Talk:List of wikis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).


I've done some work to clean up the table, but there still seems to be an extra column showing at the end, and I'm not sure how to fix it. Help would be appreciated! Sarakey (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Check out Help:Table.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I have looked that page over, but was not able to find the solution. Sarakey (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The table looks okay to me; what do you think needs cleaning up?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hm, maybe it's just my screen then. What it looks like to me is that there is an extra (empty) column at the end after "License". Sarakey (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


Bulbapedia has been deleted many a time, JUST KEEP IT ON! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arilegolego (talkcontribs) 07:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As it says in the edit notice - the list of wikis is for notable wikis only, those that have an existing wikipedia page. If you want to add the wiki to the page, first check to make sure bulbapedia passes the criteria of WP:WEB. Then create the page, citing the reliable sources that substantiate that it passes WP:WEB. Then add it to this page. Otherwise, I'm going to keep removing it. We have the edit notice for a reason, impassioned pleas are not going to change that standard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
You have articles of most curious sites, then you don't have Bulbapedia, The Doom Wiki, Simpsons Wiki, Futurama Wiki, Memory Beta etc, etc... (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Cucumis (website)[edit]

I considered adding Cucumis (website) to the list, but I am not certain whether it is a wiki.—Wavelength (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Jpop Stop! Wiki[edit]


I'm the admin/owner of the Jpop Stop! wiki. What I'd like to know is whether or not our wiki can be considered on this list as we currently provide information of Asian artists and actors/actresses. We have about 20,000 pages at the present time, so I'm not sure if that's enough to be eligible for this list. (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the first posting Wikipedia:Notability (web) should be used to determine notability, and for the WP:Conflict of interest, you should ask anyone else to consider it. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


There's a wiki called coalSwarm here but it doesn't have an article yet. It has 3500 articles. It's about sharing information about anti-coal efforts. Here is a reference: <ref name=twsDecC>{{cite news |title= About the CoalSwarm wiki |publisher= ''coalSwarm'' |quote= Begun in early 2008, the CoalSwarm wiki is a joint project between CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy, a Madison, Wisconsin-based media watchdog group. Consisting of over 3,500 articles, the CoalSwarm wiki is housed inside CMD's 50,000-entry SourceWatch wiki. |date= 2010-12-03 |url= |accessdate= 2010-12-03 }}</ref>

It was begun in 2008 by SourceWatch.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anybody know how to get the Alexa numbers for CoalSwarm?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I think this is it: coalSwarm Alexa rating. Sarakey (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Super Mario Wiki[edit]

There's a wiki about Nintendo's Mario, but I don't see it on the list. -Someone —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Astrology Wiki[edit]

Every now anbd then I've seen an astrology Wiki, with exactly the same set-up and software as Wikipedia. I can't find it offhand at the moment. If someone can, can they add it? Softlavender (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind. I found it:, but it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, which appears to be the criterion for listing in this List. Plus they've changed the interface to one that's really ugly. Softlavender (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC) - all laws of the world[edit]

On one hand doesn't seem to satisfy notability reqs, on the other, Jurispedia doesn't either, but is on the list. So far, lawdelta features about 1600 full law texts, namely US Code, Consolidated Acts of Canada, and laws of California. Laws of Ontario and Texas are on the way.

I would argue that addition of law delta to the list is appropriate, but I am its admin. What you guys thinking?

| [[Law Delta]] | Government—[[Law]] | Aims to publish all laws of the world with tools to discuss, comment on laws, and propose bills or amendments. | |

Malikov (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


I checked the statistics of Wikipedia, but it has 3,682,318 content pages, when the list says 18,000,000. Does this include EVERY page on wikipedia such as Talk Pages and Redirects. Can someone tell me please. --AnyGuy (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. There are 3,682,334 content pages and 24,449,359 pages in total (all pages in the wiki, including talk pages, redirects, etc.) The data is from Special:Statistics which should be up to date. jonkerz 17:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
So do I change it from 18,000,000 to 24,449,359? --AnyGuy (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice that the whole Wikipedia project was listed in addition to the English WP. The number 18 million seems to be correct as it is referring to all WP language-edition. jonkerz 17:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh okay. --AnyGuy (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


The criteria for inclusion on the page is notability demonstrated by the presence of a wikipedia article (and thus coverage in multiple reliable sources). Wikis are rarely reliable as they are user-generated content. The use of a wiki as a reference indicates the page it is used on needs better references, not that it's a reliable source. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Missed a few[edit],,, to name a few. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC).

