# Talk:Administrators of Wikimedia projects/Wikipedias/Archive/2004

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |

What does the grey color for simple:, fy: and others indicate? \Mikez 13:18, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I wonder how come there is one admin and two bureaucrats on gn? The gn:Special:Listadmins returns just one admin. Tomos 08:15, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How come there are more bureaucrats than admins on es? Ugen64 02:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

- Not any more. -Hapsiainen 14:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't Toki Pona Wikipedia be removed from this list? It was closed, althouh the site itself still exists. -Hapsiainen 14:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Heheh... And pt: has more inactive bureaucrats then all bureaucrats :) --Millosh 01:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

- And on the admins, of the 31 listed, only 11 are currently active on admin functions.
- Oh goody! :) -- Get_It 02:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I think that you should write (for bureaucrats) "5 (3)", not "2 (3)". The first number includes both, active and inactive bureaucrats. Also, do you have 31 or 32 admins (including bureaucrats)? --Millosh 05:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd prefer to write that "2 (+3)". That would be less ambigious, don't you think? \Mike(z) 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

- I think it should be X (Y), X should be the number of active sysops/bureaucrats and Y the number of inactive.
- Bureaucrats are also sysops, so, bureaucrats are included on the admins number. :) -- Get_It 12:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Mikez is right for notation. However, what is the notation of other people (i.e.: inclusive or exclusive)? As bureaucrats are admins, the number of admins is inclusive, so I used inclusive notation for inactive admins/bureaucrats... And, of course, the notation should be added into the description of the page. --Millosh 21:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)