Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats' noticeboard

Archives

What's the difference between admin and sysop?

From the header links section:

 Former administrators Desysoppings by month Logs

So what is the difference between a sysop and an admin? I believe the answer is "nothing"? If so, I think we should use a single term everywhere. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No difference (on WP, anyway). Trying to force everyone to use the same terminology would be interesting exercise in large-scale cat herding. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have machine language translators; I assume they could be scripted to display a user's choice of admin or sysop, or color or colour, etc. Given that we have such capability in our hands, it seems a shame not to use it instead of having people changing articles to fit with either British or American spellings according to their preference. SilkTork (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a difference between talk pages and documentation though. If "de-sysop" is a term, would "de-admin" be usable? Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistically challenging, given the hard consonant "s" in desysop but the soft e-a of de-admin, which is likely why use the former and not the latter. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we should kick it like The New Yorker and say deädmin.^[sarcasm] -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the term defrocked. It has been used in an ecclesiastical context for centuries and trips easily off the tongue and keyboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Etymologically sysop comes from "system operator" and admin comes from "administrator". Over the years anyone with extended privileges got the name sysop even if they did not operate the underlying system. Administrator is far closer to what we do, though I think internally in the software the term sysop is used. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know the etymology of sysop, but I always find myself using the heretical pronunciation of sy-sop and de-sy-sopping instead. It's just always felt better to me. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I always pronounce it that way because 1) I didn't know the history until long after I'd already started pronouncing it that way and 2) it's the natural way to pronounce it in English if you just come across the word without knowing the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you see "sysop" and think "sy-sop" and not "sys-op"? That's... surprising. Primefac (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on your background - if you have a technical/engineering or other background where "operator" is used and shortened to "op", then "foo-op" is the natural way for you to read such a word (see "chanop" on IRC). If not, then often the first way you parse something sticks. (And to answer HighInBC's question, yes, the internal MediaWiki name for the administrator group is indeed sysop). firefly ( t · c ) 11:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of how I used to think Ingatestone was pronounced "in-ga-tes-tone", until I happened to take a train in that direction and heard the announcer say "in-gate-stone"... — Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The perils of being British. I was very disappointed to find out that Slaithwaite wasn’t the most northern word ever (Slaaaaayth-waaaait) but instead the rather duller Slouw-itt. Bah. — Trey Maturin™ 20:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trey Maturin: Really? That's amazing. To me, the word as it is is a beautiful piece of pure Northern English, which no mere southerner could ever equal: they would pronounce it prosaically and boringly as it is spelt (and indeed they often do, if they encounter the name). Evidently you and I see things radically differently. JBW (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Southern softie chiming in here. Some friends of mine moved to Barnoldswick for a few years. I'd never have guessed from the 12 word spelling that the locals had the perfect rhyme for garlic, if such a modern luxury were ever to get that far north. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sys-op? annie? What's next, speye? Perhaps we need a WP:List of disputed pronounciations... Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sy-sop" for me as well, even though I knew it was from "system operator". Abbreviations sometimes do take on pronunciations of their own, and can deviate in meaning from the original source. SilkTork (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the difference between admin and sysop. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to argue with that. Primefac (talk) 14:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A rose by any other name. Those of us that used to run BBSes or have technical backgrounds always used sysop. Admin is the more "odd" name, one I never used until I came here in 06. Dennis Brown - 2¢
- What's more interesting is whether a *.gif file is pronounced starting with a J sound or a G sound. Of course, the right answer is a G sound, but that doesn't stop people from saying it wrong. And toilet paper, always tab out front, not in back.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - And vi(m) is far better than escape-meta-alt-control-shift, if this is the start a flame war contest. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regarding the pronunciation of GIF, how would you pronounce scuba? Sc-uhh-ba? Letters in an acronym do not always retain the sound they used in their original position. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown, you might find Toilet paper orientation an interesting diversion! SilkTork (talk) 10:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitant though I am to reopen a section from nearly two years ago, especially just to mention trivia, I feel driven to mention a couple of things brought to mind by some of the comments above. (1) Amakuru's mention of Ingatestone made me think of Penistone. The first two syllables rhyme with "tennis", and the third one is pronounced like the second syllable of "cotton", but I can't help wondering whether there are people who get it wrong. (2) In the famous film of "The Importance of Being Earnest", starring Edith Evans, the Reverend Chasuble refers to an architectural feature of his church as a "klerr-est-ary". In fact, the word "clerestory" is pronounced "clear story", being indeed a compund of those two words, though with an archaic spelling of "clear". JBW (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to remove the note about renaming in the editnotice?

