Category talk:New: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
EarthFurst (talk | contribs) (I would like to keep New category) |
Huw Powell (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::: 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) | |||
Revision as of 22:46, 25 October 2009
When is a wiki's status no longer New? When it is three months old? Seven months old? --EarthFurst 19:45, 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. 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 Status -- perhaps "Active" or "Spammed" or "Inactive" or "Dead". What do you think we should do? --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?)[1]. 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?) --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. Huw Powell 18:46, 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?)[1]. 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?) --EarthFurst 01:58, 25 October 2009 (EDT)