Discuss the creation of this language project on this page. Votes will be ignored when judging the proposal. Please provide arguments or reasons and be prepared to defend them (see the Language proposal policy).
Ensure the requested language is sufficiently unique that it could not exist on a more general wiki.
Ensure that there are a sufficient number of native editors of that language to merit an edition in that language.
The community needs to develop an active test project; it must remain active until approval (automated statistics). It is generally considered active if the analysis lists at least three active, not-grayed-out editors listed in the sections for the previous few months.
"Wikiversity talk" (the discussion namespace of the project namespace)
Default is "no". Preferably, files should be uploaded to Commons.
If you want, you can enable local file uploading, either by any user ("yes") or by administrators only ("admin").
Notes: (1) This setting can be changed afterwards. The setting can only be "yes" or "admin" at approval if the test creates an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) first. (2) Files on Commons can be used on all Wikis. (3) Uploading fair-use images is not allowed on Commons (more info). (4) Localisation to your language may be insufficient on Commons.
There are many people world-wide that know English, but even more which do not know English, or only have basic understanding of the language. Simple English is the best option for them, a collection of 1000 words that are used, many of them are taken by Basic English, for example you can easily look at the "simple.wikipedia.org", basically, it is made for people which are new for the English language. --SleepyMode (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Note: the language code listed SIL but the link went to a description of a language from Ghana. --mikeutalk 01:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It's worth trying in beta to see if it gains participants. If not, any content developed could be imported to en.wikiversity instead so that no effort is wasted. Dave Braunschweig (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I definitely express an assent; it would be impactful and for the betterment of everyone. --Huss4in (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Strongly Support'" It's a very good idea. A lot of people know Basic English and can't use the English Wikiversity. But a Simple Wikiversity can be so useful. Cosmopolitanist (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Support. Also support reopening simple.wikibooks, as simple.wp needs somewhere to dump how-to stuff, not just somewhere to dump OR. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
I can find myself opposing this idea. How are we suppose to do WIkiversity Simple English when we already have content about basic English at en.wikiversity? This just seems to be useless. Are we going to simplify content that is already on Wikiversity? Why can't we hold a Simple Portal at the English Wikiversity? (you know... like a History Portal, Science Portal). Just all, in all (wrapping a sandwich with bacon), what is the whole use of this? --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 20:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
And per what Mu301 stated, en.wikiversity's scope is broad, so there is no need to make a simple WV, as simple WQ and WB both ended up in failure. This project might end up in the same way due to the same reasons stated against keeping WQ and WB. --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 01:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I somewhat remember having been told not so long ago that no more simple project would be allowed, since they don't have a valid ISO code, nor they are sufficiently unique, etc. In short, while it is possible to open a request, that does not mean that the request can be approved. Maybe @MF-Warburg can clarify on this and correct me if I'm wrong. —MarcoAurelio 12:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I move that this request be placed temporarily On hold until the outcome of Proposals for closing projects/Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator is known. There is no point in requesting that a project be incubated on a site that faces closure. The en-wv community would welcome Simple English contributions (either temporarily until a dedicated simple project is approved by the global community or permanently if that is not the outcome of the discussion.) In the long term wikimedia needs to decide if beta: or incubator: are the best sites for developing new wikiversity languages. But, this global decision should not inhibit the development of Simple resources in the short term. I would invite interested participants to develop Simple resources on en-wv and offer any assistance in importing or migrating the content to a new site in the future if that becomes a possibility. Dialects of English such as Basic English, Special English, and Simplified Technical English are well within the scope of the English wikiversity. I would also point out that betawikiversity:Category:Simple does not currently contain significant contributions nor has it been demonstrated that there are sufficient contributors to make a dedicated site viable. I just don't (yet) see the demand for a simple.wikiversity.org project and feel that this request is premature. --mikeutalk 18:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
