Talk:List of wikis/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →


Contents

Why was a wiki removed?

  • Is there any reason that GamerWiki (http://www.gamerwiki.com/) should not be on this list, when others, such as GamingWiki, and Encyclopedia Gamia, are on it? -- Tyagi 22:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
See discussion below, and the note now found at the top of the article. --Chriswaterguy · talk 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Note the dates of comments! However, I'm now looking to get the GamerWiki article undeleted. Tim 17:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


List of wikis

If you do not believe that a list of wikis is encyclopædic, then you should put the page up for deletion. In the meantime, ¿why delete Peaceful Beginnings, but keep PornWiki with one less registered user and SailWiki with only two more users? ¿What is your cutoff? Even though it is new, it already has three books for publication in progress (Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma in English and a book comming into being in both French and English simultaneously (Circumcisions, the child’s point of view (The fourth sex) - Sigismond, Circoncisions, le point de vue de l'enfant (Le quatrième sexe) - Sigismond)).

Circumcision: The Painful Dilemma already has 18 chapters in various states of completion. ¿Does that count for anything? The earlier chapters already have illustrations. The books comming into being in French and English are not as far along, but in their own way are more ambitious — written in French and English simultaneously. One of our members promised to create a locationbaricon and siteicon by the end of the year.

If you truly believe that a list of wikis is unencyclopædic, you should list it on VfD.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 00:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"If you do not believe that a list of wikis is encyclopædic, then you should put the page up for deletion." I belive that the topic of this list fits to Wikipedia. The topic or the idea is to have a list of notable wikis. Notable is something that is worth for an own article in Wikipedia. You only delete the pages that have a topic that doesn't fit here. This article isn't such.
But this page is currently in horrible condition. It clearly lists many wikis that are not notable enough to have very own articles about them. I have tried to prune this list. Look at its edit history for my edits. I removed PornWiki before you wrote to this talk page, so it is strange the you complain about it.
You don't seem to realize, what kind of effort is to clean up the list. First, you take a look at a wiki, its statistics and recent changes. If it seems a minor wiki, then you search from Google if the wiki is often discussed or linked. The copies of this list and maybe a Wikipedia article about the wiki muddle the search results. You test, if the page has some Alexa ranking. And then you do conclusions. It is more easy, if the non-notable wiki hasn't yet an article about itself here. You just remove its entry from the list and write the explanation in edit summary. But if the article exists, you persuade others to delete it. So you prepare an AfD page, write detailed reasons for deletion (I am a slow wirter, and my mother tongue isn't even English, so it takes time), and then watch the deletion discussion you started. When the page gets deleted, you have to remember to remove its entry from the list. I have requested several articles about wikis to be deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaraWiki, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Ink Travel Wiki, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arija wiki.
I also have other things to do in Wikipedia, and outside Wikipedia, so you can't demand me to work full-time. Pruning of the list is quite boring, but no-one else seems keen on it. I am not interested in the subject of the wikis that I remove from the list. I am only interested if they are notable.
It isn't that unique that people write books in wikis. You certainly know Wikibooks. Also, people are updating Lawrence Lessig's book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace in a wiki. It has received more publicity than your project, but the wiki still doesn't have an own article. Th wiki is just mentioned in the article about the book. And there are many dusty wikis and several wiki book writing projects that have frozen or stopped. If you would first finish one book, then you have chance to gain some notability through the book. There is nothing new in multilingual wikis. There are also wikis that write exactly the same text in several languages, some software documentation projects are such. So writing a book in several languages in one wiki isn't very groundbreaking. –Hapsiainen 03:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
When I see a list of wikis, I add my wiki to it. If you want only a list of notable wikis, ¿why not move this article to list of notable wikis and define some criteria on the page for inclusion? ¿Does it surprise you that people just add items to a list about that kind of item when no stated criteria other than being that kind of item exists? If I would start an article called list of 10-fingered people, I would not be surprised that thousands of people add themselves to the list daily. If you would move the article to list of notable wikis and define what notable is in the first paragraph, your job would get much more simple. — — Ŭalabio‽ 06:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The top of the article says that the list is only for notable wikis. The AfD discussion says so. How is this so dificult to understand? There are also other lists that don't have a mention of notability in their titles. (List of Irish artists, List of Linux games) Still, you can't put any Irish that has drawn something or a game there.
There is currently no official definition of wiki notability. People can only see the past AfD votes and judge by them, or take a risk and create an article. People are currently writing a notability guideline for websites. Also page "Wikipedia:Google test" has some criteria. It is impossible to have an exact criteria, though. -Hapsiainen 14:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Any person in Ireland with art in a gallery logically belongs in List of Irish artists, just as any 10-fingered person belongs in a list of 10-fingered people. Frankly, you are your own worst enemy. You should move the article to list of notable wikis.
Notability itself is problematic. ¿Should the first wiki devoted to something count for anything? You should use objective criteria.
— Ŭalabio‽ 00:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Your example isn't valid. The works in galleries have already faced selection unlike wikis in a list that lists any wiki. I wouldn't list people that have participated a painting course, and have had an exhibition of their works in a local library, as artists in Wikipedia. Then I would deserve an article, too. I think that this is a better example, than "anyone draws", because some publicity isn't enough publicity. There is no completely objective criteria for notability, since any notability criteria would be a value judgement. And there is not even any official notability criteria, see Wikipedia:Notability. There are only some guidelines. But you are right that people should be explained whan kind of wikis they clearly shouldn't put to this list. -Hapsiainen 20:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If this is a List of Wikis like the title suggests then it should list ALL Wikis. If this is not a List of Wikis then the title should be changed. --Mjrmtg 11:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Does List of American Artists list every American artist? Of course not. Its implied that Wikipedia lists are only lists of important/notable subjects. Wickethewok 13:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The List of American Artists clearly states at the top that it is not a complete list of American artists. Nowhere on the List of Wikis does is state the justification for making the list or not making the list. --Mjrmtg 00:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The first sentence reads "This is not a complete list of wikis (sites based on the wiki model); only wikis with their own entry in Wikipedia are listed here." That seems like a pretty good definition for the list. That means that since an article must meet WP:WEB to be an article, any wikis here must meet WP:WEB. It would be inappropriate to state "This is a list of wikis that meet WP:WEB" at the top, so this makes perfect sense to me. If you still find this confusing, we could make it say "This is a list of notable wikis" or something like that. Wickethewok 03:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Why does the List of American Artists have entries that do not have their own entries in Wikpedia (can tell because of the red font)? Should lists not be uniform in some way? All entries must be linked to another wiki page (or not)? --Mjrmtg 11:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Lists are not uniform. Maybe they should be, but right now there isn't anything requiring them to have similar criteria for inclusion. The reason for implementing this sort of policy here, is that this particular article gets spammed fairly often with wikis that have often just started or are otherwise using WP as a billboard. As the American artists list is set up now, all entries are for people who should meet WP:BIO (theoretically), just as all entries listed here should meet WP:WEB. For complete lists of wikis, there are always the external links at the bottom that are have links to lists of wikis with less encyclopedic criteria for inclusion. Wickethewok 13:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

