Talk:Comparison of wiki software

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comparison of wiki software article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Computing: Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.

Archives

1, 2

Merge List of wiki software with this table

The List of wiki software article doesn't serve any particular purpose and is basically a subset of the entries described in more detail here. I suggest that it be merged into this article. Greenman (talk) 10:03, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Houdinipeter (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Lists have a simpler format, making it much easier to extract the names on the list. They are also easier to build, edit, and maintain. Replacing bulleted lists with tables is not advisable. They both have their uses. The Transhumanist 21:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes it harder to maintain, as there are two articles instead of just one. Also, people tend to edit one or the other, making both articles less likely to be accurate. Greenman (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, for the reasons given above. —DIV (120.17.108.101 (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Comparison of wiki software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Comparison of wiki software. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160624214934/http://ikiwiki.info/news/version_3.20160506/ to http://ikiwiki.info/news/version_3.20160506/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Installation: disk space

Could we add a new column in the "Installation" table providing a guide on the amount of disk space required for installation? —DIV (120.17.108.101 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I have added a column for this to the last table in the article, but most rows need to be filled in.

They ideally should also all have references. However, given that basically the entire table is unreferenced/unsourced, I consider this not to be a faux pas in this case.

—DIV (137.111.13.17 (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Outdated

This looks kind of outdated. For example the export section could be reworked and/or is false according to this comparison service: https://www.wikimatrix.org/compare/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:8A60:C000:1:B0CD:69D9:2E7A:C59F (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that you're working under different assumptions as to what accounts as export? I think the table is about the ability to export towards an open format. Please point out any inconsistency you find. Nemo 15:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matterwiki

It would be nice if someone could add Matterwiki to this list. I don't know enough about it to do it myself. --Neuhaus (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Microsoft SharePoint a wiki?

So, is SharePoint a wiki? I know it says it has 'wiki pages' but is declaring itself a wiki enough to actually *be* a wiki? For example, does it offer markup source? Cheers. --NightMonkey (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HackMD / CodiMD

Is there a reason why these are not included? HackMD – CodiMD Simon Grant (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Features : talk / discussion pages

I have tried 'demo' versions of PmWiki and DocuWiki, and neither seemed to offer Talk Pages (or discussion pages) for articles. I consider this to be a notable feature of wiki software, and so I suggest that the presence/absence of this feature be documented in a table in the present article.

—DIV (137.111.13.17 (talk) 02:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Filter by attributes?

It would be fantastic if i could filter the lists somehow. I'm looking for a wiki that supports markdown, is open source and can store the data on a WebDAV share. It's difficult to find the solutions that fullfil those requirements. --Neuhaus (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitext

I use Mediawiki as multi-personnal CMS,. The key feature for me is full wikitext support. So I can use my pages on another wiki. Should there be not a "wikitext compatibility" column? 193.252.172.116 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing software

I see there are a few other mentions of HackMD/CodiMD/HedgeDoc and Matterwiki above, and I'd like to add Anytype but figured I'd try to collate them here. In the case of Anytype there is some weirdness in the license they're using, and I wasn't sure how best to represent it in the table, which is why I'm opening this up here in talk rather than adding directly to the article itself.

HackMD
CodiMD
HedgeDoc
Matterwiki
Anytype

Jgaehring (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of software that have pre existing English Wikipedia articles. None of those appear to have articles. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Date sorting

@Arx - 83: Note that this edit breaks sorting on the table. Greenman (talk) 09:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info and fixing it. Maybe we can add flag "P548=Q2804309" to get the most recent stable version? Arx - 83 (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenman, thanks for pointing me on the "date sorting". Note that neither your edit resolved the broken sorting on the table. I hope my recent edits (about Obsidian and MediaWiki) meets your concerns. Arx - 83 (talk) 08:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix the double date listed under MediaWiki?

The latest release date is listed twice for mediawiki (21 December 2023; 21 December 2023) I don't know how to fix it, since it's some weird wikidata template thing and I'm not entirely sure what's causing it. Can someone fix it please? ─╣ Theooolone ── Talk ╠─ 17:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I resolved the double date listed under MediaWiki.

Cause: MediaWiki wikidata property "software version identifier" (P348) had two entries marked with "Preferred rank", the 1.39.6 long-term support release (P548=Q15726348) and the 1.41.0 stable version (P548=Q2804309), which publication date (P577) were both shown.

@Theooolone, I hope this meets your request. Arx - 83 (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]