Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
WikiIndex talk:WikiProject - By Size: Difference between revisions
WikiIndex talk:WikiProject - By Size (edit)
Revision as of 21:16, 19 December 2022
, 19 December 2022Template:Talk header
(Use real size numbers) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) |
||
| (10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== not really a measure for quality == | {{Talk header}}{{TOC right}} | ||
==not really a measure for quality== | |||
: Stubs don't count when counting articles. Neither do | {{U|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 [[Wiki main page|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 [[stub]]s to push your ranking) vs. the collaborative attitude (look around and make others link back). | ||
:[[:Category:Stubs|Stubs]] don't count when counting articles. Neither do [[redirect]]s, [[talk page]]s, [[user page]]s, 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) | |||
::This page needs to make it clear that by size, it is refering to the number of full-fledged webpages. [[User:BlankVerse]] | <small>[[User talk:BlankVerse|talk]]</small> 21:34, 29 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]] | <small>[[User talk:BlankVerse|talk]]</small> 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. --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 21:24, 25 October 2006 (EDT) | ::" Stubs don't count when counting articles." What about wikis that use [[:Category:Oddmuse|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 [[:Category:Wetpaint|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) | |||
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.--[[ | ==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, [[:Category:MediaWiki|MediaWiki]] already has a generally available "real, substantial pages" measure, so it makes sense to use that. | |||
But I find the [[:Category:Wiki Size|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.--[[Special:Contributions/69.87.199.67|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 --[[Wolf Peuker|Peu]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 06:08, 15 February 2007 (PST) | |||
==new readable names for size categories...== | |||
...we have only to change the categorization in the [[template:Size]] from <nowiki>{{{wiki_size}}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{{{{wiki_size}}}}}</nowiki> than all old-style size cats will be displayed in the readable named new size cats. --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 19:15, 3 July 2007 (EDT) | |||
{{Category discussions}} | |||