In line with normal practice for list articles, and the consensus at AfD, and the cleanup tag itself, I have cleaned this list. It now includes only those Wikis which have articles (hopefully not redirects, if you fond one please feel free to remove it), and no weblinks (WP:NOT a link farm). It is still long, but that's not necessarily a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 16:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent cleanup. I also took out the Skepticwiki external link (no internal article), added after your mass cleanup. --Rob 19:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Remove IntegralWiki from Math section

Integral wiki has nothing to do with integrals, its about Integral theory

Done —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Singkong2005 (talk • contribs) .

? I did this ten days ago. [1] · rodii · 04:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

What is the core criteria for inclusion a wiki must have for it to be put onto this list? I have two wikis I would like to see put on here (Kingdom of Loathing Wiki) (AcmlmWiki). The former is a often-updated wiki about the MMORPG Kingdom of Loathing, and the latter is a still-under-construction wiki about an online community about ROM Hacking. Would I need to do anything significant, or just slap them in? --GUTTERTAHAH 04:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Just slap them in.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Almighty Rajah (talk • contribs) .

See the comment on the article page: This is not a complete list of wikis (sites based on the wiki model); only wikis with their own entry in Wikipedia are listed here, as Wikipedia considers wikis without an entry in Wikipedia to be not notable. For a complete listing of all wikis, see WikiIndex." So there you go--are those two wikis independently notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article? If so, make a wikilink to the article--but an under-construction wiki is almost by definition not notable. See WP:WEB for some thoughts on notability for websites, including wikis. I wouldn't recommend just slapping them in. · rodii · 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This is all very well, but the criteria for whether a Wiki has an entry on Wikipedia is flakey at best. For example, Encyclopedia Gamia has an entry on Wikipedia, but GamerWiki, which has more pages, covers more games, and has a better structure, had its Wikipedia entry deleted. Tim 09:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, didn't notice Tyagi's question at the top of the page! Tim
  • The criteria for inclusion is WP:WEB, which is a set of guidelines for all websites, including Wikis. Wickethewok 14:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If this is true, then half the Wikis on this list shouldn't be either on this list or in Wikipedia at all. Tim 14:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would not wager against that. I've gone through this list every once in awhile and nom'd nn wikis for deletion. Our requirements for Wikis shouldn't be any less than any other website just because they are based on the same paradigm. Wickethewok 15:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I very much agree. Now, I've just got to dig out the mentions of GamerWiki in the Guardian, on Ceefax, and in Retro Gamer ... Tim 17:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Even though WikiIndex is a key resource, even mentioned in key places as a resource by WP itself, it does not seem to be deemed worth of an article.--69.87.200.5 01:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Meatball: Biggest wikis

This link is way back in 2004. The chart really needs updating and I want to see the current stats. Anomo 09:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

notable

Maybe the name of this page should be changed to List of Wikipedia entries of Notable Wiki-sites, or List of articles on independent wikis. Greetings, Sacca 04:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Organization

  • Shouldn't we just pick whether this list is going to be alphabetical or by topic? Having both makes editing and reading awkward. I like the sorting by general subject, since alphabetical is already done by the category, but there really aren't enough notable wikis to demand a category sorting. Thoughts? Wickethewok 15:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleterious Deleting

I've been out of the loop for a long time (due to being in a country with sometime restrictions), but I was disappointed to see this page lose its comprehensiveness. Is it really harming something to just list all subject wikis regardless of whether they have their own Wikipedia article page? Since it is subjective anyways as to what may merit its own page, why not let the site visitors determine what is significant and what is not? Or, at least asterisk the sites which are or are not "significant". Although it makes sense for Wikipedia to limit its articles to noteworthy pages (i.e., not a page about my favorite dishes), it a little delete-happy I think to so narrowly restrict lists as has been done on this page. I have seen this jump-to-delete attitude way too frequently at Wikipedia and rather than being rule-driven, it would be nice to see a more practical approach which can be useful to this site's visitors...best wishes, Brettz9 13:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts

I agree that Wikipedia shouldn't just link to endless irrelevant wikis and websites, and that this page should be linking notable wikis, preferably which have not been listed by the people who own/have founded that wiki.

However, I think this problem could be resolved by having a link at the top of the page to a prominent external wiki directory, a another article which lists them. At the moment wikiindex.com is listed at the bottom of the page in the external links. A message at the top of the page could state that this article is only for notable wikis, and that a more complete directory, including less notable wikis, can be found at wikiindex.com (or some other directory, although that's the only one I'm aware of). Markdarb 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thats not a bad idea. That seems like it could reduce spamming of this page and increase its usefulness simultaneously. Wickethewok 21:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
IAWTC. --Neurophyre(talk) 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

reason for move back

Lists of articles are not usually titled "List of articles about United States presidents" or the like, so that fact that most links are wikilinks shouldn't be a rename. I won't move war, but I felt my reasoning was sound enough to effect this move. Gotyear 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I concur with Gotyear. Wickethewok 17:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also agree with the move back. --- RockMFR 20:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I prefer the title list of wikis. The title doesn't need to reflect that most of the wikis on the page have articles, and it's possibly self-refential for Wikipedia to suggest that anyway. Angela. 17:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

LyricWiki

I would like to add LyricWiki to the list but I'm not sure in which section it belongs. Please help... --Dirk Gently 12:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It would probably go under the "Arts..." section, maybe under a music sub-heading? Wickethewok 17:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Many or most of these articles don't meet notability requirements

This article has major problems and inconsistencies, mainly as a result of the very restrictive notability criteria for web content. Either this list has to be culled to a point where it's very short and not very useful, or the notability requirements have to change.

