WikiIndex talk:Community portal/Archive 4

-> For talk amongst/to admins go here: Category_talk:Active_administrators_of_this_wiki

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: 1777 births 1855 deaths People from Braunschweig Deists 18th-century German mathematicians 19th-century German mathematicians Mental calculators Differential geometers German astronomers German Lutherans German physicists Optical physicists German scientists Number theorists People from Brunswick Recipients of the Copley Medal Recipients of the Pour le Mérite (civil class) Braunschweig University of Technology alumni University of Helmstedt alumni University of Göttingen alumni University of Göttingen faculty Members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Fellows of the Royal Society Corresponding Members of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences Honorary Members of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences Members of the Bavarian Maximilian Order for Science and Art 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)

That discussion does not speak clearly to a decision being made to use or not use this template. ~~ MarkDilley

I know that. That decision would prompt any sensible person not to use this template until end of discussion, which is OK for me, because here no discussion ever ends in a final decision unless it is something petty like renaming a file or mending a template. When was the last major taken? 2006? Manorainjan (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We mostly do work here. Policies and endless discussion are usually sporadic. ~~ MarkDilley

Oh, yeah! Lets make this more long winded ;-) Discussion is also work, unless only for argumentations sake, not completed and hanging in the air for years. Even then it is work, only without result. Naturally it is easier to do little edits here and there and consider that as work with results rather than coming to a conclusion in a debate since the later requires more staying power. At which page shall we start a discussion about the use of discussions? Who was that guy who frequently admonishes on other peoples talk pages that he was not included in any discussion? Manorainjan (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

deleted entry

Once upon a time the policy seemed to be to delete inactive Wikis... User talk:Peu#File:43 Best Blogs.gif and not every sysop knows about the current policy... So, before we finalize our thoughts about categories, the more fundamental policy regarding deletion or not should be agreed upon and communicated. Manorainjan (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

"Once upon a time the policy seemed to be to delete inactive Wikis... " -- I don't think that was ever the policy Manorainjian :-) ~~ MarkDilley

Mark is correct, we've never had a policy to delete dead wikis. What might have happened in this particular instance is that may have been a casualty of the server crash way back when :-? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 14:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So then, where is this entry, if not deleted? User_talk:DavidCary#The_ACC_Bible_Quizzing_WikiManorainjan (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sean ponders "What might have happened in this particular instance is that may have been a casualty of the server crash way back when." ~~ MarkDilley

May it be, that this Wiki got deleted too? Manorainjan (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I could imagine that a server crash deleted that wiki as well. My reasoning is that it was input in May 2006, 4 months after creation of wiki. ~~ MarkDilley

Please be more precise. 'creation of wiki' refers to which Wiki? When was this crash? Was it before or after May 2006? Manorainjan (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't be more precise. I do know several years ago (4-5) we had a server crash and once in a while we find things missing. (Creation of the wiki that would use the wiki logo you are referring.) ~~ MarkDilley

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 Allura. I'll work on It. --YiFei | talk 14:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Created – Category:Apache Allura :) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

How to: rename a file

How to rename a page for a file like: File:HelmutLeitnerPhotographsMarkDilley.jpg Manorainjan (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of a way to rename files as they are more an object than a wiki page. I am also not sure why you would want to rename the file. ~~ MarkDilley

I can do that! What name do you want it calling? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 20:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sean, please don't rename it without a fuller discussion, I would rather not have a repeat of Category:Inactive. Thanks, MarkDilley

OK, understood :)) I'm guessing the rationale by which Manorainjan wishes to rename it is simply for more accurate sorting in categories, ie, alphabetically. Afterall, if I wish to search for your mug-shots, I'd look under either D or M :pp Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 21:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok, so something that means the same, written differently - like File:MarkDilleyPhotographedByHelmutLeitner.jpg would work. Thanks, MarkDilley

Right ;-) I wish to name it 'Mark_Dilley_by_Helmut_Leitner'. The logic is, that a picture with the name HelmutLeitnerPhotographsMarkDilley would have to show Mr. Leitner and his camera in action. But we see only Mark ;-) Manorainjan (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any rename-Tag like the delete?

  {'{rename|my favourite name}'}

Cool, although I would prefer to keep the file name in CamelCase. Best, MarkDilley

WhatIsTheAdvantageOfCamelCase?Manorainjan (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mark - yes, exactly. The image won't change, just the name of the file. Would 'MarkDilley_by_HelmutLeitner' fit your CamelCaseophobia?

