Wiktionary:Simple talk/Archive 9

From Wiktionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Autopatrol group[change]

I suggest we adopt the autopatrol group. Examples of projects that have it are the English Wiktionary and English Wikisource. Specifically, the configuration would be

$wgGroupPermissions['autopatrolled']['autopatrol']   = true;
$wgGroupPermissions['autopatrolled']['patrol']   = true;
$wgAddGroups['sysop'] = array( 'autopatrolled' );
$wgRemoveGroups['sysop'] = array( 'autopatrolled' );

This would be given to experienced users who regularly create pages. (of course, these users have demonstrated knowledge of proper formatting, etc.) and could be given at an admin's discretion. Thoughts? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would be in favor of adding such a usergroup, however, I am not quite sure exactly how useful it will be at this point in time. Maybe we could just get it comissioned now so that later, when we really do need it, it will already be implemented. Cheers, Razorflame 01:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, as one of the few non-admin regulars here, I don't have a clue about how long the new pages backlog is; however, I think that if 4-5 admins do patrol, the backlog will be cleared. PmlineditorTalk 10:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The backlog is there because we have a very specific way of marking pages as patrolled. We like to make sure that the entries that are marked as patrolled are not only clear of vandalism, but to make sure that they are as complete as possible. The reason why so few of us patrol is because it is an amazing hassle to do so for hundreds upon hundreds of pages. You have to look up each and every one of them in the English Wiktionary for additional parts of speech, antonyms, synonyms, other spellings, pronunciations, and anything else that is wrong and fix it because it is marked as patrolled. I personally like it this way because it a)gives me something to do here, and b) allows me to help other people by making their work better. All in all, I can only see this flag being given to those who prove themselves to be able to make sure that the entries made are as complete as possible so that otherwise, others would not have to spend the time looking over their entries. Razorflame 11:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not? would help the wiki. At all, if we add this tool, so that admins can grant and remove it. Rules like those for the rollback tool. Granting to trusted users. Barras (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know how much it would help but if you guys think you can (or could) use it its sure can't HURT so why not :) Jamesofur (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just the one question? What will be the criteria for granting this right? I support the idea, but would like to know that. PmlineditorTalk 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • To trusted users who create artcles and know the basic formating rules. Users who don't create many articles don't get it. At all, to trusted users like the rollback tool. Barras (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)My guess is something similar to what Razorflame was saying, people who have proven that they know how to create an entry correctly. Given by admins when they think it's needed. My guess is it will be like En where its more given when the admins/patrollers think you need it then when you actualy ask :) It's more for other people's use (they don't have to look at your entries while patrolling then it is for the persons benefit.Jamesofur (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would only support this right being added if and only if we set up very specific guidelines on who is able to get it. I don't want people who create pages, but don't create complete entries to get added to the group. I would only want people who create complete entries that don't need anyone else to check them to get this flag. They would have to demonstrate that they know how to create a complete entry before I would give them the tool. This means that they would have to show that they can add pronunciations, synonyms, antonyms, related words, and other spellings, as well as making sure that all of the parts of speech are there, and all of the correct tags are in place before I would even think of adding them to the group, but that is just me. Maybe we should follow that, but then again, I am always open for new ideas. Cheers, Razorflame 21:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria that you just mentioned would should be the minimum criteria, imo. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. Feel free to add/remove/change things. Barras (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with everything in your suggestion accept the last part. I believe an admin should be able to grant it at their discretion. Thoughts? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 13:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    Agree with Maximillion. Pmlineditor  11:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I almost wonder if you want to say you can't ask for it. In my mind the group is more for the patrollers themselves (generally the admins here) I really could care less if you WANT it because the only reason to really want it would be to have another flag. It really doesn't do anything to help the person creating articles, It just helps the people who are patrolling because now they don't have to look at pages that they know are going to be fine. I sort of think it may be better to either let admins put it on at their own wishes (for example you see a user who has been making good entries for a while and you don't think you need to check them every time) or just allow admins to nominate. Jamesofur (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Note[change]