I have just carried out a check of 32 of the articles about wikis listed in List of wikis - the 16 under Science and technology and the 8 under Personal and societal. Of the 32, only one, Intellipedia, definitely meets the notability requirements. Of the others:

I think most of us wikiholics would recognize that WikiWikiWeb is definitely notable, but the article is unreferenced, so technically it doesn't meet the criteria. Others are no doubt in the same state. MeatballWiki is similar, only offering one passing reference in a BW Online article.

Notes about my motivation: I considered adding Appropedia (the wiki site for appropriate technology, sustainability and international development) but I didn't as it doesn't meet the notability criteria. However, I now discover that other wikis are on here in spite of seeming to have no more notability, or perhaps less in some cases.

This inconsistent treatment is bad for Wikipedia's quality, and is unfair on many wikis that aren't listed.

Suggested solution: My main aim here is to highlight the problem. My suggestion, though, is that the notability criteria for web content should be changed, giving alternative ways to be considered notable, based on the level of activity and/or page hits, size of community and taking into account Google and Alexa rankings.

It's worth noting that factors like this are mentioned in discussion about deletion of articles[2] although they are not actually mentioned in the notability requirements.

If even very important wikis like WikiWikiWeb and MeatballWiki don't have articles that meet the notability requirements, clearly the requirements are much too restrictive. Or am I missing something? --Chriswaterguy · talk 02:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree, and it's something that doesn't just affect this page. Many other pages link to this page, including Template:Gamecleanup which uses the list of "specialised gaming wikis" on this page to indicate where content should go. Yet this list includes Encyclopedia Gamia and not GamerWiki even though the latter is larger, longer established, and covers a slightly different area to EG. Basically the decisions made here affect not only this page.

What's more, as you say the notability criteria have never been consistenyl applied. Using the same example, GamerWiki's article on Wikipedia has been refused undeletion despite it featuring in articles in two (print) magazines, a UK national newspaper and an online editorial. EG's article was not deleted in the first place, although no proof of notability was given at all. It's enough to make you just want to give up! Tim 02:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikicars

I'd like to know where could Wikicars be added? It is a wiki-based site with a single-minded focus on cars and everything auto-related.

Red_marquis 6:51 pm, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines

Please read these before you add anything to this list. It may (and probably will) be deleted if you do not! You have been warned.

  1. Please link only to the wiki's article here on Wikipedia.
  2. Include a brief description of the wiki.
  3. The wiki must be notable. This should be satisfied if you follow point 1 above.
  4. Any external links should be other lists of wikis, and be included in the proper section at the bottom.

--wizzard2k (C•T•D) 21:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

libertarian wiki page created

a page for Libertarian Wiki has been created, then deleted by some creep, then created again. please, for the love of all wikis and the prorogation of information, add content to it and make it better. i am trying my best but contributions would help out the page much.

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Libertarian Wiki. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
This is not the best place to ask for people to contribute to other wikis. WP:RA and WP:RFE are good places for that. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

who deleted Libertarian Wiki?

it exists and one of you deleted it. the site is (http://libertarianwiki.org/Main_Page) if you don't believe me then go to the page. FIX it now!

Added the link in the appropriot site. there is no page for libertarian wiki. DO NOT DELETE THE LIBERTARIAN WIKI STUFF LIKE THAT ONE JERK.

Vote for Deletion

This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Splash 01:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

People in the VfD discussion thought that this list should be only for notable wikis. I agree. Wikipedia is not a web directory. I removed a wiki from the list, which was judged as unnotable in an article deletion vote, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arija wiki. It is a clear precedent of an unnotable wiki. -Hapsiainen 22:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the title should then be "A List of Notable Wikis" with a link to a concensus built definition of "Notable". Lazyquasar (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
This thread is more than 2 years old, you'd be better off with a new discussion, but hey! The criteria was built out of the talk page, and it's weird to have a discussion of or links to wikipedia policy on mainspace pages. It says at the top of the page This is an incomplete list of wikis (sites based on the wiki model) of comparative notability, and the consensus has been to include wikis with their own articles on wikipedia (i.e. bluelinks only) based on WP:NOT; keeps the cruft, non-notable and external-linked only wikis out of the picture. Any wiki that can demonstrate notability through WP:N and WP:WEB can stay, it's the same criteria that applies to all wikipedia pages. Unfortunately this isn't clear to anyone not regularly involved in the page, but it's an easy enough criteria to apply. WLU (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Any list that is mistitled and/or incomplete is useless and wasteful in an "encyclopedia". People expect some comprehensive coverage of a topic in an encyclopedia. "List of Wikis" provideds implications of usefulness to someone looking for a list of wikis and then provides a short list of editor favorates by no explainable set of criteria. IMO, this list should be retitled or deleted. Thousands of people should not arrive here expecting a long list of wikis only to read the local guidelines truncating this to a list of somebody's favorites. It is a waste of their time and diminishes Wikipedia's perceived and actual usefulness. Lazyquasar (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
What alternative title would you suggest? I'd say it's just as useful as any other list, though I will admit I'm confused by the existence of lists at all. The criteria is at the top of the page (notability) and is discussed on the talk page. I don't think the page should be moved to List of notable wikis because it's kinda POV in my mind, and more explicitly related to wikipedia, which probably is against WP:SELF. It's not a matter of favorites, it's a matter of having criteria so the page doesn't get spammed and filled with redlinks and external links. It's not an unduly onerous criteria in my mind. If a wiki should be on here, it should be notable - insisting on page creation before a list entry makes sense to me. You're welcome to bring this up in an WP:AFD, though I don't think it'd get deleted. Otherwise, what title would you suggest? Seeing as this page has received unusual traffic in the past couple days, I'm bringing it up at the WP:LIST talk page to see what other, more knowledgeable contributors have to say. WLU (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Links

Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a collection of links. In other list articles it is usual to exclude links, and to exclude those entries which do not have an article (if they are not notable enough for an article, they are not notable to be listed). Just zis Guy you know? 13:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and there are some related articles that are even worse. Check out Comparison of content management systems for a real redlink trainwreck. I plan to clean them out as soon as I get a minute, unless someone beats me to it. · rodii · 18:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


notability, again

I know alexa ranks aren't everything, but can we define some rank above which inclusion is uncontroversial? I don't care very much either way, but I find it difficult to understand that we delete CreationWiki but keep Conservapedia, when the former has clearly a better ranking. I took the liberty of listing religious-pov wikis with ranks better than Conservapedia, on the basis that a full article on Conservapedia passed Afd, so that it appears fair to at least list wikis of higher ranks. I suggest ranks better than 250,000 or so should be fair game (for being mentioned, not for getting their own article!), and ranks above 1,000,000 should be excluded as unnotable in any case. dab (�) 12:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we could also reproduce m:List of largest wikis here, since it is not actually "meta" material, but a list of sites regardless of their association with mediawiki. dab (�) 15:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Alexa ranks aren't anything. I'm much against using Alexa rank as a criteria for inclusion. I'm not in favor of doing it by article count, # of edits, or # of users either, as all of those can easily be artificially inflated by the wiki creators through bots or whatever. Any other ideas? With so many wikis springing up, I'm highly concerned about this becoming a spamboard like List of Webcomics used to be. Wickethewok 21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • yes, we have to have some clear guideline. I know the problem with Alexa, which essentially measures a subset of Microsoft users, but it's the best thing we have short of counting google hits or referring to discussions in notable publications. The suggestion is to set a minimal Alexa rank, beyond which we don't need to consider a site. Let's face it, whatever we come up with will be arbitrary, so we might as well just set some arbitrary yet reasonable requirements. dab (�) 19:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This list is quickly becoming a directory, with no rhyme or reason to inclusion. This article needs to become a comprehensive list (and I dont believe it should, as wikipedia is NOT a directory), a list of categories (types) of wikis with NOTABLE EXAMPLES of each or deleted and redirected elsewhere. ★wizzard2k (∃contribs • ∴talk) 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think I understand how its "quickly becoming a directory". All of the articles wikilinked to are presumably notable (if they're not, they should be taken to AFD - but thats a separate thing). The criteria for inclusion seems pretty straightforward to me - if it meets WP:WEB, include - if not, don't include. Wickethewok 22:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I saw your post above regarding WP:WEB as the criteria for inclusion. I think if it meets that, and we are linking its Wikipedia page, then that should be fine. We should come to some sort of agreement for a guideline to post at the top here to hopefuly reduce the amount of "OMG WHY WAS MY WIKI DELETED?!!!!111" posts. There seems to be a lot of discussion for what should be the requirements, but I'm having a hard time finding any sort of resolution. ★wizzard2k (C•T) 23:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

WikIran

Add WikIran[3] to the list of geographical wiki communities. I'm not able to do so because I'm not a registered wikipedia user.201.50.130.45 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfair deletion

Why can all these other mediawiki and non-mediawiki based wiki's be listed here, but when I list my wiki, WikiStock.com, it gets deleted?--Rovo79 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the information, I will look into it. Thankyou Wicket.--Rovo79 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


List of Wikis suggestion

This follows on from a discussion on the Conservapedia talk page - an "compare and contrast" article on the various wikis, now there are enough of them. Jackiespeel 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • That could be a good idea, but what would you be comparing and contrasting? Keep in mind that original research is no good. Wickethewok 17:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was putting the idea in the air.

Some possibilities:

How do the computer related and other "grouped" wikis compare and contrast; the range of topics covered in various other wikis, the various wiki-like structures.

See the discussions on the Conservapedia talk page - the methods of operation differ quite significantly from that of Wikipedia.

I think it would be possible to create something on the "allowable precis/overview" side rather than the OR side (there is a distinction).

Jackiespeel 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A forgotten wiki

Theres also en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki. It's a wiki about Battlestar Galactica. I didn't see it on this page. So I thought you might want to know and put it on there. --Ladywater 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There are two wikis that could go on the list. "Star Trek" has a second wiki for noncanon material called "Memory Beta. There is also a wiki for "Pirates of the Caribbean," presently called "PotC Wiki". Kcops 00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Creation Science Wiki

The creation science wiki should be moved from science to religion. There is no scientific basis for it; it is solely a religious movement. —David618 t 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I came up with the following list while checking this list of wikis. I'm going to remove the nn entries.

  • Scifipedia - Two sentence stub. nn.
  • TV IV - Small paragraph stub with no references. nn
  • Dispersive PDE Wiki - survived AfD with NC, only to have one of the editors turn it into a redirect, when it probably should have been merged, as the article it redirects to doesn't contain any information on the wiki. Will remove from this list, revert the page from the redirect and start merge.
  • Unilang - Article is stub, with no references. nn
  • Javapedia - Article is stub, with no references. nn
  • Mac Guide - Article is stub at best. nn
  • MeatballWiki - Article is stub. nn
  • MemoryWiki - Redirects to MemoryArchive. Article is short, but a quick google search suggests the topic might be ok. Will change link.
  • Wikimapia - Redirects to WikiMapia. Will change link
  • Wikiasari - Links to article on Wikia, which states the wikiasari software met its end. Removing link.
  • Wiktory - Has been tagged with {{Notability}} since January. nn
  • WoWWiki - Article was deleted (after 3rd nom) and replaced with redirect to World of Warcraft, which does not contain a section on WoWWiki. Removing link from this list.
  • Homestar Runner Wiki - Redirects to Homestar_Runner#The_Homestar_Runner_Wiki section. Wiki is not notable enough to maintain its own article.