@Manorainjan - no, we don't have a template requesting a file rename - feel free to create one if you wish. Re CamelCase - Mark likes to hang onto that with the same viggor that a starving dog hangs onto the butchers bones!! Don't even go there! :)))))

Oh, only sysops can rename files. Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 22:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Sean You confuse me since WikiIndex has no list of sysops.Manorainjan (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't Special:ListUsers/sysop fit your need? --YiFei | talk 23:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Manorainjan, CamelCase is the original way links were written in wiki from 1996 to 2002. It is a smart way of linking and I like to keep the WikiEthos. :-) ~~ MarkDilley (suggested edit is ok, not the way I would prefer but acceptable.)

So we all got our conditioning. In my case (hehe) I once could not restore a needed backup, because the windows backup software wrote the files with öäü and blanks in the name, but the DOS-based restore part could not handle that.:-/ Manorainjan (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Mark, do we have your agreement for 'MarkDilley_by_HelmutLeitner' as the rename? Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure MarkDilley

I've done the rename. --YiFei | talk 09:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Category:Private

Manorainjan posed an interesting question on my talk page, which ought to be thrown open to the wider community; his question quoted as follows:

I think here is a change needed. A wiki could be dormant and private at the same time like Bible Wiki (biblewiki.net). Private belongs to another aspect similar to editmode. One has to create the aspect "accessibility" or anything else.
{public|private|onInvitation|adult|legitimation|etc.} which defines the scope of onlookers not of editors. Naturally the scope of editmode is narrower than "accessibility" the mode nnames would have quite a cut set. Manorainjan (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So basically, should Category:Private remain a sub-category of Category:Wiki Status, or should Category:Private be a sub-cat of Category:Wiki Edit Mode – or even both? Manorainjan expresses good rationale for a change, and I'm inclined to support him. Another example which lends support for change, is that a wiki can be private, but can also have viggorous activity – which might place it in the Category:Vibrant sub-cat of Wiki Status. I think if we do move Category:Private under the Category:Wiki Edit Mode umbrella, then it could even be a sub-cat of Category:ByInvitation?

Discussions and opinions needed, please! Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 13:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

We started category private after a conversation about inclusion to WikiIndex or not. My original vision of this wiki was to be a place where people could find active wikis to work on. SwitchWiki was that idea's name. Just as I don't like having, structurally, inactive / dead wiki in active wiki categories - I feel that way about private. My 2 cents :-) Best, MarkDilley

Inactive/private wikis There is still value in listing and connecting with private wikis which are active, since a reader here could gain access to it. In fact, it might be helpful to have this place be a funnel for invitations to wikis. I am glad that we have information on dead/dormant wikis as well as active ones because this site helps to document the history of wikis. But Mark is also correct that there should be some scheme for navigating only wikis where someone has a legitimate chance to participate rather than an indefinite list of abandoned and locked down wikis which dominate every category. Koavf (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

call for clarity

There are two questions to be dealt with:

1. Is the property 'Private' really fitting in the same category with {Active, Dormant, Dead, NeedsLove, etc.}?
2. How should dead or private Wikis be listed; shall they 'disturb'/mix with the listings of active/accessible Wikis?

I see the discussion as mixed up on both topics which does not allow for solution. therefore I suggest to solve question 1 first and then try for question 2 which in my opinion calls for another kind of Wiki-Status possibly called Category:Wiki Accessibility Manorainjan (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 23:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Table of what could be

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*	LoginToEdit	>LoginViaForum	LoginToViewAny*	>Cannot connect	Spammed	is dormant with spam activity
Active	PayToEdit	Application*		>Dead	NeedsLove	replaced by SemiActive
Vibrant		>ByInvitation		moved/merged*	GoalReached	is Halted with a Smile :-)
Dormant		>closed (Private)		>Archived	GoalAbandoned	is Halted with a frown :-(
Halted*	ReadOnly				GoalAbandoned	is Halted with a frown :-(

* = 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)

Template:Whois

Template:Whois – Does anybody knows, what this is about and how it works? Manorainjan (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it's a link to find where an IP address originates from. Eg. Whois:123.45.67.89 --YiFei | talk 23:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Informing the entries

Currently I'm adding German Wikis. And in case of new entries I inform the people of that Wiki that their Wiki is now on our Index. I think that should be the general rule to tell them they are indexed here. Not only because maybe they do not want to be indexed ;-) Rather because they got a chance to update their entry themselves. This could also generate new users, active ones. Manorainjan (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed about the total lack if feedback on this idea. Was such discussed any time before? Manorainjan (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Welcoming is roughly the idea, I support it. ~~ MarkDilley