On the English Wiktionary, the way they do things there is this: An administrator nominates a user that they think is following all of the rules laid out for people gaining the autopatrol flag and then amongst administrators, people discuss whether or not they get the flag or not and then if more than 65% of the administrators who are involved in the discussion are in support of them gaining the flag, they gain the flag. Do we want to adopt such a policy here? Just a thought... Razorflame 20:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a much smaller project, so I do not really think that is necessary. However, I do think they should have to ask for it on AN, where any objections can be stated. But I don't think it is necessary to have a !vote, and any administrator can make the final decision. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think that it is necessary to have a !vote for it either, but they should still have to request it, mainly this could be done on a separate page such as Wiktionary:Requests for autopatrol or something similar to that. Razorflame 16:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps Wiktionary:Requests for permissions for both autopatrol and rollback? Pmlineditor  16:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Feel free to draft the page as soon as others agree to it. Razorflame 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that should be fine. They can request it there, and then an admin can grant at their discretion? This would be similar to how enwiki and commons does it, which is best, imo. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, an administrator would grant them at their discretion. I would like to recommend that we only give the flags to users who are actively participating in the project, as there would be no point in giving it to users who are not planning on staying active here or who are just drive-by participators. Razorflame 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-) Well, this sounds like we should open a bug to enable this userright and someone needs to right a policy/guidline page here. At all, I agree with Razorflame, that the right should only be granted to users who are active here. Perhabs we should include that we will remove the flag from inactive users? Barras (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should include that clause, as it wouldn't be sensible to have users who are inactive keep the flag if they aren't going to edit at all. Razorflame 22:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Rule suggestion. Please feel free to change/add/remove things. We can move this page later into the WT namesroom. If we are in favour to install this right, so someone needs to open a bug at bugzilla:. Barras (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. We'll need more input into this discussion before we can move for opening a bugzilla report, but I can see this happening fairly quickly. Razorflame 21:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Bug 21439 filed. Microchip08 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way this bug has now been completed so the group is available Jamesofur (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
We all know... I left a note on WT:ANI. --Barras talk 09:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry :) I thought about that but didn't look just noticed this here when Pmlineditor asked me to do the bug request for WT :) Jamesofur (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Restarting Wiktionary:Word of the day[change]

Hi all. I have restarted Wiktionary:Word of the day. We have become much larger now, and believe we can maintain it. I will need help though, so feel free to create word of the day's in advance. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just follow the format here. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not share your same optimism. I do not believe that we currently have enough activity to support the creation of something like this at this point in time. We would need at least 3+ new active editors before I believe we would be able to start supporting a weekly word of the day. Secondly, we would have to have a discussion about setting up the WotD format differently than it is currently set up because I know for sure that we do not have enough active editors to support a daily WotD. We would need 3 or more new active editors before I believe we could support a weekly word of a day, and that is what I believe we should begin at. Thirdly, I would not work on getting it ready to roll until after this discussion is over as the end result of the discussion might not be the one that you are wanting to hear or that may result in the reversion of the edits of getting it ready.
That being said, I just don't feel that we are ready for it yet, as we barely have enough activity in the more important areas of the Simple English Wiktionary, such as entry creation and entry clean-up. We would have to have enough active editors to keep those areas of the Simple English Wiktionary active whilst making a surplus of those active editors to run a WotD. I just don't see that at this point in time. Razorflame 22:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I might be able to see your point on a daily word of the day, but I disagree with word of the week, I know I could easily maintain a word of the week by myself. (although help is appreciated :) )Perhaps you would reconsider if I setup a demo Word of the week? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think "Word of the Week" is more doable than "Word of the Day". –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have setup a demo Word of the week. What do you think? I have to go for now. Feel free to change it to your liking or delete it altogether. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe WotW would be much more doable than WotD, however, we would have to make criteria as to what is acceptable for a WotW and what is not acceptable for WotW, as well as make a page for nominations for WotW and the such. In my opinion, it would be much easier to start from scratch than to reconfigure the already existing WotD. In my opinion, we should get rid of WotD and start making a WotW from scratch. Razorflame 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we can leave Wiktionary:Word of the day the way it is, as a historical archive. We can start over from scratch on Wiktionary:Word of the week. My suggestion is that we create a section for nominations on Wiktionary:Word of the week, after there is consensus we create a subpage like my example one, the format like this: Wiktionary:Word of the week/year/month first-of-week-through-next . Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Already made a section for nominations on the page you made. I would highly recommend that all talk on this subject continue on Wiktionary talk:Word of the week instead of here. Razorflame 23:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Proxybot[change]

