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Note: Older conversations have been archived.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)

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)

WikiIndex is NOT Wikipedia. We do not follow their policies. Please see What WikiIndex is not. However, I agree about not reinventing the wheel - for existing categories! Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 20:02, 6 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)

That's an interesting thought. However, I'd be inclined not to agree – many wikis now automatically get stored by the InternetArchive WaybackMachine at Archive.org. Even if just the main page is archived, it will still store its logo, and we can hotlink to the logo on Archive.org. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 20:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Wiki Status / Template:WikiStatus

(moved from here: http://wikiindex.org/User_talk:Hoof_Hearted#Category:Wiki_Status_.2F_Template:WikiStatus)--Manorainjan (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

No worries. I didn't take it as a personal attack. :-) I was being fairly blunt in my statement of my concerns. This is a small enough group and we've been around each other for a while, so I didn't feel a particular need to sugarcoat it.

As far as the previous practice of removing all categories from dead wikis, I assure you that it is there. When I started doing that, I was imitating what had gone on before. In fact, it is intrinsic to the very template. Switching to the Inactive template will remove these wikis from most categories, except for "dead wikis."

For me, the more important question is, what do we want to do going forward? Again, to reiterate the joke for those who haven't seen it, including dead wikis in category lists is about as useful as keeping around a phone book from 1965. How frustrating is it, when looking for a particular topic, to click on several category members and find that none the wikis in that category are currently active. I don't object to changing our minds (or, if you prefer, settling our minds), but I thought before we go about doing a massive overhaul of WikiIndex, we might want to talk about it. I know, too late, it's already begun. ;-)

In practical terms, it wouldn't be so bad to include dead wikis in categories. At least it shows in the infobox that they are dead. (It might be good to highlight that fact a little more clearly, perhaps with a bold header or footer?) And it does give a sense of historical interest in a topic when you included the dead wikis along with the live ones. Also, most categories here aren't so huge that you would have to click through several dead wikis to find a live one. So, I can see arguments for both ways of doing things. Previously, there had been some question as to whether or not to keep dead wikis on the index at all, but most of us (myself included) favor keeping them around.

So for me the question becomes what we see as the more important purpose of WikiIndex: is it a directory or is it a reference guide? I believe using the Inactive template furthers the first purpose, while merely changing the status to Dead favors the second. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Inactive

(moved from http://wikiindex.org/User_talk:Hoof_Hearted#Template:Inactive) Manorainjan (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Inactive boilerplate is not marked as depreciated. WikiIndex:Community portal shows 'Inactive' in the right column under Guidelines.Manorainjan (talk) 10:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel strongly that it need not be removed. ~~ MarkDilley

The problem that MarvelZuvembie is pointing out is the main problem. We do not want categories to contain dead/inactive wiki. For example, adding the inactive template here: AgileEdge Wiki takes away all the categories from the page except category inactive for those that want a record of wikis that have been. Having them in active categories doesn't help anyone. Changing the template is a simple edit, rather than removing all the categories. If we can find a solution to this issue in the framework of getting rid of template inactive, that would be a possible step. ~~ MarkDilley

You write "Having them in active categories doesn't help anyone."

1. For one: What is an active category? I would say, that every category in which one can place an entry is an 'active' category. So, to call an category active does not bring us anywhere.
2. Secondly no one can know what would be helpful for an other. The evidence about the total uselessness can not be supplied. But I can supply evidence for the opposite: Out of about every 20 Entries which I checked in order to remove the inactive tag I found a 'resurrected' wiki. I was never a supporter of the death penalty. I know, that things change. It may take time but it does. To leave informative entries about wikis which are dead for now will increase their chances for new live.
3. It may be a annoyance to some of our visitors if they search trough the index and find every second entry in certain category to be dead. Rather than removing such entries from the category and render them unfindable I suggest to mark them in the list with a '†'. Like that they do not disturbe the ones who are looking for active wikis only.Manorainjan (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