In the turn of attempting to create new entries and to fill the structured data and in connection with the above I found that it would help to have an account on the new Wiki, because many of them are not Category:OpenEdit. Often one can not communicate with any person on that wiki without opening an account, because most do not fill 'About', 'Impressum' or so. But on the other hand nobody wants to create hundreds of personal accounts all over the wikisphere. So I thought it may be a solution to open formal, impersonal accounts like 'WikiIndex.org'. What Do You think? Of course they should all have the same password ;-) And who will get to know this? And what kind of eMail might get connected to this and how to manage an email account collectively for purpose of email-verification mails? Manorainjan (talk) 22:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea, can using one of the throw away email systems work? ~~ MarkDilley

I expect, that over time, means 5 years or so, it would result in thousand accounts. therefore I do not think one should throw away the connected email account. Why would one want to do so? Ad it would require another marker in our entry of the Wiki where an WikiIndex account was set up, like Category:OurAccount So that, in any case one has need to change something like connectes eMail address, one would find most of this accounts. BTW this creation of accounts with the Name WikiIndex.org or similar would increase the awareness of WikiIndex as an institution.Manorainjan (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This proposal seams to be connected: http://wikiindex.org/Proposal:WikiIndex_Pages_on_indexed_WikisManorainjan (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Most people I index know about it, so yeah. Sweetie Belle (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate 'that' (informing WikiPeople about their pages here). I find that more necessary in case of people than in case of Wikis. With Wikis it is rather a tactical draw which is to benefit the quantitative and qualitative growth of WikiIndex. With People it got to do more with personality rights Manorainjan (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for Wiki People pages

Should we have a criteria for wiki people pages, and if so, what should it be? Sweetie Belle (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I remember a discussion on this very issue a little while ago. I think there are two basic criteria. 1./ any person whom has made edits here on WikiIndex can have a page in this category, and 2./ any other person in the wiki-sphere who is either notable or interesting. So basically, we don't really want to be listing every single editor of every single wiki - as that will be a sure-fire way of readers of this WikiIndex category loosing interest in 'sifting the wheat from the chaff'. HTH :) Sean, aka Hoof Hearted • _{Admin / 'Crat} • talk2HH 12:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Besides Your excellent memory, is there any link to the then discussion or a help page where the result of that discussion was formulated?Manorainjan (talk) 13:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw that some discussion about that was going on here: http://wikiindex.org/User_talk:Abd Manorainjan (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Criteria I agree that there need to be some guidelines and "interesting" is a good start. Koavf (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Istn't interesting a totally subjective judgement? If interesting should become a criteria it needs criteria that define when somebody becomes interesting. So, it does not help, not even for a start. Otherwise the criteria was: "I found that person interesting, so I created the page." Manorainjan (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed it before, although I don't have the link handy. At the time, my objection to creating pages for Wiki People other than oneself was that it is prone to abuse. As I recall, not everyone else felt the same way. I still have reservations about it, and indeed, there have been potentially libelous things written about Wiki People earlier this year. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not whether or not to create peoples pages. We got peoples pages already and since long. The question is, what kind of people should get pages here. It is also not, what should be written on the page. That too is another discussion. Manorainjan (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That said, I'm still missing ANY criteria here at all. Notability is similarly vague as 'interesting' is. For example: If we would set a criteria 'Any person who founded a Wiki which got at least 1.000 content pages and lasted at least a year' that would be 'criteria' not opinion. Verifiable facts, You know? And I did not mean to suggest this very criteria. It is only an example. I also did not mean to say it should be only one criteria or how many criteria any given candidate had to meet. I'm writing this only to demonstrate what criteria is in contradiction to opinion. Manorainjan (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wiki People pages were originally generated by the people themselves. I think it should stay that way. That's my criteria. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That at least would be a criteria, one criteria amongst many possible and certainly not usable as the only one. For example, if I conclude for me, that Lydia Pintscher should have a page here, because of her fascinating work for Wikidata, I would not wait until she has time or interest to dig into WikiIndex and finds out how to use Sweeties latest-user-info template. On the other hand, it if becomes a hype, that every user of Wookieepedia finds it funny to have a page here, I would not think that will be helpful to our purpose. So I call Your criteria a supporting argument but not a sufficient one. And Your supporting 'argument' in the fashion of 'it was always like that' I do not consider an argument at all. Manorainjan (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The statement on Alonzo Jackson's page was requested by Alonzo herself during my interview with her on IRC as a joke. I could add a footnote if possible but I don't know how the reference markup works here. Sweetie Belle (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Endless discussions // useful work