-wizzard2k (C•T•D) 05:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think deleting all those is going a bit too far. For example, MeatballWiki is a historic wiki site, definitely noteworthy. Same for Javapedia. -- User:PeterThoeny 07:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't remove anything from that list. Take the articles to AFD - then if they're deleted, remove them from the list. Removing the redirects (such as Homestarunner Wiki) is fine though. If the problem is non-notable articles, they should be deleted, not just unlinked. Wickethewok 09:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's criteria for noteworthiness do not make sense for Internet projects. Web-accessible mainstream media hits or open access journal article hits are quite diffused to collect, and it is honestly not worth anyone's time to defend their reference on Wikipedia. If you want to make a credible effort, you should think how one does define noteworthiness in this context, and also excuse yourself from the discussion if you do not have access to the relevant information.User:76.64.185.252

  • Internet-related content is not exempt from needing credible sources. This is something there has long been consesus on. If you wanna debate that, I suggest you take it up at WP:V or WP:WEB, but this isn't the place for that argument. Wickethewok 20:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. What is, however, confusing is that most of the IT articles read like press releases with links to their authors' companies in the external links section, followed closely by their competitors. As an outsider, I'm sceptical you really have any real consensus or policies, and I feel this is rather arbitrary and clumsy. If there were a serious effort to improve the various articles, I would be impressed. It's a basic wiki value to try to improve an article before deciding to delete it.

Anyway, I'm clearly put off now that this is the umpteenth time someone has asked me to defend their clearly notable and noble project from being deleted from Wikipedia, while Wikipedia fills up with commercial link spam thinly disguised as external links. There does not seem to be a way to reason with Wikipedia as a project, and so I think it's just better to do something else with my contribution time before I cause a real conflict. User:76.64.185.252

  • Its true that there are a bunch of crappy linkspammy articles and a bunch of good articles that have yet to be written, but thats why there are deletion procedures - so that hopefully the valid ones get kept and the rubbish gets deleted. Remember: what you think is "clearly notable" isn't always so clearly notable to everyone else, which is why there are verifiability/sourcing policies. I think almost all editors try to apply these across the board - which is much more difficult in practice, which is why you get some worthless stub articles. You state that "There does not seem to be a way to reason with Wikipedia as a project" and I agree. You can't reason with a giant project, but you can reason with individuals and small groups within it. Anyways, just my thoughts. If you have specific gripes with any policies/guidelines, I suggest starting a discussion on those pages or talking to specific editors on their talk pages. No need to clog up article talk pages already more than I/we have here... ;-) Oh, also, I've partially restored the article list, as if they aren't notable they should be deleted. Unlinking them just masks the problem. Wickethewok 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I'll start going through the list and seeing where they can either be improved or removed! -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 00:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I still think the link to Wikiasari should be removed from this page. Its not a wiki or wiki-related. It once was, and the #R leads to a section on Wikia's page that states the project died. I don't see any reason the redirect shouldn't be allowed to stay, as redirects are cheap, and there is information there, it just shouldn't be listed here. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 16:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Removal of that sounds ok to me. Wickethewok 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just an update- I'm anticipating some of these articles going away today. Some PRODs will be expiring, one is currently tagged for speedy, and another is undergoing an AfD debate. I'll check back later and clean it up if they're removed. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 16:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Centiare

I'm not going to be a crass wikipedian that puts something on the main page article then gets reverted then maybe ends up on the main page after people are angry because I my self hate that. Thus I will present my argument for centiare.com

  • Alexa ranking of 77,737 over the last three months [4]. (It was in the top 35,000 yesterday.
  • Notable for using sem tags, embedding videos and other things most wikis don't have.
  • Notable for the initial confrontation between Jimmy Wales and one of the sites founders (they have since made up and are on friendly terms). Andman8 18:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd recommend you start the centaire article about the website, if it meets Website Notability Guidelines. Once that article is up, you can post a link to it here (generally, external links on this list are bad, as it turns this into a website directory). HTH! -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 18:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He's tried it before and it's been deleted before -- with good reason. From his post to my Talk page:

The alexa ranking. Centiare ranks number 77,737 over the last three months and was 35,000 yesterday.

Raw Google/Alexa numbers mean bupkis, especially as they are manipulable (Hell, there's an entire industry -- SEO -- built around trying to pump up such numbers, not to mention that that's a pretty bad Alexa rating to begin with.

Most wikis on wikipedia (the ones linkable through List of Wikis are in the several hundred thousands.

So?

WP:WEB#Criteria. Centiare has been featured on a nationwide television station. Centiare was mentioned in the washington Post .

Multiple, non-trivial media coverage is merely the minimum requirement for consideration -- and you haven't even hit the "non-trivial" threshold.

The Essjay Controversy was written extensively on though the event was negative for wikipedia. Even though centiare started with an anti-wiki sentiment in the wikipedian community that should not stop inclusion.

That's an odd combination of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and basic incoherence, so I have no idea what exactly anyone is supposed to respond to.

After I tweak my argument here I will post it elsewhere so please nicely attack the site so I can build a better defense

In other words, you've already decided that you're going to put up an article on the thing and you're merely fishing for excuses that would allow you to do so and (so evidence suggests), to put more money in your own pocket? So spamming other users and using your own User Page for spamming wasn't enough for you, as your own User Page in February seemed to suggest? I'd say that unless you're cruising for a permablock that you cease the spamming/personal enrichment campaign. A read of WP:SPAM and WP:COI might prove instructive. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • No thanks. Kohs has already tried to spam his project into Wikipedia; we are not here to remedy the fact that it appears to be dead in the water despite his SEO skills. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Science wiki

Would it be possible to add http://www.sklogwiki.org/ to the Science and technology section?

  • We don't keep external links in the categories, because individually verifying notability for every item would be difficult (and its linkspam). Notability for inclusion to this list is inherited from an item's entry here on Wikipedia. If it sticks around as an article, its got a much better chance of being notable for this list. This list can be a double-edged sword, however, since placing something here can get a non-notable article noticed and deleted. In summary, make sure you've got a good article, or at least a well-sourced stub, on the site first, and link to that from this list. -wizzard2k (C•T•D) 15:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Anarchopedia

Two years ago Anarchopedia was deleted (repeatedly[5]) and later salted because of this deletion discussion. The main page at Anarchopedia meta has over 10x more hits than the main page at its English site, so I'd reason the project's main focus is NOT English. A few other WP projects appear to have articles for it, but there don't appear to be any sources on any of them, and mostly contain external links to the site like this. The site does have multiple tranlsations, which leads to the question, is it now worthy of mention? I am unsure, but felt it was worth a small discussion. -wizzard2k (C-T-D) 14:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Here is a sort of useful google search which doesn't seem to turn up enough hits for sources, but it does show something. -wizzard2k (C-T-D) 14:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Too much Deletion

This is supposed to be a FULL list of ALL wikis, right? Why do people keep deleting them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Midgardsormr (talk • contribs) 09:03, July 10, 2007.