Hiya gang! Recently, on IRC, a suggestion came up about dealing with open proxies on all Simple English WMF projects at the same time. The creation of a adminbot (proxyblocker) that'd block proxies for all sites at the same time. This came up because on simpleWQ today an open proxy vandal (the same one as simpleWP of late) begun an attack there. This proxy had already been blocked on simpleWP for some time. As such, it might be useful to get some discussion going about the need for such a tool, what it would look like, what it would do and what it would not do. Suggestions so far have ranged from a non-admin bot that dumps a list of proxies to block into AN on the projects (or another page) to a bot with the sysop flag that finds the proxies and deals with them. It was also wondered about if this should be a new bot (EhJJ expressed interest in writing it) or an existing bot (IE: w:en:User:Slakr's bot) Thoughts? fr33kman t - c 00:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like it would be a good idea to get a centralized bot that could help us deal with open proxies. I would be partial to having a non-admin bot writing a list of open proxies that administrators could then go through and vet and make sure that they are indeed open proxies before they block them. I believe that to be the optimal solution at this point in time, as I would feel uncomfortable with having an admin-bot blocking users on the Simple English Wiktionary. It would need some serious testing before I would feel comfortable with it doing so, and even if it would do so, it would not be allowed to have the bot flag in addition to the admin flag because it would need to be checked to make sure that it was working. Razorflame 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't want an admin bot on this wiki and I think we shouldn't block IPs unless they edit the project as it happens on other simple projects (I think this is the case on at least one project). Blocks should only be done if they edit this wiki, otherwise it is waste of time. Barras (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course. They will definitely have to edit this wiki before they can be blocked, otherwise, as pointed out, it would be a complete waste of time. Razorflame 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm just concerned about it, because I saw it on an other simple project (I guess it's just done for the edit/actioncounties) and I don't want that this happen here, too. Furthermore, I don't trust any bot (even if I control, write, operate it) enough to grant sysopflag. Barras (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I respect you both but disagree :) That's the whole point of the bot. The huge spat of vandalism that was done on simpleQuote recently was specifically done on proxies that have been blocked on simpleWiki for a long time already (in some cases years I believe). The idea is to have a bot that allows all the projects to block the proxy BEFORE it abuses especially given the general m:No_open_proxies policy. Now as I've said elsewhere there are options for a bot like that, it could be an admin bot (which I would prefer just for the ease of things) that read the block reason and blocked simple wide if it said Proxy or something OR it could be a bot that just listed all those proxies somewhere and a human blocked them. It could also be a combo bot similar to Pathoschild's where it made a list on IRC or something of the proxies and you had a very limited selection of trusted admins who could confirm and tell the bot to do the blocks. I don't totally understand how it's a waste of time to block an open proxy (especially one that has already abused) before they edit. To wait until they edit just seems like we're asking for a large scale attack when no one is available. We're blocking the proxy not the editor thats why we have IPExempt flags. why not? Jamesofur (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I would not have a problem with said bot as written above, as I believe that it would help to control our vandalism amount, however, I am just not sure if it would be useful enough to have it here because I am not sure how many of the OPs would be abused here because of our low edit rate, so therefore, it might be more useful to have a centralized list of OPs to reference as they start to edit so that we can deal with them that way. That way, this makes sure that they both edit first AND that they are still blocked for being an open proxy, just in a much more effective and efficient way, IMHO. Razorflame 00:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The block at all wouldn't help. The proxy would be blocked for one year and then it needs to be blocked again. Complete useless work if we we don't get proxy or IP edits at all on this project. For what this work to create a bot and flag it with the sysop tool. I strongly disagree that we should have an adminbot. I don't trust my own bot, and I can't trust an other bot with those extra tools. I don't care about a list or something. Barras (talk) 10:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Just one thing, "I don't trust my own bot, and I can't trust an other bot with those extra tools. I don't care about a list or something." is not a valid issue. Sorry if I'm being blunt, but a well coded bot can do wonders. Just wanted to say. ;) Pmlineditor  15:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Barras, the block would help because if you noticed what I said, you would see that I said that it would be blocked only if it edits here. The list is just a way of us to double-check if an IP that vandalizes here is an open proxy or not. That was what I was trying to get at. Razorflame 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I still don't want an adminbot here and I'm pretty sure that it is much better (and more secure to do it by hand). (Just my thought) Barras (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
      • In my proposed change, the bot would not be an adminbot. It would just be a regular bot that adds IPs to a list of open proxies elsewhere. Razorflame 17:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to at least run a proof-of-concept test. fr33kman t - c 22:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I know that there has been some concern about what the bot would do and what usergroup it'd be a part of. I think that there is good reason to allow a bot to run as admin. Speed of blocks, consistency of blocks, easier to keep track of blocked proxies due to logs being easier to find. I think that all projects should take part in a trial period of dry-run actions. This would include the bot making a record of the actions it would have taken for incidents that really happen. This can then be checked by the right people and verified to be the case. At that point we can then decide on the future of the bot. Thanks! fr33kman t - c 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
This could be a good idea, though a trial period makes sense. Bots are generally a good idea, and if they don't work, they're fixable. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've got a bot running and checking here now, called User:EhJBot2. It is keeping a log on each project ('pedia, 'tionary, quote, books) of possible vandals, but so far has not detected any open proxies on this project. If it does detect one, where should it leave a note? Admin noticeboard? EhJJ (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Yup, I think ANI is a good idea. Barras (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Possibly it could leave us a note on a subpage of ANI called ANI/Open proxies or something of the sort. I think that that would be the best idea as of now. Cheers, Razorflame 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
WT:VIP as we currently have on simplewiki? Would mean two more pages, but would be the best idea imo. Barras (talk) 14:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that seems to make the most sense here in this situation, although I still don't think it will be needed much and therefore might be more trouble than it is worth to get it, but then again, maybe not. Why don't we give it a try? Razorflame 01:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Difference between "between" and "among"[change]

