WikiIndex talk:Community portal/Archive 4

Note: Older conversations have been archived. Please view the 'Archive' links in the box on the below to review old discussion subjects.

for talk amongst or to sysops / admins and bureaucrats,
please go to: category talk: Active administrators of this wiki

---

WikiIndex talk: Community portal archives of older talk pages: 1 (2006), 2 (2007–13), 3 (2014–16), 4 (2017)

Pedophile

There is a pedophile at work in your wiki, I have already questioned him and it is clear to me that he is promoting perversion. One of the last things he did is change the category of pederasty into child love. Could someone check on his work and reverse the propaganda aimed at normalizing child sexual abuse? His name is User:Leucosticte. P.S. I think it is very disturbing that this wiki would allow a child molesters to set his own rules, that you want to be inclusive and add all wiki's, I do understand, but you shouldn't allow child molesters to decide how a topic is presented. --198.180.167.4 23:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the users who have objections could try to actually edit constructively and dialog rather than removing information and even template parameters such as URLs? If people want to have a discussion about what censorship, if any, should go on here, it seems like there's a more constructive way than how it's been done so far (which has even included removing other users' talk page comments, making comments such as "piss off", etc.)

Some of the new users may be used to RationalWiki's norms. That site is dedicated to a leftist bias and has an anything-goes mobocratic culture in which civility is discouraged and rules are applied haphazardly, if at all. I think things work differently here. It's definitely not civil to go around calling other users child molestors because of their views, or even because of their desires; that would be like calling a gay rights activist or gay person a homosexual rapist.

The terminological problems have already been pointed out, in that "boylove" and "pederasty" are not synonymous. There is a difference between love and a sexual act. I don't mind if you leave your preferred version of the articles (minus the URL removal and any other obvious vandalism) in place temporarily, if you'll discuss these disagreements, but if you're not going to do that, then I don't think you're showing signs of participating in good faith. Leucosticte (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Size broken

Please investigate I don't know why or how--I can't seem to figure it out and I'm rapidly falling asleep. :-/ Koavf (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's because of the unexplained(?) disappearance of Semantic MediaWiki. Please see User talk:MarkDilley#Back-end changes ???? - confusion in the mad house. We could either poke someone with shell access (eg. Emufarmers or Ray King) to re-enable that extension or disable the feature completely (pro: can be done immediately & reduce server load; con: no more Semantic Forms :( ). --YiFei | talk 08:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I quite like the Semantic Forms :ppp. But yes, follow the discussion on Mark Dilley's talk page as linked above. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 15:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Computer // Computers

(moved from User talk:Koavf)

1. Category:Computers
2. Category:Computer

What is the difference? Do we need both?--Manorainjan (talk)

Good question, I believe there is a conversation about that somewhere. What do you think it should be? ~~ MarkDilley

German is my mother tongue. So I will not mess with English names of mayor categories. Therefore the two question marks.

Definitions of what it should contain is missing in both.--Manorainjan (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

They are not missing, they are invitations to be filled in. ~~ MarkDilley

as above ... --Manorainjan (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

These two categories were created LONG before I found WikiIndex. As Mark said, we have discussed this previously many times . . . and never really reached a concrete answer. From my own perspective, a category normally always contains more than one article on said subject, so from that logic, categories should be plural. However, if the singular sounds 'better' and more gramatically correct, then use the singular. How's that for some 'fence sitting'???? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 22:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, I settle on the no-s-side of the fence because of the "keep it simple" POV. It is not wrong to say computer as a label. But it would be wrong to say technologies, even if in America this kind of logical mistake is the norm. And apples would be definitely not something invented in Cupertino. I imagined some serious difference in between the two, but if it is only for the sake of style, cut the s and merge the two!

Do we have a written naming convention here? Manorainjan (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really There aren't a lot of conventions at all around here, actually. There probably should be. This is a small wiki and I'm glad that you're active lately to try to tidy up some of the fringes. Koavf (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes we do!!!! WikiIndex:Naming conventions is what you need to read! There are many other guidance pages in the WikiIndex meta namespace, generally found in Category:WikiIndex. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I took the 'trouble' to check English Wikipedia and found them using 'Computers' as main cat. For the most cases I would not see any need to invent the wheel again and again. Therefore I suggest as a general naming convention of categories that one takes the ones from English Wikipedia wherever one has no striking argument against it. Wiki is about collecting information collectively for that so many others can make use of it. That should apply for structure as well. Manorainjan (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Logos of Category:Dormant Wikis

I think it would be good practice to upload the logo picture file of any wiki that one categorizes as Dormant or worse. Because from there it is all to likely that the wiki will become inaccessible and so a logo that is only linked to will get lost.Manorainjan (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Status / Template:WikiStatus

The stati 'Dead' and 'Inactive' are the same! What is the use of that? And is there a reason to delete a wiki entry altogether? --Manorainjan (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Dead might mean the wiki is no longer there. Inactive might mean that it is dusty, in that case Needs Love is a better status. Again, you find inconsistencies... please feel free to offer solutions! :-) ~~ MarkDilley

OK, I changed the description of Inactive to something not active for a year or longer. Somebody has to confirm 1 Year and update the rest of languages somehow. I did en, de, es, and fr. sv I can't and the others I do not even know their names ;-)

BTW: I changed colour of Category:Dead to black B-) --Manorainjan (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, from the may discussions from many different editors here, that Category:Inactive should be depreciated, and we just use Category:Dead for those permanently vanished, but use Category:Dormant. Whilst dictionary definition for 'inactive' might describe some wikis; ie: 'idle' - the literal meaning of 'inactive' is whereby there are short periods of - say downtime. Dictionary definition for general adjective of 'dormant' has two complimentary meanings - 1. "quiet and inactive, as in sleep", 2. "latent or inoperative". A further biological definition of 'dormant' means: "alive but in a resting torpid condition with no growth". So 'dormant' basically means a lack of any activity for longer periods of time - hence why I personally prefer Dormant over Inactive for wikis which are still reachable, but havn't been edited for a long time. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Great! Than lets check 850 Wikis and sort them into one of the not depriciated cats ;-)Manorainjan (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

After you, Sir! :ppp

I think most of those will have been categorised into Inactive by changing their respective infobox template from {{Wiki}} to {{Inactive}}. I could run a Special:ReplaceText to change the first line (which is what was done previously in reverse, albeit manually on a wiki-by-wiki basis) - but that would then leave the status field open to major errors. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 16:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, run the replace for the first line only. Whatever remains in the Category:Inactive will have to be checked manually. Actually I expect a resurrection 1 out of 100 ;-)Manorainjan (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That isn't the best idea. If one does run the automated text replacement, they'll be no way of checking which ones are dead and which are dormant. I honestly think they all need to be done manually :((( Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 19:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

OK Manorainjan (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I knew it: Only 19 'inactive' entries checked and already found one active! :-)Manorainjan (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I second what Sean said, manual is the way to go. Regarding "Dead" vs. "Inactive", no consensus was ever established on which to use. We've been using both simultaneously. I again reiterate that we should NOT populate active categories with dead wikis! So, since you are changing these wikis over from the Inactive template to the regular Wiki template with a "Dead" status, please blank the main topic parameter. Thanks! --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So, You reiterate we should....not...Better You substantiate with arguments. I do not agree with that. To shift from inactive to dead is not a loss of information but a clarification. The 'blanking' of category information is a loss of information. Then one could delete the entries of dead wikis as well. But I understood, that I do not have a licence to kill here. Userpages of spammers get deleted but no wiki entries ever. If an entry should be preserved it should also be traceable. So, cats should remain connected with them. There is no use of not killing the entry if I kill the information that leads to the entry. So, what is so bad about this 'population'?Manorainjan (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that an index of dead wikis is about as useful as a phone book from 1965. It's of historical interest, but little practical use. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I do keep old phone books. ;-) In fact it is a speciality of my home town to issue an address book. I collect those of different years and I use them once in a while. I'm paying prices for really old ones. I'm afraid Your phone-book allegory did not serve Your purpose very well because real phone books take real space which kept category tags do not take at all.Manorainjan (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That said, I am in favor of keeping listings for dead wikis. It shows how hard it is to keep one going, how many fall by the wayside, and what topics have sprung up over time. I'm just not in favor of including dead wikis in categories. This has been status quo here for years. That's not to say that we can't change it, but should we? --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

So again You iterate Your distaste for leaving the dead wikis in their categories. But where is the argument to act upon? In order to delete or hide information in a wiki one needs quite a good argument. That should be more than "I do not see the use". You need to explain the specific danger or burden of relatively high weight. A distaste will not do.Manorainjan (talk) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Manorainjan – I've got other work to do right now, so I'll try and answer your concerns later today. Prod me if I forget! Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 11:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

MarvelZuvembies concerns

You may well be right that no 'formal' concensus has ever been reached over the Dead vs Inactive debate (but then we arn't Wikipedia!). However, even going back to 2006 I noticed some of the founding editors of WikiIndex questioning the wisdom of using the term 'inactive' (and the categorisation of the same) for genuinely dead wiki. I have had MANY other editors question me (either on my or their talk page, or maybe on the category or template talk page) over the same issue. It seems very clear to me that this issue needs to be answered one way or the other. I would have to say that there is maybe a kind of 'organic' concensus to support much more clarity over this; and being as Mark tells everyone to BeBold (and indeed, above in this very conversation, he states NeedsLove is more appropriate than Inactive) — I have done just that!

Re the 'Dead' issue — I have never found any previous concensus on the need to basically obliterate all identifying features of a dead wiki – such as its wiki engine, language, etc. I am especially concerned that the present way also assigns both its logo and its subject matter into Room 101!!!! Our current way of identifying 'Inactive' wikis (which use Template:Inactive) is about as useful as an ashtray on a MotoGP motorbike! The name of the wiki, with NO other identifying features – what use is that? It is also massively biased towards Wikia wikis – those never die, they just fester and rot into eternity – but are (now) being categorised into Category:Dormant. Whereas, other smaller wiki farms might not have the resources to keep abandoned wiki alive are forced to delete them – hence Category:Dead.

I also have very deep concerns about deleting the subject matter from dead wiki – what is the rationale for that????? BTW, I'm not having a personal attack at you MarvelZuvembie – I'm just tired and frustrated on why we seem to keep going back to the lowest common, historical denominator! I have massive respect for your input here. :)))) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 11:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)