Category talk:Wiki status: Difference between revisions

{{TOCright}}

I'm trying to show here in a table how Wiki Status relates to Edit Mode and other corresponding categorisations

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|-

|}

  ° = old 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 [[User_talk:Hoof_Hearted#Wikia_question |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? [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 22:26, 12 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. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] ([[User talk:MarvelZuvembie|talk]]) 20:35, 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. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 00:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see there is a [[:Category:Inactive]] with a related [[Template:Inactive]], and a [[:Category:Dead]] with a related [[Template:Wiki dead]].

* This template inactive is a drag! Just I encountered a Wiki [[Felix Pleşoianu Wiki]] run by one of our early users here, which was striked out by this template bit quite active indeed. This is the case in more than 15% of Wikis with this template over them. I uncovered lots of them in the recent month. [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 17:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(imported from [[WikiIndex talk:Community portal]])

:My inclination is that the designation "Private" has more to do with a wiki's EditMode than it does with a wiki's Status. I don't think a new "Accessibility" class of categories is needed. That's pretty much what "EditMode" is already. I am in favor is making "Private" one of the options for "EditMode". I suppose the clarification which would need to be made the difference between "ByInvitation" and "Private." To my mind, the former indicates that you could ostensibly obtain an invitation whereas the latter would be reserved for those which are closed to new participants. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] ([[User talk:MarvelZuvembie|talk]]) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

'''Another status''' [[:Category:Locked]] is a status that a handful of wikis have now. It seems like this is a distinct method of categorizing: these are readable but not necessarily abandoned. E.g. [[MeatBallWiki]]. Thoughts? [[User:Koavf|Koavf]] ([[User talk:Koavf|talk]]) 21:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

* Progress: Halted + EditMode: LoginToEdit + MembershipMode: Closed + ViewMode: LoginToViewAny in case of [[Romansh Wiktionary]][[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 22:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

:On first sight one has to assume that the wiki still exists but that there are technical problems of hopefully temporal nature. Therefore one can not actually say anything about the status, because one can not access the fundamental information about it. So one would mark that wiki page with <nowiki>{{Down|~~~~~}}

</nowiki> or <nowiki>{{DownForMaintenance|~~~~~}}</nowiki> if one has reason to believe it a controlled interruption. Status will not change. After some time one can come back and try again, to see if the outage persists. How much time, is still to be determined. Certainly more than a day. Should the condition persist (maybe 3 tests in 3 month and always down), the activity status could become Down. Other stati would be unchanged serving as historical data. If the wiki was archived, Archived would be better than Down. [[User_talk:Manorainjan|'''<span style="color: orange;">Manorainjan</span>''']] 15:55, 9 May 2016 (PDT)

{{CategoryDiscussions}}

[[Category:WikiProjects]]