Wiktionary:Simple talk/Archive 8

From Wiktionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Looks like you have a new bot CarsracBot (talk · changes). Might need bot flag soon? EhJJ 20:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot flag is been given, thanks Carsrac 13:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot flag request for CarsracBot[change]

  • Contributions
  • Operator: Carsrsac (or on my home wikipedia Carsrac)
  • Programming language: Pywikipedia scripts updated by SVN
  • Function: interwiki
  • Description: Adding interwiki links where there are none. I'm good in english, but not that good, that I use difficult words.

I can translated from simple into en and other way around :) Also translation from de, nl is not that a big problem. More info on the userpage of the bot.

Special task is adding the interwiki links to the entries I create. Also removing interwiktionay is what I do with this bot on other wiktionaries. Thanks Carsrac 06:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you run a few edits to test it out first? — Wenli (reply here) 03:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I will start the test edits. Carsrac 17:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
The flag is given at 16-07-2009 after a test period for more then one year. Carsrac 13:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Opposite of the word fair[change]

the opposite of the word fair This unsigned comment was added by Alltimmer (talk • contribs) .

It is unfair. Pmlineditor 12:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
And I'll create it rightaway. ;) Pmlineditor 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of closure of Simple Wikibooks[change]

A proposal to close Simple Wikibooks has been started today here. Maybe a general announcement in this site could provide a richer discussion or alert people interested in the project who may be unaware of it. Regards -- 00:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Strategic Planning Wiki[change]

The Wikimedia Foundation has begun a year long phase of strategic planning. During this time of planning, members of the community have the opportunity to propose ideas, ask questions, and help to chart the future of the Foundation. In order to create as centralized an area as possible for these discussions, the Strategy Wiki has been launched. This wiki will provide an overview of the strategic planning process and ways to get involved, including just a few questions that everyone can answer. All ideas are welcome, and everyone is invited to participate.

Please take a few moments to check out the strategy wiki. It is being translated into as many languages as possible now; feel free to leave your messages in your native language and we will have them translated (but, in case of any doubt, let us know what language it is, if not english!).

All proposals for the Wikimedia Foundation may be left in any language as well.

Please, take the time to join in this exciting process. The importance of your participation can not be overstated.


(please cross-post widely and forgive those who do)

stopping by[change]

I noticed that the popups here don't show the edit count and user rights of a user like the one at enWP does. An admin should add the new features. Griffinofwales 03:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Brett: I have popups. That's not the problem. At enWP, the popups also show the user rights and edit count for a user (example: If I popup a screen for Jimbo at enWP, it gives the edit count (approx. 4500) and the user rights (checkuser, sysop, founder)). Griffinofwales 22:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to add such features, but I'd be willing to do so if you'd point me to an explanation.--Brett 23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I will send an admin over from Simple English WP. Griffinofwales 00:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Crossposting with w:WP:AN#popups - I haven't really messed with gadgets much in the past, but I think you just have to copy over w:MediaWiki:Gadget-popups-API.js and w:MediaWiki:Gadget-navpop.css. Wiktionary's local definitions file (MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition) already reflects the proper file names so it should be as simple as transwiki'ing the .js and .css pages. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 07:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Brett, there is something wrong with popups. They are not showing the user rights and edit count for users. Check with simpleWP to make sure you have the most recent version. Griffinofwales 18:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It is hardly the most important thing on the agenda for wikt. If I remember correctly, edit-counts at that frequency hurt the server kittehs. Microchip08 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
simpleWP uses it, so I thought people here might want it too. I don't think it affects the server. It's nice for me, because it shows the rights of user, so I can see who I need to contact in case of vandalism etc. Griffinofwales 19:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No, it does not affect the server that much, but like Microchip said, that isn't a priority for the Simple English Wiktionary at this point in time. Maybe later, when we get a bunch more articles and when we are up and running and active, we can add it then, but until then, it isn't really needed. Razorflame 03:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

<-The popups have been added. It's that specific feature that has not been added. Griffinofwales 13:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, there isn't a need for it right now. Razorflame 18:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Import rights[change]

Hello all!

