Talk:Small and large wikis

I don't think the checkuser idea is so good because mainly English wikis tend to elect checkusers, but there are many large wikis which don't have checkusers, for example fr.source, es.source, de.source, fr.wikt, ru.wikt, el.wikt, it.source, de.books, pt.books, fr.books, es.books. These all I have taken from the top-ten at wikisource.org, wiktionary.org and wikibooks.org and these are still not all of them without checkusers. --MF-W 15:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that a project with CUs is a mature project (almost) for sure. Other ideas for defining projects as big/small are, also, welcome. As many ways to measure more or less precise the real size of the active admins we have, we will have less work to do by hand (by analyzing "border cases"). --Millosh 18:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that the idea with CheckUsers is good to judge if the wiki is selfsufficient. The Checkusers have to do on enwiki, I think, but in the most other projects "they are just there". More important is the question if the wiki is active or not. The number of active admins can be good here, but also the average number of continuos edits a month. And then: think about creating the criterium "middle wikis", not only "large" and "small". -jkb- (cs.source) 18:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a CheckUser means that at least two users should get 80% of support and at least 25-30 votes in favor. This means that the community is fairly active and that it may be treated as an active one. --Millosh 02:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And about other ideas: Yes, some statistical data and comparisons would be helpful. I am preparing a bot which will generate daily statistics for all projects. So, we would be able to see how things are going on. --Millosh 02:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Makeover[edit]

The list isn't updated for a long time. Many new project a not listed and many projects have more than 50,000 articles or more admins now.

But there are two sublists which have the same criteria:

2.3 Doesn't have CUs and doesn't have more than 50,000 articles or more than 10 admins

is equal with to join of (project with CU were always not listed at list 3)

3.2 More than 50,000 articles, but with 10 or less admins
3.3 More than 10 admins, but with less than 50,000 articles

And if a local community has made a decision to accept or reject global users, isn't reflected at the list at the moment.

Now i simply decided to remove list 2.3 because the list isn't suitable in current version and i'll update the lists with a bot script at regular intervals for a more-update-date version. If there are objections please discuss here. Merlissimo 14:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea was that all wikis that have either more than 50,000 articles or more than 10 admins are large wikis, otherwise the list of large wikis is very short. Ruslik 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then the bold AND at the rules at the beginning must be changed. (At large wikis Global Rollbacker aren't allowed and wiktionaries listed at Small and large wikis#More_than_50.2C000_articles.2C_but_with_10_or_less_admins are mostly bot created - so there is not an active community). Merlissimo 11:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global rollbackers are allowed on some large wikis. See this, for instance. Ruslik 12:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which large wikis "don't allow" global rollbackers? (or wikis of any size for that matter) — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated[edit]

There are many new projects (from Incubator) has no place in here Thingofme (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have oversighters may be included in one separate column or in the same spot as checkusers. Thingofme (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]