Category talk:Wiki status

dead vs inactive
I see there is a Category:Inactive with a related Template:Inactive, and a Category:Dead with a related Template:Wiki dead. Is there any useful difference between "inactive" status vs "dead" status? --DavidCary 09:30, 7 July 2009 (EDT)
 * It seems to be no difference between inactive and dead. I'd suggest to merge "inactive" into "dead". An edit on the wiki template could do this automatically. --Wolf | talk 09:36, 7 July 2009 (EDT)
 * MarkDilley prefers using Template:Inactive because it removes the listing from every category except "Inactive". (He says so on the Template:Wiki dead page.) --MarvelZuvembie 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)


 * This template inactive is a drag! Just I encountered a Wiki Felix Pleşoianu Wiki run by one of our early users here, which was striked out by this template bit quite active indeed. This is the case in more than 15% of Wikis with this template over them. I uncovered lots of them in the recent month. Manorainjan (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Private is not consistent a member of Wiki status
$$
 * (imported from WikiIndex talk:Community portal)

Manorainjan posed an interesting question on my talk page, which ought to be thrown open to the wider community; his question quoted as follows: "private"

So basically, should Category:Private remain a sub-category of Category:Wiki status, or should Category:Private be a sub-cat of Category:Wiki Edit Mode – or even both? Manorainjan expresses good rationale for a change, and I'm inclined to support him. Another example which lends support for change, is that a wiki can be private, but can also have viggorous activity – which might place it in the Category:Vibrant sub-cat of Wiki status. I think if we do move Category:Private under the Category:Wiki Edit Mode umbrella, then it could even be a sub-cat of Category:ByInvitation?

Discussions and opinions needed, please! Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • Admin / 'Crat • talk2HH 13:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We started category private after a conversation about inclusion to WikiIndex or not. My original vision of this wiki was to be a place where people could find active wikis to work on.  SwitchWiki was that idea's name.  Just as I don't like having, structurally, inactive / dead wiki in active wiki categories - I feel that way about private. My 2 cents :-)  Best, MarkDilley
 * Inactive/private wikis There is still value in listing and connecting with private wikis which are active, since a reader here could gain access to it. In fact, it might be helpful to have this place be a funnel for invitations to wikis. I am glad that we have information on dead/dormant wikis as well as active ones because this site helps to document the history of wikis. But Mark is also correct that there should be some scheme for navigating only wikis where someone has a legitimate chance to participate rather than an indefinite list of abandoned and locked down wikis which dominate every category. Koavf (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Call for clarity
There are two questions to be dealt with:
 * 1) Is the property 'Private' really fitting in the same category with {Active, Dormant, Dead, Needs love, etc.}?
 * 2) How should dead or private Wikis be listed; shall they 'disturb'/mix with the listings of active/accessible Wikis?