I am a sysop on simplewiki and there is a category called "move to wiktionary" w:Category:Move to Wiktionary. I want to tack care of the cat from time to time. To move this pages per GFDL with the edit history, I want to ask if I could get import rights on this wiki (which a steward can grant, if no one objects). The other way would be that I get admin rights on this wiki. Please consider to grant me one of the rights. I will not abuse the rights if I get import or sysop rights. (I am also identified to the wmf) Thanks for your time --Barras || talk 12:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Barras should be given admin access. He's one of seWP's best admins and will not abuse the tool. I believe there have been such cases at enWP too. Pmlineditor 13:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
In the past, material that has come over has not been particularly useful. Could you do a few pages manually to show what kind of stuff would be coming?--Brett 23:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll provide you a few links if you want. Pmlineditor 07:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Manually would be against the GFDL. If I do manually, the versions history will be lost. THis isn't GFDL. I will the importet articles change to the Wiktionary:Entry layout explained of course, that there is not an ugly page here. Barras || talk 10:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could simply set them up as test pages in your user space, and manually copy over the history as well. Then, if they look useful, we could delete them and give you privileges to move others.--Brett 11:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It is really just a test page: User:Barras/Manifest and User:Barras/Objection --Barras || talk 11:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
As in the past, my personal view is that these are not really worth importing. There are spelling mistakes (manifist) and grammar mistakes (what a car have loaded; I object this statement), and the meaning is either not clear or inaccurate. And all that is in just three sentences.--Brett 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The grammar mistakes are completely my bad, because the examples aren't on the WP articles, only the definitions. I will be more carefully. I tried to create them as quick as possible, that you can see them soon. With the import/sysop tools, I have time to do it, whenever I want. I am not perfect, but I still think it is the best to import the articles to wikt. On WP, I will delete them, because they are useless and out of the project scope. I think it's a pity, to delete them on WP and lose the good information. That's the reason, why I request import rights or the easier way sysop rights for this wiki. Barras || talk 21:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be obstructive, but I think such articles will take as much work to get into a good form as they would to simply recreate from scratch. On the other hand, if you've got something better to show, you've still got my attention.--Brett 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) User:Barras/libel is a better example, I think. It is based on the WP article. I hope this is ok. Barras || talk 10:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is more material of this caliber, then it's certainly worth bringing over. Why don't you make a formal request for admin privileges?--Brett 12:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Even if I don't want to become really active, I requested regular adminship. I hope I can help in this way. Barras || talk 13:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Accelerated method for creating articles[change]

This method is very good for making plurals/verbal forms, but I was wondering if it was possible to add something to the script so that there's also an interwiki to the english wiktionary. Would be great! Yotcmdr 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably you should ask the creater of this tool. Barras || talk 20:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes probably the best idea. Yotcmdr 22:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Leave a message for User:Conrad.Irwin for additions to this tool. Hope you liked using it :). Cheers, Razorflame 02:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Multi-word entries[change]

Most multi-word entries such as for instance, would rather, on behalf, son of a bitch, and supposed to are listed as "phrases". Since phrase has a particular meaning in linguistics (e.g., noun phrase, prepositional phrase) and these entries are not all phrases in that sense, perhaps it would be better to list them all as "expressions". Thoughts?--Brett 15:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Anyway, "expressions" is way simpler than "phrases" Pmlineditor  Talk 15:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and do this, then.--Brett 12:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What are we going to do about the "Related words and phrases" sections? · Tygrrr... 16:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, they needed to be cleaned up anyhow. I'll get to work on them.--Brett 16:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Plurals and verb tenses of words that don't have definitions[change]

