Talk:Comparison of wiki hosting services

What is the plan?

It was my understanding that this article had moved to Wikiversity and we were going to rename this one Wiki farm (after naming the current Wiki farm something else) and remove the tables and copy over any text we liked from the old Wiki farm article. Is that still the plan and if so, who is in charge? Jojalozzo (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of what's transpired: (1) The all-inclusive version of the Comparison got copied to Wikiversity (2) The Wikipedia copy of the Comparison was pared down to just the notable entries (3) Wiki farm was just a redirect to the Comparison (4) I moved the Comparison to Wiki farm (5) Per talkpage comments, I pulled the tables out of Wiki farm back into a "new" Comparison article, leaving Wiki farm with the definitional lede and some other skeleton content (6) No one in the original Comparison discussion wanted the Comparison deleted, just pared down, which was done in (2). IMO, no further action is required. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Please tell me our notability criteria are. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(Personal opinion) That they have an article, which is presumed to establish notability through sources therein. If an existing entry is not notable, one can AfD its article. If a new entry is to be added, one would be advised to WP:WTAF. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

How can a list be of use when its only notable entries, especially when wikipedia has such strict rules on sites having notability. A big wiki farm doesn't have to have been mentioned in english media or be very notable. Its pretty much a loss to the article and information level as a whole. It favors that everyone only gets directed to the biggest english wiki farms. Lord Chaos (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The change to the list

Its been a while since I was here last to check on the list, as it was very useful to compare wiki farms and check for inclusions of new ones. But now I see the list has been pruned down tremendously, which imo is a bad thing. Right now a lot of entries are missing making it much less useful as a comparison. Its like comparing colors where half the spectrum is missing. I am also unsure why the notoriety requirement sneaked in, a wiki farm is a wiki farm, regardless of whether its notable or not. Some really good wiki farms do not have wikipedia articles. Lord Chaos (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You can see the very exciting older article at [1]. Hipocrite (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Then feel free to make articles for them and then afterward add them to this list. If they're that great, surely there will be a couple reviews of them. --Cybercobra (talk) 14:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very strict on what internet sites gets a page and many sites even if great and very useful, might not have reviews at all or media mention to any significant degree. Especially if not a US company. This is Wikipedia, I don't see the argument why a list of wiki farms shouldn't be all inclusive with every real wiki farm out there, famous in english media or not. Lord Chaos (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding Wiki Spot

I attempted to add the Wiki Spot project to this list, as it's likely one of the largest and most active wiki farms (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_wiki_farms&oldid=326488879). The article now says (in the raw markup) "In order to keep this list from becoming indiscriminate, only entries with a Wikipedia article or other evidence of Notability are permitted."

The DavisWiki is one of the largest and most successful wikis, and it's part of the community-supported Wiki Spot project. I could write up an entry for the Wiki Spot project itself, but I am not a neutral party (I'm the Executive Director) and it's my understanding that Wikipedia doesn't like involved individuals writing entries (the text I added to this page, in fact, was from an older version of the page -- not written by me).

Additionally, the Alexa rank is a poor measure in our case. Nearly all of our projects are on independent domain names.

• Also, that "Wik.is" site doesn't even appear to be active anymore, so I'd probably remove it from this list.
• The CustomerVision BizWiki site doesn't have any indication that they are something resembling a wiki farm, either.

--philip neustrom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.48.104 (talk) 07:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Note that Alexa rank is not at all an inclusion criteria. I do commend you on your adhering to the conflict-of-interest policy by not creating an entry on Wiki Spot yourself. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All wikis hosted under the wik.is domain are still running, so it should not be removed. Nevertheless, I agree with you about the removal of CustomerVision BizWiki. Is CustomerVision BizWiki really a wiki farm? It appears to offer its software to comsumers, but I don't think that CustomerVision BizWiki hosts wikis. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like they're another SocialText, offering software-as-a-service internal corporate wiki hosting. Whether that's technically a wikifarm...seems to depend on the definition used; I found a few conflicting ones when googling quickly. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think adding Wiki Spot is a good idea, because they are a fairly important wiki farm. Steven Walling 07:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, it has an Alexa rank of 123,000.^walk victor falk ^talk 12:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm going to add wikispot as it has a unique service and now has its own section in the Davis Wiki entryJonpatterns (talk) 20:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've looked into WikiSpot in-depth, and it's pretty clear to me that it doesn't meet the notability requirements. I couldn't find the required coverage by multiple independent/reliable third-party sources. In conclusion, WikiSpot is itself non-notable and should not be included on this list. Netalarm^talk 23:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What does WYSIWYG mean here?