I see the discussion as mixed up on both topics which does not allow for solution. therefore I suggest to solve question 1 first and then try for question 2 which in my opinion calls for another kind of Wiki-Status possibly called 'Category:Wiki Accessibility' Manorainjan (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My inclination is that the designation "Private" has more to do with a wiki's EditMode than it does with a wiki's Status. I don't think a new "Accessibility" class of categories is needed. That's pretty much what "EditMode" is already. I am in favor is making "Private" one of the options for "EditMode". I suppose the clarification which would need to be made the difference between "ByInvitation" and "Private." To my mind, the former indicates that you could ostensibly obtain an invitation whereas the latter would be reserved for those which are closed to new participants. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Overview
I'm trying to show here in a table how Wiki status relates to Edit Mode and other corresponding categorisations ° = old term/cat * = new term/cat > = moved term/cat Some words about 'Needs love': Is it upon us to judge what has to happen? We write down what is, not what should be or will be. 'Spammed': It is spammed because those folks are not active to remove it. So, SPAM or not, the thing to detect is the level of constructive activity which leads to progress. SPAM is only the most visible aspect of lack of constructive activity. And even SPAMer stop doing their thing on a totally dormant Wiki. If we call that Wiki spammed, than SPAMer could use our Index to select SPAMable Wikis. Also 'Needs love' implies that we are thinking this Wiki should progress. But it is also not upon us to approve of Wikis, just like it is not our cup of tea to help destroy them ;-) 'Halted' is essentially the same as Read-only because RadOnly is practically the only thing one can do to halt the Wiki I think. But maybe one can kind of halt a Wiki by closing for new Members. It looks like Wikimania Wikis are halted like that and then 'moved' to some kind of own archive place. Any comments? Nobody? Manorainjan (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Will have to think about some of these, have strong feelings need to sort out. One of them, Needs love is a wiki that is stumbling along, it is neither new, vibrant, or dormant.  It needs people to love it.  No judgement there.  (It is not spammed, any wiki that is spammed, is, well, spammed.)  :-)  Thanks for broaching the conversation!!  Best, MarkDilley
 * Talking about "feelings" (euphemism of interpretations/thought): I get the "feeling" that Wikipeople who needed love themselves projected this to what they where dealing with -> Wikis and therefore coined this term. There is more expectation in the term Needs love than observation, whereas Spammed is an observation. Also, if taken seriously, Needs love is valid for each and every Wiki or whatever project. Therefore it is not a useful statement. It does not supply specific information about that Wiki. Manorainjan (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of projection there, Manorainjan. I use the status "Needs love" frequently to describe wikis which are not my own, but are struggling to maintain output. And yet, I don't feel unloved. :-) Granted, the term was already in place here when I started using it. In your schema above, you have not yet addressed wikis which do not fall into the categories "Vibrant", "Active", or "Dormant." I find "Needs love" to be a sufficient middle point between "Active" and "Dormant," the equivalent of saying "Active, but not very." On the other hand, "Dormant" implies a complete cessation of activity. We could change the name if we need to, but that seems to me a bit like arguing about window dressing. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets stay with the point that Needs love does not describe what is but what should be. Creating Category:Needs love Ray described its purpose as "dusty – please adopt one if you would like". It calls for a change which is not our department. Who are we to judge about a Wiki what it needs? We are not the Wiki-welfare-agency. We do not adopt orphans, got enough to do with our project. We are the Wiki-registry. If need be to have finely graduated terms in the status category why not have SomeActivity there?Manorainjan (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a rather muted call, one which goes unheeded for the most part. That said, I would be OK with SomeActivity or Semi-Active. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK is in table now. SemiActive could be considered as a condition which would most likely not prevail for long. Manorainjan (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Locked
Another status Category:Locked is a status that a handful of wikis have now. It seems like this is a distinct method of categorizing: these are readable but not necessarily abandoned. E.g. MeatballWiki. Thoughts? Koavf (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This category was initially created in an unconnected way and for 8 Wikis which are all unreadable. I already suggested the Status 'Halted' for a condition that denotes a conscious decision of the Leader resulting in a 0-development of the wiki indicating even less movement than Dormant. From my POV the supposed status Locked would be better described by
 * Progress: Halted + EditMode: OpenEdit + MembershipMode: AccountLess + ViewMode: OpenView in case of MeatballWiki
 * Progress: Halted + EditMode: LoginToEdit + MembershipMode: Closed + ViewMode: LoginToViewAny in case of Romansh Wiktionary
 * Manorainjan (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What status for 403 error?
What wiki status should I put when attempted to look at a wiki results in "403 Forbidden"? ("You don't have permission to access / on this server. Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.") --EarthFurst (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2016 (PDT)
 * On first sight one has to assume that the wiki still exists but that there are technical problems of hopefully temporal nature. Therefore one can not actually say anything about the status, because one can not access the fundamental information about it. So one would mark that wiki page with

or if one has reason to believe it a controlled interruption. Status will not change. After some time one can come back and try again, to see if the outage persists. How much time, is still to be determined. Certainly more than a day. Should the condition persist (maybe 3 tests in 3 month and always down), the activity status could become Down. Other stati would be unchanged serving as historical data. If the wiki was archived, Archived would be better than Down.  Manorainjan  15:55, 9 May 2016 (PDT)

Technical problem
I found two wikis with technical problems. (See here ("Broken DB") and here ("Time out on loading").) In my opinion, there is no suitable category for them. It is neither "functional" ("Needs love") nor "dormant" nor "spammed". You could set the status to "dead", but "dead" would describe a permanent state, while technical problems are usually (hopefully) temporary... --5.83.136.21 22:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a fantastic suggestion! Consider it done (with a slight grammar tweak).  Greatly appreciate your input here on WikiIndex.  :-))  Best regards, Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin / 'Crat • talk2HH 13:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest for Template:Wiki to expand the code:
 *  |Category: 
 * to
 *  |Category: 
 * Possible values for "status_reason"
 * "broken DB", "timeout on loading site", ...
 * Greatings! --5.83.136.21 09:11, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting . . . but not sure of its validity in the infobox, for a number of reasons. First is that we use our infobox for very specific information which is applicable to the vast majority of our indexed wiki sites; and use textual prose to highlight specific features and / or issues.  Second is that it will create a new semantic property of limited value, and limited use.
 * I think your suggestion would be better displayed as a 'headline' message, similar to our (see how it displays here) (maybe name the template  or similar??), to include a date we notice technical problems, and include a reason as an additional parameter.  Using a separate template will highlight to other WikiIndex readers to visit the wiki site in question to see if the problem assists, rather than ignore the wiki because our infobox might seem to be a collective of rigid, stable parameters, and more 'de facto' information, rather than transitionary information.
 * What are your thoughts? Any different or further suggestions?  Best,  Sean, aka Hoof Hearted  • Admin / 'Crat • talk2HH 07:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At the moment there are two entries in the Category:Technical problem:
 * JurisPedia (en)
 * "!!! Technical problems !!!"
 * "Error: Timeout on loading the page"
 * JurisPedia (nl)
 * "!!! Technical problems due to broken database !!!"
 * "Error: 144 Table './jurispedia_wiki/objectcache' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed (localhost)"
 * (Please see there!) I am thinking about a proper way/place there to put the details of the "technical problem"... --5.83.136.21 01:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)