WikiIndex talk:Proposal: domain name change

From WikiIndex
Jump to: navigation, search

Who is really the one deciding the name?[edit]

On the page it was written "Index.Wiki is reserved by Top Level Design (the .wiki registry) and is available for use by this community if desired."

The discussion about that had not taken place yet. Decision was not made by 'community'. But the experimental(?) Clone is already under the domain So, it is not only 'available', it is in use. Not that I'm surprised.

Information about why the server move is hanging are not given to the 'community', because nobody really cares about WikiIndex 'community'.Manorainjan (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I apologize for being unresponsive and not supporting the community discussion about the ServerName. I'm still imagining that the ServerName discussion is in the future after the ServerMove, but there is no reason the community can't start the discussion any time it wishes to. I don't know how the decision will be made about the ServerName ... any suggestions?
  • The wiki.index site is a testing version of WikiIndex where we can verify that all the needed extensions are installed and playing nicely with each other. It is not intended to be an immediate replacement for ... it is just a convenient location for me to host the server during this testing phase.
  • Again, I apologize for giving the impression that nobody really cares about the WikiIndex "community". The community is what's awesome about WikiIndex. Can we rebuild trust Manorainjan?
BrandonCsSanders (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
So awesome, that since 2008 You did not even add Your own wiki to this index? Manorainjan (talk) 17:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[edit]


  • Shortest domain that makes sense.
  • Easy to communicate to people
  • Doesn't have the ii typing difficulty (I'm forever typing wikiiindex).
    • All that would be arguments for a good secondary domain name that directs towards the actual name ;-)[edit]

  • If we choose a .wiki name it might increase Top Level Design's interest in WikiIndex because it helps to market the .wiki domain extension that they are the registry for. For example, I can imagine featuring Index.Wiki prominently on the Wiki.Wiki network, perhaps as a link in the navigation for every wiki in the farm. Linking to in the same way might also happen, but would be less attractive. BrandonCsSanders (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I think, the question now is not which Domains one could have as well and then redirect them. The question is, which would be our actual domain name, that address where all others direct to. Manorainjan (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[edit]

  • .wiki: This TLDomain is for Wikis. WikiIndex is a wiki.
  • We still hope to become an Index one time. It is our main objective.
  • WikiIndex: We do not index just everything, only Wikis. Therefore the actual name has to be WikiIndex, the Index of Wikis (and all matters pertaining to Wiki).
  • This wannabe Index of wikis is a wiki itself, therefore the term wiki appears two times in the domain name.
  • org: This wiki is not actually organized or the front-end of any organisation. It could have been fully automated if anybody would have the competence to automatise most of the processes. The use of TLD .org is actually imposture. Bad enough that we got less then 4% of Wikisphere indexed and still calling it an index. the org-part is neither needed nor justified. It also does not speak to the new visitor or general surfer anything of use for them.

Not that .wiki would actually mean that it is an organisation or organized, but at least it implies, connotes sufficiently the collaboration of many. Manorainjan (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I like to point out, that the domain does not mean a change in the name of the wiki. The Name would stay as WikiIndex. It is only a change in the TLD. It also requires no change in the logo. (whereas I find the current logo terrible!!)
If one would make the new domain, than it means to change the name of the wiki to Index. How silly is that?? Manorainjan (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The original Wikipedia: top-level domains were divided into two groups:
(a) country code top-level domains, and (b) generic top-level domains.
  • the WikiIndex is not local to any one country, so none of the country code top-level domains are appropriate
  • The original generic top-level domains were .com .edu .gov .mil .org (see Wikipedia: generic top-level domain).
  • the WikiIndex is noncommercial, not a United States-affiliated institutions of higher education, not a government agency, not a US DoD organization, so none of .com, .edu, .gov, or .mil are appropriate.
  • That leaves only .org "non-profit organizations" as the most appropriate of any of the original top-level domains.
It makes me sad when people are tricked into thinking that the commercial internet (".com") is all there is to the internet, or thinking that the top-level domain ".org" doesn't mean anything or "speak to" the general web-surfer. --DavidCary (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2015 (PDT)
I did neither write or implied that .org does not speak to the internet user. I think it does speak to the user and means something to them. What I say is, that WikiIndex is not actually any organisation. And even more than that I say that it is more a wiki than an organisation. Also I like to emphasize that I actually not care so much about lack of possibilities in the past. Today we got .wiki as TLD. So not only .org is left as non fitting but least nonsensical solution. If we see a chance for change to the better, will we take it or dwell in problems of the past?
Maybe You can give some reasons, some facts or observations that support the claim that WikiIndex is an organisation? Manorainjan 23:48, 24 April 2015 (PDT)

Dear Manorainjan,

I am fascinated by your insistence that the people who edit WikiIndex are not an organisation. I suspect I still have a lot to learn about how people organize and coordinate their efforts in order to do things. I am pretty sure you know many things I don't know about organisation; how can I learn more?