The Mediawiki editor that I use in WP is not what I think of WYSIWYG nor is the OurProjects.org (moinmoin) page editor. Do these wikis have alternate WYSIWYG editors? If not and WYSIWYG means the default editors, please explain what is meant by WYSIWYG. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What You See Is What You Get, is it not? 88.107.41.70 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

When you are talking about Wiki-site, for example, it means a What You Seen Is Going To Be Turned Into a Garbled Mess. :) But it can be disabled in preferences, so still a good MediaWiki wikifarm. Lumenos (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Mediawiki is NOT wysiwyg. You can put lipstick on a pig, but... This means that, for example, in the comparison, Wikia should not be listed as wysiwyg. If WP editing were wysiwyg, there wouldn't be any need for a 'preview' button, now would there? peter (talk) 05:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Should EditThis.info be added?

Are a lot of wikis hosted in this farm are already listed on WikiIndex. Regards --Uncopy (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nintendo Independant Wiki Alliance

Why isn't the NIWA included? The NIWA is a wiki farm with Nintendo based wikis such as Bulbapedia, Super Mario Wiki, Zelda Wiki.Org, WiKirby, Metroid Wiki, Lylat Wiki, and Pikipedia. So why isn't it listed. SeanWheeler (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Only notable wiki farms (those which have their own article, with supporting citations in WP:RS reliable sources establishing WP:N notability) are listed in this article. There's a good summary of the history of the article at the top of this Talk page. There may be a place for NIWA now at Wikiversity and even Includipedia. If/when NIWA becomes WP-notable, then it can get its own article here, and hence be listed in this article. --Lexein (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The NIWA Wiki's aren't all hosted on the same server(s), so i don't think they qualify. Bud0011 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC).

referata

Just wondering if http://www.referata.com/ could or should be added into this. I'm not 100% clear of the guidelines when I read through this. I'll try to read through this again after getting some sleep but is there anything there that is disqualifying it from being a wikifarm listed here? KTCAOP (talk) 10:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that referata deservers to be in the list. Not sure what to add to "Features", "Multilingual" and "Syntax" columns but I think it's ok to leave them blank. I don't believe there are strong rules for adding a wiki farm in the list. I also found some other wiki farms based on wikimedia that worth to be mentioned: editthis.info, wikkii.com wiki-site.com. I guess most of the people are trying to find mediawiki farms for their projects because mediawiki is so easy to use when compared to other wiki software. So they should be in the list. —  Ark25  (talk) 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And another one: http://www.shoutwiki.com —  Ark25  (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Technical references

Is there out there a list of useful technical comparisons for wikifarms?

The popularity of a wikifarm is not as useful to know as whether it has sufficient connectivity to provide accessible wikis, an up to date version of MediaWiki (or whatever) and enough MediaWiki extensions. (You would expect a full suite of extensions only for a paid wiki but there is a need for enough to allow for proper functioning.)

wiki-site.com is the one wikifarm with which I am familiar and it seems popular (but it's not in the list any more; is it still going?) Such free wikifarms supported by advertising would logically be the way forward for the sector, but only if they can show that they have put enough into their resources. Popularity comes as a cost: it has to be supported by connectivity. Is there a rating for this that one can check?

Hogweard (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

What about useability?

