WikiIndex talk:WikiProject - By Size

WikiIndex - wikis, wiki people, wiki software, and wiki ideas
Jump to: navigation, search

not really a measure for quality[edit]

MattisManzel 06:32, 19 Mar 2006 (EST): size is ok. But it's not really a measure for quality. I think measuring the number of links on the wiki-node to wikis who link back to the wiki-node of the measured wiki might be interesting. Plus if a wiki has a link to the wiki-node on its frontpage or in the sidebar. This doesn't measure quality either, but a certain degree of wikiness :) OneBigSoup-wise, I mean. The competitve attitude (create stubs to push your ranking) vs. the collaborative attitude (look around and make others link back).

Stubs don't count when counting articles. Neither do redirects, talk pages, user pages, etc. We'll see if this Size project gets off the ground. TedErnst | talk 11:09, 19 Mar 2006 (EST)
This page needs to make it clear that by size, it is refering to the number of full-fledged webpages. User:BlankVerse | talk 21:34, 29 Mar 2006 (EST)
" Stubs don't count when counting articles." What about wikis that use OddMuse? It looks like those wikis don't have a non-stub page count. --EarthFurst 21:24, 25 October 2006 (EDT)
“Stubs don't count when counting articles.” What about wikis that use Wetpaint? Wetpaint wikis don't seem to have a stats page. WikiIndex pagecount of 73 for Arrestapedia was derived from number of pages in Arrestapedia's “Recently Updated Pages” report .. but that report includes stubs such as “3.13 Development Arrested” page which consists of a “This is a template page...” default message. --EarthFurst 18:42, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Use real size numbers[edit]

Size is an extremely important parameter. When I search for wikis, I will almost always be most interested in the biggest/most active. The way size is measured is not very important, as long as it is as consistent as possible. Fortunately, MediWiki already has a generally available "real, substantial pages" measure, so it makes sense to use that.

But I find the categories here very confusing. When I look at an article here, and see a wiki rated as "over 200 pages", I immediately want to know, 200-500? 200-1000? 200-2000? I don't think these categories are helpful. Why not just say "about 237 pages" or "about 237 pages on 14feb07"? Appropriate, user-controllable categories can usefully be applied later, but why fuzz the data from the get-go? And if categories *are* going to be applied at the source, they should have a full name there, 200to999 etc. The short form category name should only be used in an ordered list where the bounds are obvious.--69.87.199.67 05:53, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Thanks for the input. I think we can make this in a better way: (clear names for size categories,date stamping)
BTW: What about size classes "1" for the biggest, "2" for wikis with a half of pages --Peu | talk 06:08, 15 February 2007 (PST)

new readable names for size categories...[edit]

...we have only to change the categorization in the template:Size from {{{wiki_size}}} to {{{{{wiki_size}}}}} than all old-style size cats will be displayed in the readable named new size cats. --Wolf | talk 19:15, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

Template:CategoryDiscussions[edit]

Note: in order to assist readability of included pages, please ensure the template rendering this table is kept at the BOTTOM of the displayed page.