Talk:List of wikis/Archive 1

message: * 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)
replies: text: See discussion below, and the note now found at the top of the article. --Chriswaterguy · talk 01:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note the dates of comments!  However, I'm now looking to get the GamerWiki article undeleted. Tim 17:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was a wiki removed?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: 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.  · rodii · 04:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove IntegralWiki from Math section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Meatball: Biggest wikis 

message: 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)
thread_title: notable

message: *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)
thread_title: Organization

message: 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)
thread_title:  Deleterious Deleting 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: IAWTC. --Neurophyre(talk) 23:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My thoughts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  reason for move back 

message: 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)
thread_title:  LyricWiki 

message: 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:
*OpenWetWare gets 3 very brief mentions in publications, plus another two articles available only to subscribers. Survived an AfD. 
*Galbijim Wiki has 2 blog posts in its external links. 
*Dispersive PDE Wiki, DKosopedia, Campaigns Wikia, Integralwiki aren't even articles about those wikis, but redirects to related topics.
*WikiServer & UseModWiki are not about wiki sites, but about wiki engines.
*JurisPedia - links one article (in french).
*Most offer no evidence of their notability. 
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 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)
thread_title:  Many or most of these articles don't meet notability requirements 

message: 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.
#Please link only to the wiki's article here on Wikipedia.
#Include a brief description of the wiki.
#The wiki must be notable. This should be satisfied if you follow point 1 above.
#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)
thread_title: Guidelines

message: 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)
thread_title: libertarian wiki page created

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)

text: *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)
thread_title: notability, again

message: Add WikIran 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)
thread_title: WikIran

message: 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)
replies: text: I appreciate the information, I will look into it. Thankyou Wicket.--Rovo79 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfair deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title: List of Wikis suggestion

message: 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)
thread_title:  A  forgotten wiki 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Creation Science Wiki 

message: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: *Removal of that sounds ok to me.  Wickethewok 17:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: 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)
thread_title:  Science wiki 

message: Two years ago Anarchopedia was deleted (repeatedly) 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)
thread_title:  Anarchopedia 

message: 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).
: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)
thread_title:  Too much Deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikitea

message: 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)
replies: text: Fine with me.  WLU 19:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two lists

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wikipeople 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikis without articles 

message: 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)
thread_title: Halo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: This list so short as to be useless stub

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Table

message: Does that count?
and why aint there any articles bout Encyclopedia Dramatica? KPF 04:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bulbapedia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Sister projects" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Notable Wikis

message: 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)
thread_title: Australian Defence Force "LogWiki"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is TV Tropes notable enough?  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Deciding usefulness of wikis

message: 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)
thread_title: BS01 Wiki

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlestar Wiki (3rd nomination)|Article for deletion/Battlestar Wiki (3rd nom.)]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia Dramatica 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Location in the list 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: ?

message: Please note that the criteria for inclusion in the list is notability - that is, before being added to the list, the wiki in question should have its own page and pass notability for websites.  A newspaper, magazine, or TV show should have paid attention to it in the sense of having written an article that focuses a significant portion of text on the wiki in question.  External links are right out.  
Also archived the page.  WLU (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Given that this list is limited to wikis with articles on Wikipedia, what does it do that a category would not be able to do, better? I'm open to other opinions, but at the moment I'm inclined to take it to AfD. --Michael Johnson (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It gives you a brief summary of what the Wiki is about without the need to click through to the article or through to the site. Some wiki's names tell yuo nothing about what they are for, for example I would guess only a small minority of people would know Memory Alpha was a Star Trek wiki if they just saw the name :-) Evil Eye (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete this list? 

