Overview
I'm trying to show here in a table how Wiki Status relates to Edit Mode and other corresponding categorisations
| Progress* / Status | Edit mode | Membership mode* | View mode* | Connect mode* | depreciated Cat | reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YourWikiStatus | YourWikiEditMode | YourWikiMembershipMode* | YourWikiViewMode* | YourWikiConnectMode* | Inactive | is dormant without much spam activity |
| In preparation | OpenEdit | Autoconfirm* | OpenView* | URL unknown* | UnknownStatus | YourWikiStatus |
| New | SaveAfterPreview | >ConfirmEmail | LoginToViewAll* | connected* | UnknownEditMode | YourWikiEditMode |
| SemiActive* | Capcha* | >LoginViaForum | LoginToViewAny* | >Cannot connect | Spammed | is dormant with spam activity |
| Active | LoginToEdit | ConfirmAccount* | >Dead | NeedsLove | replaced by SemiActive | |
| Vibrant | PayToEdit | >ByInvitation | moved/merged* | GoalReached | is Halted with a Smile :-) | |
| Dormant | >closed (Private) | >Archived | GoalAbandoned | is Halted with a frown :-( | ||
| Halted* | ReadOnly | >NotArchived |
* = new Term/Cat > = moved term/Cat
Some words about 'NeedsLove': Is it upon us to judge what has to happen? We write down what is, not what should be or will be. 'Spammed': It is spammed because those folks are not active to remove it. So, SPAM or not, the thing to detect is the level of constructive activity which leads to progress. SPAM is only the most visible aspect of lack of constructive activity. And even SPAMer stop doing their thing on a totally dormant Wiki. If we call that Wiki spammed, than SPAMer could use our Index to select SPAMable Wikis. Also 'NeedsLove' implies that we are thinking this Wiki should progress. But it is also not upon us to approve of Wikis, just like it is not our cup of tea to help destroy them ;-) 'Halted' is essentially the same as ReadOnly because RadOnly is practically the only thing one can do to halt the Wiki I think. But maybe one can kind of halt a Wiki by closing for new Members. It looks like Wikimania Wikis are halted like that and then 'moved' to some kind of own archive place. Any comments? Nobody? Manorainjan (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
- Will have to think about some of these, have strong feelings need to sort out. One of them, NeedsLove is a wiki that is stumbling along, it is neither new, vibrant, or dormant. It needs people to love it. No judgement there. (It is not spammed, any wiki that is spammed, is, well, spammed.) :-) Thanks for broaching the conversation!! Best, MarkDilley
- Talking about "feelings" (euphemism of interpretations/thought): I get the "feeling" that Wikipeople who needed love themselves projected this to what they where dealing with -> Wikis and therefore coined this term. There is more expectation in the term NeedsLove than observation, whereas Spammed is an observation. Also, if taken seriously, NeedsLove is valid for each and every Wiki or whatever project. Therefore it is not a useful statement. It does not supply specific information about that Wiki. Manorainjan (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's a lot of projection there, Manorainjan. I use the status "NeedsLove" frequently to describe wikis which are not my own, but are struggling to maintain output. And yet, I don't feel unloved. :-) Granted, the term was already in place here when I started using it. In your schema above, you have not yet addressed wikis which do not fall into the categories "Vibrant", "Active", or "Dormant." I find "NeedsLove" to be a sufficient middle point between "Active" and "Dormant," the equivalent of saying "Active, but not very." On the other hand, "Dormant" implies a complete cessation of activity. We could change the name if we need to, but that seems to me a bit like arguing about window dressing. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 20:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Lets stay with the point that NeedsLove does not describe what is but what should be. Creating Category:NeedsLove Ray described its purpose as "dusty – please adopt one if you would like". It calls for a change which is not our department. Who are we to judge about a Wiki what it needs? We are not the Wiki-welfare-agency. We do not adopt orphans, got enough to do with our project. We are the Wiki-registry. If need be to have finely graduated terms in the status category why not have SomeActivity there?Manorainjan (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's a rather muted call, one which goes unheeded for the most part. That said, I would be OK with SomeActivity or Semi-Active. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK is in table now. SemiActive could be considered as a condition which would most likely not prevail for long. Manorainjan (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
dead vs inactive
I see there is a Category:Inactive with a related Template:Inactive, and a Category:Dead with a related Template:Wiki dead.
Is there any useful difference between "inactive" status vs "dead" status? --DavidCary 09:30, 7 July 2009 (EDT)
- It seems to be no difference between inactive and dead. I'd suggest to merge "inactive" into "dead". An edit on the wiki template could do this automatically. --Wolf | talk 09:36, 7 July 2009 (EDT)
- MarkDilley prefers using Template:Inactive because it removes the listing from every category except "Inactive". (He says so on the Template:Wiki dead page.) --MarvelZuvembie 14:28, 28 October 2009 (EDT)