WikiIndex talk:Community talk: Difference between revisions

How do you [[rename]] a [[Special:Categories|category]]?  I don't mean cutting and pasting text to a new page.  You should be able to move the page and its edit history to a new location.  I can't do it even if I copy the old page title to the move page URL.  Can any admin do it?

I have a friend that wants a [[:Category:Private|private]] wiki for his business.  I tried to help him set up [[:Category:UseMod Wiki|UseMod Wiki]] and failed.  He knows about and has used [[:Category:PBWiki|PBwiki]] and is worried about his data if they go under.  Where should he go to feel secure about both his data not being seen and his data not disappearing at some point. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 11:28, 4 May 2006 (EDT)

:If you're looking for flags, OpenClipart.org has a reasonably full set as public-domain .SVG's. Perhaps you could use those? --[[Special:Contributions/66.102.73.18|66.102.73.18]] 02:22, 15 December 2006 (EST)

:This is a community-created site, without a top-down determination of which categories we ought to be using.  If you see duplication, feel free to clean it up.  You can also use '''<nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>''' for an empty category that needs to be removed. [[TedErnst]] | <small>[[User talk:TedErnst|talk]]</small> 14:27, 15 December 2006 (EST)

First of all, I'd like to say a general "hi" to the regulars here, I've been registered, but not really shown myself much.  Looking around the wiki, I've decided that for the readers, unless they know their wikis exact name, it is rather difficult to find the wiki they're looking for. Also, if they simply wish to find a list of all wikis on the subject of "cooking", for example, it could be quite challenging.  I may be new on the WikiIndex, but I do frequent various wikis across the net, such as [http://www.UESP.net/wiki/Main_Page UESP], [http://ElderScrolls.Wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page ESWiki], [https://www.Wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Wikipedia], as well as owning a few private wikis, under the two aliases "Jacjohncoles" and "Game Lord".  This means that I have a pretty thourough knowledge of how wikis work, both from the [[editor]]s point of view, and from the [[owner]]s point of view.  To get back to why I'm posting this in the first place though. I'm not saying that the wiki is in a disorganized mess, but I am saying that it could, in my opinion at least, be done better.  My suggestions to improve organization are the following:

:What was the reason for your proposed 'Editors' namespace? Was that something that would be used to help find people with WikiIndex user accounts? If so, then I think that categorising users would help. But most users seem to have a very chaotic attitude to their user page, so I can't see how you could do that without getting people to put some sort of template on their page. I think that ''might'' lead to people visiting other people's user pages and telling them 'you have done your user page wrong'. I think that you would need to tread lightly in any attmpt to organise users into groups. Ironically, I got specifically asked to create my user name in the main namespace (instead of the user namespace), so it looks like someone has already decided to do the opposite thing to your suggestion. You might want to find out who decided on that policy and talk to them. It is possible that your 'Editors' namespace would be better done if people were moved back to the 'User' namespace that other wiki editors would expect to see them under. (The Search page is already setup to look for pages within the User namespace, but adding an 'Editors' namespace would create a need to reprogram the Search page.)

Hi everybody.  I've just signed up.  Can one create an "article" here on say, Barack Obama, to use as a link farm to other wikis: e.g. Wikipedia article on Obama, Conservapedia article on Obama, Uncyclopedia article on Obama, et al?  If not there where can this be done?  Any help would be appreciated.  Thanks  [[User:Yartet|Yartet]] 15:56, 15 December 2008 (EST)

I recently admonished an anonymous user that this site is about indexing wikis, not providing one's own personal perspective about them. However, now that I look deeper into it, this rule exists in my head, not on WikiIndex. True, we don't typically provide a lot of subjective information about the wikis we list here, but there's really nothing saying that we can't. I brought this up to [[MarkDilley]] and he said that this is a community issue. So I'm bringing it up here on the Community talk page. :-)

:*'opinions' which are personal points of view and might not be shared by other editors and

:*'facts' which can be verified by citations that link directly over to some sort of feature.

:Some of the pros and cons of wiki farms apply to all of the wikis hosted on that wiki farm. You could (for example) make a template for Wikia (Template:Wikia perhaps) that lets people know that the wiki has various Wikia features (shared help, a single sign in for all Wikia wikis, community assistance at the central wiki, visiting admins who help fight spam, etc, etc). Descriptions of these features could actually be put on the Wikia category page, or alternatively, you could create a Wikia namespace (and have a page called 'Wikia:Shared help' that gives full details about how the help system works - or in this case does not work as it is currently broken). I'm not sure how this sort of thing should be set up, but it is something that could be cut down to an absolute minimum and then added to all Wikia wikis. (If it was done right, it could also add the Wikia category to the wiki in question.)