message: I've suggested this before, but I'm hoping a completed version will be convincing.  The list is kinda a mess, with all sorts of mish-mashed categories, the duplicating and unsynchronized alphabetic list, etc.  Accordingly, I've created here a version of the page using a table rather than a page separated by sections.  What do people think?  Needs a bit of work, but that's what it would look like.  WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules(simplified) 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one has commented, I've been bold and pasted in the list.  WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 12:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I think we should use one or more tables within an "outline". These re-sortable tables are good for wikis that would fit in more than one category (like general interest encyclopedias), so that you can sort the table according to which category is important to you (eg inclusion policy, license, who can edit it, etc). Wikis with a very specific interest (eg games or Star Wars) should all be grouped into one category. There aren't enough categories in the table presently to make the table useful for sorting, so I don't think it is preferable to an outline; however it is more compact than making an outline with section headings. The outline should rather use bulleted entries where possible, so it is not so spread out. The current table also has the problem that the default sorting is not based on something "NPOV" such as notability or alphabetical. Having categories would correct that. Lumenos (talk) 09:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I resorted the page and thought about what categories might be created. I'm now thinking maybe there should be just one table for all the wikis. The "focus" column of the table just needs descriptions that will cause the similar wikis to line up together, when it is sorted by focus. For example, instead of having one called "Lyrics", call it "Music-- lyrics" so it will sort with the other music wikis. The name could be changed to a "comparison of wikis" if this is done.There is another difficulty in deciding whether a wiki should be higher, due to greater notability, or whether it should be with similar wikis. An Alexa ranking would be good for this, like the comparison of wiki farms article. If Alexa rankings were added it would be best if the default sorting was alphabetical. Lumenos (talk) 05:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I added "category" descriptors to the focus field, as I described. Some of the categories look perfect, those being: computers, encyclopedic, fiction, government, music, and places. Science and reference look okay. These categories may need to be tweaked: communities, general, misc, personal, satire, and social. Lumenos (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table vs outline vs both 

message: I may, as a player, have a softspot, so I'll bring it up here first.  I believe that WoWWiki, the World of Warcraft wiki, deserves mention as a notable wiki.  It has a huge daily hit rate, is very well in-depth, and being that there are 11 million-ish players, has a huge base.  Just for your consideration. Hooper (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've a soft spot for anticreationism, but I still removed RationalWiki from the list.  Google hits is not an acceptable notability rational, and notability is the criteria that has been determined as acceptable for the page.  WOWWiki has been added and removed several times (I think there's even a deletion discussion somewhere) but until it has a separate article, consensus is that the page is notable articles only.  If there's enough notable coverage to merit a separate article, create it and add it to the list.  WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WoWWiki

message: There should be an additional column in this table that details what each Wiki's copyright policy is. I.e. whether it is open source, GNU, proprietary or whatnot.--SkiDragon (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Try filling out a draft version and see how complete you can make it.  If there's going to be a lot of gaps, may not be worth it.  WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright policy 

message: What about adding Nupedia - expert only editing, but volunteers, now defunct?  It's not quite a wiki, is it close enough?  WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, how embarassing.  How about as a see also?  It just seems like it should be linked, but I might be overlearning.  WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha, yeah, well it is wiki-like so a see-also wouldn't be a bad call.  Wickethewok (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nupedia 

message: Shouldn't the list be alphabetized? Ghost109 (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of this list 

message: I want to remove the following from this page, because they're not wikis: Wikia (wiki farm), TWiki and PhpWiki (wiki applications), bliki (type of wiki). Let me know if there are any objections. Yaron K. (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you remove them for that reason, please add them to the "See also" section, because they are still relevant to this list.  By the way, how can bliki be a type of wiki but not a wiki? -- Wavelength (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why they're relevant to this list. And a bliki is a type of wiki but not an instance of one - just like "fireman" wouldn't show up under "list of people". Yaron K. (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bliki and wikia make sense to remove, Twiki and PhpWiki I'm not sure of.  Is Twiki's publically editable?  Or is it just the software shell?  I agree that they should be included in the see also section if removed.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the article about TWiki is about the application, not their wiki at twiki.org; same with PhpWiki. And why should they be moved to the "see also" section? There are dozens of wiki engines - should they all be listed there? Yaron K. (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If there are dozens of wiki engines (each with a Wikipedia article), then they can be listed at a new page, list of wiki engines, and this page can have a "See also" link to that page. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Yaron. All Wikia's blinking, flashing, annoying spam could kill an epileptic. Freaking video advertisements that load with every page? How does anyone survive in that environment without ad/flash blocking software? Long live Referata and Wiki-site (for those who need more space for images)! Note those links are lists of wikis, so this is not spam, mkay? Lumenos (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you log in, they disappear. --71.246.96.183 (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Logged in to Atheism Wiki, went to this location, and got to watch a commercial (with sound), followed by the same uuum "commercial" (for video games) that I saw at the Liberapedia. I guess some do and some don't work this way. I think this speaks to the notability of the "Wikia list of wikis", appearing in the external links, presently. At least we could mention that it is not the only wikifarm in the world, here on the talk page.  Lumenos (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I did my first post at Wikia (beside the scratchpad) and I can't make the video ads appear at all anymore. Turning off scripts removes other ads but seems to disable functionality as well. (AdBlockPlus works also, thus increasing Wikia's notability, in a sense.) Lumenos (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikia does possibly have some things in common with a single wiki. When you register once you can use that registration to edit many (maybe all) the "wikis". And when you log on to Wikia you are logged on to all the wikis. Lumenos (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For this feature alone I would now support adding Wikia to the list, despite my previous comments. Lumenos (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

