Wikipedia talk:List of largest wikis

Number of registered users

It would be interesting (useful) to have users' statistics as well as article's one. Vald 15:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Every Commons image an article?

Should we really count every image in Commons as its own page? Jeff8765 01:46, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

"conservative" vs "inclusive"

How does "conservative" differ from "inclusive"? I understand that it does not include redirects (and stubs maybe?) but is there any other difference? It would be nice if this article explained it (or at least it should link to somewhere where it's explained). Alensha 17:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One explanation is at Special:Statistics. --Pmsyyz 21:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-wikimedia wikis

These are mostly Wikimedia wikis, perhaps we should have a list that excludes Wikimedia wikis (not ones using the Wikimedia software though) as well. Silles Sellis 16:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additions

Whoever's bot updates these figures, I would like to suggest the inclusion of The TV IV Wiki (MediaWiki), currently at 13,000+ articles. --Naddy 11:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha claims 15104 pages, which would put it on this list, whether that is the conservative or inclusive count. I am not familiar with how to retrieve this data, so I've not added it; can these figures usually be found by a user on a Mediawiki site? --24.99.22.14 16:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Colored cell backgrounds?

What is the green background supposed to represent? Do we need a legend? 211.26.141.2 09:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Projects other than Wikipedias, apparently. / tsca ✉ 07:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DavisWiki has over 6,000 pages. While not as large as others, it appears to be the largest locally focused Wiki on the net.

Move to Meta?

It seems that a Chinese Wikipedian transfered the table to m:List of largest wikis, which Chinese Wikipedia seems to link to it. I think moving it to Meta is good for the sake of no original research among others, but before asking the consesus, I reverted the table back. --Puzzlet Chung 07:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if the list isn't in this article, why should the article even exist? --Pmsyyz 21:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I just surfed in to this page and found that the table has again been moved away from this article. In short, this article now has no content whatsoever, and I fail to see why it even exists. Also, every sentence in this article is completely unintelligible to me. Especially the first one. I mean, what?

Wikipedia's distinction shown on the table between a "conservative" and an "inclusive" number of pages originated in 2002 with the replacement of UseModWiki's spontaneous wiki modes with MediaWiki's embedded namespaces.

What the hell does that mean? That's a really confusing first sentence to read upon coming to an article. First of all, there's no table in this article. Second of all, where is the introductory sentence? Some kind of overview or something? --Torgo 05:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we say that Wikipedia as a Wikilog (Bliki)

The original 'wiki' does not include the comment section for visitors who could not immediately edit the main content page. Is it possible to show the posts or contents in chronological order.