6,456
edits
User talk:TedErnst: Difference between revisions
→inactive wikis: more thoughts for Wolf
(→inactive wikis: more thoughts for Wolf) |
|||
| Line 234: | Line 234: | ||
I began to check frequently (once a day) wikis, to that I could not connect once. I added a link to the talk page and categorized it as [[:category:cannot connect|cannot connect]][http://www.wikiindex.com/index.php?title=Irrlicht_Wiki&diff=35125&oldid=34655]. So we can check them again in the future - what do you think about tis idea? --[[Wolf Peuker|Peu]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 14:44, 1 November 2006 (EST) | I began to check frequently (once a day) wikis, to that I could not connect once. I added a link to the talk page and categorized it as [[:category:cannot connect|cannot connect]][http://www.wikiindex.com/index.php?title=Irrlicht_Wiki&diff=35125&oldid=34655]. So we can check them again in the future - what do you think about tis idea? --[[Wolf Peuker|Peu]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 14:44, 1 November 2006 (EST) | ||
: Your method seems like a lot of work to me. There's nothing wrong with doing what you're doing, of course, but I'm not sure what the benefit is. If a wiki is gone for good, then changing the template from Wiki to Inactive is the end of the story. If it's only down temporarily, then whichever person stumbles across it again when it's up can change it back to Wiki. Your way is also fine for documenting the history of a glitchy server over time, but we have hundreds of inactives, so doesn't necessarily seem like a good use of time. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 14:50, 1 November 2006 (EST) | : Your method seems like a lot of work to me. There's nothing wrong with doing what you're doing, of course, but I'm not sure what the benefit is. If a wiki is gone for good, then changing the template from Wiki to Inactive is the end of the story. If it's only down temporarily, then whichever person stumbles across it again when it's up can change it back to Wiki. Your way is also fine for documenting the history of a glitchy server over time, but we have hundreds of inactives, so doesn't necessarily seem like a good use of time. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 14:50, 1 November 2006 (EST) | ||
I think you mean "is ''not'' the end of the story"?, but I see, your way seems better, we can also walk through the inactive wikis... --[[Wolf Peuker|Peu]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 14:59, 1 November 2006 (EST) | |||
: No, I meant that it is the end of the story. Once something's listed as "inactive" we ignore it forever. If it comes back, sure, it can be changed here, but I personally find the inactives to be very low priority. I'd rather spend time filling in Unknowns for active wikis rather than worry about the inactives. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 15:24, 1 November 2006 (EST) | |||