Talk: Wikis with many active members

Check out the Hubs
for more information!

This talk page has an archive: Archive 1.

Guild WIki[]

We recently were aquired by Wikia, and seem not to be on the list, were on the big wiki list but not active communites any way this can be corrected? Randomtime 22:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Update?[]

Some viewers may see "Wikis with the highest number of active contributors in September 2007." and wonder why that date is so old. Robin Patterson 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

update?[]

Seems like this could stand to be updated, since it's almost a year out of date. Philnelson 23:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

My LEGO Network Wiki[]

Just wondering when you are going to update this list, as when I last checked Special:Statistics on the My LEGO Network Wiki, it said 92 active within the last 30 days.... Of that, I have observed about 30 active users on a regular basis. Any thoughts? a jr 05:23, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

The number on Special:Statistics isn't the one this page is based off of. That number is the amount of users that performed at least 1 action in 30 days, but this page deals with users that have preformed more than 5 actions (found via Special:WikiaStats.) Joey (talk) 05:29, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I will check that. Ajraddatz(Talk - Bot talk) 15:59, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Anyone still maintaining this thing?[]

"Wikis with a high number of active contributors in February 2010" <- It would appear this is half a year out of date. Is there anyone/anybot that can systematically keep the hub up-to-date? -Afker ^{All hail AliceSoft!} 08:55, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

10 or more?[]

There are a lot of wikis with 10 or more active contributors. So many that it's pretty much impossible to find them all. Can we please increase the cutoff to 20 or 25? -- Supermorff 13:25, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

No need, hubs aren't maintained any longer.--GodPray 14:18,9/11/2011

Then why are they still here? Seriously. Delete them already. What do you use now? If they're not maintained, how are you supposed to find a wiki on a subject you're interested in? -- Supermorff 20:54, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

People like to come here and add their wikis occasionally. They can pretty much do what they want with them. They are not actively maintained any longer though. If you want to find a wiki about a subject you are interested in, search for it. The Hubs have never listed all wikis nor will they ever.--GodPray 20:57,9/13/2011

Where would the harm be in making his suggested change, though? Some people still use/partially update them, so we might as well acknowledge their existence and make required changes. a jr 22:09, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

So... nobody else has an opinion and I can do whatever I want? -- Supermorff 19:00, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

My few cents: feel free to update and maintain them, but I also would say no for the cutoff change, not being comprehensive isn't a reason to increase the cutoff. (: –Tm_T ^(Talk) 11:32, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Misleading name change; suggestion for short but accurate name[]

I can see why the very wordy former names of this hub have been abandoned. But it shouldn't have been renamed something that it isn't. A wiki with 10 active contributors each making 5 or 6 edits per month is much less active than one with 9 editors each averaging 20 edits per month. I suggest it be renamed "Hub: Wikis with many active members". -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:54, April 7, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. -- Supermorff (talk) 14:07, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should go off the number of edits per month instead of the number of active members? Then it would be an actual measure of how active the wikis are. --Tetrap (talk) 03:53, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that, but don't ask me how to program it! -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:57, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Now that Wikia has publically announced WAM, this hub suddenly doesn't seem as relevant... -- Supermorff (talk) 21:22, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

WAM says it is "a combination of traffic, engagement and growth" - so the "size" criterion alone can stay as an easily-measured separate factor. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 22:33, April 26, 2013 (UTC)

Sure "size" is dealt with by Hub:Big wikis, not this hub. -- Supermorff (talk) 10:08, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have confused myself. A hub like this can provide a separate indicator concentrating on edits (which can be checked by ordinary contributors) without a mysterious mixture of "traffic, engagement and growth". -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:11, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Right, right... So, it occurs to me that WikiStats pages do have a total edits per month column. So Tetrap's earlier suggestion about that is doable, although, as with the current system, it would have to be updated manually. -- Supermorff (talk) 20:36, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Also[]

I believe this is fairly active. —This unsigned comment is by Waves Of Wisdom (wall • contribs) 21:48, May 30, 2014. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

According to Special:WikiStats, there were 97 editors who made more than five edits last month, and that looks to be a typical number, so yes, it qualifies. =) 「ディノ奴千？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 06:22, May 31, 2014 (UTC)

Animal Jam Clans Wiki[]

Why aren't we on the list? On my "Lucky Edit" thing [an award they have on there], we have like 5.3M or 5.9M edits & get hundreds of replies on our Highlighted topics in like 30 minutes!

B Ø Ø B Ø Ø S Ø U S Å (talk) 03:01, August 17, 2017 (UTC)