[08:17:33] @orduin see above [15:21:40] I get that but it doesn't change the fact that there were, at least at some point in time, people actively writing content spending a lot of time. If you are serious enough about this, why don't you try emailing or leaving on-wiki messages for them? What you said about them being happy may just be correct. [15:23:32] It may sound silly to hope for people who have been inactive for two years or more to respond but I have seen it happen. [15:25:07] I actually did some more research and it seems like it's just one guy who last edited in June 2021. I haven't found anyone with more than 3 edits [15:25:42] anyone else, I should say [15:25:48] Does that mean the entire wiki was just forked off Fandom? [15:26:15] yes, it was imported from the non-gamepedia version of minecraft.wikia.com [15:27:27] I see a total of 28 non-import edits from the founder [15:28:42] Wow. That does a lot to change my opinion. Personally, I would still contact the founder but I trust Void's judgement. [15:31:24] I'm not asking for it to be deleted, but I think getting it off Google would be appreciated by the current Minecraft Wiki editors, who are fighting a very difficult battle against fandom [18:51:43] [1/9] Miraheze's dormancy policy states the following [18:51:43] [2/9] - inactivity after 45 days results in a warning of closure [18:51:43] [3/9] - inactivity after 60 days results in closure [18:51:44] [4/9] - inactivity after 180 days of inactivity results in marked for deletion [18:51:44] [5/9] - inactivity after 194 days of inactivity results in deletion [18:51:44] [6/9] it has been about 22 months of inactivity according to Cook, the wiki in question if policy was applied would have resulted in deletion already unless an exemption was requested. [18:51:44] [7/9] - Is the inactivity timer reset every time someone happens to make an edit? [18:51:45] [8/9] > - no different than a wiki admin waking from slumber every so often to prevent adoption [18:51:45] [9/9] https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Dormancy_Policy [19:07:17] Any edits on the wiki restart timer [19:08:17] what would happen if someone were to deliberately make an edit every time closure was imminent yet overall was an inactive wiki, sounds like a loophole [19:12:01] Not really a loophole more so its rare, so theres not really anything in policy about it [20:25:11] Yeah, iirc, the response generally is to questions "how can my wiki not be deleted" is just to make a random edit. [22:00:49] No it's allowed and encouraged [22:17:09] revisions are cheap so there's really no point deleting a wiki if someone's making an effort every now and then to keep it alive. [22:34:10] yes, cheap when the wiki is a few KBs worth. the larger it gets, the more of a resource hog it becomes [22:41:40] If its being frequently access then the wiki should qualify for an exemption even without consistent random edits. [22:51:43] policy states you need to explicitly file for exemption. not to be given automatically based on traffic [22:52:16] Right but its mostly traffic that causes load on the server, not specifically storing the revisions on disk [22:52:17] in any case, this is all moot as policy would have triggered deletion months ago anyways [22:53:06] no revision have an impact. a few KB vs a few GBs is a difference such that another active wiki could be using said storage