Wikipedia talk:Alternative outlets
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 6 August 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the Wikipedia:Other projects similar to Wikipedia page were merged into Wikipedia:Alternative outlets on 12 September 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Google Base
[edit]
ResolvedWould Google Base [1]be a good alternative outlet? 168.209.98.35 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
- Databases aren't wikis. Google has it's own ostensible WP competitor now (actually more of a competitor to AllExperts.com and similar sites). Flagging this topic as resolved. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
MOSR RICH MOSR RICH (talk) 07:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Suggested merge
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Merge and Spinout Pinging @Koavf and Soumya-8974: in case you want to perform the merger (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Other projects similar to Wikipedia This page includes the September 11 Memorial wiki and many of the other alternatives which are on this page. We should have one section for things which are not general interest encyclopedias but which could support them, one for topic-specific encyclopedias, and one for alternative encyclopedia wikis (all I can think of is citizendium:, ELibre:, encyc, and wikinfo:--any others?) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support merge proposed by User:Koavf: WP:Other projects similar to Wikipedia can easily be merged into this page, and it is an unnecessary duplication of effort to keep them separate. Also, is there a reason why, in WP:Alternative outlets § Directory of alternatives, some links are links to the Wikipedia article about the site, but other links are external links even though a Wikipedia article about the site exists? For consistency, shouldn't all of the links be links to Wikipedia articles when a Wikipedia article about the site exists, or else all of the links should be external links? Why the inconsistency? Biogeographist (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Or both: link to an article and an external link. Thanks, Bio. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
- Support. For alt encycs, there's WikiAlpha, Wikisage, Encyclopedia Wikia, Scholarpedia, The Multilingual Encyclopedia. stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook) 09:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
OpposeMerge and spinout. This essay has a beautiful, succinct, on point, message, and Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets#Directory_of_alternatives is already out-of-proportion in size. Instead, I support spinning out Wikipedia:Alternative_outlets#Directory_of_alternatives to Wikipedia:Directory of alternative outlets and merging Wikipedia:Other projects similar to Wikipedia into that. Justin? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)- @SmokeyJoe: Your point about one being better-written than the other is well taken but I still don't see what the distinction would be. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- The essay is succinct and direct, meaningful for good-faith contributors of unsuitable content, and Wikipedia is being nice in suggesting other outlets, and this essay does it from the strong position that if unsuitable material is added again it will be deleted. The Directory of alternatives is a boundless list, mere suggestions, Wikipedia is not in a privileged position to tell others which outlets are more suitable than others, the backing behind these suggestion is very weak. In the separate page, loose commentary could be made about the suitability of other outlets, probably in groups. This essay is diminished by inclusion of loose commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: "Wikipedia is not in a privileged position to tell others which outlets are more suitable than others" I couldn't disagree more: we have every right to say that we approve of one source over another; there is no reason for us to act like all potential alternatives are equal and in fact they are not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- We are not talking about sources here. We are talking about "... so try this instead" where the newcomer might be pointed elsewhere for publishing his high school band memoirs, or networking resources for the kids football team. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I thought I remembered facebook being an alternative. So much speedy deleted was appropriate for facebook. But I looked through the history, and apparently not. Still, some suggestions are much more prestigious than others. OK, how about I change to "support", but I would like more explanation of the purpose of the suggested sites, and sorting, and I anticipate a desire to spinout the list of suggestions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- We are not talking about sources here. We are talking about "... so try this instead" where the newcomer might be pointed elsewhere for publishing his high school band memoirs, or networking resources for the kids football team. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: "Wikipedia is not in a privileged position to tell others which outlets are more suitable than others" I couldn't disagree more: we have every right to say that we approve of one source over another; there is no reason for us to act like all potential alternatives are equal and in fact they are not. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- The essay is succinct and direct, meaningful for good-faith contributors of unsuitable content, and Wikipedia is being nice in suggesting other outlets, and this essay does it from the strong position that if unsuitable material is added again it will be deleted. The Directory of alternatives is a boundless list, mere suggestions, Wikipedia is not in a privileged position to tell others which outlets are more suitable than others, the backing behind these suggestion is very weak. In the separate page, loose commentary could be made about the suitability of other outlets, probably in groups. This essay is diminished by inclusion of loose commentary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- @SmokeyJoe: Your point about one being better-written than the other is well taken but I still don't see what the distinction would be. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Merge and Spinout per SmokeyJoe. I don't want this essay ruined with a long, largely useless list. I guess I'll go along with the support votes for the merge so long as we understand the next step after that is spinout. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
- Merge and spinout I agree that Wikipedia:Other projects similar to Wikipedia should be merged into here, and I would support a Directory of Alternatives. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
- Merge and spinout per Koavf. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 10:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- I'm late to the party here, so be it. But I have a question: what does "spinout" mean?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- That the large table in Wikipedia:Alternative outlets is moved onto a seperate page. --Trialpears (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- If you wonder which page ended up to be the spinout separate page, like I did, it seems that this is it: Wikipedia:Directory of alternative outlets. Betty (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Suggesting Miraheze as an alternative wiki
[edit]I am deeply involved with Wikiversity, and am beginning to use Miraheze.org. Efforts to get Miraheze on sites like Comparison of wiki hosting services have proven proven problematic. Most of these efforts were done not by myself, but by others affiliated with Miraheze. But now my own efforts on Miraheze.org have raised my COI status to the point where I should not touch a WP article on this subject, beyond putting it on a talk page like this. I have a private node of wikis where my students can write anything they want: Only Miraheze administrators, myself, and a student on the wiki can see anything beyond the first page. Please consider mentioning this option at:
- https://wright.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page --- Yours truly--Guy vandegrift (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Legoktm: However, the OP might refer to a specific Miraheze wiki and not the whole site. My proposal is to add Miraheze as a whole to this page (which might be the same as OP/yours), which currently is not popular (but it doesn't mean it is not recommended) and this proposal to add interwiki links to MH wikis is currently being discussed at the talk page about interwiki links on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. 36.72.46.16 (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion: gerontology.wikia.com
[edit]Due to the cleanup of super-centenarians on WP, I suggest that this be added:
| Wikipedia is not a(n)... | ... so try this instead |
|---|---|
| Super-centenarian site | gerontology.wikia.com |
Since Wikia and Wikipedia have compatible licences, there should be no problem having the "contents related to longevity that have been removed from WP due to policies" copied to Wikia. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2018 (UTC)