Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
Category talk:New: Difference between revisions
m
Text replacement - "WikiBirthday" to "wiki birthday"
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "Wiki Age" to "Wiki age") |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "WikiBirthday" to "wiki birthday") |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::: Yes, I agree that a [[:Category:New|'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). | ::: Yes, I agree that a [[:Category:New|'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). | ||
::: On the other hand, I wouldn't be too upset if someone decided there are too many [[:Category:Wiki | ::: On the other hand, I wouldn't be too upset if someone decided there are too many [[:Category:Wiki status|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) | ||
==When is a wiki's status no longer New?== | ==When is a wiki's status no longer New?== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:I agree, it's a silly cat. "A wiki that's just gone live with no content" - that's how they all start. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 23:00, 24 October 2009 (EDT) | :I agree, it's a silly cat. "A wiki that's just gone live with no content" - that's how they all start. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 23:00, 24 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:: Yes, all wiki start out that way. I suppose we ''could'' leave a wiki status as "New" indefinitely, until something happens. Until it would be more accurate to call it some other [[:Category:Wiki | :: Yes, all wiki start out that way. I suppose we ''could'' leave a wiki status as "New" indefinitely, until something happens. Until it would be more accurate to call it some other [[:Category:Wiki status]] -- perhaps [[:Category:Active|"Active"]] or [[:Category:Spammed|"Spammed"]] or "Inactive" or [[:Category:Dead|"Dead"]]. What do you think we should do? --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:15, 24 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::: I'd like to keep New category. I think it is a reasonable way of letting people know of a wiki that relatively New and is thus probably a wiki they haven't looked at and probably needs more contributions. I was thinking of taking [[Apologetics Wiki]] and adding it to a birth category (perhaps 2009 March births?)[http://www.apologetics-wiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&dir=prev&limit=7&action=history]. I think a wiki should lose New status when (a) after seven months (so Apologetics Wiki would lose its New status in November (1 month old in April, 2 months old in May, 3 in June, 4 in July, 5 in Aug, 6 in Sept and 7 in October) or (b) it gets big enough (more than 100 articles?) --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 01:58, 25 October 2009 (EDT) | ::: I'd like to keep New category. I think it is a reasonable way of letting people know of a wiki that relatively New and is thus probably a wiki they haven't looked at and probably needs more contributions. I was thinking of taking [[Apologetics Wiki]] and adding it to a birth category (perhaps 2009 March births?)[http://www.apologetics-wiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&dir=prev&limit=7&action=history]. I think a wiki should lose New status when (a) after seven months (so Apologetics Wiki would lose its New status in November (1 month old in April, 2 months old in May, 3 in June, 4 in July, 5 in Aug, 6 in Sept and 7 in October) or (b) it gets big enough (more than 100 articles?) --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 01:58, 25 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::I like the "birth" (or founding?) cat idea. It doesn't require updating - stuff that is in recent "founding date" cats is new. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 18:46, 25 October 2009 (EDT) | ::::I like the "birth" (or founding?) cat idea. It doesn't require updating - stuff that is in recent "founding date" cats is new. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 18:46, 25 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
I find it useful to let people know that a wiki is new. I like the idea of adding a wikis birthday, (see [http:// | I find it useful to let people know that a wiki is new. I like the idea of adding a wikis birthday, (see [http://wiki birthday.org wiki birthday.org]. If we keep the new status - then yea, in x months it should be replaced by another [[:Category:Wiki status|wiki status]]. [[MarkDilley]] | ||
:I see the "New" category as being distinct from [[:Category:Dormant|"Dormant"]]. Many new wikis might appear to be dormant, primarily because they haven't caught on yet. Of course, some may never become very active. I think it's a useful definition to let people know that it may not have a lot of activity or content yet. The status probably should change to "Active" or "Dormant" after a suitable period has passed. Of course, that would require someone to monitor the listing or monitor the "New" category. In practice, I suspect that the entries will only be updated in a haphazard fashion. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 13:41, 28 October 2009 (EDT) | :I see the "New" category as being distinct from [[:Category:Dormant|"Dormant"]]. Many new wikis might appear to be dormant, primarily because they haven't caught on yet. Of course, some may never become very active. I think it's a useful definition to let people know that it may not have a lot of activity or content yet. The status probably should change to "Active" or "Dormant" after a suitable period has passed. Of course, that would require someone to monitor the listing or monitor the "New" category. In practice, I suspect that the entries will only be updated in a haphazard fashion. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 13:41, 28 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
==PROPOSAL: a follow-on category== | ==PROPOSAL: a follow-on category== | ||
Following the above discussions, when six months has elapsed, the 'new' category is no longer appropriate, and sometimes the other available status categories might not be appropriate. So what about a ''''Fledgling'''' category (or similar) for slow or quiet wikis between 6 months and a year old? Then from a year onwards, they should hopefully be 'active', if not then they can then reasonably be defined as 'dormant' or ' | Following the above discussions, when six months has elapsed, the 'new' category is no longer appropriate, and sometimes the other available status categories might not be appropriate. So what about a ''''Fledgling'''' category (or similar) for slow or quiet wikis between 6 months and a year old? Then from a year onwards, they should hopefully be 'active', if not then they can then reasonably be defined as 'dormant' or 'Needs love'. This fledgling category could allow for an element of spamming, as a result of the infancy of the wiki not allowing a satisfactory anti-spam policy or measures. Discuss please! [[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] 11:43, 26 September 2011 (PDT) | ||