text: And there is a feature mentioned at WikiMatrix called SisterWiki which apparently "display links to the sister wiki pages on your wiki's pages". Wikia seems to have this feature. If enabled, this may mean that Wikia would constitute a "wiki" as well as a "wikifarm". Lumenos (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not been able to find Referata or Wiki-site at WikiMatrix or whether they have this feature which would possibly effect their inclusion to this list. Lumenos (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be too much of a stretch unless they also had one log on name for all wikis. Lumenos (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Many non-wikis in this list 

message: http://furry.wikia.com/ this is the furry community's wiki? Just putting this out here. You may or may not want it. --99.159.83.77 (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless it passes WP:WEB and a page has been created already.  If so, it can be included.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikifur? 

message: Looking at knol I think it licenses different pages under different licenses and that this is left up to the first author.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Knol

message: Has anyone compiled a wiki on wikis? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki wiki

message: I think it would make thins more convenient if direct links to the web sites listed would be provided in this article. MarkkuP (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct links to the websites listed 

message: * allcarwiki.com 
* wikicars.org
These two sites exist and seem to be operating on mediawiki. They just stopped all edits and discussion pages in 2010, or something along those lines. Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Car wikis are all dead but still exist 

message: I considered adding Cucumis (website) to the list, but I am not certain whether it is a wiki.—Wavelength (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cucumis (website) 

message: Hi,
I'm the admin/owner of the Jpop Stop! wiki. What I'd like to know is whether or not our wiki can be considered on this list as we currently provide information of Asian artists and actors/actresses. We have about 20,000 pages at the present time, so I'm not sure if that's enough to be eligible for this list.173.57.40.160 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the first posting Wikipedia:Notability (web) should be used to determine notability, and for the WP:Conflict of interest, you should ask anyone else to consider it. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jpop Stop! Wiki 

message: Bulbapedia has been deleted many a time, JUST KEEP IT ON!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilegolego (talk • contribs) 07:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As it says in the edit notice - the list of wikis is for notable wikis only, those that have an existing wikipedia page.  If you want to add the wiki to the page, first check to make sure Bulbapedia passes the criteria of WP:WEB.  Then create the page, citing the reliable sources that substantiate that it passes WP:WEB.  Then add it to this page.  Otherwise, I'm going to keep removing it.  We have the edit notice for a reason, impassioned pleas are not going to change that standard.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You have articles of most curious sites, then you don't have Bulbapedia, The Doom Wiki, Simpsons Wiki, Futurama Wiki, Memory Beta etc, etc... 85.217.36.96 (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulbapedia 

message: There's a wiki about Nintendo's Mario, but I don't see it on the list. -Someone  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.210.19 (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Mario Wiki 

message: There's a wiki called coalSwarm here but it doesn't have an article yet. It has 3500 articles. It's about sharing information about anti-coal efforts. Here is a reference:   
It was begun in 2008 by SourceWatch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody know how to get the Alexa numbers for CoalSwarm?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this is it: coalSwarm Alexa rating. Sarakey (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  coalSwarm 

message: I've done some work to clean up the table, but there still seems to be an extra column showing at the end, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Help would be appreciated! Sarakey (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Help:Table.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, I have looked that page over, but was not able to find the solution. Sarakey (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The table looks okay to me; what do you think needs cleaning up?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, maybe it's just my screen then. What it looks like to me is that there is an extra (empty) column at the end after "License". Sarakey (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: .--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Table

message: Every now and then I've seen an astrology Wiki, with exactly the same set-up and software as Wikipedia. I can't find it offhand at the moment. If someone can, can they add it? Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I found it: http://astrologynotes.org/wiki, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, which appears to be the criterion for listing in this List. Plus they've changed the interface to one that's really ugly. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology Wiki 

