Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard

See

• Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard/Archive 2006,
• Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard/Archive 2007,
• Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard/Archive 2008, and
• Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard/Archive 2009, and
• Bhamwiki talk:Messageboard/Archive 2010 for archived topics

(Add new discussion to the bottom of the page by clicking the "+" above.)

"Historic" versus "Historical"

For the nitpicky amongst us, here's Grammar Girl on the use of "historic" vs. "historical". To summarize, historic is important; historical is just old. Of course, when dealing with local history, this can no doubt lead to arguments. (She also tackles "a historic" vs. "an historic", but that's even less clear cut.) --Lkseitz 11:30, 17 January 2011 (PST)

Largest city wikis

Reviving User:Dystopos' post from last year, with somewhat updated statistics. A copy of Wikipedia:City wiki#Largest city wikis with all the non-USA wikis brashly tossed out:

Rank	Founded	Name	Location (City, State)	Articles	Images	Edits	Users
1	2004-06-24	DavisWiki	Davis, California	16,993	20,957	300,448	14,280
2	2006-03-15	Bhamwiki	Birmingham, Alabama	7,714	2,465	70,213	318
3	2007-02-06	Omaha Commons	Omaha, Nebraska	7,124	1,408	39,943	729
4	2005-09-09	ArborWiki	Ann Arbor, Michigan	6,951	849	46,649	1,001
5	2005-01-18	RocWiki	Rochester, New York	6,040	3,003	75,019	5,938
6	2006-12-05	Mankatopedia (disabled)	Mankato, Minnesota	3,984	572	15,254	99
7	2006-02-27	Santa CruzWiki	Santa Cruz, California	3,135	1,603	16,497	98
8	2005-07-18	Bloomingpedia	Bloomington, Indiana	3,109	1,402	27,179	2,816
9	2006-07-19	Chico Wiki	Chico, California	2,495	2,070	18,245	90
10	2009-09-28	PortlandWiki	Portland, Oregon	466	269	4,889	78

Fun with statistics

Images

• Images per article is 141.5% at DavisWiki, 83% at Chico Wiki, 51.1% at Santa CruzWiki, 49.7% at RocWiki, 45.4% at PortlandWiki, 42.7% at Bloomingpedia, 30.1% at Bhamwiki, 19.9% at Omaha Commons, and on down. Of course, that doesn't count images that are used on more than one article. --Lkseitz 12:07, 17 January 2011 (PST)

• We've inched up to 32.0%, still a solid 7th. --Dystopos 00:34, 31 January 2011 (PST)

• And now? --Wheresdib 19:44, 8 February 2011 (PST)

• Just under 33%. --Dystopos 21:07, 8 February 2011 (PST)

Edits per user

We're still on top of edits per user at 215.1, followed by 202.7 at Chico Wiki, 168.3 at Santa CruzWiki, 154.1 at Mankatopedia, 63.9 at Omaha Commons, and on down. --Lkseitz 12:07, 17 January 2011 (PST)

I've revised some of the data on the table. The sites that use DavisWiki's software are very frustrating. Anyway, it looks like Mankatopedia is missing in action. Our current "edits per user" is 218.8. Some of the Wikis count users with 1 or more edits separately from those who have registered and never edited. I expect if we did that, then we'd probably have something in the order of 25-35 "active" users, giving us an "edits per active user" closer to 2,000. --Dystopos 13:01, 17 January 2011 (PST)

Fun with Street View

I've been having fun using Google Street View to link to recent views that match up to historic(al) photos, such as Image:City Market sm.jpg and J. R. Copeland residence. Seems helpful as a way of connecting people's everyday experience to the past. Conveniently, when you get a link from Google (blue button on the top right of the viewing window) it's already formatted as a short URL. Comments and suggestions for expanding this tool are welcome. --Dystopos 13:28, 25 January 2011 (PST)

• I think the way you've been using it is fine. I'll try to keep it in mind as I go forward. --Lkseitz 10:46, 1 February 2011 (PST)