Template talk:Wikipedialang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Wikipedialang is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
This template does not have a documentation subpage. If the template page contains categories, interwiki links or usage notes, move these to Template:Wikipedialang/doc. If the template does not require documentation, add |doc=no to this template ({{permprot}}).
Protected Please, if you wish to add or remove a tier from this template, discuss it on this talk page first. Thank you.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Over 500.000

Now that both French and German have more than 500000pages, why don't we had a new section ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rigil (talk • contribs) 07:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnian Wikipedia > 10,000

Few minutes ago, the Bosnian Wikipedia reached article no. 10.000! Could someone (administrators) change the template? Thank you! :) --Kahriman 21:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian Wikipedia

The link for Armenian Wikipedia should read: "Հայերեն (Armenian)" -- currently, it reads "Main Page [in Armenian] (Armenian)". —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed. Thank you. —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, MessedRocker and IceKarma. --DanielNuyu 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 10000+

I think the links to 10000+ article other language Wikipedias should be added again. If there is any point to this section, then such Wikipedias are of sufficient size to be included.

zoney ♣ talk 16:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Many previous debates have determined that users feel these others should be listed. Other data has shown that traffic for other Wikipedias declines when they are removed from the front page. Please return them. Tfine80 16:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
First, previous debates do not prevent a page from being changed in the present or future. Second, please link to this data. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-29 17:32

One massive list o' links is useless for readers. Nobody is going to try to skim through them to find what they're looking for. The current list is nice and short, just like the lists on other Wikipedias. If people want to see 10,000+, they simply click on Complete List. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-29 17:30

[edit] Changes needed

The following Wikipedias now have enough articles to put them in a different section:

  • Slovak (sk; Slovenčina) has over 50,000
  • Georgian (ka; Kartuli) has over 10,000

Also, since the order seems to be by the languages' transliterated native names, the following changes should probably be made:

  • Japanese (Nihongo) should appear after Dutch (Nederlands)
  • Serbian under "S" (Srpski)
  • Korean (Hangugeo) after Hebrew (‘Ivrit)
  • Simple English under either "S" or "E" (but not first)
    • If Simple English is placed under "S", then Thai (Phasa Thai) would come before it.
  • Greek (Ellinika) after Estonian (Eesti)
  • The name for the Neapolitan language is Nnapulitano; I think napulitana is an adjective.

Ardric47 23:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Vietnamese Wikipedia has just reached 10,000 articles, enough to be relisted. Please add the following code at the end of the 10,000+ list:

 '''·''' [[:vi:|Tiếng Việt]]

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please capitalize the Tiếng in Tiếng Việt, to be consistent. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 00:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

All good now. —Mets501 (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The languages were "offically" ordered by domain name. This gets horribly confused by admins adding items in either by the English name for a language or the name for itself. If people are OK with this change, please change Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#Why aren't the languages of the other Wikipedia language editions in alphabetical order? as appropriate. Thanks, BT 13:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 100,000 reloaded

The change was requested several times, here's the next one. That's how it looks today:

This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 1,362,174 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.

Some numbers from today (bold entries would even qualify for a 250,000 articles category):

459,456 articles in Deutsch
148,947 articles in Español
 57,088 articles in Esperanto
355,005 articles in Français
192,296 articles in Italiano
224,505 articles in Nederlands
252,788 articles in 日本語
 73,613 articles in Norsk bokmål
289,582 articles in Polski
176,492 articles in Português
103,889 articles in Русский
 56,247 articles in Slovenčina
 76,816 articles in Suomi
181,479 articles in Svenska
 86,719 articles in 中文

As I've written in the discussion of the main page (from where I was forwarded to this discussion page), it's true that all these Wikipedias technichally are over 50,000 articles, but then again the current categories are lowering (POV-like) the work of all the editors of the other Wikipedias. A WP with 10,000 good articles in fact is better than a WP with 100,000 stubs, but that's not the point of my request here. It looks just _so_ wrong to display the ~1.5 million articles of the English WP next to "over 50,000" articles of the German, French, Polish and Japanese (just to mention the 4 biggest Non-English) WPs. --32X 15:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

To give an extra motivation to edit the template: "[[:pt:| Português]]" includes a space where it shouldn't be. ;) --32X 15:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Spanish Wikipedia lists the sizes of other wikipedias by 100,000 and 10,000 - as do the Latin Wikipedia, Portugese Wikipedia, and others. --Tim4christ17 talk 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danish Wikipedia > 50,000

The Danish Wikipedia just reached its 50,000th article. --pred 22:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}--81.161.184.111 05:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello! I elevated the link several hours ago (in response to a message posted on the main page). —David Levy 05:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telugu Wikipedia > 10,000

Telugu Wikpedia has 10,000+ articles. It is not in the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shyam Bihari (talk • contribs) 07:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC).

