Wiktionary:Simple talk/Archive 12

new QD tag

Would anyone mind if I replaced our current QD tag {{delete}} with {{User:Griffinofwales/speedy}} which works just like the one on our Simple Wikipedia friend? Griffinofwales (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we'll need a {{wait}}? It would be more useful, good idea. Sonia (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. But please wait a week to see if other people comment on this. -Barras ^talk 08:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good idea. I have made one small change to the page, hope you don't mind. :) Pmlineditor ∞ 08:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better. Nifky? (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, should I change the deletion policy here to make it identical to the one on Wikipedia? Griffinofwales (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: A1 etc are about articles. Having the same short form is incredibly useful, but the actual speedy policy needs to be a little more... relevant, I guess. Actually, it turned out to not be a question. Sonia (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will rephrase them of course. A1, A2 etc. would now refer to the mainspace. Griffinofwales (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After some time of no one commented, I conclude that there are no objections to have the new QD tag. Feel free to rephrase the tag and so on. Please don't change the deletion policy page without extra discussion, this can be made later. If you need the mop for the work, just ping me on IRC. -Barras ^talk 11:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support the new QD template. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Related words

Would utility be in the "related words" section of utilize and utilise? PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so, but there are other people that are more qualified to help here (Brett). -Barras ^talk 19:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a list of related words here: Wiktionary:BNC_spoken_freq_03s.--Brett (talk) 13:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Wiktionary:Requests for adminship with Wiktionary:Requests for permissions

I think that we should merge the RFA page with the RFP page to make one central page for all permissions requests. This would be done by moving the two headers listed at RFP to the RFA page, and then deleting the RFP page, then rewriting the RFA page to make it more geneal for all requests, and then moving the RFA page to the RFP page. What do you think of this idea? Thanks, Razor flame 20:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much like simpleWP's? If so, no objections, as long as WP:PERM is a sub-page transcluded onto the RFP page. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like the Wikipedias, and yes, that would be transcluded onto the RFP page, however, it would not be WP:PERM but WT:PERM. Razor flame 20:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree. I wondered earlier today why we haven't already done it this way. -Barras ^talk 21:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:PERM Created. :) Avicennasis (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and went bold and moved the pages around to make Wiktionary:Requests for permissions the central point for all permission requests from now on. Razor flame 18:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three general requests

Could I please, please, please ask that everyone:

Review and follow the style guidelines?
Focus on important words instead of less useful words like joyful, or really obscure stuff like huaso‎‎?
Keep in mind that this is simple wiktionary?

Please?--Brett (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Brett here, especially in point number 1. If people aren't completely sure how to format a page correctly, they should make less entries in the same time to give people like Brett the chance to have a look over them and format them correctly. Hundreds of new pages with low quality aren't as helpful as only a few pages with high quality. -Barras ^talk 06:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Brett on this, however, we will eventually require words such as joyful and joyous, both of which are fairly common words. What we really need to do is to make sure that every entry that is written on here is written to the highest quality that we can accomplish in as simple of English as possible. Cheers, Razor flame 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my previous statement, if we limit the words that other editors can add to our site, then wouldn't that keep new editors away from editing our site? Wouldn't it be better if we were to try to get more active editors on our site instead of possibly limiting the number of editors that we have on this site? I'd say that people should be free to add whatever entries that are able to add, and if they happen to be words that aren't used that often, then so be it. So long as they are entered into our site in a way that is beneficial to our site, I see no problems with people entering words like affright and synonymous, as an example. Razor flame 21:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Razorflame on this one. I agree that following the style guidelines is important (I need to look those up, since it's been a while and a) I'm rusty and b) they may have changed since the last time I edited here. Feel free to correct me and point out my errors), but let's try to accept what people give and help them out so they stay. Remember that we do have over 14,500 entries, which include not only every single word on the BE850 and most of the words on the BE1500, but also every headword on the BNC1 and BNC2 and probably half of the headwords on the BNC3. That doesn't mean we're close to done, if there is such a thing, but it does mean that we've got a lot of basic words and can probably afford to start including more outliers. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions

What do people think about turning on creation.js by default? Right now it's not even available as a gadget.
"Random entry" and "Support Wiktionary" don't sound like Simple English to me. Why not follow SEWP's lead and change them to "Show any page" and "Give to Wiktionary"?
WT:CFI and WT:ELE both look like they were copied straight from en.wikt with minor modifications so that they don't say things that are completely wrong. These could use some major cleanup, IMO. Do they really need so many references to en.wikt's policy?