I see that since July 24, some plural pages and verb tense pages have been created for headwords that don't have definitions yet. Some examples include: ‎adventures, ‎adaptors, adapters, and ‎aches. These pages don't really help anyone, and as such should not be created. I have a large backlog of new pages to patrol, but I will be deleting any pages I come across that are plurals or verb tenses of headwords that haven't been created yet. I mention this for two reasons: 1. to avoid creations of this nature in the future and 2. as fair warning that if you don't want your pages deleted, you will likely have some time to create the headword before I get to it (there is, after all, a large backlog and I will be deleting them in the order they were created). Thank you. · Tygrrr... 17:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did think of asking Yot whether it was appropriate. I think a better way would be to create the headword than deleting the pages. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 17:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to create them, that is certainly an option. (Like I said above, there will likely be time to create some before I get to them.) However, since re-creation of these pages is literally as simple as a click of a button (using the acceleration script), I see no problem deleting pages that serve practically no purpose in their current form. Some people would argue that plural pages and verb tense pages don't even serve much of a purpose even after a headword has been created. Even though I don't agree with that, I can see where they're coming from, and I think we can all agree that the purpose that they do serve, however great or small, is eliminated when there is no headword definition to point back to. · Tygrrr... 17:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
If I come across any words that are plurals or other forms of the words besides the headwords and the headwords have not been created yet, I will delete them using the same reasoning that Tygrrr provided in this paragraph that he wrote. Cheers, Razorflame 09:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
When creating them, they were usually (nearly all) on the BNC1-2-3 lists. That's the only reason I created them. If you judged my contribs useless, so be it. Singulars will come before plurals in the future. Yotcmdr 14:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, but I never said that they were useless. I just think that the headwords should be created first. Anyways, it shouldn't be that hard to recreate them using the acceleration script. Yes, I think it would be wise to create the headwords first in the future :). Cheers, Razorflame 17:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

10,000 articles![change]

Congratulations, everyone! This is a huge achievement! Thank you all for your contributions. I feel honored to have been one of the driving forces early on in this project (not so long ago), and though my participation has dropped off quite a bit, I still plan to continue contributing here in at least a small way. Long live Simple English Wiktionary! --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

...and now we've broken 11k, just one month later. Great job, everyone! Tempodivalse [talk] 16:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, so we get about 1k articles in a month, ie, ~35 a day. We've got 3000+ articles in the months I've been here, so great work by everyone. :) Pmlineditor  Talk 16:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
We probably should be thanking the article accelerator tool. smile.png Tempodivalse [talk] 23:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, this is going to sound really grumpy, but... "great work"? Give me a break! 95% of these last 2000 articles are empty calories. It was nice to get above 10,000 for promotion's sake since it gives us a more prominent placement in other wikis and should attract more editors. I suppose it has, but most of you seem a lot more interested in jawing about how to run the wiki and inflating edit counts with pointless plurals and participles than in doing any real work. How about getting down to business and adding some content. I've probably written about 60 or 70% of the actual definitions and added most of examples. It takes time, thought, and research. Tygrrr has put in significant value checking and adding pronunciations and adding definitions. So why don't the rest of you stop worrying about who's got how many edits and flags and add some real value? </Grumpy>.--Brett (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Ahem. I have also been doing a lot of work lately in adding pronunciations and making sure all of the entries are correct as well, you know. I don't care about my edit count here. I've been writing tons of entries lately (including more than 50% non-automated), so I believe that you did not mean that message to be directed towards me. Razorflame 01:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh I'm sure it's aimed more at people like me poking things with a wooden stick or whatnot:) I can't blame him. I've always been a less content driven person and I started adding some stuff at the start and basically stopped when I realized they were... well bad. I've been working on more recently off wiki hopefully can get them up tonight as well as add pronunciation on the few old ones I made. Hopefully people know that when I'm proposing/talking about things it's all meaning well for the project. Jamesofur (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No, RF, not directed at you.--Brett (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Just want to know: am I creating such articles? If so, then I'll be pleased to stop creating such entries and work on something else on this wiki. Though, yes, I've about 10-20 auto creations in the past few weeks which is much less compared to other edits. Regards, PmlineditorTalk 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

<-----To tell you the truth, they aren't "useless" creations. They are creations for words that need creation because otherwise, we wouldn't be a dictionary. There are hundreds of thousands of those kinds of entries over on the English Wiktionary, and they are all needed because they are all important words. They aren't meaningless drabble because they are needed in order to make the Wiktionary complete. Razorflame 17:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


I'd suggest we enable rollback on this wiki. We get at least some vandalism each day and it gets tiring to use the "undo" method. Besides, Wikiquote, a much smaller project has this feature as well. We receive more vandalism than them every day. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 12:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone does enable it, could they please give me the rollbacker right (I am a rollbacker at enWP and simpleWP). Thanks, Griffinofwales 22:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Rollback is enabled here. I believe only admins get it though.--Brett 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not believe that we get enough vandalism on the Simple English Wiktionary to warrant the enabling of rollback at this point in time. Maybe in the future, when there is more vandalism, but until then, I do not believe that rollback should be enabled for non-administrators on this Wiktionary at this point in time. Razorflame 02:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
There are only 2 or 3 changes each day, which needs to be reverted. Therefore, the undo button should be ok. Barras || talk 08:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I just thought I would pop in here, this may be something you want to think about again. The massive vandalism we had a little while ago was quite annoying to deal with manually :). That is likely to be rare of course though. Jamesofur 08:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
True. This is a wiki with 10k articles, much larger than the other simple wikis (wq, wb). If the other two have rollback, I see no reason for us to enable non-admin rollback. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Well, after the hugh vandalism today, I think it's the best to enable the rollback feature. It wouldn't harm. Granting should be done by admins. If no one disagree in the next days, I request the tool for this wiki. Best Barras 13:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I support this change. It would be useful to combat the vandalism :) --Skenmy talk 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
A thought, that's totally up to you guys: I wonder if you want to have a local policy on temporary rollback/sysops to deal with vandalism like last night. If you have a definite policy an online steward can promote someone to deal with issues that arise and then demote them right back again when they're done. We thought about this last night given the magnitude of the situation but because of this discussion decided against it, luckily I was able to grab extra people to help since it began as just me. There are always those with global rollback permissions but that's an (understandably) harder and rarer tool to get and you may not be comfortable giving local rollback permissions (again understandably) to someone who hasn't shown an active roll here yet (such as me for example :) )Jamesofur 19:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
The stewards are elected to handle such requests if there is an emergency. If no one disagree with rollback, we can grant all users, who are trusted and/or have such a tool on an other project the permission. However, I don't want to see someone here with sysop, who isn't locally elected. Stewards have global admin rights and can help here if no one is online. But please, no non-stewards or not elected users with sysop here. Barras 19:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

<---One large act of vandalism is not enough, in my opinion, to consider enabling rollback on this Wiki yet. That is what stewards are for. The person responsible has been blocked and the vandalism has all been cleared up. Therefore, no reason for the rollback tool to be enabled here yet. If we start getting more regular vandalism, then I would support this change, but I do not support this change at this moment for the pure fact that it is not needed yet. Razorflame 20:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is more likely: "Would it harm to have rollback enabled?" The rollback can only help and works fine on other wikis. An in the case, that there is vandalism, it would help greatly. Barras 22:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Razor, it wouldn't hurt to activate it. And after last night, I don't think the Simple English Wiktionary has a choice.--   CR90  22:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no harm in it, so supportJuliancolton | Talk 22:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Support as well.--   CR90  22:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Support as well. There are no negatives to it. Griffinofwales 00:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