message: On one hand lawdelta.org doesn't seem to satisfy notability reqs, on the other, Jurispedia doesn't either, but is on the list. So far, lawdelta features about 1600 full law texts, namely US Code, Consolidated Acts of Canada, and laws of California. Laws of Ontario and Texas are on the way. 
I would argue that addition of law delta to the list is appropriate, but I am its admin. What you guys thinking?
| Law Delta
| Government—Law
| Aims to publish all laws of the world with tools to discuss, comment on laws, and propose bills or amendments.
|
| 
Malikov (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  LawDelta.org - all laws of the world 

message: The criteria for inclusion on the page is notability demonstrated by the presence of a wikipedia article (and thus coverage in multiple reliable sources).  Wikis are rarely reliable as they are user-generated content.  The use of a wiki as a reference indicates the page it is used on needs better references, not that it's a reliable source.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikichristianity 

message: http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Main_Page, http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Main_Page, http://www.gwpvx.com/PvX_wiki, to name a few.74.138.183.168 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See the notice at the top of the page - this is a list of wikis that have a wikipedia page, not a list of all wikis on the internet.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missed a few 

message: Can someone add WikiInfo?
Allen (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. This list's inclusion criteria are notability as demonstrated by having a Wikipedia article (WP:WTAF), and Wikinfo was deleted via AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiInfo 

message: http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.79.137 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  OrthodoxWiki 

message: I would not call Quora a wiki. It is much closer to Stackexchange or Yahoo Answers or smth like that. 
31.140.145.79 (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Quora really a wiki? 

message: Comment: The wiki for A Million Penguins no longer exists, so it doesn't seem like it should be on this list anymore.
Question: Does this article not lists Wikia wikis? If it did, I'm sure it would be much longer than this.
Alphius (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does list Wikia wikis - see :Category:Wikia. Most of those which are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article are included in this list. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment and Question 

message: There are several missing non-wikia wikis:
www.hrwiki.org - homestarrunner.com wiki
khwiki.net - Kingdom Hearts wiki
tfwiki.net - Transformers wiki
mylittlewiki.org - My Little Pony wiki
smwiki.net - Super Mario World hacking wiki
biosector01.com - Bionicle wiki
hf.biosector01.com - Hero Factory wiki
65.33.227.253 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several missing... 

message: UPDATE: This has been added to the table  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicereddy (talk • contribs) 00:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCGamingWiki 

message: Quoting the first line of the page This page contains a list of notable websites that use a wiki model. In response to this statement, I do not feel that "strongly" about this page, I was merely making a statement about an edit I disagree with. Good luck.  Mlpearc (powwow) 20:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This edit does not mention that the edit was made because of "red links" but because the subject(s) have no articles on Wikipedia, therefore the subjects are not notable enough for the list.  Mlpearc (powwow) 15:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have asked for a 3O here  Mlpearc (powwow) 15:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to your My 2 cents, if what you say is true then, we can just start adding every website on the net ?  Mlpearc (powwow) 15:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

text: I think it is okay to limit this list to wikis that have an article. It's a reasonable barrier to prevent thousands of wikis from being listed.  --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm from the Third Opinion project to note that the request there has been removed due to Varnent's opinion, above, but thought that I would also note that the rules on this are set out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria and there is clearly an implied consensus in this article that only notable items will be listed. In light of that, see the first bullet point under "Common selection criteria" in regard to redlinks. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redlinks or Nobility 

message: Article HTML comments should be used very sparingly and large blocks of content really should never be commented out (increases the size of the page without increasing content, complicates/makes a mess of editing). Copying them here in case anyone wants to do anything with them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikis commented out in the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of wikis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/64tleDNR3?url=http://www.conservapedia.com/Special%3AStatistics to http://www.conservapedia.com/Special%3AStatistics
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Encyclopedia_of_Mathematics%3AAbout
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512054800/http://metadatabase.org/wiki/MetaBase%3ACopyrights to http://metadatabase.org/wiki/MetaBase%3ACopyrights
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would someone like to add Deletionpedia? It is a wiki and it has its own Wikipedia article.--Shantavira|feed me 13:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletionpedia 