I've added Telugu to the list. —David Levy 07:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging non-English words

Hello, I'm currently working at the Wikipedia:Accessibility project, and one of the requirements of web accessibility is to specify the language of non-English words with the HTML lang attribute. This is also useful for let the browser to choose high-quality fonts for specific languages (see Template talk:lang#Justification for more details).

Almost every link to other Wikipedias is a non-English word, so they should be tagged using the {{lang}} template. Please, find a ready made version in one of my subpages: User:Suruena/wikipedialang. Thanks! --surueña 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I brought this to the bottom to re-open discussion. Was there any objection to this or did it just not get done by anyone. The goal seems laudable as long as that's the right way to do it we should. As a somewhat related note, Suruena's version includes the English name of each language, which after reading all the related discussion from the main page talk archives I could find no support for. The main page is in English and an English speaker should be able to at least know what language is in the list so they can go look it up and read about it if they want. తెలుగు means nothing to anyone that doesn't know the script, but at least with Telugu they can go read Telugu. - Taxman Talk 14:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic Wikipedia > 20,000

Arabic Wikipedia has reached 20,000 Articles, please update here and in interwikis template. Thanks :) --Mido 08:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical order

Shyam Bihari just rearranged some of the languages in this template. While I agree with moving te: away from the end of the 20,000+ list, I don't think ja: and nl: should've switched places. I think the languages were being arranged by their native names (or transliterations), in which case Nihongo (ja:) comes after Nederlands (nl:), rather than their ISO codes. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Jep, [1]. Looking at the changes ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] (my favourite one), [9], [10]) I really wonder why this template is locked when so many people edit it in a trial-and-error mode. (Quite interesting to see how the 100.000+ articles WP became 10.000+ articles in about a week.)
In case my rant missed the point: Think before you edit, talk to others first. --32X 11:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I suppose, the name of the language also starts with ja. Really sorry about that. I am going to swap the order of Nihongo and Nederlands. I will take care to discuss here before making any change. Regards, Shyam (T/C) 11:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone fix this typo

Call me a Grammar Nazi, but it's really bugging me since the page is protected.

"If your are moving a language..." --Wafulz 16:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deutsch Wikipedia @ 500,000

They will hit 500,000 articles any time now. Should there be a new 500,000+ category created? --Dgies 19:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Main Page#German Wikipedia 500,000th entry. —David Levy 19:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"Creating a new +500000 section for dewiki alone is a bit excessive; however, it is does seem appropriate to separate out the +100k and the +250k (of which there are currently 4). Feel free to revert." - If I could, I would revert it - in about a week. 1 week is enough to celebrate the recent achievments. :) (Yeah, I've suggested the 250k group earlier, but after some talks I came to the conclusion that only a logarithmic system is fair - until there's a second WP reaching the 1 million mark.) --32X 21:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm .. well, I thought it was a rather fair comprimise, as 4 Wikipedias have already reached the 250k mark and two others are very closely behind. It also seems rather ostentatious of enwiki to gloat about its 1.5 million articles and then severely underrate other wikis' accomplishments--there is quite a difference between 500k+ and 100k+. Would you care to explain upon why only a logarithmic system is fair? AmiDaniel (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I cannot really say what is fair (for unfair see #100,000 reloaded), and somehow you're right. But when I look at meta:List of Wikipedias all I see is a fair list because it's not grouped by randomly chosen values. Concerning the fact that the Dutch WP will have 250k articles soon (that makes 5 in 250k, 6 in 100k) someone may think about changing that value. If the border would be lowered to 200k, then there'd be soon 8 entries (with pt and sv) leaving 3 in 100k. So that all looks like categorizing in different quality classes while the logarithmic scale is way simplier: 8M or 9M is a bigger difference than 10k or 100k, but the achivement is lower (x*1.125 vs. x*10).
Anyway, I think that template is changed way too often, so even my "rants" aren't arguments for an immediate change. ;) --32X 23:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything especially natural about a logarithmic series (unless one has a good explanations about why Wikipedias should be distributed exponentially in size), but here is another logarthmic series:

As is evident here, they aren't really exponentially distributed (at least not at the very large end). So it is really about finding a way to convey useful information while taking up a reasonable amount of real estate, and shouldn't be about trying to force their distribution into some preconceived notion of what is a "fair" distribution. Dragons flight 00:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that distribution I like quite a bit better, honestly. The only problems I see are that 16,000 seems like quite an odd number to begin on (perhaps we could cheat and start at 15,000?) and that it takes up an extra line of "real estate," but otherwise I like it. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compliments, and a question

I really like the current selection of language links, both in the bottom section and the sidebar (+ the "complete list" link in sidebar). Aesthetic line-wrap, too. Good work, whoever all is responsible for the current incarnation of this much-discussed segment.. :) (copied from talk:main page)

I was wondering if the "Start a Wikipedia in another language" link was really necessary? It's already linked by the second section at Multilingual coordination, and the lead section at Complete list... Thanks :) --Quiddity 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks Mets501. Better late than never ;) --Quiddity 19:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galician Wikipedia > 20,000

Galician Wikipedia has reached 20,000 articles, please update Wikipedia languages. Thanks --Prevert(talk) 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sandstein 06:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fix the middot, please

The "middot" between Finnish (Suomi) and Telugu (తెలుగు) is actually a period:

Please fix. — Äþelwulf See my contributions. 06:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —David Levy 06:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Switch to 300,000+

A self-proclaimed coulrophobic insomniac changed the limit for the top tier from 250,000 to 300,000 just three days before the Dutch wikipedia passed the quarter million articles mark. Was that just a tease? — Afasmit 22:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm certain that this was an honest oversight. I've reverted the change and moved the Dutch Wikipedia to the top level. —David Levy 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! I didn't really think that was intentional either. — Afasmit 05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nynorsk Wikipedia > 20,000

Wikipedia on norsk (nynorsk) (nn:) has reached 20,000 articles, please update Wikipedia languages. --EIRIK\talk 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cebuano Wikipedia > 20,000

The Cebuano wiki has hit the 20,000-article mark. Please update immediately. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 22:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish Wikipedia > 100,000

Finnish Wikipedia just passed 100k articles. MikkoM 17:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cut-off point change

With the continuing growth of all the Wikipedias, I feel that the "20,000 articles" mark is too low a cut-off point. I suggest that the point be changed to 25,000 instead, which (separating out those that make 50,000) would look like as follows:

This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 2,405,340 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.

Complete list · Multilingual coordination · Start a Wikipedia in another language

This seems less cluttered, and adds more value to the Wikipedias that make the mark. There's always more room for expansion!

On another note, currently Korea lacks a "(ko:)" tag, and for some reason we're entirely missing Sinugboanong Binisaya! Jack · talk · 09:54, Thursday, 15 February 2007

I've made the above-referenced corrections. I personally have no objections to the current layout, but I support whatever arbitrary setup the community deems desirable. —David Levy 23:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for changes, although I still think my layout is better. You don't think it's easier to read this way? I like the repetition in the numbers, seems (almost) like a geometric progression, and while this new cut-off point only currently excludes 3 Wikipedias, that'll be set to change, and we need to keep bumping it up or the list will continue to grow and bloat. I think it just seems unfair that Nynorsk and Norsk are in the same category, when the latter is 5 times the size of the former. Could we perhaps gain more of a consensus? - Jack · talk · 05:08, Friday, 16 February 2007
Absolutely. I suggest that you post your proposal (or a summary thereof) at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and encourage people to reply here.
Your version seems fine to me, but I also have no problem with the section's increasing length (given the fact that it's at the bottom of the main page). If we adopt a four-tiered format, I'd prefer that we retain the "20,000" designation (thereby preserving the ascending quantities). —David Levy 05:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jack. The proposed layout is better than present one. Shyam (T/C) 05:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I second the above. -- Qarnos 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The cut off point is fine, but it should say "Norsk (bokmål)" and not just (Norsk). Rettetast 12:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Not on front page=less traffic=less edits=less new articles=will not reach 25k as fast as if it were on front page. --Indolences 17:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you suggest we transclude meta:List of Wikipedias onto the front page, then? Because if the cut-off point is not continuously changed then that's the inevitable outcome - Jack · talk · 23:36, Friday, 16 February 2007

I don't understand with obsession with ranking the languages in fine groups of superiority. In my opinion, two ranks would be just fine (see below).--Pharos 18:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 2,405,340 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.