<----Remember m:Voting is evil. We are not here to !vote on this matter; we are here to form a concensus, which I do not see forming yet. While there is no harm in enabling it, since we receive very small amounts of vandalism, there really isn't a need for it at this point in time. Sure, we may get more instances like the one that happened last night, but I don't see that happening in the near future. I've been here for a long time, and we average one act of vandalism every day to every other day, which, in my opinion, is not enough vandalism to enable the rollback for non-administrator users on this Wiki yet. If we start getting vandalism like we did last night more regularly, then I would be more likely to support this suggestion, but as I do not see a history of this in the past, I do not see this happening in the near future, which will make the rollback flag highly ineffective. Razorflame 02:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think SEWT should enable rollback. Many small projects have started using rollback and it can be beneficial to us. Snake311 10:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Support enabling the rollback flag. I don't see what harm it can cause, to the contrary I think it will only be beneficial for us. Tempodivalse 20:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Support, it's a usergroup I feel that all wikis should get by default. This unsigned comment was added by Microchip08 (talk • contribs) .
I proposed this first and would like to see the flag enabled. I see sufficient consensus, so should we file a Bugzilla request? Pmlineditor  Talk 15:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
A Bugzilla request has been filed by MC8 at bugzilla:20488. Pmlineditor  Talk 15:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

<---I guess that I just have to follow along with this, even though I think it is very unnecessary at this point in time... Razorflame 18:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bug 20488 has been RESOLVED: FIXED. This wiki now has a rollback usergroup.

Getting the flag[change]

Now that this flag has apparently been approved, I think we need to discuss how to distribute the flag, in other words, I think we need to work out our policy on it...--   CR90  20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

As per (all?) other wikis: granting to trusted users, users who have the tool (or similar tools) on other wikis. Always per request by one of the admins. Barras 20:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
While that seems most likely as it is the norm. I'd like to see all users agree to it before a policy is drawn up...--   CR90  21:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Barras. The flag should be granted to trusted users or are admins elsewhere, and after request. Tempodivalse 21:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Flag should only be granted to users who are trusted and are familiar with how to use it already. Razorflame 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
So far, I guess we can simply import sewp's page. Barras 21:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(<-) I was bold and imported the sewp guidline Wiktionary:Rollback feature. Barras 10:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Most wanted link[change]

Hello there all. In our Recent Changes box, we had the most wanted page linked to the third BNC list when the first two BNC lists still had lots of redlinks in them. Therefore, I took it upon myself and IARed it and changed the link back to the first list of BNC words, which is still not completed. I therefore think that it should stay linked to the first list of BNC words until all of the redlinks in the first list are written before we move onto the next BNC list. Is everyone in agreement with me on this? Cheers, Razorflame 23:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is alright with me. I Will concentrate on that list. Yotcmdr 07:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It's been quite some time since I worked on the BNC1 list, but if I recall correctly, I made sure that both the headword and the most common word in each family were defined. That leaves related, but less common words. These are going to run the gamut from only slightly less common weekly, to spectacularly rare wateriness. In contrast, the BNC3 list contains reasonably common families without even a single member defined. My preference would be to try to get at least the most common word and preferably also the headword from each family before trying to fill in all the gaps in the other list.--Brett 12:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Brett. @Brett: Can you close Barras' RfA? Pmlineditor  Talk 12:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm....That makes sense to me. Feel free to undo my change of Recent Changes back to the third list. Cheers, Razorflame 05:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Selecting synonyms[change]

My feeling is that the purpose for listing synonyms in the Simple English Wiktionary is to help users learn, understand, and remember the meaning. Unlike en.wikt, where I believe all synonyms should be listed, here, I think this goal is best accomplished by listing only synonyms that are likely to be familiar to the user. This is obviously a bit of a guessing game, but I'd like to suggest some guidelines.

I propose that synonyms be restricted to:

  • Synonyms in the BNC 01, where the defined word is included in the BNC 01 list.


  • Synonyms that are as frequent as or more frequent than the defined word, where the defined word lies outside the BNC 01 list.

