WikiIndex talk:WikiProject - By Size: Difference between revisions

== not really a measure for quality ==

[[User:MattisManzel|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 [[WikiNode|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]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 11:09, 19 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. --[[User:EarthFurst|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. --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 18:42, 7 January 2008 (EST)

== Use real size numbers ==

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.--[[User:69.87.199.67|69.87.199.67]] 05:53, 15 February 2007 (PST)

BTW: What about size classes "1" for the biggest, "2" for wikis with a half of pages --[[Wolf Peuker|Peu]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 06:08, 15 February 2007 (PST)

== new readable names for size categories... ==

from <nowiki>{{{wiki_size}}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{{{{wiki_size}}}}}</nowiki>