Category talk:New: Difference between revisions

:I see the "New" category as being distinct from "Dormant". Many new wikis might appear to be dormant, primarily because they haven't caught on yet. Of course, some may never become very active. I think it's a useful definition to let people know that it may not have a lot of activity or content yet. The status probably should change to "Active" or "Dormant" after a suitable period has passed. Of course, that would require someone to monitor the listing or monitor the "New" category. In practice, I suspect that the entries will only be updated in a haphazard fashion. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 13:41, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

==Vote on how to define "new"==

How will we know the day the wiki first went online? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:23, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:We could usually tell by the earliest date in the history of the mainpage but I think that disappears if the mainpage is deleted and recreated. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:23, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

:::If it has its own domain we could go by the date of the domain registration (enter the website name [http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/index.jsp here]) but this doesn't mean the wiki was up at that time. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 12:23, 28 October 2009 (EDT)

If you add the information when the wiki was founded, everybody will be able to remove new, when this predicate seems to be out-dated. Y good approach on WikiMedia-based wikis is to look at the history of the main page. Have a look at [[:Category:Wiki Age]]. --[[Wolf Peuker|Wolf]] | <small>[[User talk:Peu|talk]]</small> 03:58, 11 November 2009 (EST)

:An even better way for sites which use the [[MediaWiki]] engine is to use <code>/Special:AncientPages</code> at the end of the URL.  Sometimes a wiki might not create its 'main page' first.  [[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] 11:30, 26 September 2011 (PDT)

Let's call the whole "new" thing off. Allow wiki creators/reps to indicate when the wiki first went online, and number of members, and let readers of WikiIndex decide for themselves the "status" of a wiki, because the word new is simply too subjective. Example: [http://www.dishiwiki.com Our recipe wiki] went online about two years ago, with just a hundred or so pages (recipes). And it was pretty awful. Well, not awful, but it was bare bones and somewhat naive. Slowly its content increased, features were added, and the layout was refined. Within a year, DishiWiki still had only about 20 members, but its members were proud and fond of it. Now, about two years later, it has over one thousand quality, well-edited recipes, tips and other cooking-centric material, but still only about 30 members, but who are fonder of it than ever. Bear in mind that DishiWiki has yet to "go public" through any type of marketing, SEO or even an email campaign. There is plenty of time for that. But I, and probably other members, still think of DishiWiki as new -- even at two years old. That's a good example of the subjectivity of newness. Perhaps those who protest loudly about newness are too close to be objective, or are merely being vain and consider the word new to be pejorative. So just remove "new" from any status or descriptor, and substitute more objective qualities such as a "live" date or "founded" date, and number of members or active members, etc. (Note: If you look at DishiWiki's Statistics page, you will see only 6 members. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly, I '''very recently''' moved DishiWiki to a third hosting service, this time unable to export the corrupted database and having to merely export/import pages. A couple members instinctively re-created their accounts, but other members have yet to rejoin. As I said, embarrassing, but stuff happens.) [[User:Dishiwiki|Dishiwiki]] 02:29, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Following the above discussions, when six months has elapsed, the 'new' category is no longer appropriate, and sometimes the other available status categories might not be appropriate.  So what about a ''''Fledgling'''' category (or similar) for slow or quiet wikis between 6 months and a year old?  Then from a year onwards, they should hopefully be 'active', if not then they can then reasonably be defined as 'dormant' or 'NeedsLove'.  This fledgling category could allow for an element of spamming, as a result of the infancy of the wiki not allowing a satisfactory anti-spam policy or measures.  Discuss please!  [[User:Hoof Hearted|Hoof Hearted]] 11:43, 26 September 2011 (PDT)