Category talk:All

Ted, we solved some of the recursive issues, but we fell apart here. Subcategory of All :-( MarkDilley | talk

But I do think this is an answer for removing inactive wiki from this All list by switching templates for Inactive wiki that doesn't include all. How does that solve the above problem? or does it? MarkDilley | talk

You seem to have solved this problem in your edit to Template:Wiki engine. Those 3 engines were still showing up as sub-cats of all because of a mediawiki bug. I opened each one for editing and then saved it without any changes to force a refresh of the template. I think we can go ahead with the work on all the engines, make sure it's truly working and then decide what to do wtih the inactives. At least that's my plan. :-) TedErnst | talk 13:45, 14 Feb 2006 (EST)

Dead vs. inactive

Why include dead wikis in this list, but not inactive wikis? Aren't the two categories basically the same? Leucosticte (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2012 (PST)

There have been a few discussions on the 'dead vs inactive' . . . without any real resolution. Some folks prefer to use the {{inactive}} template to recategorise those wikis which have vanished. However, whilst that template clears them from this Category:All, it also strips them from every other category which their former {{wiki}} rendered. IMVHO, this is unfair as it gives a negative bias to say a wiki which used the standard MediaWiki software, but gives a disproportionately positive bias towards Wikia (because Wikia wikis never die, they just fester for years with no action).

We really need to once and for all clarify the confusion over dead vs inactive wiki status, then we can address your concern.

Fundamentally, though, this Category:All should not include any dead wikis (be they classified as 'dead' or 'inactive'). Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _Admin • talk2HH 09:24, 20 November 2012 (PST)

Those Wikia wikis would be "dormant", would they not? Maybe a wiki that has been dormant for some time (e.g. a year) could be described as "inactive", but it would require a change in how inactive is defined here. Leucosticte (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2012 (PST)

Yes, you are correct re the Wikia wikis :)

The confusion or lack of clarity over three current status definitions; inactive, dormant and dead. IMVHO, inactive and dormant could/should be merged, as they have similar dictionary definitions (when applied to wikis), and dead should be used for ALL wikis which are gone for good. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _Admin • talk2HH 06:06, 21 November 2012 (PST)