· Suomi · Svenska · 中文

Complete list · Multilingual coordination · Start a Wikipedia in another language

Like I said, I think it gives more value to each of the Wikipedias that make the mark. Kinda like how the Olympics have gold, silver and bronze. Or how LPs can reach gold, platinum and double platinum. Categorisation is human nature, and its the reason we moved away from the original layout. We're here to provide information, and the proposed layout provides the most information about the information we provide, without diminishing returns - Jack · talk · 06:31, Saturday, 17 February 2007

[edit] Copied from User talk:Jrockley

I agree that sufficient time has elapsed to proceed with a tentative implementation of consensus. What concerns me is that only one supporter has explicitly referenced the proposed "25,000" cut-off point. Of the other two supporters, one only mentioned the "layout," and the other expressed agreement with the first. Of the two opponents, one criticised the layout (but not the "25,000" cut-off point), but the other criticised the "25,000" cut-off point (but not the layout).

I'm inclined to say that there is rough consensus (subject to change) for the new layout, but not for the new cut-off point. Keep in mind that while I believe that the above is a fair assessment of the situation, I am not entirely impartial on this matter; I have no strong feelings either way, but I would prefer to retain the "20,000" cut-off point for the time being. I agree that we need to occasionally adjust these numbers (and raise the inclusion threshold) to prevent the section from becoming too large or unbalanced, but I believe that it looks a bit strange to have fewer languages listed in any tier than in the tier directly above it (because the higher number of articles is supposed to be a more notable distinction). If we switch to your four-tier layout (but retain the "20,000" designation), the numbers in each of the tiers (from top to bottom) would be 6, 6, 11 and 13. With the "25,000" cut-off point, the numbers would be 6, 6, 11 and 10 (which almost makes the last tier seem more special than the one above it).

Please note, however, that the Arabic Wikipedia is only 252 articles away from reaching the 25,000-article threshold (and changing the criteria to barely exclude it could be mistaken for a political maneuver). I suggest that we implement the four-tier layout now, and we can change the lowest tier to "25,000" when the Arabic Wikipedia reaches that level (most likely resulting in a breakdown of 6, 6, 11 and 11). How does that sound? —David Levy 17:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The last part of your comment actually made me laugh out loud. News headline: "Wikipedia does its part in the war against terrorism!" Yes, I very much don't want to get into another argument about who the real terrorists are... I think your idea is wonderful, I fully support - Jack · talk · 17:31, Sunday, 18 February 2007
Okay then. I've performed the change. Now we can sit back and see what happens. (Don't be surprised if someone—perhaps Raul654—reverts.) Either way, we'll draw more attention to the matter (and hopefully receive additional feedback).
Yes, the Arabic issue does seem somewhat comical, but I've lost count of the number of times that people have complained about ethnic or nationalistic bias on the main page. The Hebrew Wikipedia's inclusion wouldn't help matters.  :-) —David Levy 18:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
While it may sound comical, there's a non-comical background here on this talk page. --32X 03:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki links

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki links:

[[ca:Plantilla:Contingut Altres llengües]]
[[es:Plantilla:Portada:Idiomas]]
[[ia:Patrono:Altere linguas]]

Thank you in advance, Julian 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. —David Levy 05:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norwegian Wikipedia > 100,000

{{editprotected}} Norwegian Wikipedia has reached 100.000. Rettetast 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Shanel. Rettetast 20:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Wikipedia > 500,000

A new section should be added in the Template:Wikipedialang:

  • More than 500,000 articles: Deutsch

--Wittkowsky 14:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See further up this page for previous discussion. It is a poor use of space to create a seperate category for just one entry. Dragons flight 16:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, didn't know the the electronic medium Wikipedia has space-problems with a one-liner (that in the not too far future will be added by the French Wikipedia, also reaching that numer). --Wittkowsky 17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Es heißt zwar nachdenken, du solltest es aber vorher tun.
Dragons flight was refering to screen space, which is at the user's side of the internet cloud. No matter what Wikipedia does, screen space will always be limited, therefor it should be used wisely (f.e. when there are 3 or more items). --32X 20:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Propose adding that once French hits 500K soon - NYC JD (objection, asked and answered!) 19:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
After looking at the template once again I still think it doesn't make sense. Two times 500k, four times (maybe five than) 250k - WHY? In my opinion, the 250k isn't even that important, a log-10 scale would be fine if people could live with some more wikipediae (that haven't reached the 25k yet). --32X 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cebuano > 25,000 =

Most of them are about French communes. Yet, the Wikipedia in Cebuano do have more than 25,000 articles. Thierry Caro 08:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Cebuano wikipedia is removed, reinstate it here please. The name Cebuano language is enough as Sinugboanong Binisaya is quite lengthy. 125.5.36.146 07:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Português > 250 000

Could someone change it?--203.113.236.161 01:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved, thanks for the notice. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
A space has been missed between Polski and the dot — Jack · talk · 00:53, Monday, 9 April 2007
Fixed, thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of User:Raul654

Recently, Raul654 removed the 25k tier of the template. This is not the first time he's done made a bold move on this template without much attempt to discuss it here first. See here & here & here & here & here, and wow, many more. Can we please make a policy to discuss tier removal or addition here first? — Jack · talk · 00:48, Wednesday, 11 April 2007

I've reverted to the previous (consensus-based) layout. Any major changes should be proposed and discussed on this page. —David Levy 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I support either removal of the 25K tier or merging the 50K tier back into the 25K tier. The template has had three tiers (three is a nice, tidy number in which good things come) for much of its existence. On my screen, standard layout and no special computer, the last item of the two tiers overlaps to the next line, which is both unsightly and a waste of a line of Main Page space. I would also be OK with a combined "merge and raise the minimum threshold to an intermediate number" solution. - BanyanTree 21:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You need to realize that there is no such thing as a "standard layout." The above happens to describe the appearance on your screen, but not on everyone else's. This is determined by such variables as one's resolution, text size, browser and window layout. On my screen, each tier fits on one line (with plenty of room to spare). For others, reverting to three tiers might cause one language from each of the two bottom tiers to wrap to the next line (just as you experience now). It's impossible to make this look perfect for everyone.
Also keep in mind that the list changes whenever another Wikipedia reaches the bottom tier or moves up to a higher tier. The template's appearance today might differ from its appearance tomorrow. —David Levy 22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, I should have said "default skin", rather than "standard layout". Not only must I, but I do indeed, understand your point about appearance. Regardless, clearly an arbitrary number of tiers is needed to check tier spawning. Three is a perfectly good arbitrary number with some tradition on this template. Comparing 3 (number) to 4 (number), 3 is simply way cooler. - BanyanTree 23:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, sorry about the misunderstanding. I'm fine with either setup, but the decision can't be based upon how the template looks on anyone's screen in particular. (Note that when removing the '25,000' tier, Mark cited a desire to "make this section match the sister projects template." On my screen, it's significantly smaller that that section even with the '25,000' tier.) —David Levy 00:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lombard > 25,000 (?)

The List of Wikipedias gives Lombard as having 34,252 articles, yet its Main Page says that it has 18,887. Could someone figure out which is correct, and, if the list is correct, add Lombard to the >25,000 section? —Cuiviénen 16:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing "34,252" on both pages. I've added this language to the template. —David Levy 17:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks like they (or their bots) were quite active, they've passed the border of 50,000 articles. --32X 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
How can it grow so fast? Automated translation? — Jack · talk · 00:16, Tuesday, 5 June 2007
I guess so. Most probably another bunch of town articles. I'd like to know how many real articles there are, with more than just an infobox and a few sentences. --32X 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Easier than that; this wikipedia lists nearly only numbers..... Hogne 12:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It might warranted to take a closer look at the activity and "Depth" of the Wikipedias when listing them here. For example, though the Lombard Wikipedia technically has 50,000+ articles, it has a Depth of 0, 250 users, 3 admins, and only 14 users with >5 edits in May. The Hebrew Wikipedia, on the other hand, has almost the same number of articles, but it has a Depth of 146, 40,000 users, 41 admins, and 486 users with >5 edits in May. The differences is very noticeable when looking at article length and village pump activity. Even Wikipedias with 15,000 pages, like the Latin Wikipedia, have higher quality articles and more activity than the Lombard Wikipedia. So it may be best to use another metric, like Articles divided by Depth, to determine listings here, or to have a threshhold a Wikipedia must meet before being listed in a certain category. —Centrx→talk • 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] >500,000 category?