Wikia free hosting looked great on paper, but I'm finding it completely unusable because of edit freezes, excessive ad activity and constantly/repeatedly being pushed to pages Wikia wants me to look at, instead of where I wanted to go. So the bottom line is, I can't get the editing work done that I need to do. Maybe we need a way for users to rate the different farms, one to five stars or whatever. LADave (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a product review service. If it is mentioned in websites or published in news papers or magazines, it may be mentioned in wikipedia.59.162.170.113 (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I was happy to see the the other wiki sites listed in wikipedia. Amazed even. But I would like to know how similar the editing environment is to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great, but Wiki Spot has a different "look and feel" to it. I am continually amazed at how professional Wikipedia is, not just in content, but in editing capabilities. The others must be a few steps behind, which can be a little disappointing. I don't think it is a question of "evaluation" as much as an understanding of what is going on. ( Martin | talk • contribs 14:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC))

out of date information

added a tag to reflect this. especially regarding the first source. information used here, and available at the source, is dated to 2006 in some cases, so the feature list of the sites may not be accurate as many features have changed in 5-6 years. 99.13.18.93 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam protection

We ought to state what spam protection these wiki farms have, if anyone has such information.

Being overwhelmed by wikispam is the major problem with wikis: I am about to close a farmed wiki down simply because the whole thing is choked up every day by SEO spam, and frankly it is not worth it. There is no future in wikis unless the spammers can be defeated.

There are spam-protection methods, which some farms may offer and others do not. If they do not, one must steer clear of them, so it is rather important for someone thinking of creating a wiki. Howard Alexander (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

New farms

The list needs an update many new farms are available: http://wikkii.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Pantera (talk • contribs) 16:55, 22 July 2012

Wikkii.com

http://www.wikkii.com

This is a large wiki farm. I am sure notability requirements can be met without having to create a separate page for it. Some clueless deletionists hijacked Comparison of wiki hosting services awhile back, and invented new rules for notability.

If some articles about Wikkii in the media could be found, then normal notability requirements would be met, and it could be listed here. I am not going to follow this discussion much though. I long ago stopped arguing with moron tagteams. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the only other wiki farm currently on the list using straight MediaWiki, ShoutWiki, has been listed here for awhile. Wikia uses highly modified MediaWiki software. So, I don't see why Wikkii.com, another large wiki farm using straight MediaWiki, should not be listed here. Neither of those wiki farms using straight MediaWiki have an individual article. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikkii seems to have been abandoned by its new owners. For more info go here. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

ShoutWiki

ShoutWiki was deleted according to the infinite wisdom of another spam fighter today. Here is the diff for those who want info about this MediaWiki-based wiki host. Here is the revision before the deletion. Maybe somebody will use the info here later, or in a separate Wikipedia article about ShoutWiki.

This deletionist's reasoning was "no Wikipedia article = not notable for inclusion." A rule invented by a few spam fighters, but only applied to certain list topics of their choice. A few more people have probably stopped editing Wikipedia due to this latest application of an arbitrarily applied list rule. See: User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors.

As I said in the previous talk section I am not going to be following or participating in this discussion much. I am only pointing out the wiki hosts for others who have more of an interest in editing this article. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Flask hosting

ok, I have a Case

I need to host a Flask app for some development, preferably with some database connection like **SQL, PostgreSQL or MongoDB(notSQL)

But here is the catch

Each offer has a different price structure from free to whatever, some even do not provide the free option, and there is different restrictions with the free option.

Also, there is different versions of python that is run on there servers, 2.6 or 2.7 at the date of writing.

Here are some of the sites I was looking at, and I am confused about this right now.

• http://apphosted.com/pricing/

• https://www.dotcloud.com/pricing.html

• http://www.fluxflex.com/#services

• http://www.webfaction.com/services/hosting

• https://www.pythonanywhere.com/pricing/

• http://www.heroku.com/pricing#0-0

• https://www.appfog.com/products/appfog/pricing/

• https://www.alwaysdata.com/plans/shared/

• https://openshift.redhat.com/community/developers/pricing

.. there are more I think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.208 (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Clarified hidden note to editors

I clarified the hidden note to editors according to the arbitrary, unofficial, and unapproved rule of a few clueless spamfighters: WP:WTAF

• Wikipedia:Write the article first

See diff. The hidden note previously said: "In order to keep this list from becoming indiscriminate, only entries with a Wikipedia article or other evidence of Notability are permitted. If you want to add an entry, take the extra 10 minutes to write an article for the website first. See also WP:WTAF."

It seems that people were confused by "other evidence of Notability". So they were adding entries only to have them deleted arbitrarily days, weeks, or months later by some clueless spamfighter following their own arbitrary rules of notability. So I corrected the hidden note to what is actually true here:

"Only entries with a separate Wikipedia article can be listed in this article. See the talk page and WP:WTAF:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Write_the_article_first "

This way Wikipedia is less likely to lose more editors due to their contributions being arbitrarily removed: See: User:Timeshifter/More articles and less editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This hidden note should now be removed. Mediawiki-based wiki farms should be in an article comparing wiki hosting. But few of these wiki farms will be notable. Since there are so few of these pure unadulterated Mediawiki wiki farms, then it is even more necessary to use common sense when applying notability rules to facts in an article. Most facts in an article are not notable. It is OK to add these wiki farms to the list here. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wetpaint

Wetpaint has transitioned to a celeb news site, and is currently not accepting new wikis. I propose its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomsf (talk • contribs) 07:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Standards for inclusion

WikiApiary knows of over a hundred farms, wikistats is more restrictive but still has a dozen. New MediaWiki farms are born and die continuously, it doesn't mean they're all relevant. Can we draw a line somewhere, e.g. exclude the farms with an Alexa rank lower than 100,000? Or 200,000? The list seems to include some very irrelevant ones. --Nemo 07:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Found another site with wiki farms, see here

I don't think we should look at the Alexa rank, rather list those that are free and have the best features (amount of space being an important issue) 109.130.198.6 (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

MW Zip

http://mwzip.com

MW Zip is another free wiki farm using unadulterated MediaWiki software. I know of only 3 such wiki farms that are up and running. The other 2 are Orain and Shoutwiki:

• https://orain.org
• http://www.shoutwiki.com

Wikia uses a greatly changed version of MediaWiki. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

orain is currently up for sale (2016-08-11) and not serving content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:Red link

WP:Red link. "This page in a nutshell: Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject."

Every fact in an article does not have to be notable. In fact most facts in articles are not notable. And not all red-linked articles will get an article made right away, or even soon. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, red links are there for topics that should have articles but do not. The way we determine what should have an article is by notability. Since Wikipedia is not a place for original research such that something is notable because someone says so, we determine notability by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This is not an article but a comparison article (a kind of list), which means that the redlinks you want to include are not incidental redlinks created in the course of writing an article but individual entries in the list. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory of websites but rather an encyclopedia with encyclopedic lists, such comparisons/lists of topics like websites are not for every website that meets the most basic description. Instead it includes a subset that is notable. See for example the common selection criteria. Sometimes we have lists with red/blacklinks when none of the entries are notable and sometimes a list can be exhaustive (like a discography, list of letters in the alphabet, list of state capitals, but not a list of a type of website). The argument that WP:WTAF is "just an essay" is a weak one to rely on, since it's an essay that exists as a practical interpretation of policies and guidelines that have broad acceptance. So yes, it is just an essay, but none of the other links in this paragraph are. We don't include things just because you say they're important or just because they exist. In the interest of not participating in an edit war, I await your response. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

(unindent). Thanks for the link to common selection criteria. I am glad to see that Wikipedia has advanced beyond the mindless application of an essay, WP:WTAF. That essay, and the group of clueless spamfighters (many of them) that enforced it without any subtlety or understanding of either Wikipedia guidelines or the topics the lists covered, are responsible for driving away many editors. Common selection criteria is a much better guideline. Here it is:

1. Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. This standard prevents Wikipedia from becoming an indiscriminate list, and prevents individual lists from being too large to be useful to readers. Many of the best lists on Wikipedia reflect this type of editorial judgment.
2. Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names. Such lists are almost always better placed within the context of an article on their "parent" topic. Before creating a stand-alone list consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a parent article. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)
3. Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list.

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm ignorant to the fact that CSC is newer than WTAF. I just assumed it was the other way around, so to me it's just a nice summary/application of other policies/guidelines. I can see how that would be annoying, though, if there weren't a clear foundation for it though.

