Talk:WikkaWiki
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Is a Wiki a CMS?
User 84.137.248.182 has recently removed the Open Source CMS category link from this page without giving any further explanation other than a short edit comment. I'm reverting this edit and asking this editor to make a stronger case supporting his or her decision. Here's the reasons why I think wiki engines can be listed in a CSM category:
- Wiki engines are by definition Content Management Systems. A CMS is defined in WP as (quote) a computer software system used to assist its users in the process of content management. CMS facilitates the organization, control, and publication of a large body of documents and other content, such as images and multimedia resources.
- Wiki engines are listed in popular CMS directories (see for instance http://www.opensourcecms.com/)
- Several wiki engines are listed in the Open Source CMS category, including MediaWiki, i.e. the engine running Wikipedia. If there is a decision establishing the fact that wikis are not CMS, than all the items listed in this category should be removed accordingly after a general discussion on the appropriate page. The fact that the removal of this category link from the WikkaWiki article is the only edit ever done by User 84.137.248.182 makes it quite suspicious.
--DarTar 11:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] From VfD
Notability? Mikkalai 01:31, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See also:
- Seems to have a fair number of google hits. Remove feature list, merge and redirect to Wackowiki. --Korath会話 00:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yep, you got it right. The number is fair indeed: exactly 104 hits (using your link), if you know how to count properly. Mikkalai 01:14, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I'd like to have some explanations on this deletion proposal. I've written the first draft of this page, since it was marked as one of the missing pages in the list of wakka-forks. I think I've given an objective description of the features of this engine, much as the other engines listed in WikiSoftware do. I've added to the list of wakkaforks also Wikini (as a missing page), which is another major wakka-fork. Can someone please explain to me what the Remove feature list, merge and redirect to Wackowiki proposal is meant to do? And, please, since I'm totally new to wikipedia guidelines, would someone please tell me how the notability/google hits criteria work? Are you assessing the legitimacy of a Wikipedia entry on the basis of its search results? And if this is the case, are you evaluating the software [popularity] or the mere number of occurrences of the WikkaWiki keyword? -- Dario
- If both WackoWiki and WikkaWiki are proposed for deletion, why not also CitiWiabout:blankki and UniWakka? They're all forks of the original WakkaWiki as outlined in their pages while their features lists make the differences clear. Removing features lists (as proposed by Korath) would make things terribly hazy because then you can no longer see the different directions in which these Wakka forks are evolving. -- They're all forks, but they're all different (different enough for people to choose one implementation over another based on their features and their own requirements) - so keep all of them or remove all of them. But then if you remove all of them - remove Wakka as well. Wakka no longer exists as a project (although it's still used). (Then what will you do with the rest of the PHP-based Wikis? Why keep those but not, say, UniWakka?) If anything should be deleted it's Wakka itself, but not the forks that live on in quite different identities now. -- JavaWoman
Since you seem to know what you are talking about, why don't you write a summary article for wakka with all its forks, with common feature table for easy comparison, if you really want help users? If wakka is so lightweight and easily extendable, there should be ziillions of forks, in every universioty dorm. Claims of notability must be supported. Mikkalai 16:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Has it crossed your mind Mr. Mikkalai, that not all of the Wakka-forks implemented are even visible to Google and other SEs because they are implemented in an intranet that is not visible to the outside world? And that they are often chosen for such a purpose because they are indeed lightweight? And shouldn't claims of "non-notability" when used for a PfD be supported? I have not seen any objective criteria yet. On the other hand I have seen a lot of derogatory language from you that is quite insulting and completely unnecessary if there are indeed objective criteria - such language makes your arguments all the less believable. That said, I'm quite prepared to write an article comparing different Wakka forks - I agree that would be quite useful - but I emphatically don't agree the separate articles should be deleted, they should be merely edited. -- JavaWoman
- Keep - David Gerard 23:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Extreme keep! Notable! --L33tminion | (talk) 03:51, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Whether or not the software is being actively worked on, the contents of this article are helpful to a reader looking for an overview of development efforts in the wiki software field. — DV 04:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Tone Cleanup
Superm401 suggests a tone cleanup for this article. Could you please give some specific suggestions? Thanks --DarTar 12:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- To me, it read a bit like a press release. Because the product is notable, the cleanup isn't a very high priority, but it still isn't NPOV. Sentences like "WikkaWiki's flexibility and easy adaptability to the user's needs - including the nonprofessional developer's - are among the most prominent and appreciated features of this engine"[emphasis in original], while less blatant then some articles here, are clearly POV. I just wanted to remind people to work on it at some point. In the meantime, it's biased, but still provides some useful information. Superm401 | Talk 15:20, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- I removed the most biased sentences and tried to clean up the general tone --DarTar
