83,675
edits
User talk:Hoof Hearted: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Category:Wiki Status / Template:WikiStatus: create subsection
m (→Thank you.) |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) (→Category:Wiki Status / Template:WikiStatus: create subsection) |
||
| Line 153: | Line 153: | ||
:::::: 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.[[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 11:06, 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.[[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 11:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
[[User:Manorainjan|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! [[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • <sub>[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]] / [[WikiIndex:Bureaucrats|'Crat]]</sub> • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 11:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
===[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]]s 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 [[:Category:Wikia|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. :)))) [[User:Hoof Hearted|Sean, aka <small>Hoof Hearted</small>]] • <sub>[[:Category:Active administrators of this wiki|Admin]] / [[WikiIndex:Bureaucrats|'Crat]]</sub> • <small>[[User talk:Hoof Hearted|talk2HH]]</small> 11:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
==smaller font for cruft== | ==smaller font for cruft== | ||