Category talk:Wiki status: Difference between revisions

{{TOCright}}

==[[:Category:Private]] is not consistent a member of Wiki Status==

<blockquote>I think here is a change needed. A wiki could be dormant and private at the same time like [[Bible Wiki (biblewiki.net)]].  Private belongs to another aspect similar to editmode.  One has to create the aspect "accessibility" or anything else.<br>{public|private|onInvitation|adult|legitimation|etc.} which defines the scope of onlookers not of editors. Naturally the scope of editmode is narrower than "accessibility" the mode nnames would have quite a cut set. [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)</blockquote>

So basically, should [[:Category:Private]] remain a sub-category of [[:Category:Wiki Status]], or should Category:Private be a sub-cat of [[:Category:Wiki Edit Mode]] – or even both?  Manorainjan expresses good rationale for a change, and I'm inclined to support him.  Another example which lends support for change, is that a wiki can be private, but can also have viggorous activity – which might place it in the [[:Category:Vibrant]] sub-cat of Wiki Status.  I think if we do move Category:Private under the Category:Wiki Edit Mode umbrella, then it could even be a sub-cat of [[:Category:ByInvitation]]?

===call for clarity===

# Is the property 'Private' really fitting in the same category with {Active, Dormant, Dead, NeedsLove, etc.}?

# How should dead or private Wikis be listed; shall they 'disturb'/mix with the listings of active/accessible Wikis?   

I see the discussion as mixed up on both topics which does not allow for solution. therefore I suggest to solve question 1 first and then try for question 2 which in my opinion calls for another kind of Wiki-Status possibly called [[:Category:Wiki Accessibility]] [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 16:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

:My inclination is that the designation "Private" has more to do with a wiki's EditMode than it does with a wiki's Status. I don't think a new "Accessibility" class of categories is needed. That's pretty much what "EditMode" is already. I am in favor is making "Private" one of the options for "EditMode". I suppose the clarification which would need to be made the difference between "ByInvitation" and "Private." To my mind, the former indicates that you could ostensibly obtain an invitation whereas the latter would be reserved for those which are closed to new participants. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] ([[User talk:MarvelZuvembie|talk]]) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to show here in a table how Wiki Status relates to Edit Mode and other corresponding categorisations

|Active||LoginToEdit||>LoginViaForum°<br>DerivedAccount*||ViewArchive||ForwardedNoWiki*

|Dormant||PayToEdit||>ByInvitation°<br>InviteToAccount*||—||—

Some words about 'NeedsLove': Is it upon us to judge what has to happen? We write down what is, not what should be or will be. 'Spammed': It is spammed because those folks are not active to remove it. So, SPAM or not, the thing to detect is the level of constructive activity which leads to progress. SPAM is only the most visible aspect of lack of constructive activity. And even SPAMer stop doing their thing on a totally dormant Wiki. If we call that Wiki spammed, than SPAMer could use our Index to select SPAMable Wikis. Also 'NeedsLove' implies that we are thinking this Wiki should progress. But it is also not upon us to approve of Wikis, just like it is not our cup of tea to help [[User talk:Hoof Hearted/Archive4 - 2014#Wikia question|destroy]] them ;-) 'Halted' is essentially the same as ReadOnly because RadOnly is practically the only thing one can do to halt the Wiki I think. But maybe one can kind of halt a Wiki by closing for new Members. It looks like [[:Category:Wikimania|Wikimania]] Wikis are halted like that and then 'moved' to some kind of own archive place. Any comments? Nobody? [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 22:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

:Will have to think about some of these, have strong feelings need to sort out.  One of them, NeedsLove is a wiki that is stumbling along, it is neither new, vibrant, or dormant.  It needs people to love it.  No judgement there.  (It is not spammed, any wiki that is spammed, is, well, spammed.)  :-)  Thanks for broaching the conversation!!  Best, [[MarkDilley]]

::Talking about "feelings" (euphemism of interpretations/thought): I get the "feeling" that Wikipeople who needed love themselves projected this to what they where dealing with -> Wikis and therefore coined this term. There is more expectation in the term NeedsLove than observation, whereas Spammed is an observation. Also, if taken seriously, NeedsLove is valid for each and every Wiki or whatever project. Therefore it is not a useful statement. It does not supply specific information about that Wiki. [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

:::That's a lot of projection there, Manorainjan. I use the status "NeedsLove" frequently to describe wikis which are not my own, but are struggling to maintain output. And yet, I don't feel unloved. :-) Granted, the term was already in place here when I started using it. In your schema above, you have not yet addressed wikis which do not fall into the categories "Vibrant", "Active", or "Dormant." I find "NeedsLove" to be a sufficient middle point between "Active" and "Dormant," the equivalent of saying "Active, but not very." On the other hand, "Dormant" implies a complete cessation of activity. We could change the name if we need to, but that seems to me a bit like arguing about window dressing. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] ([[User talk:MarvelZuvembie|talk]]) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

::::Lets stay with the point that NeedsLove does not describe what is but what should be. Creating [[:Category:NeedsLove]] Ray described its purpose as "dusty – please adopt one if you would like". It calls for a change which is not our department. Who are we to judge about a Wiki what it needs? We are not the Wiki-welfare-agency. We do not adopt orphans, got enough to do with our project. We are the Wiki-registry. If need be to have finely graduated terms in the status category why not have SomeActivity there?[[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 20:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

|UnknownStatus ||YourWikiStatus

|UnknownEditMode||YourWikiEditMode

|NeedsLove ||is not what it is but what one should do //  replaced by SemiActive

|GoalReached ||is Halted with a Smile :-)

|GoalAbandoned ||is Halted with a frown :-(

I found two wikis with technical problems. (See [[JurisPedia (nl)|here]] ("Broken DB") and [[JurisPedia (en)|here]] ("Time out on loading").) In my opinion, there is no suitable category for them. It is neither "functional" ("[[:Category:NeedsLove|NeedsLove]]") nor "[[:Category:Dormant|dormant]]" nor "[[:Category:Spammed|spammed]]". You could set the status to "dead", but "dead" would describe a permanent state, while technical problems are usually (hopefully) temporary... --[[Special:Contributions/5.83.136.21|5.83.136.21]] 22:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

!colspan=11|<span style=font-size:22px>[[:Category:Wiki Status|Wiki Status]] [[Template:WikiStatus|comparison table]]</span><br><span style=font-size:12px>''click on the individual links in the coloured left column for a fuller detail of each status [[Special:Categories|category]]''<br>(scroll down past the table to see the list of [[wiki]]s in each category, click on <nowiki>[Collapse]</nowiki> at the top right to hide this table)</span>

!width= 8% style=background:#acc|[[:Category:All|wiki]] [[:Category:Wiki Status|status]]<br>name

{{CategoryDiscussions}}

[[Category:WikiProjects]]