Its not supposed to be a FULL list of ALL wikis. Check the description at the top of the List of wikis page, as well as #Guidelines on this talk page. -wizzard2k (C-T-D) 16:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ED

Encyclopedia Dramatica has a pagerank of about 10,000 by now on Alexa and is still growing in popularity. Is there a reason it isn't listed here? 74.61.41.118 05:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RS talks about the need for sources to support claims made in an article, especially claims which are surprising or significant. WP:V says that the subject of an article can be used as a source for the article itself as long as it satisfies a list of guidelines. What exactly is the contention here, that Encyclopedia Dramatica is not a wiki? That it is not notable? This talk page mentions how Alexa ranking is not always accurate, nor relevant; what about page views, then? Comparing Uncyclopedia's special statistics to... oh @#$%... ED's links are blocked. See: http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Special:Statistics Encyclopedia Dramatica's, it seems likely that ED with over 5x the article views of Uncyclopedia, yet with only 20-30% of the number of articles, has a lot of actual users while Uncyclopedia is a highly edited wiki that no one actually reads.
Yes, I don't expect that to convince anyone, but I just thought it was an interesting statistic to share. =p 74.61.41.118 06:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I guess that explains why at least. (blocked hyperlinks to the site.) >.> 74.61.41.118 06:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No reliable sources, no article. Straight from verifiability policy: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Wickethewok 13:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
A quick search of just Google news turns up 7 different news articles about ED. This is aside from the countless blog-style references which, along with self-references, are what most of the wikis that are on this list tend towards.
Verifiablity is a concept which is linked directly to the controversialness of a particular piece of information: quoting directly from WP:V, emphasis as displayed on that page, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source". Important and surprising claims demand a reliable, third-party source. Less surprising claims, such as the existence of a website, do not need a third-party source because they can be verified by the reader. Notability, and justification for inclusion into Wikipedia, will usually not be directly stated by a "reliable, fact-checking third party", because almost no one bothers to say that X website is a large, popular website; instead, notability is something established from the website itself, its patterns of use, and references to it in informal web media such as forums and blogs. 74.61.41.118 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Your opinions on notability, while interesting, won't do the most good here. This is the talk page for List of wikis, and we already know why ED is not linked here (blocked, and no article). If you wish to challenge the way notability is applied to websites, you might consider taking it up at the village pump. -wizzard2k (C-T-D) 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Come on, we all know the real reason it's not listed, it's vindictiveness. It's all childish. Anything with that many Alexa hits has to be notable. But it's to get back at all their vandalism against us. StaticElectric 08:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I'm adding it. Denying the existance of a website just because it attacks wikipedia is ridiculous. The arguments that ED doesn't merit inclusion because there are no reliable sources is applicable to almost all of the entries on this page. Clearly someone has an agenda to deny that ED exists.76.241.81.100 (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikitea

I'm not sure what you mean by 'notable', if it is the same thing as popular. The site WikiTea has very detailed information about Tea. I think it would be an extension to the Wikipedia article Tea. The site location: http://wikitea.com/index.php/Main_Page Complex-Algorithm 21:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Two lists

Would anyone be against removing the alphabetical order list? This section would be better served by the category function imo as it doesn't really add anything to the "by topic" list. -- Wickethewok (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

  • If no one objects, I'll just go ahead and remove it. Wickethewok (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Fine with me. WLU 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipeople

Some months ago, there was a Wikipeople, where people would list existing people (including people that lived centuries ago), with the purpose of creating a unique tree of all humankind. What happened to this project? Was it abandoned? 189.24.110.221 (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikis without articles

Why can't wikis that don't have article son this wiki be put on? This is a list of wikis, so shouldn't it have as many as possible? It even says to please add to the list. Well some people don't have the time to make an article about a wiki, since the wki is already there. There are many wikis out there that are well-created, like HRWiki, which has over 1,000 articles, does this mean they all need articles to be put on this list? And if so, how are we sure they'll be made without someone deleting them? BioYu-Gi! 19:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In order to be on the page, the wiki should be notable, and have their own page on wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory. WLU 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is coming up with good criteria for inclusion. A cutoff such as 1,000 articles would be quite arbitrary and would attest nothing to the quality, popularity, membership, etc... of a particularly wiki. Identifying "well-created" wikis is very subjective. Basically the current criteria is that they have been covered by independent reputable sources, which in a nutshell, is the primary criterion for notability. Wickethewok 20:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Alright, to go with the not a directory thing, does that mean list of text-based games and list of H anime should have all the links without articles removed? BioYu-Gi! 02:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
You'd be better off asking them over there. Lists don't always need to be of notable things, that is just the criterion that this page is using right now. Maybe they managed to come up with a something that works over there - different lists can have different criteria for inclusion (see WP:FL for good examples of lists). The "not a directory thing" (as I understand it), just means that lists don't include everything, regardless of any other factors. That is, that "list of text-based games" shouldn't include every text-based game, regardless of secondary coverage, lifespan, etc (eg. a game some guy whipped up one evening that 10 people ever played). However, I'm not really sure on what "not a directory" means in itself, so maybe ask for clarification at somewhere like WP:NOT or WP:LIST. Wickethewok 05:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I was going to post here - but actually read the discussion on the page and it helped! Is this a first?  ;) Gormenghastly (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I actually just removed the link - it was a link to a page that was not about a wiki, but did mention a wiki in passing. Several other similar 'mentioned' wikis have been removed for the list, including the World of Warcraft wiki and a couple other I think. WLU (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well WLU my smug little man - you can remove 'Paleos' as well then, given that you arbitrarily removed the others. Consistency dear fellow - try harder please. Gormenghastly (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Halo