Is this sentence correct? "We can choose between as many as 40 different channels." This unsigned comment was added by 91.98.3.177 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 13 October 2009.

When we want to be exact, "We can choose among as many as 40 different channels" is better, since "between" is for referring to two things (complex extra info: or several things that are bilaterally, not multilaterally, related), but "between" is often used this way in informal speech. So I would say that it is correct in informal speech. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Standard Bot policy[change]

He all :) To facilitate steward granting of bot access, I wanted to suggest implementing the standard bot policy on this wiki. In particular, this policy allows stewards to automatically flag known interlanguage linking bots (if this page says that is acceptable), which form the vast majority of such requests. The policy also enables global bots on this wiki (if this page says that is acceptable), which are trusted bots that will be given bot access on every wiki that allows global bots.

This policy makes bot access requesting much easier for local users, operators, and stewards. To implement it we only need to create a redirect to this page from Project:Bot policy, and add a line at the top noting that it is used here. Please read the text at m:Bot policy before commenting. If you object, please say so; I hope to implement in two weeks if there is no objection, since it is particularly written to streamline bot requests on wikis with little or no community interested in bot access requests. Given that we have a lot of active users we may be able to close the discussion in a week if it's obvious.

When going through the policies I realized that Wiktionary was the only simple project that hadn't opted into the policy (see Wiktionary:Bots) and thought we may want to consider it to make everything easier. It doesn't take away the power of the crats for local bots just makes it much easier for global bots. Jamesofur (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

  • support - I see no reason not to. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Sounds reasonable. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Why would we need a steward to flag bots when there are two active bureaucrats? Furthermore, I accept that we need to accept the Standard Bot policy here. Razorflame 02:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
when there are local crats they wouldn't flag bots to do anything but global tasks (basically just interwiki links) it allows those bots to run without having to go to every single wiki and ask for the flag. Every other bot would have to come here, as they should if there are crats. If they do ANY other task other then the specific ones allowed then they can be "deboted" globally as well as blocked here (or globally if they wont listen). If they want to do other tasks they have to ask here and get the local flag. Jamesofur (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know the global bot flag policy well because I myself run a global bot. I am wary about allowing global bots to edit here as the only bot that I feel comfortable with the bot flag for interwiki purposes is the Interwicket bot. All the other bots seem to have problems when it comes to makes interwiki changes here. I therefore must oppose the inclusion of us in the global bot policy because I believe that we need to control who gets the flag here to prevent wrongful additions. Razorflame 19:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure you (Razorflame) are speaking for the whole community? Interwicket is doing only mainspace and removes iw links to sh.wiktionary.org without telling. It is not following the iw local bot policy, but is making the local iw policy with a non public botscript. Carsrac (talk) 03:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course I don't speak for the whole community. Others are welcome to chime in with their suggestions and input. I would recommend that you wait for more people to enter this discussion before you take my word as the word of the whole community. Cheers, Razorflame 03:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Other languages/Translations[change]