For example of what I mean of Active having AgileEdge Wiki in Category:Wiki English is deceptive if it is a dead wiki. It is not a wiki any longer and it is not an english wiki. ~~ MarkDilley

So the language of the text in the archive changes from English to something else? ;-) And when my mother dies, she is not my mother any more? And when the Wiki dies, the entry about that Wiki is dead as well? I should remind You of the fact, that most Wikis are not telephone books. Most Wikis keep a lot of information about dead persons like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Friedrich_Gauss Now let us see the 'active' categories he (his entry) is in: {Kategorien:

1. 1777 births
2. 1855 deaths
3. People from Braunschweig
4. Deists
5. 18th-century German mathematicians
6. 19th-century German mathematicians
7. Mental calculators
8. Differential geometers
9. German astronomers
10. German Lutherans
11. German physicists
12. Optical physicists
13. German scientists
14. Number theorists
15. People from Brunswick
16. Recipients of the Copley Medal
17. Recipients of the Pour le Mérite (civil class)
18. Braunschweig University of Technology alumni
19. University of Helmstedt alumni
20. University of Göttingen alumni
21. University of Göttingen faculty
22. Members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
23. Fellows of the Royal Society
24. Corresponding Members of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences
25. Honorary Members of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences
26. Members of the Bavarian Maximilian Order for Science and Art
27. Vesta}

What do we learn from this? That en.wikipedia has the same problems as we have: double categories! (2*People from Braunschweig, my hometown ;-)Manorainjan (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we have to spend some time thinking about what it is we want here and what is the diff of our thinking around it.~~ MarkDilley

Ah, I see you are wanting to bring some Wikipedia thinking here. An idea of WikiIndex is that it is an active wiki of wiki. One of the compromises we made earlier on was to keep dead wiki but not put them in categories of active wiki. (I was on the side of keeping them, not so sure anymore!) That compromise was to put them in their own category (inactive) - dead was added later on and we never solved the duality of the problem that created. As with any wiki, we can change our mind, which I think would take a few more comments from active people - because we are not in majority agreement with this. :-) ~~ MarkDilley

Speaking directly to the issue of overlapping categories, I'd like to point out that we are not Wikipedia. There are no overcategorization or duplicate category rules in effect here. The object here is to make Wikis easy to find. With this in mind, some wikis may be included in both a category and its subcategory. While this may be messy from an administrative perspective, it is hopefully useful for navigation. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, if we start tallying numbers of dead wikis here, I'd like to point out that there are currently 132 wikis in the oft-forgotten Category:Cannot connect. --MarvelZuvembie (talk)

I think it's beneficial to keep the articles about dead wikis. One never knows when they might come to life again. Leucosticte (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

headcount

I see two people to be in favour for leaving entries of dead wikis in their categories and two people against this.

Clientèle

It appears to me, that it is not so clear for many for whom this Wiki should be of use.

1. People who look for answers in a specific topic and therefore look for a specialized Wiki
2. Wiki-people from other parts of the Wikisphere who are looking for new field of activity
3. Wiki-traveler on a WikiTourBus-Stop
4. People with too much time like You an me ;-)
5. Wiki-refugees looking for asylum
6. Sociopath, SPAMer and SCAMer looking for new victims
7. Philanthropist looking for worthy projects
8. Sociologist studying dynamics of the web 2.0
9. ....

In how far can we foresee what will be of use and what not? Manorainjan (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

sourceforge.net Wiki engine?

I assume that on sourceforge.net a change took place which caused some or all Wikis hosted there to change to other URLs and a sourceforge.net specific engine. http://sourceforge.net/p/backuppc/wiki/browse_pages/?sort=recent But I have no clue what the name of that engine is. BackupPC wiki is an example for such Wiki. Also I would not know how to find the afflicted pages.Manorainjan (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The wiki engine is likely a sub-project of en:Allura. I'll work on It. --YiFei | talk 14:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)