I would check frequency using COCA and/or the BNC using a query like this for participate, which returns the following list of synonyms:

The numbers on the right are the frequencies in the corpus. From this, I would select share and join to list as synonyms. If there are other synonyms that strike you as likely, you can check their frequency using the same corpus.--Brett 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Synonyms are a good thing for non-native speakers like me. Soemtimes, there are different words (british English and american English) which should be mentioned always. Synonyms are always good to learn a second or third language, because it really helps to learn the language. Too many synonyms could cause confusion, and therefore, I would say to use the most common ones. It doesn't matter if there are three or only two synonyms, but they should be well known. But in the other way, I don't really want to see more than five synonyms per entry, or at least only when there is a good reason. This are my genrell thoughts about synonyms. Barras || talk 13:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that synonyms should only be restricted to the two or three most common synonyms that have greater than 5000-10000 uses. Having synonyms for obscure words or to obscure words, or having obscure synonyms won't help the audience of the Simple English Wikipedia if they don't know what the word means. Therefore, I agree that the synonyms should be on any of the BNC lists. Other common (>10000 uses) synonyms can also be included if they aren't on any of the BNC lists, but they would still have to be a common word, like join or share for participate. Therefore, yes, I believe that we should restrict the synonyms to only the most commonly used synonyms for each word. Cheers, Razorflame 15:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not too sure about either of this. I generally select those synonyms which seem most relevant and try to limit the number of synonyms to 3. However, on some occasions, it may be impossible to find a BNC listed word for a synonym (example ambush), and so I resort to the most commonly used word. Regards, Pmlineditor  Talk 15:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
An obscure synonym is worse than none at all. It makes extra work for a learner and can turn up in very odd and unexpected place when a learner tries to use it. And, anybody who couldn't find more common synonyms for ambush than ambuscade isn't looking very hard. Trap, surprise, and jump jump to mind.--Brett 16:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Well, I was using a website+my personal thesaurus and ambuscade is what it showed. Anyway, I created an entry for it. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Brett. If there are any instances in which an obscure synonym is the only synonym that can be found for the word, we should probably talk about whether or not to include it on that definitions' talk page before implementing onto the actual definition page. I can see how the person who looked up the word would be like, "Oh...I have to look up that word to find out what it means.", which could lead to some very interesting uses for the word. Razorflame 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


i want to talk good ,but i can't i don't how can i learn english is good This unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

what are some synonyms for the word "talk" let me know soon cuz i need it before 430 today cuz i have school in the morning????

main page[change]

The main page, wiktionary.org, still has this project listed under 1000+ articles, and you guys have 11k+, which puts you in the 10k+ section. I'm not sure how that is changed, but just letting you know. Griffinofwales 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svgY Done I've added it. Now we just have to wait for a steward to approve the edit and copy it to the main page. Tempodivalse 17:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
And the pages was updated by an admin diff. Barras 11:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal - install flood flag[change]

I'd like to suggest that we install a m:flood flag at this wiki. Basically, it allows admins to hide edits from the RC. This can be useful when making very many repetitive changes in a short period of time (like blocking open proxies, mass maintenance, etc.), as it keeps recent changes cleaner and makes other edits easier to spot. When an admin grants themselves the flag, it's shown in the RC, and all edits made under the flood flag can be seen with the "Show bots" feature, so it's easy for other users to check up on them. Thoughts? Tempodivalse 02:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, should be ok. It'll prevent flooding by admins (e.g. while blocking proxies). Pmlineditor  Talk 09:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
wouldn't use the flood falg, because I see no need to hide the sometimes only few edits. Furthermore, here is no real vandalism which have to be watched. I don't see a reason to hide any edit, because there aren't so many. I wouldn't use the flag on this wiki. Barras 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Proxies? Other projects are in need of it. Pmlineditor  Talk 16:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't need to block open proxies, as long they don't edit here. How much vandalism is on this wiki? 2 IP edits per day? I see no reason to perfom useless admin action and do useless edits. Barras 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok then. (And, well, technically blocking OPs isn't useless.) Pmlineditor  Talk 16:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
It is as long we don't get vandalism here. We block the IPs for one or three years, and do then the same agian. Only useless admin actions. Barras 16:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