Hi there! Well, I want to propose, that we provide (like other Wiktionaries) translations of the words. I think it would be useful for many people to see what it means in other languages or even their own language. On our main page is stated "Use the pages - These pages help people learn English. You may use pages from this Wiktionary to make pages in a different language, if you change the writing to that language." Especially for this it would propably be really useful to provide translations. We have atm only about 11,500 entries, if we start now to add translations, it would give us more quality and it isn't that much work. Regards Barras (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know that since the inception of the Simple English Wiktionary, its goal has been to provide Simple English definitions for English words only. I do, however, think it would be a good idea to provide Simple English definitions for other language words. But, I don't know if we are ready yet. It is true we have come a long way at over 11,000 definitions, but we still have a long way to go; for example, the Wiktionary:Extended Basic English alphabetical wordlist and the BNC frequently spoken word lists still have many red links. I personally believe we should focus on these before we start adding simple English definitions for other language words/translations. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: I don't want to create articles in other languages, I want to provide translations for the existing and new articles. Barras (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know. I am sorry if I wasn't clear. Regards, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 18:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought, that you thought that I want to create pages in other languages ;) (<- odd sentence, I know) Barras (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, brace yourselves, as this may be a long post...I would appreciate it if no one edits this page while I compose this message. The English Wiktionary has and still has problems with not having enough editors to help provide the translations for every English entry that they have in the English language in the English Wiktionary, and they have thousands of active editors. If they are not able to keep on top of the translations themselves with thousands of active editors, then how can we hope to keep on top of things like this if we have only 1 percent of or less than one percent of the active editors that the English Wiktionary has? I think that we simply don't have the active user base that would be needed in order to provide translations for our purposes at this point in time. I am not denying that it would be a great thing to include translations for our English entries, the problem is that I do not think that we have the active editor base to support this move at this point in time. This is definitely something to thing about doing in the future, though, as it will become incredibly helpful when we have enough editors to support it.
Now, onto the more serious topic about providing simple definitions for entries for other languages in English. As you know, the English Wiktionary provides English definitions for non-English words, including words in Finnish, French, Spanish, Italian, Hungarian, and German, amongst others. If I remember correctly, they didn't even start thinking about doing that until after they had written most of their English entries first, and that is what I believe we should do. I believe that we should first worry about finishing writing the English language entries before we even think about writing entries for words in other languages (the entries would be written in English, but would be for non-English words). That is my stance on that. I do not deny that we will need to start writing those kinds of entries in the future, but for now, we need to focus on completing our entries for the English language first before the others, especially when we are missing words like gaze amongst others. Those are my two cents. Razorflame 19:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I fully understand this. How would it be to say to provide translations for only "important" languages such as Chinese, French, German, Japanese, italien, spanish or only (at least for the start translations into only two languages)? Barras (talk) 19:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Then we have the problem of defining - what is an "important" language? Most users on the Internet? Most widely spoken in the world? Most Wikipedia users? --Skenmy talk 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that we should be doing translations at this point in time. We need to complete our base of English language entries before we start working on translations and other languages. Razorflame 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, my thought is that if we wait too long we have a too big backlog. It's is not that much to add to ~12k entires translations, but it will be difficult to do this with 50k or more entries. Barras (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
But by the time we have 50,000 entries, our active editor base will be bigger (I hope), so there will be more people to help with this, meaning that the backlog won't be too bad. Furthermore, not every English word has a translation yet, so not every entry will have a translation that needs to be added to the page. Razorflame 20:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that we ought to focus on expanding our Simple English entries for the moment. It's too much of a distraction to be worrying about translations when our coverage is as patchy as it is. Translations should be implemented at some point, i think, just not now. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I second this, in the future, but not at this time, we still have lots of work to do. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(<--) Echo Maximillion. No need. Pmlineditor  16:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think defining English words understandably is much closer to the goals of this project (though I won't fight consensus). If we do decide to implement translations and adding words in other languages, we can do it later, not now. And I would say there is no such thing as a backlog in this area. Not all the words have to be translated for their entries to be complete. They will get translated (if the time comes) when they get translated. It shouldn't be a huge priority. This is coming from someone who loves languages, BTW. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 16:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Too much hot air[change]