--Yair rand (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your ideas. I've turned on the creation script as gadget. To the second point: I wouldn't mind to change it, but it needs input by other people. To the third point: If you've any ideas how to make them better, so feel free to tell us. Especially the first mentioned page needs a cleanup, I think. -Barras ^talk 11:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I've made the sidebar phrasing changes as you suggested, thanks - I don't feel it should be controversial. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell for sure what creation.js does, but it seems good, so I'm glad it's a least available as a gadget now. The changes to the sidebar are good and thank you, Tempodivalse, for making them. I agree with Yair rand regarding the third point in general terms. Mainly, the pages are too complex (I've added the appropriate tag). We do need to be careful how we clean them up, though. Let's not gut them, but maybe make lots of "soft" changes to adapt them to our style and (as I said, principally) wording. We are a separate Wiktionary and therefore don't have to follow English Wiktionary's policies if we don't want to, but they are there for a reason, and most of them apply to us in one way or another (language stuff would be one exception). So let's be kind to these pages while we're changing/updating/adapting them. These last comments mostly apply to WT:CFI (even the name is complex!) rather than to WT:ELE (though it is still somewhat complex), since that is almost entirely our own, as far as I know. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwellt, basically, creation.js was ported over here from the English Wiktionary at my request by Conrad.Irwin and basically, what it does is this: When you load a page that is a headword, for example, the noun/verb loan, you'll see green links for pages that have yet to be created, but can be created quickly using the Acceleration script of creation.js. Basically, what that means is that it will automatically enter in the pertinent information so that you can make them quickly without having to go through all the word of typing in all the same information over and over. It is meant as an aide to help in the creation of form-of entries. I really like using it, however, people need to be careful when using it because they need to remember to include other parts of speech that might be used with that word, as well as pronunciation sections. Hope this helps, Razor flame 22:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wiktionary IRC channel

Hi, I'd like to let everyone know there's a freenode IRC channel especially for us at #wiktionary-simple. Most users I've talked to didn't even know we had our own chan, and preferred to use #wikipedia-simple which isn't really the most appropriate venue, so I thought I'd let everyone know. :) Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk]

An easy client to connect to the channel can be found here or if you already have a client you can use this link. -Barras ^talk 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I tried to get on IRC before and had trouble, but this time I tried (through Barras' link) and had no trouble at all! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Hi there! Please take a look at this. Input would be great! -Barras ^talk 11:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden categories

Why are hidden categories displayed on entries that have been made? While I understand the potential of goodness from having it on entry pages, it shouldn't be a hidden category in that case because it doesn't make it hidden. Hidden categories are supposed to be maintenance categories that are invisible on entries, but still able to be worked on behind the scenes, and by having our hidden categories displayed on entries, this kind of defeats the purpose of having them at all. Is there any way that we could possibly get them to actually not show up on entries, but still be enabled (kind of the way that it is on the English Wiktionary)? Any and all suggestions and feedback would be wonderful :) Razor flame 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add "__HIDDENCAT__" to the top of the category's page. πr² (talk • changes) 12:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point and it is good to know that there is a solution and what it is. What are some examples of hidden categories? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bot flag

I'd like to get a flag for User:InterstateBot. The purpose is to link this wiki with Simple English Wikipedia using {{wikipedia}}. It basically performs a search on the Simple English Wikipedia; and adds it. Right now, it will be manually assisted, and soon it will be automatic. I-20 (talk) 08:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Can you please create a userpage for the account linking the you as the owner. Also, please perform some test edits. Thanks -Barras ^talk 09:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barras. I've created a userpage and I have performed a little over 10 edits. (One was faulty, I fixed it). Is there any trouble I need to look into? I-20 (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found some trouble: all edits are marked minor. I have fixed that and will run another few edits. I-20 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No more trouble now. Ran a few more edits. I-20 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marking the edits as minor is ok, Changes look good to me,

