WikiIndex talk:WikiProject - By Size: Difference between revisions
WikiIndex talk:WikiProject - By Size (edit)
Revision as of 13:53, 15 February 2007
, 15 February 2007Use real size numbers
EarthFurst (talk | contribs) (what about stubs on Oddmuse wikis?) |
(Use real size numbers) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[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 | == 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. 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) | ||
::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 OddMuse? It looks like those wikis don't have a non-stub page count. --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 21:24, 25 October 2006 (EDT) | ||
== 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) | |||