See the notice at the top of the page - this is a list of wikis that have a wikipedia page, not a list of all wikis on the internet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


Can someone add WikiInfo? Allen (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. This list's inclusion criteria are notability as demonstrated by having a Wikipedia article (WP:WTAF), and Wikinfo was deleted via AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OrthodoxWiki[edit] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Quora really a wiki?[edit]

I would not call Quora a wiki. It is much closer to Stackexchange or Yahoo Answers or smth like that. (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Quora is not a wiki. I will remove it from the list. --Editor B (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment and Question[edit]

Comment: The wiki for A Million Penguins no longer exists, so it doesn't seem like it should be on this list anymore.

Question: Does this article not lists Wikia wikis? If it did, I'm sure it would be much longer than this.

Alphius (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This article does list Wikia wikis - see Category:Wikia. Most of those which are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article are included in this list. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Several missing...[edit]

There are several missing non-wikia wikis: - wiki - Kingdom Hearts wiki - Transformers wiki - My Little Pony wiki - Super Mario World hacking wiki - Bionicle wiki - Hero Factory wiki (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


UPDATE: This has been added to the table — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicereddy (talkcontribs) 00:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll make a Wikipedia page for the PCGamingWiki and then add it to the table. Here's some information on it for future reference:

  • Name: PCGamingWiki
  • Focus: Gaming - Video games
  • Notes: Attempts to provide fixes and information on all PC games
  • Articles: See it's Statistics page (1367 articles as of April 30, 2013)
  • License: CC-NC-SA 3.0 (AKA Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike)

Nicereddy (talk) 22:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks or Nobility[edit]

Quoting the first line of the page This page contains a list of notable websites that use a wiki model. In response to this statement, I do not feel that "strongly" about this page, I was merely making a statement about an edit I disagree with. Good luck. Mlpearc (powwow) 20:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll go one further, in the "Editor Notes" that can be seen in the 'edit source' mode for the page, it includes the following...

Note to editors: Please don't add Wikis here that don't have their own separate articles (and thus, are notable as per the website notability guidelines). A rule of thumb: if the article you're linking to doesn't mention the word wiki in the first sentence, it probably doesn't belong on this list.

While its nice that the creator of the list added this commentary, but its contrary to WP Policy regarding Lists, Redlinks, and Ownership.

Background - What started this was the deletion of Redlink entries simply because they were redlinks, see this edit... [1]. I reverted it and then another user removed the links, this time claiming that they are not WP:Notable, here... [2]. I reverted it again (2nd revert) and then asked that it be brought to the Talk page for discussion.

My 2 cents - That said, and I know many people feel differently, but there is nothing wrong with Redlinks. If there is no article, this alone is not a basis for Notability or the lack of it. Something can easily be "notable" even if a Wikipedia article does not exist for it. I would hate to think that we have become that arrogant about WP's importance. As for the entries in question, could they plausibly have articles at some point, probably. I was surprised to see at least one of them mentioned in an actual book. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit does not mention that the edit was made because of "red links" but because the subject(s) have no articles on Wikipedia, therefore the subjects are not notable enough for the list. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I have asked for a 3O here Mlpearc (powwow) 15:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In response to your My 2 cents, if what you say is true then, we can just start adding every website on the net ? Mlpearc (powwow) 15:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it is okay to limit this list to wikis that have an article. It's a reasonable barrier to prevent thousands of wikis from being listed. --Varnent (talk)(COI) 16:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm from the Third Opinion project to note that the request there has been removed due to Varnent's opinion, above, but thought that I would also note that the rules on this are set out at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria and there is clearly an implied consensus in this article that only notable items will be listed. In light of that, see the first bullet point under "Common selection criteria" in regard to redlinks. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

wikis commented out in the article[edit]

Article HTML comments should be used very sparingly and large blocks of content really should never be commented out (increases the size of the page without increasing content, complicates/makes a mess of editing). Copying them here in case anyone wants to do anything with them. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)