approved for adding this template. Go for it! -Barras ^talk 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but de-flagged per recent problems. Bot needs to be watched for now. -Barras ^talk 19:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just a suggestion: maybe if the page content matches /{{wikipedia/i, you shouldn't add the link. πr² (talk • changes) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the issue in question and I have posted the code so that you may verify: http://pastebin.com/9LxmkMtE I-20 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this bot should not be adding templates to the plurals of the words. They should be added to the headword only. Furthermore, your bot should not be doing cosmetic changes to entries. There are no spaces in the headers in our entries for a reason, because it makes it much easier to read. I would not approve of a bot that changes this to one with spaces. Finally, for certain words, such as adding a link to prediction on the entry for predict; this should not be done. The wikipedia link to prediction should only be added to prediction, no other pages. Also, please do not add links to Wikipedia unless they are the same word. Adding a link to the Wikipedia article for disinformation onto the entry here for inaccurate is not appropriate, nor is it correct. Please fix this. Razor flame 22:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be operator error, I'm afraid. I-20 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Please make around 100 more edits without the flag to show us that it can run without making any edits like the ones above, and you'll be good to go with the bot flag. Razor flame 00:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... (exceptions must be made for redirects and words that evidently look plural but are not, like jeans). I-20 (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course some exceptions can be made for words like news and jeans, however, the majority of what I'd like to see would be good additions of the Wikipedia link to headwords, like you've been doing for the past few days :) I am liking what I've been seeing and so, I would be more than happy to approve this bot, however, you'll have to get into contact with Tempodivalse, Brett, or Barras to get you bot flagged. Razor flame 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I wish to make it automatic, but there may be a few problems that may arise. Ex. CaPs for "REDIRECT"s. I-20 (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your last sentence? πr² (talk • changes) 02:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"REDIRECT" can work captialized or lowercased. I also need to look out for *wikt* templates. I-20 (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Y approved (again) for adding {{wikipedia}} to articles per above rules (singulars only with exceptions) -Barras (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to request that it stll be monitored every so often to make sure that it is keeping to the rules that have been set out here. Razorflame 22:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I get to see a diff before it saves, so everything will be ok. I-20 (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It wouldn't hurt to have a second set of eyes on the issue to make sure that any mistakes made get corrected before they propogate into more than one :) Razorflame 05:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Didn't you know that I'm a freak and control most of the edits (also bot ones) from time to time? -Barras (talk) 07:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar question

Hi, all. I know I haven't been active here for some time, but I try not to disappear completely. I have a question or two regarding the sidebar links, specifically the "BE" and "BNC" links. The way I understand it, these links are intended for editors to be able to get to the lists that need working on. The other possibility would be for readers to get to the most common (and therefore, in some senses, most important) words. If these links are for editors, maybe we should update them to "BE1500" and "BNC3" (or at least one of the fuller lists of BNC1), since all words on the currently-linked pages already have entries. What do you think? --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with this. If these are supposed to be for those users who use these links to help get them to lists of pages that have yet to be created, these should be updated to whichever ones that are currently being worked on right now. I'd agree that we should update these lists, but I think it would be better if we lost BE850 and kept BNC1 because BNC1 doesn't have all the redlinks filled in, and there are many more formatting mistakes on the words that have been made in this list. I would much rather we work on making the BNC1 list better before moving on to other lists. Razor flame 22:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Creating a new entry versus Wiktionary:Entry layout explained

While I do believe that we need an Entry layout explained, I believe that the help page that I made about a year ago could easily be written and added to to make it a great entry layout explained. It has notes about every sections of an entry, as well as well written examples that show, in a very easy to understand way, how to write an entry and how to make the layout of an entry. I know that Help:Creating a new entry was originally written to be just that, a helping page to help others how to write an entry, however, since it is already written in fairly simple English, I decided, hey, what the heck, why shouldn't this be the Entry Layout Explained? As it is, it easily shows how an entry should be laid out, but it goes further than that and shows how to properly format each section as well. What does everyone else think about deleting the current Entry Layout Explained and replace it with Help:Creating a new entry? Razor flame 23:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given names

Hi there all. In my opinion, we should not be working on given names on the Simple English Wiktionary at this point in time because of several reasons:

We are still missing some very common words. For example, I found out today that we still had no entry for the word pear. These should be focused on before given names should even be thought about.
There are also lots of other words that are used fairly often that don't have entries here yet. These should be made before we make any given name entries.

In my opinion, we should delete all the given name entries that we currently have and disallow the creation of new ones until we grow bigger and until we have a lot more of the more common words added to the Simple English Wiktionary, if not until we have all of the most common and fairly common words written, or we should just direct people who are interested about given names to the English Wiktionary, which has very extensive listings of given names. What do you think? Razor flame 23:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, users can write about whatever they feel like (as long as it fits, of course). Griffinofwales (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that users should be able to write what they want, we should really focus on adding the needed words first before beginning to add given names. If that is not an option, then I would like to suggest that instead of writing new entries for every single given name, is there any possible way that we can write every given name that begins with each letter of the alphabet and write only 26 entries that list every given name on the 26 pages instead of writing hundreds upon hundreds of individual given name entries? Razor flame 14:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated entries

I have gone through every page in mainspace and created all the accelerated entries I thought were valid. There are some that I was not sure whether to create or not, or how to fix the errors on the pages. (For example, on dreams, it lists the third-person singular as dreamss, and that doesn't seem right at all to me...) If anyone is willing to help, the list is under the question mark on my todo list. :) Avicennasis (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed dreams. -Barras (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through the list and fix the ones that need fixing. Razor flame 18:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

crash

Not sure this should be asked here, but I didn't really know who to ask (and if the people were active). The adjective definition of the crash article seems weird. It says if something is a crash.... It seems a crash is a noun in this sentence. Enwiktionary wasn't helpful, and I'm not really familiar with this meaning of the word. Could anyone help. Thanks, Yottie (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists it (third def). I-20 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]