WikiIndex talk:WikiProject - By Size: Difference between revisions
(→Use real size numbers: re) |
(new readable names for size categories...) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:Thanks for the input. I think we can make this in a better way: (clear names for size categories,date stamping) | :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) | 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) | ||
== new readable names for size categories... == | |||
...we have only to change the categorization in the Template:Size | |||
from <nowiki>{{{wiki_size}}}</nowiki> to <nowiki>{{{{{wiki_size}}}}}</nowiki> | |||
than all old-style size cats will be displayed in the readable named new size cats. --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 19:15, 3 July 2007 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 23:15, 3 July 2007
not really a measure for quality
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 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 | talk 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 | talk 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. --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.--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 --Peu | talk 06:08, 15 February 2007 (PST)
new readable names for size categories...
...we have only to change the categorization in the Template:Size from {{{wiki_size}}} to {{{{{wiki_size}}}}} than all old-style size cats will be displayed in the readable named new size cats. --Wolf | talk 19:15, 3 July 2007 (EDT)