The French Wikipedia will probably surpass 500,000 articles within the next couple of days. At that point, there will be two Wikipedias other than English (French and German) with over 500,000 articles. Should we then create a separate category for those two? My only concern is that it might be too many rows on this template. —Cuiviénen 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There already has been talk of eliminating a tier, so adding a fifth (particularly one for only two Wikipedias) seems to be out of the question. —David Levy 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Going by the growth rate statistics here, Polish and Japanese should both reach the 500,000 mark in 6–8 months. By that time, Swedish and probably Russian will have joined 250,000+, and it will be getting a bit crowded. Perhaps we should review all the article counts at that time, and decide how to best partition them? Tualha (Talk) 22:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German reaches 600.000

The German Wikipedia reaches 600.000 Articles maybe somebody changes it?--Tresckow 01:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wie wäre es mit nein?
For a more complex answer read #>500,000 category?. --32X 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galician > 25,000

{{editprotected}} Galician Wikipedia has reached 25,000 — Jack · talk · 16:58, Friday, 29 June 2007

What's its language code? --ais523 17:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
gl: — Jack · talk · 17:05, Friday, 29 June 2007
Added. —David Levy 17:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thai has reached 25,000

{{editprotected}} Congratulations to the editors of the Thai Wikipedia on achieving 25,000 articles! Would someone please add them to the "25,000+" group? Copying this should work:

[[:th:|<span title="Thai (th:)">ไทย</span>]] '''·'''

Thai should be added to Template:MainPageInterwikis too, of course. Thanks. (By the way, there seems to be something wrong with their statistics; 16 views seems a bit low...) Tualha (Talk) 15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done for both templates. There are now links to the Thai Wikipedia on the Main Page. Congratulations to those editors. :) Nihiltres(t.l) 16:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New format

{{editprotected}} A suggestion for a new format for this part of the Main Page, consists mainly of putting the data in a table, and shading the cells in accordance to the number of articles, in a gradient. Between the 2 lines, we can observe how this section of the main page would look after making this change.

This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 2,405,340 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.

+250,000
+75,000
+50,000
+25,000

Complete list · Multilingual coordination · Start a Wikipedia in another language

♠TomasBat 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: A copy of the main page with the implementation of this change is available here.

The {{editprotected}} tag should be used to request uncontroversial/consensus-based edits. You're welcome to continue proposing this change, but please note that we previously established consensus against the use of colored boxes in the three meta sections. —David Levy 21:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Never knew about that consensus... Well, still, I suppose I´ll continue proposing this change despite consensus. Could you please provide me a link to the consensus so that I can take a look at it? ♠TomasBat 21:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This was covered as part of the main page redesign, so you can find the discussion within the talk archives. The prevailing viewpoint was that we should visually distinguish between the featured content and the largely static meta content. Consensus can change, of course. —David Levy 21:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't use colours, don't even think about doing it. BTW, was this change somehwere discussed? --32X 01:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Or how about lighter colours? ♠TomasBat 03:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
That specific edit wasn't, but we established long ago that we would routinely change the tiers' numbers to adjust the Wikipedias' distribution and control their quantity. —David Levy 05:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 2,405,340 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below.