Where are the Halo ones. I know there are at least two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.211.73 (talk • contribs)

It's possible the halo links were deleted because the were redlinks, or the entries were not notable. WLU (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiAsianTravel

It is a new project under WikiMedia Go take a look how you can help WikiAsianTravel

Need to do an article in WikiPedia WikiAsianTravel

Igor Berger (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest removing the entry until the article itself is created making sure the article passes WP:N, possibly WP:WEB. As it says at the top of the page, the list is based on notable wikis. Further, just being based on the wikimedia model isn't sufficient to establish notability. WLU (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, the above comment looks like you may be trying to use wikipedia to increase traffic to WAT; I'm pretty sure that's covered by WP:SPAM. WLU (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not interested in increasing traffic to no where, but to help a fellow wikimedia project. Let's leave the entry for now and see if someone would be interested in helping out! There is no rush to remove it, the article has not been creaed yet. And if you look at our media we have many tags for articles that have not been started yet. If you start removing all of them, you better talk to administrator first. Igor Berger (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:TALK for the appropriate spacing of comments. I won't be removing the comment, but be aware that that's how I read it, and other wikipedians with a similar hate for spam may read it the same way. Your follow-up of 'help a fellow wikimedia project' actually makes your initial comment look worse - just because it's a wikimedia project doesn't mean it gets a free pass or bypasses the criteria of the page. Consider this when composing comments. I'm not sure what you're actually saying with your comment above, I have no interest in what's happening on AWT, I'm concerned with what's happening on wikipedia. On this list, long-term editors consistently believe that the list should be exclusively blue-linked pages. If you create the article, rather than trying to convince me of its importance, and it passes WP:WEB/WP:N, I will put it on the page myself. The reason why I am removing it is because it has not been created yet. This page is made up of articles that already exist, not articles that 'should be created'. You may want to post the page at WP:RA. WLU (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Look, I have no problem with your policy, I want to follow it, good for you, but do not say I placed the link there to get more traffic to the project WikiAsianTravel. I f I wanted to send more traffic to internal or external page there are better ways of doing it. I can Digg it, StumbleUpon it, and tones of other ways. How many referels you think will come from the link that there is no actual link? Duh! Anyway I tried to get the community involved. For me is a bit hard to rewrite the content, make it notable and original, not copay and paste. I have certain skills, you have others, and other people have their skills. We shoudl help each other as a teacm, as a community. If you have a better suggestion how to get people involved in contributing to an article, I am willing to listen.
Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for spacing your comments appropriately. I'm not saying you are placing the link there to spam it, but that is what it may look like to some people, and I'm one of them. The only suggestion I have for soliciting input is to post it on WP:RA. Otherwise, if you're really interested in the page, create it, then ask for comments and corrections. All the time you've spent trying to defend this one sentence could have been used to compose the page. The list of wikis isn't composed of featured articles, it's just made up of pre-existing entries. WLU (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, 260 google hits suggests that the article is not yet ready to be created; it might be better to wait until it has achieved greater recognition and more clearly passes our notability guidelines. WLU (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
WLU, thank you fo the input, please check my talk page for relative comments. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This list so short as to be useless stub

It is a waste of time for anybody doing serious research or looking for Wikis to arrive at this "List of Wikis". I am going to go look over previous discussion for deletion and perhaps repropose this stub. The idea that "Wikipedia is not a web directory" means that useless stub lists should be created and linked to from within other Wikipedia articles so Wikipedians can play gatekeeper about which Wikis Wikipedia users will see is ludicrous and should be addressed within the generic policies. An encyclopedia has customarily been comprehensive and "Wikipedia is not paper" probably applies. This will take some time and preparation so I will check back periodically before mounting a deletion campaign or a generic policy modification discussion. Lazyquasar (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

A fruitful place to look might be WP:LIST and WP:SAL rather than WP:NOT, somewhere between the two policies/guidelines lies this page. I'd thought that WP:NOT barred this page from existing as well, but WP:LIST said otherwise; still, to prevent it from becoming a webdirectory, the criteria of notability works nicely. I don't understand your stub comment, it's a very long page, with lots of entries. As a list, it's not meant to explain, but to list things. Also, at the top of the page it says the list is incomplete and could be expanded; there's lots of lists that do something very similar. WLU (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps what I am looking for is an "Index of Wikis" or "Glossay of Wikis". There used to be a quite long and useful list of wikis but I have not been able to find it. Perhaps I shall consult some histories. Wikipedia used to be something different than a cookie cutter paper encyclopedia limited by space to a few editor's choices. Perhaps that has been lost or is incompatible with other current community goals. Perhaps others find this shortlist useful. I still think it would be much improved moved to an accurate title rather than wasting peoples' time and energy by having them arrive here to read your local definitions and guidelines of what specific "List of Wikis" you choose to provide at this specific page. Perhaps some links to other different lists of Wikis near your explanation would be useful to others arriving with large or different expections of what might be found by using a "List of Wikis" for research or investigation of possibilities. Lazyquasar (talk) 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Brought up at Talk:WP:LIST. What alternative criteria do you think would work? My main concern is the page being 90% but redlinks and external links; redlinks, in my mind, are far less useful than blue, and external links are invitations to spam. I mean, we're not google, we can never be comprehensive and list every single wiki in existence. The external links section does contain links that are meant to be more comprehensive. The standard isn't really set at this page, it's set at the individual wikipedia pages - notability discussions should happen at the individual article, and it spares a HUGE amount of discussion on this page about what deserves an entry and what does not. WLU (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Lazyquasar - perhaps the information you seek is in the links found at the bottom of the page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_wikis and http://wikiindex.org/Welcome . These sound like the type of things you want. Wickethewok (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Table

What do people think of changing the page to be essentially a table (see List of energy drinks for an idea of what I'm thinking about)? Wiki name, topic, type (i.e. software, travel, culture, entertainment), it could be sortable, and we wouldn't have the grossly unnecessary duplication at the bottom. WLU (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If you make a table it wil not have the WiKi feel, but a CRM look. I personally like the way it is now, it make you use a brain. Igor Berger (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but it gets rid of a lot of duplication and uncertainty. There's lots of pages that are basically lists in table form, lists in general aren't the prettiest pages on wikipedia. Also, it's better for readers to have a more accessible list than one that makes them use their brains - names are supposed to be the most accessible one available, I think a variant of that applies here. WLU (talk) 18:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Here is what the table would look like (roughly, it's only partially complete). What do people think? WLU (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Not bad, WLU. I don't know if it makes it easier to find information or not, but it certainly looks better. Wickethewok (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll totally admit that the titles and corresponding contents could be re-worked, the table may be pretty but that part is kinda ugly. Suggestions welcome, I may try to complete a version of it for easy reverting, but if it's going to be changed, it should be as useful as possible. The other thing is, if I'm having this much trouble converting it to a table, I wonder if it's the best type or content of information to have on the page. WLU (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Bulbapedia

Does that count?

and why aint there any articles bout Encyclopedia Dramatica? KPF 04:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No responses? ok then, I'll just add BP myself!