:In fact I wonder if anything that is statistical could be something that should be put into some sort of template. If lots of wikis have advertising, then should [[Template:Wiki]] be updated to have a line that lets people know if a given wiki has adverts on it? Or would it be better to have additional templates (like you already do with [[Template:Size]]?

:I also wonder if Template:Wiki should have sub-templates, that deal with specific types of wikis that have special requirements. For example, a number of wikis have been set up to deal with fictional worlds. From the point of view of fictional worlds '[[:Category:Canon|canon]]' is a very important thing. Some people may be looking for an encyclopedia of canon and would not 'value' a wiki that contains stuff that is not from the canon of the original source. On the other hand, other people are interested in expanding that fictional world with [[:Category:Fan fiction|fan-fiction]] and would not want to work on a wiki that did not allow them to add [[:Category:Fanon|fanon]] material.

::I agree that any review info should be objective rather than subjective, but the question is about notability and fairness of certain "facts". For example, I (repeatedly) posted a "fact" in the [[RationalWiki]] article, that there was a debate about an issue on the [[talk page]]. Is it a notable fact? Is it fair to host or link to criticism of one without doing this for any competing wikis or wiki farm? When persistent editors make sure that their favored articles are free of certain "criticisms", is it fair to allow criticism in another article just because there is no one so driven to "protect" it? [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 15:58, 23 June 2010 (EDT)

I've seen a number of other [[wiki]]s that have bots that go around and do minor cleanup jobs.  Would it possible to create a [[:Category:User Bot|bot]] that goes around and checks any pages that contain [[Template:Size]]?  This [[:Category:Templates|template]] contains the size of the wiki, but also has a link where the new size can be read.  A bot should (hopefully) be able to follow the link, look at the current size of the wiki and then update the number of pages back on [[WikiIndex]].

There are several wikis in [[:Category:Wiki Korean]] for which the PAGENAME is written in Korean characters which cannot be reproduced on my computer.  I don't know Unicode from a unicorn, but my computer can display a surprising variety of characters from different languages (Chinese, Japanese, Hindi, Thai, Hebrew, Arabic, etc.), but it has trouble with Korean and Burmese.  I'm wondering if these pages should be moved to a new PAGENAME.  I'm not trying to be English-centric (or Roman-alphabet-centric), notwithstanding that this site is already pretty much that way.  But standing operating procedure seems to be to use the English name ([[wp:exonym|an exonym]]) in the namespace and then add redirects to that page for the name in the native language ([[wp:endonym|endonym]]).  Alternatively, we could leave these articles as they are but add redirects using the Roman alphabet (assuming we can find a translation).  I think I'm going to use that plan for now.  I'm just wondering what would be of most benefit for our visitors. --[[User:MarvelZuvembie|MarvelZuvembie]] 19:43, 9 May 2009 (EDT)

==Websites Wiki==

It may start competing with WikiIndex soon.  There are stirrings.  You folks may want to see if you can come to some arrangement, perhaps involving reciprocal links on the basis that Wikia doesn't list any more wikis.  [[User:Robin Patterson|Robin Patterson]] 07:52, 31 January 2010 (EST)

Everyone is invited to attend.  Developers interested in serving as "extensions" or "MediaWiki 1.19" experts are encouraged to signup as participants at: [[mw:Project:WikiProject Extensions/MediaWiki Workshops#MediaWiki 1.19 Experts]]

I notice that according to [[wikipedia:Wikia]], "Wikia hosts several hundred thousand wikis". Of course, WikiIndex only lists a small fraction of those. I wonder how many of those several hundred thousand were test wikis and the like, and were [[:Category:GoalAbandoned|abandoned]] almost immediately? My guess is a lot.

Should 11,000 characters be regarded as pretty much the maximum, and optimal for providing enough information but still being short enough to read and navigate comfortable for many users? So then, if anyone wanted to add content to such an article, he would need to remove something less important from that article. It definitely limits how comprehensive such an article could be. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Conservapedia weighs in at 53,000 characters. [[wikipedia:Wikipedia]] is 197,000 characters long. Articles definitely ''could'' include a lot more information, if that were what we were going for. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 07:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)