On the other hand, the people who ought to know more about the ".org" domain than anyone else are the people at the Public Interest Registry. According to the Public Interest Registry FAQ, "Can I register a .org domain name if I am not a 501(c)? Yes, ... .org sites are run by clubs, incorporated and unincorporated not-for-profit organizations, industry associations, families, individuals, schools, foundations, and more."


I don't understand what it means for an "individual", by himself, to be an "organization". But if I'm reading that FAQ correctly, a website run by a single individual -- such as the person who started the WikiIndex -- qualifies for the ".org" domain. Since then, I hear he has handed over back-end maintenance to 2 other people, and has attracted a few people like you and me to post stuff. Surely that group of people are even more of an "organization" than a single person?

I'm guessing that your definition of "organization" involves more than one person and also using certain effective techniques for getting things done. (My definition of "organization" is apparently much looser, along the lines of "a group of individuals of voluntarily work towards some common goal in some place", and apparently I'm starting to think of the WikiIndex website as "a place" "in cyberspace"). Honestly, I'm much more interested in learning about those effective techniques for getting things done, than I am in what particular domain name we use to access this web site. Could you give me some links to websites or names of books that discuss techniques used by "real" organisations? --DavidCary (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2015 (PDT)

An organization is a consciously created, goal-oriented structure. It has founders and members. The members interact methodical based on the division of labor to reach a goal or ensure a purpose. There are structures, which by means of rules, processes and coordination assign certain functions to the specialized members in a defined processes. Beyond that You may delve into wikipedias pages about that topic.
The fact that the TLD .org is available to individuals is a purely commercial matter and has got nothing to do what it means to be an organization, obviously. Besides that I think it is reasonable to allow an individual to register an whenever they intend to found an organization. The internet is full of misnomer, euphemisms and all kind of lies. the question is, if we want to foster that? Manorainjan 16:36, 1 May 2015 (PDT)
If we would be organized, we would have declared procedures like that User talk:Minoa#down or archived? or macros to do it, or even scripts to do it fully automated. But our hand-picking approach to tedious work is so terribly outdated and unprofessional that waste of time and impossibility to reach the goal fully complement each other. Manorainjan 04:12, 4 May 2015 (PDT)[edit]

"I'd add my suggestion here that we should enter the 21st Century and use '' as our new domain." wrote User:Hoof Hearted at 15:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC) on Proposal:DotOrg (added by Manorainjan 23:58, 24 April 2015 (PDT)[edit]

The original silly idea of Mark in the new fashion of .wiki. Means a wiki about switches. Is that electrical or some gender fluid thingy? Is there any relation at all to what we do here? Would anybody encountering the name get the idea that htis might be the place where they would find an index of wikis? Manorainjan (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

It obviously means this type of switch. It's a metaphor for how you go to WikiIndex and from there can choose to go to one of many wikis via the hyperlinks from the articles. Kinda like how a cable goes into the switch and then you can turn the dial to create a connection to one of four cables on the other side of the switch. Anyone seeing the URL would immediately realize "oh, this must be a wiki that has an index of other wikis so that I can navigate from that wiki to any of those other wikis in the same way that I could turn a dial on an RJ-45 switch to change which cable I'm connecting to." Leucosticte (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not a fact. You are rightfully using the term RJ-45 switch to indicate a switch that connects to one of several RJ-45 cables. If You want to turn on a light, You got to use a light switch. The proper name therefore would include the type of options between You are switching. The type of options is wiki here. Therefore the correct domain name incorporating the idea of a switch would be expressing that it is a switch to chose between several wikis and that this switch itself is a wiki. Just instead of calling it basically an index, You call it a switch. Instead of or it would be or If at all we would assume that nearly everybody imagines a RJ-45 switch or any other network-swich wich are commonly called simply 'switch' than would indicate for them a wiki about those family of devices, just like was a wiki about weed ;-) --Manorainjan 04:16, 11 December 2017 (PST)
A word about shortening names: In any case where a specific name is used extensively people try to shorten it. Therefore You can shorten in any given context the name of that entity which is most commonly used and referred to. For example: When You are in the context of motorcycles You can talk about bikes and trikes omitting the cycle-part. But outside of the community of cyclists it would not make any sense. And the internet surfer as such, the one using google to find anything, is outside of any community or specific context. The specific context of wikis is not entered before one has opened the pages of wikiindex. While looking for anything that helps finding wikis on the internet, one is in the most common and unspecialised context. therefore, to omit the wiki-part in the domain name is always wrong. the TLD .wiki can not replace it. .wiki can replace the .com or .org and those last TLDs are in no way wiki-related. --Manorainjan 04:16, 11 December 2017 (PST)