Encyclopedia dramatica has been deleted several times from wikipedia I believe, and this list contains notable wikis only, ones that have their own wikipage. WLU (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Sister projects"

The "sister projects" section is a "self reference" to Wikipedia. Remember, our content is issued under a free licence, and the reader may be viewing it elsewhere. This is fine so long as there is a proper copyright notice and attribution at the bottom of the article.

Therefore, to be re-user friendly, the Wikimedia sites need to be moved into the relevant topical sections, or "Sister projects" needs to be renamed "Wikimedia Foundation" and should include an entry for Wikipedia. --kingboyk (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


Notable Wikis

The National Archive's wiki does not mention Wikipedia but there is a case for including it (and equivalents for other states) here.

Perhaps the most appropriate compromise would be along the lines of "if it mentions Wikipedia (or on selected other grounds, eg is sufficiently notable to have its own Wikipedia page) it gets listed here: otherwise place the link on the relevant Wikipedia page (as mainly of interest to people who would go to that page)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.190.27.10 (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The only real inclusion criteria for this page is having it's own wikipedia page. No redlinks or external links. Just mentioning wikipedia isn't a reason to put it on this page, nor does it indicate it is notable. WLU (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force "LogWiki"

According to this, (here), the Australian Defence Force is attempting to have a wiki intranet page called LogWiki. Anyone know of the project's progress? -- Htra0497 (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is TV Tropes notable enough?

Just wondering. I'm suprised it isn't on here yet. For that matter I'm surprised it doesn't have an article. GracieLizzie (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A link to the website would be required to evaluate the website itself. It should not be on this page unless it has its own wikipedia page - so please create the page before adding it to this one. The relevant guidelines are probably WP:N and WP:WEB - basically, there must be significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources that demonstrate it's received attention. WLU (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


Deciding usefulness of wikis

Using "random article" or equivalent, what would be a reasonable minimum number of "actual article pages" (ie ignoring talk pages, lists, redirects etc) to look at, counting the number of pages with and without external and internal links, rate of updating, obvious errors etc which would provide an estimate of the usefulness of the wiki in question? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think there's any non-difficult way to determine that. There's not really an objective way to determine the usefulness of a wiki as articles could be bot-generated info thats not useful and if determining errors was that easy, the wiki model would be much better. Thats why for inclusion on this list there need to be independent reliable sources discussing the wiki, rather than creating a list based on something nebulous like "usefulness". Wickethewok (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure why 'usefulness' is relevant in any case. The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is notability (also WP:WEB for web-specific stuff), not usefulness, and wikipedia is not a how-to manual. Inclusion on wikipedia is usually determined by reliable, secondary coverage rather than how useful a page is. WLU (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I assumed that the editor was asking for outside reasons rather than specifically in relation to this article. Wickethewok (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to a general assessment/rating a given wiki, rather than including it on this list (and a link from the relevant article page to a given wiki would resolve some of the issues covered here). If wiki x has many typos, low updating and few linkages it is less likely to be a useful source of information. Some wikis are going to be at least as useful in their own areas as Wikipedia per se - Catholic and Orthodox Wikis, Wikihow etc: others are little better than exercises in wiki-creation. A wiki with "many useful articles" properly referenced and regularly developed and updated, is more "useful" than one which contains "a selection of effectively stub articles, with weak spelling and grammar, no references etc, and which appears to be updated whenever there is nothing to watch on TV" (g).

Would it be possible to develop a list of criteria upon which wikis can be judged - using their terms of reference (ie the above three wikis are unlikely to have anything on tetraflexagons: more than "having a page about Wikipedia". Jackiespeel (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

BS01 Wiki

Shouldn't BionicleSector 01 Wiki be on here? It's a huge wiki, so it should be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.221.30 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Article for deletion/Battlestar Wiki (3rd nom.)

The Battlestar Wiki aritlce has been nominated for deletion for the third time. Feel free to add your comments to the corresponding discussion.--DrWho42 (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica

I just added a link under culture for Encyclopedia Dramatica and then attempted to create a page for it. The page is banned from creation. I don't understand. The site is quite popular now. Fear of people vandalizing the site is not grounds for banishment. Also the external link is blacklisted. Why? I couldn't find any reasoning for this. Am I missing something here? Ordosingularis (talk) 07:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is protedted from editing. It can only be edited by an administrator, so please follow the instructions on the article creation page. Igor Berger (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Dramatica has been created and deleted many, many times, and the earth has been salted to prevent recreation. If ED has received sufficient attention in recent media to pass WP:WEB, then draft a version on a sub-page and show it to an admin (ideally the deleting admin of one of the previous versions) and if they say it passes notability then they'll unlock the page and it can be added. WLU (talk) 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Location in the list

I'm not to sure where Gameapedia (http://editthis.info/gameapedia/) should go, please add it to the list for me. Thanks. 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

?

Should this article mention all of the wikipedia parodies? if it should, it is missing MANY! The-Guardian-Of-Blah (talk) 20:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The list of wikis is for all wikis considered notable; the de facto criteria for this is having a wikipedia page. This criteria is used to keep the list from becoming stuffed with redlinks and spam. So basically if the list is missing wikipedia articles, they should definitely be added. If it's missing external web pages, the article should be checked against WP:WEB and created (if appropriate) then added. WLU (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)