Would you object to removing the redlinks again? (Alternatively you could, you know, write the article first. :) [kidding]) --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Unadulterated Mediawiki-based wiki farms should be in an article comparing wiki hosting. There are only 3 that I know of (see previous talk section). But few of these Mediawiki-based wiki farms will be notable. Like many software areas, it is the topic that is most notable. People familiar with the software area (like me concerning Mediawiki-based wiki farms), will know of them, but major publications don't quickly write articles about this stuff. Word gets around in other ways until it finally gets noticed by secondary sources. This is a short list, and to delete the Mediawiki-based wiki farms would be weird since MediaWiki is the main root of all wiki farms.

It is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future concerning these Mediawiki-based wiki farms since the number of wikis on those wiki farms is rapidly expanding. I know this because I keep up with the area. So, for the reasons given, I believe inclusion of Mediawiki-based wiki farms meets Common selection criteria, and common sense. In the end there aren't that many functioning wiki farms of any kind. So it is a fairly short list no matter what selection criteria are used. Wikipedia is good at deleting the wiki farms that stop functioning or close down. Far better than some of the compilation articles sometimes used as references. The info in some of those articles is already old and inaccurate when the articles came out. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Unadulterated Mediawiki-based wiki farms should be in an article comparing wiki hosting. But again, we don't go by what editors think is important except when backed up by reliable sources. but major publications don't quickly write articles about this stuff - But that's how Wikipedia works. It reflects what's covered in reliable secondary sources so that we don't have to rely on the judgment of individual editors. I don't doubt your knowledge, but you should realize you're making the same argument people use about why a band, filmmaker, software product, manufacturer, consultant, etc. should be included -- that it's useful and/or significant to a particular group but doesn't get the press attention other groups do. This is a common criticism of Wikipedia in the way its policies reinforce the status quo in terms of what has or has not received press attention. If it doesn't get coverage in reliable sources, it doesn't belong, for better or worse, and "They're notable because I know what I'm talking about" doesn't usually go very far.

Look, I'm not going to edit war over this, and it's certainly not important enough to bring elsewhere, so I'll back off. But I do think that you should remove them or create stubs. If you do, I assure you that if they're deleted it won't be me who added the tag, anyway. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Primary sources are allowed too on Wikipedia. Many, many facts in articles are only backed up by primary sources. This qualifies. This article would be ludicrous without MediaWiki-based wiki farms. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

adding google sites and reddit

Could be possible to add Google_Sites and Reddit as wiki hosting services? They hosts wikis. --Pier4r (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Can you link to some actual wikis hosted by those sites? I am curious. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Here you are: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/index (very nice, but much more is to found in the subreddit). There are much more around! For google sites i know only that they hosts wikis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier4r (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Reddit site you linked to looks like a wiki to me. Maybe someone will add Reddit to the table. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Orain wikifarm is gone for now

See:

• http://addshore.com/2015/09/downfall-of-orain
• https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/orain-wiki-farm-attacked-and-compromised.357248

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiMatrix out of date

FYI, WikiMatrix will point you to dead hosting services.

-- 50.247.80.185 (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

There are a few ways we can go with inclusion criteria without running afoul of policies, guidelines, and general consensus. Requiring that each entry have its own Wikipedia article meeting our notability criteria is the easiest to maintain. Providing reliable, third-party sources that meet our notability criteria is another. Working from lists that editors agree are reliable and demonstrate due weight for their entries would be another. See WP:CSC and WP:LISTV#INC.

Until we come up with something different, I think it best to require each entry be notable. --Ronz (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

If you want to have this article at all, then the relative metrics of the farms seems the fairest measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please note the sources listed produce a larger list than what is displayed here, and given the topic, wikipedia probably has more relevance to the searchers than the lists it is based on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.22.12.35 (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what either of those responses mean. Please clarify, providing details and examples. --Ronz (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ronz: and others, per WP:CSC this list seems soemwhat narrow and I think that the information is worth retaining, so what if Miraheze was included in this list but not redlinked, and with no article created? Miraheze hasn't been around very long but we appear to be the only wiki that is free (cost), completely ad-free, offering choice of license, skin, extensions, etc, and it has a higher alexa rank than OurProject.org. @NDKilla^^^ 21:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, Orain.org was included until after the site was hacked. It was redlinked the entire time, and arguably it wasn't notable until after it was hacked and burned to the ground. @NDKilla^^^ 21:58, 11 August 2016 (UTC)