Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators
83,693
edits
Please add your wiki, and join our community.
Note: WikiIndex is not a wiki hosting service.
(please log-in to bypass the anti-spam CAPTCHA and remove this heading notice)
Category talk:New: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Text replacement - "Wiki Status" to "Wiki status"
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "NeedsLove" to "Needs love") |
Hoof Hearted (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "Wiki Status" to "Wiki status") |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::: Yes, I agree that a [[:Category:New|'new' category]] might be useful, for wiki that have very little activity because they were started very recently. I wouldn't say new wiki are "inactive", because here at WikiIndex we've re-defined that word to mean Category:Inactive, URLs that once led to a wiki, but now do not (neither one of which are true of new wiki). | ::: Yes, I agree that a [[:Category:New|'new' category]] might be useful, for wiki that have very little activity because they were started very recently. I wouldn't say new wiki are "inactive", because here at WikiIndex we've re-defined that word to mean Category:Inactive, URLs that once led to a wiki, but now do not (neither one of which are true of new wiki). | ||
::: On the other hand, I wouldn't be too upset if someone decided there are too many [[:Category:Wiki | ::: On the other hand, I wouldn't be too upset if someone decided there are too many [[:Category:Wiki status|wiki status]] categories, and decided to merge "New" with "Active" ("in use and not overrun by spam"). --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 18:20, 27 February 2007 (PST) | ||
==When is a wiki's status no longer New?== | ==When is a wiki's status no longer New?== | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:I agree, it's a silly cat. "A wiki that's just gone live with no content" - that's how they all start. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 23:00, 24 October 2009 (EDT) | :I agree, it's a silly cat. "A wiki that's just gone live with no content" - that's how they all start. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 23:00, 24 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
:: Yes, all wiki start out that way. I suppose we ''could'' leave a wiki status as "New" indefinitely, until something happens. Until it would be more accurate to call it some other [[:Category:Wiki | :: Yes, all wiki start out that way. I suppose we ''could'' leave a wiki status as "New" indefinitely, until something happens. Until it would be more accurate to call it some other [[:Category:Wiki status]] -- perhaps [[:Category:Active|"Active"]] or [[:Category:Spammed|"Spammed"]] or "Inactive" or [[:Category:Dead|"Dead"]]. What do you think we should do? --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 23:15, 24 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::: I'd like to keep New category. I think it is a reasonable way of letting people know of a wiki that relatively New and is thus probably a wiki they haven't looked at and probably needs more contributions. I was thinking of taking [[Apologetics Wiki]] and adding it to a birth category (perhaps 2009 March births?)[http://www.apologetics-wiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&dir=prev&limit=7&action=history]. I think a wiki should lose New status when (a) after seven months (so Apologetics Wiki would lose its New status in November (1 month old in April, 2 months old in May, 3 in June, 4 in July, 5 in Aug, 6 in Sept and 7 in October) or (b) it gets big enough (more than 100 articles?) --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 01:58, 25 October 2009 (EDT) | ::: I'd like to keep New category. I think it is a reasonable way of letting people know of a wiki that relatively New and is thus probably a wiki they haven't looked at and probably needs more contributions. I was thinking of taking [[Apologetics Wiki]] and adding it to a birth category (perhaps 2009 March births?)[http://www.apologetics-wiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page&dir=prev&limit=7&action=history]. I think a wiki should lose New status when (a) after seven months (so Apologetics Wiki would lose its New status in November (1 month old in April, 2 months old in May, 3 in June, 4 in July, 5 in Aug, 6 in Sept and 7 in October) or (b) it gets big enough (more than 100 articles?) --[[User:EarthFurst|EarthFurst]] 01:58, 25 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
::::I like the "birth" (or founding?) cat idea. It doesn't require updating - stuff that is in recent "founding date" cats is new. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 18:46, 25 October 2009 (EDT) | ::::I like the "birth" (or founding?) cat idea. It doesn't require updating - stuff that is in recent "founding date" cats is new. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 18:46, 25 October 2009 (EDT) | ||
I find it useful to let people know that a wiki is new. I like the idea of adding a wikis birthday, (see [http://WikiBirthday.org WikiBirthday.org]. If we keep the new status - then yea, in x months it should be replaced by another [[:Category:Wiki | I find it useful to let people know that a wiki is new. I like the idea of adding a wikis birthday, (see [http://WikiBirthday.org WikiBirthday.org]. If we keep the new status - then yea, in x months it should be replaced by another [[:Category:Wiki status|wiki status]]. [[MarkDilley]] | ||
:I see the "New" category as being distinct from [[:Category:Dormant|"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) | :I see the "New" category as being distinct from [[:Category:Dormant|"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) | ||