parallel wiki would only eat human resources from the real spanish wikipedia. Anna 04:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. En contra/Oppose (N): Me opongo porque sería una pérdida de energía simplificar una Wikipedia (¿y para quién?), más cuando no existe una forma acordada de hacer la simplificación. ¿Sacamos aches, eh.kri.'i.moh ' a.'bla.moh, regularizamos conjugaciones o reducimos vocabulario (perdón, hacemos pequeño el conjunto de palabras)?. I oppose, I think that it should be a spent of energy and there isn't winners with it. Moreover, we don't have a stablished "Simple Spanish", don't we?. --Lin linao 08:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose: es: En un mundo ideal con abundancia de recursos la idea sería buena, lo cierto es que la realidad no es esa. Los wikipedistas hispanoparlantes ya estamos muy ocupados en tratar de hacer crecer la Wikipedia en español, y no veo que sea posible contar con fuerza de trabajo adicional para una eventual simple-es si no es quitando parte de la fuerza de trabajo a es. en: In a world with plenty of resources this could be a good idea, unfortunately the actual state of things is different. We, the Spanish Wikipedia editors, are very busy trying to grow the Spanish Wikipedia, and I do not foresee how we could manage to get additional manpower for simple-es without reducing the available manpower of es. Barcex 09:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
    My view exactly. Taragui 16:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose: Lourdes Cardenal 13:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose: Airunp 18:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC) Simple spanish doesn't exist. It sounds like a joke.
  22. Oppose: Cinabrium 23:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose (N): I think we have enough work trying to catch up other wikis. Besides we don't have anything like that in spanish!.
  24. Oppose: I support all of the above, and I also believe that trying to create articles with a so-called simple spanish would end up only in poor quality copies from the spanish wikipedia. ppfk April 06, 2006, 15:30 UTC.
  25. Oppose: Wikipedia is not a primary source. Simple Spanish doesn't definitely exist. Ecemaml 17:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose: vientodenieve, ­­¤¿?¤
  27. Oppose - omg! Kenwilliams 08:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose: ¿Español Simple? Simplemente yo creo que eso no existe -- 03:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose: Er Komandante 09:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • support maybe what could be done is that someone may click a "simple version/versión simple" of each article within the :es encyclopedia and it would give a version of the article written at a 4th grade level, for example newspapers in the united states are actually written a a 4th grade level so anyone can understand. for example.

" Anna Eleanor Roosevelt (11 de octubre de 1884 - 7 de noviembre de 1962) Primera Dama estadounidense. Esposa del Presidente de los Estados Unidos Franklin Delano Roosevelt, diplomática y activista por los derechos humanos. Una de las mujeres que más ha influido en el siglo XX. También fue la mujer estadounidense que más tiempo ha permanecido como Primera Dama. " could be simplified to:

" Eleanor Rossevelt fue a esposa de el president de los Estados Unidos Franklin Rossevelt. Ella nació el 11 de octubre del 1884 y murió el 7 de noviembre del 1962. Eleanor tuvo muchos trabajos además de ser esposa, ella fue una «diplomática» (una persona que habla con otros paises), y también trabajó para los «derechos humanos» (para que la gente sea libre). Ella fue muy importante en el los años 1900 y fue la «primera dama» (esposa de el presidente) que más estuvo en «la casa blanca» (la casa en que vive el presidente de los Estados Unidos y su familia). " [N] any big words, foreign words, complicated numbering/titling, esoteric terms and jargon should be featured «between parenthases» and explaned and dumbed down to a 4ht graders level and then they might get more of a sense of the Common version. A child or recent emigreé or teacher trying to understand their hispanic students report on Rigoberta Menchú or the city of Trujillo, Perú for instance wouldnt have to look up in the case of this sample "diplimática/diplomat" "derechos humanos/human rights" "primera dama/first lady" and "la casa blanca/the white house" individually they would see them all at once braceted and explained in parenthases and clearly distinguishable by their italics they could then click back to the regular version and perhaps better understand the material, a child might not lose interest and hopefully learn more advanced topics and vocabulary while not getting bored stumped or disinterested. using more picture or bigger default type might also be helpful. if successful maybe :simple should simply be merged into english

and a click bar on top near edit could say create simplified version/crear versión simplificada

any thoughts?? Qrc2006 01:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)