Yesterday there were 18 edits on this page about pointless ideas and only one single new word added. You folks here to do some work or make work? Stop jawing and get down to the hard job of writing some quality entries for useful words.--Brett (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is a key point in making sure that this Wiktionary stays working smoothly. Therefore, there definitely needs to be some edits here, especially when there are multiple discussions going on. I am taking a breather from making new words because I was getting in over my head, and I will resume making new words within the next few days. Furthermore, discussions are never pointless, and are never about pointless ideas. If you don't like discussion, then feel free to stay out of it, but making sections like this seem to make everyone but yourself look like a good guy when that is not the case at all. Everyone is trying to make the Simple English Wiktionary a better place; people just have different ways of showing it. Razorflame 03:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It is sometimes important to talk. This wiki is grown in the past and to make sure that all runs, we need to discuss some things. Of course, the article work is more important, but more people here means more discussions, but also more entires from to time. Barras (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Check run[change]

What's a check run in the financial lending services

Please refer to an online dictionary such as this page for more help on that particular word, as we do not have it currently. Thanks, Razorflame 21:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

About to make a lot of minor edits (to bad section names)[change]

Hello, I'm going to use the Wiktionary Simple dump for some personal statistics analysis work (great work BTW!) and to simplify my parsing of the word pages, as well as improve the quality of the wiki, I have decided to take the initiative to fix all the bad section names. Mostly just things like 'Nouns' when it should be 'Noun' or sections using '===' when all others use '==', etc.

Just thought I'd give you a heads up, and I'd appreciate if nobody reverted my changes, thanks! :) This unsigned comment was added by Uttar (talk • contribs) .

These jobs are generally for bots. You can create entries if you want. Pmlineditor  15:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
As what Pmlinediter said: It is better to use a bot for this. Perhabs you create a bot account and get the bot flag after some test edits. But anyway, we don't have that many changes here per day and I wouldn't bother if you do it per hand, but not too fast (prevent flooding). Barras (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
A list is here, btw. Pmlineditor  16:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind someone using AWB to do this. I am not sure about how to go about getting AWB enabled here, but I would be willing to work on getting it enabled here. Otherwise, if that isn't an option, just looking at the list of changes that need to be made, I need to know more information about it. For example, in the list, it says that there are changes to be made for Derived words, which should be Related words instead. Are those the kinds of changes that you are talking about? Furthermore, we use level 2 headings for all parts of speech headings, not level 3 headings, so if those are the kinds of changes you are talking about, then I would be against such changes. Please demonstrate the kinds of changes that you are going to be making so that I can see about whether or not a temporary bot flag would be in order. Thanks, Razorflame 17:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Getting AWB enabled here[change]

Hi there. Does anyone know about how to go and get AWB enabled here? I'll ask around and see if I can learn how to do it. Cheers, Razorflame 01:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages of articles[change]

Hi there all. I would like to request that people pay more attention to the talk pages of certain articles, such as Talk:board, as there may be unanswered questions on them. Thanks, Razorflame 20:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Help:Creating a new entry[change]

At the request of another editor on IRC, I've written a how-to guide on making new entries here on the Simple English Wiktionary that are well written and properly formatted. I would like to ask other active editors here to review Help:Creating a new entry and for suggestions and tweaks that need to be made in order to make it the best it possibly can be. Thanks, Razorflame 04:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

First, I think that the page is very good and helpful, but it's very similar to Wiktionary:Entry layout explained and Wiktionary:How to edit. I'd say it's more detailed than How to edit, but not as detailed as Entry layout explained. The question though is: do we need all three? Could/should we consolidate some or all? · Tygrrr... 20:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
No, we don't need all three, but I think that we can merge some of the information on Wiktionary:Entry layout explained into Help:How to create an entry. More specifically, we can add the part from Wiktionary:Entry layout explained about more complex article as those are the ones that need the most explanation, and I like how it is laid out at Wiktionary:Entry layout explained. I think that most of the information on Help:Creating a new entry is duplicated form Wiktionary:Entry layout explained, so It hink we should merge the missing information from Entry layout explained into Creating a new entry, as there are definitely some things missing on Creating a new entry. Thoughts? Razorflame 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Important proposal[change]