SUL finalization, and with it the removal of 'crat's ability to renameuser, occurred in 2014. Somehow, that is almost a decade ago. Do we still need to tell people that this is not the place to request a rename? I wasn't around then (so take this with a grain of salt) but it took me a bit of research to even figure out why someone might think this is the place to request a rename in the first place. Removing it would decrease banner blindness / WP:BEANS issues (though there are worse things to inadvertently encourage editors to do). House Blaster^talk 23:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed it should be removed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done - did a little other trimming in there too. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Singular?

I don't know; perhaps for people of a younger generation than me "criteria" may have gone the same way as "data" did in my youth, so that they will see it as pedantic to say that it's a plural... or maybe not: as I said, I don't know. To me, however, reading "criteria 1" really seems wierd and distracting. Would anyone object to making it "criterion"? JBW (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 20:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1 sounds odd to me. Might be engvar though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's the hard n followed by the soft o, minus the actual verbiage used by someone more familiar with the intricacies of the English language. Something something mouth sounds do funny things when we don't expect them to. Primefac (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound a little weird but it's correct in all dialects as far as I know. And, by the way Primefac, it's a dubbayoo not an o. :) J947 † ^edits 08:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 1 is the current trend. It is as "correct" as Criterion 1, though more reflective of the way language is heading. Language evolves. I think there are more uses of "criteria 1" these days than "criterion 1". As such I'd object to "criterion 1" because it is somewhat out of date. We shouldn't be holding language evolution back. SilkTork (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criterix 1? :) Donald Albury 19:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criterix 1 → criterices 1&2... yeuch! :-) Cabayi (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of being pedantic, when the order is reversed to reflect more formal speech, it's clear that "criterion" is more appropriate: "under the first criterion" rather than "under the first criteria" (which is grammatically correct, but would mean an earlier set of criteria). The other issue is that "criterion/criteria" is usually used to mean a minimum standard, which means what is being pointed out here is actually "failure to meet the criteria" for continuing to hold the flag rather than actually fulfilling criteria. In that phrase "criteria" works because there are multiple standards to be met, but changing the current labels to something containing "failure" would result in more complaints from the folks being desysopped.

Unlike the case of "datum/data", most dictionaries do not currently accept the use of "criteria" as singular. Generally they point out that it is a common error. I think of it this way as well, though I am not an expert on all variations of English. (Not sure if I am from a younger generation than others here.) Dekimasuよ! 23:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the header

Xaosflux, you seem to misunderstand BRD. WP:BOLD means I don't have to preemptively seek consensus for changes I make, and BRD certainly does not impose that requirement. You can't just say "BRD" as a justification for a revert, particularly since that process is not mandatory and suggested in an essay, however widely used.

These changes I made do not modify what the header conveys, they only shorten the text. Nobody reads a wall of text from beginning to end, so we can just as well simplify it.

I am willing to discuss, but state your objections. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Xaosflux was following the next step in BRD, not telling you to follow it, but I do think they should've provided a rationale for the reversion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This. You were BOLD, I reverted, now we can discuss. For one, I don't like that big blue button you added - it clashes with the rest of the page. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as suggesting that reading directions at the noticeboard for bureaucrat actions is too onerous - I don't think so. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mediawiki button worked in RSN, NPOVN and other headers, on mobile it looks gorgeous, a bit less admittedly on desktop, but that's a purely technical question.

Also, I'm not saying the previous instructions were onerous, but we can convey the same info just in shorter and easier sentences, which is better. WP:POSA, particularly the Zinsser stuff, is what I have on mind. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it helps that you didn't leave an edit summary. The user reverted your bold edit and now we are discussing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]