Category:New: Difference between revisions

140 bytes added , 10 January 2023

m

Text replacement - "{{WikiStatus}}" to "{{Wiki status}}"

Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators

83,693

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-cnaacelr
+[[File:No Logo Uploaded Yet.png|frame|'''New wikis''' may not have a [[:Category:WikiLogo|logo]] yet, so we use this temporary 'logo' to advise.|alt=]]
-New Wikis, which therefore are {{tag|inactive}}.
+'''Category: New''' — this [[Special:Categories|category]] here on this WikiIndex wiki site is for '''new''' [[:Category:All|wiki sites]] that have just started up.  There is no absolute timescale cut-off point to clinically define 'new'.  Some very small [[wiki]]s with a tiny [[wiki community]], or those on a [[:Category:Special interest|little-known]] or niche [[:Category:Wiki Topic|subject]] might find difficulty gaining traction for their establishment; whereas a new wiki from the powerhouse that is the [[:Category:Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) with an already long-established huge community on a wide-reaching general subject such as an [[:Category:Encyclopedia|encyclopaedia]] or [[:Category:Travel guide|travel guide]] might become established extremely quickly.  But as loose ballpark timescale figure, ideally, no older than six months should be used to define 'new'.  Discretion, and a liberal dose of common sense is applicable here please!
-: Please explain why you think that? Best, [[MarkDilley]]
-::I was just looking for a category like this. A wiki that's just gone live with no content, waiting to be discovered by users would go right in the "Active" category, but there's actually very little activity going on there yet. Therefore, this category. &mdash;&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Times New Roman;">[[User:Sean Fennel]][[User talk:Sean Fennel|@]]</span> 21:07, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
-::: Yes, I agree that a "new" category might be useful, for wiki that have very little activity because they were started very recently. I wouldn't say new wiki are "inactive", because here at WikiIndex we've re-defined that word to mean [[:Category:Inactive]], URLs that once led to a wiki, but now do not (neither one of which are true of new wiki).
+Neu veröffentlichte, sichtbare Wikis ohne oder mit wenig Inhalt.
-::: On the other hand, I wouldn't be too upset if someone decided there are too many {{tag|Wiki Status}} categories, and decided to merge "New" with "Active" ("in use and not overrun by spam"). --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 18:20, 27 February 2007 (PST)
+:''See also:'' [[:category: Wiki age]] ''and'' [[template:Founded by]].
-----
+{{Wiki status}}<br>
+{{CategoryTOC}}
-[[category:Wiki Status]]

Category:New: Difference between revisions

Category:New (edit)

Revision as of 17:44, 10 January 2023