4,624
edits
WikiIndex talk:WikiProject - By Size: Difference between revisions
WikiIndex talk:WikiProject - By Size (edit)
Revision as of 14:08, 15 February 2007
, 15 February 2007→Use real size numbers: re
(Use real size numbers) |
(→Use real size numbers: re) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
: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) | |||