Lets not confuse the topic. ... If one mixes or shifts topics in a discussion, it comes to 'endless' discussions and no results for any of the raised topics. Manorainjan (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not dictate what I choose to talk about. --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not intent to dictate whatever. I do not even aspire for sysop status. So, dictation would be quite impossible from my position. What I wrote was not, that You should choose certain topic to talk or choose not to talk about certain topic. I did not say sat. I said not to confuse topics. Sweetie choose to open the topic 'Criteria for Wiki People pages' and if anybody chooses to take part in that it is only common sense to speak to the chosen topic. I do not dictate that, but I expect that people stay with the topic. And what I wrote was an explanation of the consequences it has if one mixes other topics in and confuses them. If You speak at topic A and support Your view about topic B with an argument valid for topic C, what will come out of that? I referred to 'endless' discussions on account of a remark from Mark which alerted me, that discussions here might have the tendency not to conclude in a useful result and therefore, because of lack of the fruit of work, may look like no work. Manorainjan (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Moderator

Can anybody make a help page that tells what in Wiki-terms a Moderator is?Manorainjan (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

auto-stats?

Can anybody tell me how this works? {{Size |pages = {{JurisPedia/NumberOfArticles|en}} ....

It's not auto. Someone invented it. --YiFei | talk 04:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Style and talent

Who's the man (or woman ;-) here when it comes to good English style? It's not me ;-) Anybody who can check my latest effusion?

I'm missing some table or so where people write their topic of interest, permissions or talent so that You can know to whom to turn in a case You can't do it yourself. Manorainjan (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative Infoboxes

I took it for granted that all wikis on this index should use the same infobox, for consistency's sake. However, I see that Sweetie Belle has created an alternative one—Template:Wiki infobox‎.

In addition to some different stylistic choices, it includes a parameter for showing the Admins of the wiki. However, it does not have all of the parameters of the original.

While I'm not opposed to adding the Admins parameter or changing the look, or for that matter having an alternative infobox (though that could be problematic to manage), I do feel strongly that we should not omit the other information which is part of Template:Wiki.

Perhaps it is time to set a standard? --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think (I do not feel about that) that only one template should be used not many. And this one Template will evolve.
• If anybody wants to make functional changes to this core tool of Wikiindex it should be discussed first.
• Wikipages are not sandboxes. So experiments on Wikipages should not be made. But maybe we can declare ONE specific Wiki to be an experimental case (create one more silly Wiki on Wikia? Who cares?) and try new templates with this one.Manorainjan (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

One single infobox is sufficient. Adding more than that makes things look messy and unorganized. If a consensus is reached that further data should be added to the main template, that's fine. Creating new ones is not. TeraS (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

So far, I believe the new infobox template is only in place at SpongeBob Fan Wiki. Also, I'd like to add that, as suggested, Template:Wiki has evolved over time. And one would hope that it continues to evolve. So, perhaps the goals of the new infobox can be achieved by modifying the existing template (preferably by experimenting in a sandbox first.) --MarvelZuvembie (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I would support modifying the existing template to meet new needs as opposed to creating something entirely new if possible. Arcane (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the stylistic changes. Think experimenting with those on the original template is the path forward. I think WikiPages are fine places to experiment with, it is wiki and reverting is easy. :-) ~~ MarkDilley

IMO Too many styles look a bit messy :( & Testing => Template:Wiki/sandbox Template:Wiki/testcases so they won't just break most of our pages with a single edit. --YiFei | talk 04:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The Template:Wiki can easily be modified, and there are already some optional attributes in it. ... So I suggest to copy the template contents first into a mew template and modify this copy. Then test it with some real wiki pages (using the preview function). If the changes evaluate positively, they can be applied to the original template (then the copy should be deleted). --Wolf | talk 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If Hoof or Mark will briefly unprotect Template:Wiki so I can make some adjustments to it, then I'm okay with this. Sweetie Belle (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Server load

Template:Wiki Just a technical hint: any change to this template will appear slowly, because so many wiki pages have to be rendered again. --Wolf | talk 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would a change in the template appear slowly? AFAIK any page called will cause a call to all templates used in that page and be rendered accordingly. So, if You modify a template, all pages called after saving the modification will show the new design. So, how often the change will show depends on how many pages will be called thereafter. Which brings me to the question of statistics about page calls here?? I mean calls within a given time frame. That would show how many visitors would get to see strange pages if the main template would be experimented on.Manorainjan (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'm not up-to-date concerning the running Version. I only remember a significantly increased server load after template edits (some years ago). Now also semantic MediaWiki extensions are in use... --Wolf | talk 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)