Category talk:New: Difference between revisions
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (→Vote on how to define "new": added my vote, tidied section to votes similar to what are used on Wikipedia) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (→PROPOSAL: a follow-on category: new section) |
||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
Let's call the whole "new" thing off. Allow wiki creators/reps to indicate when the wiki first went online, and number of members, and let readers of WikiIndex decide for themselves the "status" of a wiki, because the word new is simply too subjective. Example: [http://www.dishiwiki.com Our recipe wiki] went online about two years ago, with just a hundred or so pages (recipes). And it was pretty awful. Well, not awful, but it was bare bones and somewhat naive. Slowly its content increased, features were added, and the layout was refined. Within a year, DishiWiki still had only about 20 members, but its members were proud and fond of it. Now, about two years later, it has over one thousand quality, well-edited recipes, tips and other cooking-centric material, but still only about 30 members, but who are fonder of it than ever. Bear in mind that DishiWiki has yet to "go public" through any type of marketing, SEO or even an email campaign. There is plenty of time for that. But I, and probably other members, still think of DishiWiki as new -- even at two years old. That's a good example of the subjectivity of newness. Perhaps those who protest loudly about newness are too close to be objective, or are merely being vain and consider the word new to be pejorative. So just remove "new" from any status or descriptor, and substitute more objective qualities such as a "live" date or "founded" date, and number of members or active members, etc. (Note: If you look at DishiWiki's Statistics page, you will see only 6 members. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly, I '''very recently''' moved DishiWiki to a third hosting service, this time unable to export the corrupted database and having to merely export/import pages. A couple members instinctively re-created their accounts, but other members have yet to rejoin. As I said, embarrassing, but stuff happens.) [[User:Dishiwiki|Dishiwiki]] 02:29, 12 December 2009 (EST) | Let's call the whole "new" thing off. Allow wiki creators/reps to indicate when the wiki first went online, and number of members, and let readers of WikiIndex decide for themselves the "status" of a wiki, because the word new is simply too subjective. Example: [http://www.dishiwiki.com Our recipe wiki] went online about two years ago, with just a hundred or so pages (recipes). And it was pretty awful. Well, not awful, but it was bare bones and somewhat naive. Slowly its content increased, features were added, and the layout was refined. Within a year, DishiWiki still had only about 20 members, but its members were proud and fond of it. Now, about two years later, it has over one thousand quality, well-edited recipes, tips and other cooking-centric material, but still only about 30 members, but who are fonder of it than ever. Bear in mind that DishiWiki has yet to "go public" through any type of marketing, SEO or even an email campaign. There is plenty of time for that. But I, and probably other members, still think of DishiWiki as new -- even at two years old. That's a good example of the subjectivity of newness. Perhaps those who protest loudly about newness are too close to be objective, or are merely being vain and consider the word new to be pejorative. So just remove "new" from any status or descriptor, and substitute more objective qualities such as a "live" date or "founded" date, and number of members or active members, etc. (Note: If you look at DishiWiki's Statistics page, you will see only 6 members. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly, I '''very recently''' moved DishiWiki to a third hosting service, this time unable to export the corrupted database and having to merely export/import pages. A couple members instinctively re-created their accounts, but other members have yet to rejoin. As I said, embarrassing, but stuff happens.) [[User:Dishiwiki|Dishiwiki]] 02:29, 12 December 2009 (EST) | ||
== PROPOSAL: a follow-on category == | |||
Following the above discussions, when six months has elapsed, the 'new' category is no longer appropriate, and sometimes the other available status categories might not be appropriate. So what about a ''''Fledgling'''' category (or similar) for slow or quiet wikis between 6 months and a year old? Then from a year onwards, they should hopefully be 'active', if not then they can then reasonably be defined as 'dormant' or 'NeedsLove'. This fledgling category could allow for an element of spamming, as a result of the infancy of the wiki not allowing a satisfactory anti-spam policy or measures. Discuss please! [[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] 11:43, 26 September 2011 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 18:43, 26 September 2011
New Wikis, which therefore are inactive.
- Please explain why you think that? Best, MarkDilley
- I was just looking for a category like this. A wiki that's just gone live with no content, waiting to be discovered by users would go right in the "Active" category, but there's actually very little activity going on there yet. Therefore, this category. — User:Sean Fennel@ 21:07, 25 September 2006 (EDT)
- Yes, I agree that a "new" category might be useful, for wiki that have very little activity because they were started very recently. I wouldn't say new wiki are "inactive", because here at WikiIndex we've re-defined that word to mean Category:Inactive, URLs that once led to a wiki, but now do not (neither one of which are true of new wiki).
- On the other hand, I wouldn't be too upset if someone decided there are too many Wiki Status categories, and decided to merge "New" with "Active" ("in use and not overrun by spam"). --DavidCary 18:20, 27 February 2007 (PST)
When is a wiki's status no longer New?
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)
I find it useful to let people know that a wiki is new. I like the idea of adding a wikis birthday, (see WikiBirthday.org. If we keep the new status - then yea, in x months it should be replaced by another wiki status. MarkDilley
- I see the "New" category as being distinct from "Dormant". Many new wikis might appear to be dormant, primarily because they haven't caught on yet. Of course, some may never become very active. I think it's a useful definition to let people know that it may not have a lot of activity or content yet. The status probably should change to "Active" or "Dormant" after a suitable period has passed. Of course, that would require someone to monitor the listing or monitor the "New" category. In practice, I suspect that the entries will only be updated in a haphazard fashion. --MarvelZuvembie 13:41, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
Vote on how to define "new"
Proposal to define "new" as 6 months or less, from the day the wiki went online. Vote (for, against, or conditional): - Lumenos 12:23, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
- Voting for - Lumenos 12:23, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
- Voting for - Hoof Hearted 11:35, 26 September 2011 (PDT)
How to know when a wiki went online?
How will we know the day the wiki first went online? Lumenos 12:23, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
- We could usually tell by the earliest date in the history of the mainpage but I think that disappears if the mainpage is deleted and recreated. Lumenos 12:23, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
- The WayBackMachine at archive.org could be used to verify an earlier date, but not all sites are archived there. Lumenos 12:23, 28 October 2009 (EDT)
Add the FoundedIn category
If you add the information when the wiki was founded, everybody will be able to remove new, when this predicate seems to be out-dated. Y good approach on WikiMedia-based wikis is to look at the history of the main page. Have a look at Category:Wiki Age. --Wolf | talk 03:58, 11 November 2009 (EST)
- An even better way for sites which use the MediaWiki engine is to use
/Special:AncientPagesat the end of the URL. Sometimes a wiki might not create its 'main page' first. Hoof Hearted 11:30, 26 September 2011 (PDT)
New, Schmew
Let's call the whole "new" thing off. Allow wiki creators/reps to indicate when the wiki first went online, and number of members, and let readers of WikiIndex decide for themselves the "status" of a wiki, because the word new is simply too subjective. Example: Our recipe wiki went online about two years ago, with just a hundred or so pages (recipes). And it was pretty awful. Well, not awful, but it was bare bones and somewhat naive. Slowly its content increased, features were added, and the layout was refined. Within a year, DishiWiki still had only about 20 members, but its members were proud and fond of it. Now, about two years later, it has over one thousand quality, well-edited recipes, tips and other cooking-centric material, but still only about 30 members, but who are fonder of it than ever. Bear in mind that DishiWiki has yet to "go public" through any type of marketing, SEO or even an email campaign. There is plenty of time for that. But I, and probably other members, still think of DishiWiki as new -- even at two years old. That's a good example of the subjectivity of newness. Perhaps those who protest loudly about newness are too close to be objective, or are merely being vain and consider the word new to be pejorative. So just remove "new" from any status or descriptor, and substitute more objective qualities such as a "live" date or "founded" date, and number of members or active members, etc. (Note: If you look at DishiWiki's Statistics page, you will see only 6 members. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly, I very recently moved DishiWiki to a third hosting service, this time unable to export the corrupted database and having to merely export/import pages. A couple members instinctively re-created their accounts, but other members have yet to rejoin. As I said, embarrassing, but stuff happens.) Dishiwiki 02:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)
PROPOSAL: a follow-on category
Following the above discussions, when six months has elapsed, the 'new' category is no longer appropriate, and sometimes the other available status categories might not be appropriate. So what about a 'Fledgling' category (or similar) for slow or quiet wikis between 6 months and a year old? Then from a year onwards, they should hopefully be 'active', if not then they can then reasonably be defined as 'dormant' or 'NeedsLove'. This fledgling category could allow for an element of spamming, as a result of the infancy of the wiki not allowing a satisfactory anti-spam policy or measures. Discuss please! Hoof Hearted 11:43, 26 September 2011 (PDT)