<---Sorry, but this is even more unnecessary than the rollback flag here. I do not support the addition of the flood flag here. Razorflame 23:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard and RfAs separated[change]

Hello there all. I just finished a change from using Wiktionary:Administrators for all things administration to how it is on the Simple English Wikipedia. I have separated the Admins' noticeboard and Requests for adminship onto two separate pages entitled Wiktionary:Administrators' noticeboard and Wiktionary:Requests for adminship. I used the en:WP:IAR clause and I was bold, but I decided that it is getting to the point that separate pages are needed now. Thanks, Razorflame 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea, i always wondered why we didn't have a separate RFA page. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the reason why we didn't before now was because there wasn't any need to, as the page was easily holding the changes made to it. Recently, though, I believed the page to be getting too long, so I decided that we needed them separated to help to more easily facilitate discussions. Razorflame 00:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I fully support this move. Perhabs we should move the desysop requests to the new RFA page? Well done and good idea, Razorflame. Barras (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we should move the desysop requests to the new RfA page. Cheers, Razorflame 19:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svgY Done and again: Good move Razor. Barras (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Two desysops closed[change]

Hello there all. Today, I have decided to close two of the desysop requests and request the flags be removed at Meta because of a few factors. First, they both had 10 votes, 9 in support, 1 in opposition for the desysop to go through. Nearly all of the active users had already voted, so I did not think that it was very necessary to keep them open, even though both of them were only open for a few days, I believe that consensus was met in a clear-cut situation which made me close both using the w:WP:SNOW clause.

I have decided to leave H2g2bob's DsR open because 7/10 is only 70%. I did not feel that this was a clear enough consensus to close it at this point in time, as it did not fall under the SNOW clause. Razorflame 14:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note they have been done: [Flcelloguy] and [Gmcfoley] Jamesofur (talk) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Acceleration script updated[change]

Hello there all. I just wanted to inform you that Conrad.Irwin successfully added the ability for the acceleration script to automatically add an interwiki to the English Wiktionary without the need to type it in manually. This should help us keep our entries as complete as possible in the future. Thanks go out to Conrad.Irwin for making this possible! Cheers, Razorflame 00:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, this should be useful. Thanks to ConradIrwin for his useful widget. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Desysop Policy Discussion[change]

The Stewards requested that we have a more official policy on our desysops. Razor flame has posted a discussion everyone should take a look at! here

Thanks. I was just about to resign due to inactivity, but maybe I'll hold off for a bit, if the cutoff is a year. I'm encouraged to see Cromwellt participating, too. I'm still here, just busy. Coppertwig(talk) 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


I see that the entries are very different from how other Wiktionary languages build entries... the statement says that Simple English will define all English words, for use by translators, ESL students, etc...

But I notice that no translations are listed... shouldn't there be as part of "word x" a "language y: word x'" listed as part of the entry? Or are people directed to the English Wiktionary for that sort of information?

Also... is there a Simple Y for other languages (ie. francais simple) ? (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, people are directed to the English Wiktionary and other Wiktionaries for translations. There are currently no other Simple Wiktionaries.--Brett (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers Still Needed[change]

Hi all,
Although we will soon remove the centralnotice that is up, the Wikimedia Strategic Planning project is still looking for volunteers to serve as subject area advisors or to sit on task forces that will study particular topics and make recommend short- and long-term strategies for the Wikimedia projects and Foundation, and the wiki movement.

To apply to serve on a task force or be an advisor in a specific area, visit http://volunteer.wikimedia.org.

The Wikimedia Strategic Planning project is a year-long collaborative process being hosted at http://strategy.wikimedia.org. Your input is welcome there, and will drive the process. When the task forces begin to meet, they will do their work transparently and on that wiki, and anyone may join fully in their work. We hope to include as many community members as possible in the process.

Any questions can be addressed to me either on on the strategy wiki or by email to philippe at wikimedia.org.

I hope you'll consider joining us!

Philippe (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)