+250,000
+75,000
+50,000
+25,000

Complete list · Multilingual coordination · Start a Wikipedia in another language

♠TomasBat 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't see this as accomplishing anything other than making the section less attractive and destroying the demarcation that we worked very hard to establish. —David Levy 05:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I agree with you, the colors may do some harm to balance of the page. Plus, I had no idea that there was an entire project commited to improving the main page, so I suppose the results obtained by the members of the project must be the most conveniant for now. ♠TomasBat 16:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lithuanian Wikipedia: 50 000

Done. —David Levy 13:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small error in the Telugu

There's a small error in the entry for Telugu in the template which causes the mouseover display to read "(:Telugu (te", rather than the expected "Telugu (te:)". Looking at the source page, it would appear the offending code is the lang="te" bit, which isn't included for the other languages. Thylacoleo 08:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this problem on my end, and I don't know what (possibly important) purpose the lang="te" code is supposed to serve.
What browser are you using? Does the text in question display normally in this version? —David Levy 08:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The lang attribute gives the browser some information about the language in the uses tag. A good browser might automagically change the direction from RTL to LTR, it may display the words in a better than the standard font, ... --32X 11:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right David (and 32X), it's not the lang attribute. I tested the version you linked to, David, and the offending material is actually the dir="rtl" class="spanAr" bit (another string which only appears for this particular language, which is the only language so afflicted). After I eliminated this text the mouseover display appeared correctly. Thylacoleo 01:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you certain that both of those items (the purposes of which I don't know) are causing the issue? Have you tried removing them individually?
I'd still like to know what browser you're using (as this problem doesn't exist in mine). —David Levy 02:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You're right again, David - it's only the removal of the dir="rtl" bit that corrects the mistake (it's the obvious culprit, I suppose). (Although it would be nice to get rid of the other code as well while you're at it, unless there is a good reason why Telugu, alone among all the languages, needs it.) My browser is the entirely unremarkable Internet Explorer. Thylacoleo 04:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I was able to observe the glitch on my end by loading the page in IE6. Rather than removing the offending code (which evidently specifies that the text's direction is right-to-left), I separated it from the rest of the code by nesting new span tags within the existing ones. I believe that this is permissible in HTML, but someone should please revert or let me know if I'm mistaken. —David Levy 05:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, David, it comes out okay now. I'm curious though, as to why Telugu requires this extra marker, when the other right-to-left languages in the template (Arabic and Hebrew) do not. My suspicion is that all the code I've identified as unique to Telugu is indeed superfluous to the correct display (even if not all of it is harmful), but your cautious approach to its removal is no doubt wise. Thylacoleo 06:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering the same thing, but I assume that there must be some reason why this code is beneficial. (Perhaps someone more knowledgeable on the subject can explain.) —David Levy 06:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Telugu is definitely not a right-to-left language. Please remove the tag. (I'm not sure which one is a correct syntax.) One thing that might be special for Telugu among the languages listed is that it has "marks" preceding, following, superscripting, and subscripting characters and these combinations do not have unique Unicode code points. Instead, the rendering engine takes care of placing the marks in the appropriate point. I think it's called kerning. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 07:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed the dir="rtl" code. If anyone believes that this somehow is wrong, please revert and/or explain why. —David Levy 07:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Norsk (nynorsk) has reached 25,000

Norsk (nynorsk) should be added to Template:MainPageInterwikis as well as this (Wikipedialang) template. Thanks. Hogne 20:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Gratulerer. Rettetast 22:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newar / Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia has over 25 000 articles

{{editprotected}} Please add new.wikipedia to Template:MainPageInterwikis and Template:Wikipedialang. Newar / Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia (new.wikipedia) passed 25 000 articles some weeks ago (it is already past 27 500 now). --Jorunn 00:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be glad to, but I need a native speaker to write the correct name of the Wikipedia here in the correct character set, so I can copy it into the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I obtained the name from m:List of Wikipedias. —David Levy 19:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

Add

--Александрит 12:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality requirements (Volapük)

The Wikipedia in Volapük has reached more than 50.000 articles. If depth=0 does not matter, then you should move it to the next tier. --32X 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the Volopük Wikipedia has increased its size by about 30.000 articles in less than 2 weeks , I'd like to start a discussion. The Template states "Many other Wikipedias are available; the largest are listed below." and lists Wikipedias by numbers of articles. I think it's time to add some additional weight factor. The Serbian Wikipedia has recently got its 50.000th article and most of them are articles. And I'm sure I'll find more information within the 35.000 articles of the Croation Wikipedia than in the ~85.000 of the Volapük Wikipedia, because the later consists mainly of bot generated sub-stubs of municipalities in Europe (according to the random article function). It would be a wrong signal for Wikipedia's readers and for other language Wikipedias when the Volapük Wikipedia is ranked that high. ("Look, this is one of our largest projects.")