What is the history of the Logo? Why does it include both WikiIndex and IndexWiki? BrandonCsSanders (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I think only after deciding the domain name it would make sense to discuss the logo. Manorainjan (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The existing logo says IndexWiki in the bottom of it. I was wondering why it has both WikiIndex and IndexWiki? BrandonCsSanders (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Dont ever get started with why is this logo as it is. There is not the slightest reason or logic in it. If You follow the WikiIndex:New logo decision You will not find ANY reason, only uninformed opinions. Manorainjan (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

About the illusion of importance of WikiIndex[edit]

  • Until today nobody really even tries to come up with any kind of statistics that can tell about the real importance of WikiIndex. Probably because nobody wants to face its true unimportance.
  • Look at the Alexa stats for and, or for a compare:
    • Incoming links: WI=248, AU=11,099. Relation: 45 times more links.
    • Rank: WI=720552, AU=8988. Ralation: 80
    • No one even bothered to supply contact info or anything.

Or compare it with Rank 6 and 2,026,648 links in or Memory Alpha, a StarTrek Wikia wiki ;-) Than You get an idea what is "important" to people. And did I mention that got 3 times more incoming links than us and a 60 times better ranking? ;-)

From this point of view we are totally free to move to whatever name, because WikiIndex is not established at all. Nobody ever cared to do it. WikiIndex did not even make it into the relevance rank for having a page on en:wikipedia de:wikipedia, fr:wikipedia or any other wikipedia. Manorainjan (talk) 03:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It is in the interwiki map, though. Leucosticte (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, one more link ;-) I'm sure this map can be adjusted if the domain changes! So this is no reason not to change the domain. Manorainjan (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Illusions I don't know that there are any illusions about it... Star Trek is really popular and wikis as a phenomenon aren't as popular. A wiki about Star Trek would likely be popular and a wiki about wikis would not be that popular. If incoming links and rankings are broken by moving the site, then that can only be worse for this site, right? Koavf (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As usual You did not get it: The number of incoming links is so few, that there is no relevance of having them or not having them. If You would create a lemma for WikiIndex on en:wikipedia, that would be hundred of times more relevant and useful than a few hundred incoming links from unimportant sites. And You can not make a totally unimportant wiki more unimportant ;-) We are rock bottom regarding this. To forward any incoming traffic from to is more than enough regarding those links. Manorainjan (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks As usual, you don't and are abusive and rude about it. If the site is small and has few links, then breaking them will only do a disservice. I think we all realize that there needs to be some method (possibly using HTTP, possibly by leaving the site at the original domain name, possibly something else) in order to retain what few links we have. Koavf (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It is sooo pathetic to quarrel about 200 links! If we would not only continue to be "plodding on" for the next 8 years to come but start doing work with system, speed and competence, than we would, amongst other things ask all indexed wikis to set back-links. That would generate us thousands of incoming links within short time. Manorainjan (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Incoming links If you have suggestions for working with system, speed, and competence, I'm definitely keen to read them. Do you have something in mind? Koavf (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure You are keen to "read" them, but not to act upon them like WikiIndex:Teamwork information where You did not take part. Manorainjan (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

What? I don't know what's happening here and I'm not sure that I've ever seen this page before. You are an incorrigible person. Koavf (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Koavf – it would seem that someone sneakily failed to include a few very important WikiIndex folks from that page. Smacks of attempted stealth empire building to me! Sean, aka Hoof HeartedAdmin / 'Crattalk2HH 12:52, 10 December 2017 (PST)
Shocking. Koavf (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2017 (PST)