Important proposal, please participate here, even if you are not active there. It is really important and will affect you. Best Barras (talk) 14:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative spellings[change]

Right now, the system that we are using for alternative spellings of words is kind of dated and it is more trouble than it is worth. The way that the English Wiktionary does it is they use a template called Template:Alternative spelling of for alternative spellings. For example: See en:pinpoint and en:pin-point. I would like to suggest that we adopt their way of dealing with alternative spellings as it is much simpler and more efficient. However, before I can implement the change, I need community support. Therefore, I would like to know what you guys think of it. This means that we would also need to go through all of the alternative spellings that we already have and switch them over to the new way of doing it. I would not mind doing this by myself. It would also add the alternative spellings into a category called Category:Other spellings. What do you guys think? Razorflame 19:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The pages at those links don't exist. · Tygrrr... 19:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I have dared to modify and fix the links. ;) Pmlineditor  17:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that the English Wikipedias' way of doing and dealing with alternative spellings here would be more beneficial to us because it would allow us to more easily deal with them. Cheers, Razorflame 01:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Accelerator script[change]

... doesn't work with Vector. Is there any way to fix that? Pmlineditor  17:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are two ways: 1) First, don't use Vector. ;) 2) Ask the creater of the scribt on enwikt if there is a way to fix it. I think there needs to be change something on the scribt. See this page. --Barras (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It would actually be better to ask him directly on his talk page of the script over on the English Wiktionary: en:User talk:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js. I will bring this up with him if I see him on IRC or over on the English Wiktionary, as that is where I have been incredibly active lately. Cheers, Razorflame 20:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Add the acceleration script to User:Pmlinediter/vector.js to make it work. Cheers, Razorflame 13:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
You'll have to add it to Special:MyPage/vector.js to work with vector (they haven't implemented Special:MyPage/common.js yet). Conrad.Irwin 13:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Is Simple Wiktionary available as a text file?[change]

Hello fellow believers in starting simple -

I run a website ([1]) that helps many ESL learners get a grip on basic vocab, mainly through rendering pedagogical Paul Nation's many insights into word frequency and coverage.

I am trying to develop a new routine, in which learners match a simple defintion to a set of concordance lines with the keyword missing. For example, they see this:

A. an animal that barks B. an animnal that meows C. an animal that hisses D. an animal that mooes

Let's take the _____ out for a walk
Luckily their _____ chased off the burglar
For company a _____ is preferable to a cat
A neighbour's _____ bit the postman
Fight? Like a _____ and a cat, that's all

I have previously made "toy" or small systems like this that have been very successful in research terms. Now I am trying to scale up and do the same thing for whole frequency lists. To this end, I have assembled a simple corpus of graded readers (about five years work). Now, I am looking for a large-scale source of simple base-sense definitions. Wiki SImple is my obvious answer.

However, to dig the definitions out of Web pages by hand (and mouse) would take about a month per thousand words. On the other hand, if I had the main information in a single text or html file I could extract it programmatically. And it could go directly into the service of language learning.

Does anyone know if such a resource exists or is available?

Thanks

Tom Cobb Univ Quebec at Montreal

I'm not exactly sure how one would be able to download the whole wiki into a text file, and I am not sure if it can be done. I'll let you know if I come up with anything. Cheers, Razorflame 10:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. If you go to this site, you can download backup database dumps for whole wikimedia wikis. I think that this is what you are looking for. Cheers, Razorflame 10:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Logo Vote[change]

The Wiktionary logo vote is set to start 2009-12-07 00:01. The first round will continue until 2009-12-31 23:59 at which point the second round will last until 2010-01-31 23:59. Anyone who understands a foreign language that the voting page has not been translated into, please consider contributing a translation. Other Wiktionaries still need to be notified about the vote, so please help post messages into other Wiktionaries. Thank you. --Yair rand (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Major overhaul discussion[change]

Please see here: Wiktionary:Simple talk/Restructure of Simple Wiktionary. Cheers, Razorflame 01:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)