Talk:Wiki hosting service

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Mid-importance).

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ad?

Is this an advertisement, or a useful Wikipedia-related link? I'm sufficiently uncertain that I'm asking before deleting. :) Bryan Derksen

Well, it seems to offer free resources. So Ad or no Ad, it's a useful definition and has useful, seemingly free examples. Can't see the problem. [unsigned]

Blatantly offtopic? What's a wikifarm, and why does it include wiki-policies in this page? Ojw 21:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For me this entry has been very useful, I have discovered this new concept thanks to this; I will of course oppose its deletion. --Khalid hassani 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't explain a wikifarm - poorly written (mid-way through, I don't yet see the point) and non-objective to boot. It advocates a certain way of wiki-ing - Ben Sommer

Although this article is somewhat crude, it contains helpful information that is not in other wiki articles. I support cleaning but not deletion.DataTime86 23:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs work, but i can't imagine why this article would be deleted. (aH)

I'm deleting everything that isn't related to wiki farms (kind of ironic that it has an off-topic paragraph on off-topic information in wikis) --대조 | Talk 14:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is wikifamily really notable? it looks like an ad in a way considering that it is not very good of a website and fairly new --Gimelthedog (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

This article has been moved from Comparison of wiki farms to wiki farm. For the discussion page on wiki farms comparisons, see Talk:Comparison of wiki farms. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to retain all editing history, it would have been better to first move Wiki farm to a different name, redirect it back, then move Comparison of wiki farms. Currently, the article and talk pages don't match.

We could still do this, or does someone have a better suggestion? --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading this discussion, I moved the old edits at wiki farm to Talk:Wiki farm/Old history to retain the old page history. Maybe the talk pages could be switched, for example by moving this page to Talk:Wiki farm/Archive 1 and moving Talk:Comparison of wiki farms to Talk:Wiki farm. However the current setup isn't doing any harm. Graham87 10:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other talk page is about comparisons. This article is about the concept of wiki farms. This article isn't about the comparisons anymore. A moove isn't necessary. The talk page on comparisons belongs at the comparison article. This talk page here stays. I agree that the the current setup isn't doing any harm. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the useful history at the title "Talk:Wiki farm/Old history" back to wiki farm. There's no reason not to have it in the main namespace now, since the page history at comparison of wiki farms is back at that title. Graham87 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the comparisons?

An article about Wiki farm does not need the tables comparing wiki farm web sites. This article should describe how wiki farms work and the various differences between wiki farm types, but I don't see any need to list and compare specific web sites. We could have material on web sites that are or were notable but tables of current implementations belong somewhere else. Changing the name puts a whole new frame on the article and the tables no longer belong here. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Would anyone oppose moving the comparison tables back to Comparison of wiki farms so that this article could focus on its new given topic? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused. From the discussion at Comparison of wiki farms it looked like there was agreement to move the comparisons to wikiversity. The comparison tables are already there. We just need to link to them here. I thought Comparison of wiki farms was now gone from WP. It redirects here in any case. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we just moved the version with the not-notable wiki farms to Wikiversity, the current revirsion with just the notable ones validly remains on WP. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the rest of the list should go as well. Wikipedia doesn't exist for product reviews. SDY (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercobra, Comparison of wiki farms is gone from WP. There is no "current version." Comparison of wiki farms simply redirects to Wiki farms where it is inappropriate to have tables comparing specific wiki farms. This article should be about the idea of a Wiki farm, how one works, the varieties of approaches to them. Certainly we can have text describing wiki farms notable for historic reasons and we can and should link to the Wikiversity article but these comparison tables should be deleted. Jojalozzo (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would Wikimedia's group of 100+ wikis be considered a wiki farm?

Tisane (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so, but we should wait for a second opinion. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where would Wikkii fit in this?

Just wondering. 205.189.194.208 (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wiki hosting service. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160131033544/http://www.wikimatrix.org/ to http://www.wikimatrix.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging back

14 years ago Comparison of wiki hosting services was split out from this article; now that it's being put back in, what's the desired approach? Move the whole article over under this article with a section heading? Recon rabbit 21:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

I think there are serious issues with the list though. It seems to be compiled using two sources:

wikimatrix.org, a personal homepage
Sankar (2009) who barely understands what he's writing about, calling any web app including spreadsheets and calendars a 'wiki'

This falls short of the usual standard. --PaulT2022 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously an argument that editors can be trusted to compile the list from primary sources themselves, but then it just becomes a random collection of examples of Collaborative software with online editing and hyperlinks. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I don't think that bundling wiki farms like Fandom and wiki software MediaWiki or Confluence into the same category and 'comparing' is done by any reliable source as these are entirely different entities. How would 'content license' apply to the latter, for example? What does 'Subdomain - No' mean in relation to Confluence?

WP:PSTS exists for a reason and it'd be preferable if a secondary source could be found for this section. PaulT2022 (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirects EditThis.info, ElWiki, Referata, and Wiki-site have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether their use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on these redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 18 § EditThis.info until a consensus is reached. PleaseStand (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability requirement introduces a serious bias in the list

Excluding wiki farms such as MyWikis or Miraheze because they are not notable to have their own articles makes this a biased and functionally dishonest list. I would propose therefore that the comparison table be removed from the article in favor of the one on MW.org. pcj (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the notability criteria as such, but I agree that the list in its current state is indeed a mishmash of random services that happen to include some form of wiki editing or hosting, which isn't a meaningful category. PaulT2022 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]