I've changed my opinion to Strong oppose due to an extreme lack of activity since January 2016. The only mainspace page is a one line definition of Simplified English. The proposer is the only contributor and has only one month of activity which occurred two years ago. The requested language is not sufficiently unique that it could not exist on a more general wiki. I encourage those interested in this proposal to contribute at en-WV where we have an active community that can foster the growth of simple learning materials. --mikeutalk 20:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
This site English Wikiversity exited. Language requests on Oppose and the you close requests. --Nickeloden924 (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Not the same as Simple English Wikipedia. Also, it's really unnecessary. --George Ho (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Strong oppose Not a single simple project is needed for sharing knowledge. -- Nesmir Kudilovič (razgovor) 18:36, petak, 22. rujna 2017. (SEV)
Can't we just do "Simple English Wikiversity" at wikiversity itself? There is already projects about Alphabet teaching, Basic English Grammar. As well, knowing how Wikiversitys activity level is (not so active), this wiki could just be the same, or worse. This just seems useless --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC) Moved to arguments against, answer me there --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 20:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I am very supportive of the idea of producing resources in w:Basic English and/or w:Simplified Technical English. This could broaden the range of learning materials for Category:English as a Second Language or for use by students in Portal:Pre-school_Education and v:Portal:Primary Education. (Yes, I am politely pointing out that we are already creating resources that somewhat fall within the scope of this proposal.) I'm not clear about why a new project is needed for this. A new site would have a limited number of participants and would have less support from the strong communities that already exist and have experience adapting learning materials to a wiki environment. I'd like to see some attempt to create these resources on an existing site to demonstrate that it is insufficient to the needs of Simple resources. Personally I feel that English Wikiversity is best suited for this (while wholeheartedly admitting that I have a strong bias) as Betawikiversity: is in final stages of a discussion for closure (see Proposals for closing projects/Move Beta Wikiversity to Incubator) and Incubator: is arguably less familiar with the specific needs of a *.wikiversity as they have not yet had experience incubating such a project. I'm going to hold off voting expressing my support or opposition to the idea until I learn more about the specifics of what is proposed here. Could someone elaborate on how this differs from existing efforts within en-wv and what specific needs a new project site would satisfy that can't be met there? Is this any different from en-wv hosting w:Canadian English and w:British English resources, or fr-wv hosting w:Canadian French? I'm really keen on the idea of reaching out to these learners; I just want to do it in the most supportive way possible. --mikeutalk 20:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Developing the content at en.wv would also work, and a portal and appropriate categories and front-page signage could be created. And I would welcome that effort! But the biggest issue I see is that there aren't many current content developers at en.wv who are familiar with Basic English. The writing style there (our writing style) is mostly college-level. The typical community discussions there are also not at a Basic English level. So, whether the content is at beta or at en.wv, a community will need to be developed to support this concept and approach. I indicated support above, because I think it may be easier to build that community under the 'simple' namespace. en.wv does not currently attract those users, and for the most part never has. K-12 education uses other resources. If they're using simple.wikipedia as a resource, they may be willing to use simple.wikiversity to share their lessons. But if this initiative is not approved, I strongly encourage the participants to work with us at en.wv to develop something that will meet this need. -- Dave Braunschweig (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Since when can't they share lessons here at Wikiversity? I see absolutely no point in opening up this project. Wikiversity is an opening environment, including users who aren't so proficient in English. --Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 00:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Let's laugh at pathetic excuses of "oppose" !votes. "This site English Wikiversity exited. Language requests on Oppose and the you close requests." (sic) There are Simple English versions of Wikipedia and Wiktionary. "Not the same as Simple English Wikipedia. Also, it's really unnecessary." Not an argument. "Not a single simple project is needed for sharing knowledge." HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA KATMAKROFAN (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@KATMAKROFAN: - Typing "HAHAH" and simply saying "Not an argument" without providing any support for your stance is not only nonconstructive, but immature. Instead of "laughing" at the opposes, can you actually provide an explanation as to why you disagree with the people that opposed? Atcovi(Talk - Contribs) 14:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)