message: I added WikiReviews to this list some time ago and it has been removed. Can you tell me why? All you have to do is go to wikireviews.com and see that it exists.  I added this to this list to make wikipedia better and yet someone removed it.  Why? I feel like you guys make it so hard for people that they will stop contributing.  Can you please put this back up? 20:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Your account hasn't edited the article but I found an edit saying "rm redlink". This means remove red link, i.e. an entry without a Wikipedia article. Many Wikipedia lists are only intended for notable subjects with articles. There are currently no red links here. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiReviews 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of wikis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512054800/http://metadatabase.org/wiki/MetaBase:Copyrights to http://metadatabase.org/wiki/MetaBase:Copyrights
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Would it not be good if this list clarified which wiki sites are linked with the Wikimedia foundation and which are not?Vorbee (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: All Wikimedia wikis say Wikimedia projects in the notes column, and a couple of other wikis  say unconnected to the Wikimedia Foundation. What else are you looking for? I don't think every non-Wikimedia wiki should say so. Maybe the lead could say something like: "Several of the wikis are run by the Wikimedia Foundation and say Wikimedia project in the notes column. All those wikis but also many unconnected wikis use the MediaWiki software." PrimeHunter (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimedia Foundation

message: I checked the statistics of Wikipedia, but it has 3,682,318 content pages, when the list says 18,000,000. Does this include EVERY page on wikipedia such as Talk Pages and Redirects. Can someone tell me please. --AnyGuy (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct. There are 3,682,334 content pages and 24,449,359 pages in total (all pages in the wiki, including talk pages, redirects, etc.) The data is from Special:Statistics which should be up to date. jonkerz♠ 17:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I change it from 18,000,000 to 24,449,359? --AnyGuy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I didn't notice that the whole Wikipedia project was listed in addition to the English WP. The number 18 million seems to be correct as it is referring to all WP language-edition. jonkerz♠ 17:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh okay. --AnyGuy (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: Is there having any evidence that this site is using a wiki software? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: nope. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So why this one is considered as "a wiki", instead of just "an encyclopedia"? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure, but you are free to remove it as far as I am concerned. If another editor adds it back, we can discuss it with them. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Baidu Baike]]? 

message: Is WikiLeaks not a wiki?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.45.12.194 (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WikiLeaks]] ? 

message: Hi there,
I was going to add my Klingon language Wiki (which contains over a thousand pages and works in four language), a wiki about all you can imagine regarding the klingon language. But the I saw the note "Please don't add Wikis here that don't have their own separate articles" -- Now, several months ago, I even wrote an article about that Wiki, but that was deleted shortly after, because of "non-significance" due to lacking media articles on the news, and also being a "cult website". Now we have the cat chasing its tail. :-/ Is there anyone around here who may look at the wiki and maybe write something about it in their newspaper or website? I'm certain that this wiki has some significance to the world, but it hasn't been discovered yet. At least there are several websites already who link to it, but that's slowly growing. 
I'd be happy for any kind of support. -- Lieven (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here again an request an answer to this. The Klingon Wiki is the larget of its kind - actually even the only one - and it's quoted in many web articles. What can I do to get it mentioned here? -- Lieven (talk) 09:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Klingon Language wiki 

message: Notable. Hosted on darknet  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.84.178.156 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Wiki 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WikiIndex. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Utopes (talk / cont) 22:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "WikiIndex" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I want to suggest a wiki covering a lower articles of Wikipedia be added in the list. Most articles used on Wikipedia are mostly added there until it meets Wikipedia eligibility criteria. 
Wikimass
Just a suggestion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmeltzer07 (talk • contribs) 
: The list is for notable wikis. Wikimass does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Notability (web). https://wikimass.org/wiki/Special:Statistics says it has very few pages. I see you falsely claim at Wikimass that Wikipedia is the parent project. We are not associated with your money-making schemes. Wikimass also uses a variant of Wikipedia's logo. I assume you don't have permission. :meta:Logo says: "Logos of major Wikimedia projects are registered by the WMF to protect the projects and communities from clones or impostor sites that might deceive or harm users, or might otherwise cause confusion about the shared identity and goals of the Project." PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: The page doesn't list WikiBlind yet. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.69.123 (talk) 
:meta:WikiBlind User Group is a user group, not a wiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wkiiblind 

message: Never thought I'd ever mention a website such as this, but wikiFeet is a wiki which has an article here on Wikipedia which means it is notable. Should it be added? Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiFeet