Category talk:In preparation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (reply to Leucosticte) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Maybe we should put a limit (e.g. a year) on how long a site can stay in this category before we presume that it's never going to be ready? An exception might be sites like [[Wikimedia Wikidata]] that announce beforehand that it will be a long time in coming. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 20:29, 24 November 2012 (PST) | Maybe we should put a limit (e.g. a year) on how long a site can stay in this category before we presume that it's never going to be ready? An exception might be sites like [[Wikimedia Wikidata]] that announce beforehand that it will be a long time in coming. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 20:29, 24 November 2012 (PST) | ||
:I would suggest an absolute maximum of a six months - surely in reality, a wiki can be up and running with meaniful content within a month! But I agree for major projects like WMF - we should allow say a year. [[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • <sub>[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]]</sub> • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 14:03, 25 November 2012 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:03, 25 November 2012
Maybe we should put a limit (e.g. a year) on how long a site can stay in this category before we presume that it's never going to be ready? An exception might be sites like Wikimedia Wikidata that announce beforehand that it will be a long time in coming. Leucosticte (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2012 (PST)
- I would suggest an absolute maximum of a six months - surely in reality, a wiki can be up and running with meaniful content within a month! But I agree for major projects like WMF - we should allow say a year. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • Admin • talk2HH 14:03, 25 November 2012 (PST)