I therefor suggest a wikipedia should have a depth of at least 5 for being listed in this template. A depth of 5 is still a low border but it ensures that mainly bot generated editions aren't listed while projects with a small but hard working community are kept. --32X 16:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes! I strongly support a limit where only wikipedias with a depth of minimum 5 will be listed. I do understand the the purpose and objective of the boots in dyeing languages, but this list should only include wikipedias with a minimum of quality a long with quantity.
At this time the following wikipedias will be removed from this list all though they have more than 25.000 articles:
Hogne 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the numbers once more. The same wikipedias will be removed if the limit is set to 10. I therefore suggest that the list only should include wikipedias with a depth of minimum 10. Hogne 10:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Various similar suggestions have been made before. Generally they've only had limited support. I doubt you will be able to achieve consensus. Amongst the many objections, one of the key issues IMHO is it is always going to bad idea to use statistic in a way it wasn't meant to be used. Depth doesn't indicate quality and although it currently works okayish, there is no guarantee this will remain. It is easily possible (even if somewhat unlikely) for a high quality wikipedia to have a depth below 10 and it is also easily possible for a wikipedia primarily composed of stubs to have a depth of 100. (If any wikipedia's really want to game the system they could easily achieve a minimum depth of 10 with a bot. They could probably even come up with some plausible excuse so that you can't say for sure they are gaming the system.) More importantly perhaps, a wikipedia with a depth of 10 is not guaranteed to be better and could easily be significantly worse then one with 9.9. Ultimately rather then trying to impose some arbirtary and poorly defined 'minimum quality' requirement, people just have to accept that wikipedialang lists wikipedia by size which is defined by the number of articles. The fact that some wikipedia's have a large number of bot generated stubs and others have concentrate on writing more complete articles doesn't change this Nil Einne 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see your point. Still, IMHOm, it should be possible to separate these boot-wikis from the more substantial wikipedias. Perhaps this could be done without objective reasons? Many wikipedians are proud of their achieves, and disclaim boot-wikis. Quality does matter! Hogne 20:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can come up with a way to objectively and reliably measure quality then you're welcome to propose. As I've already said though, depth has historically had little support because amongst other problems it doesn't intrinsicly measure quality nor is it reliable since a wiki with a depth of 10 could easily be worse then 9. Nil Einne 00:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if we should have a strict cut-off for depth, or if we do where it would be, but it is pretty obvious from clicking on random pages that many of the Wikipedias with low depth have tiny articles that were automatically by bot. The Cebuano Wikipedia (33 430 articles, depth 0) looks to be, almost without exception, one-sentence town articles created by bot, whereas The Croatian Wikipedia (35 517 articles, depth 34) has lengthy, well-linked, human-written articles. We could single out the Wikipedia's with low-depth and make a subjective decision about their quality, but we do not speak all of these languages. We could eliminate Wikipedia's that were created or boosted primarily by bot. The fact is, though, that we already using an objective standard--the number of articles--to exclude good Wikipedias with few articles while including low-quality Wikipedias with many bot-created articles.
If all the Wikipedias with depth < 5 are worse than their counterparts, and there exist Wikipedias with articles < 25,000 that are better, then we ought to unlist or degrade the Wikipedias with depth < 5. There may be low-quality or bot-created Wikipedias with depth > 5, but it looks like there are no high-quality Wikipedias with depth < 5. —Centrx→talk • 02:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The Volapük Wikipedia now has more than 140,000 articles. I stopped counting, but more than 100,000 of those articles were created by bot--the same bot--and these U.S. town articles are pretty useless for whoever lives in Volapukland. (Actually there is no such place because it is an constructed language: "Today there are an estimated 20-30 Volapük speakers in the world." In other words, we have a Wikipedia which was at risk of being closed, and which may yet be closed if the one active contributor leaves, listed alongside languages that have millions of native speakers, thousands of users, and thousands of well-written articles. There are more highly active users on the Croatian Wikipedia than exist speakers of Volapuk in the entire world.). This shows no signs of stopping, it is going to happen again with more use of bots, and it defeats the purpose of this listing to have a Wikipedia that consists entirely of one-sentence bot-created towns alongside Wikipedias with thousands of lengthy articles on a variety of relevant topics. While it may be conceivably possible that a human-created Wikipedia with 25,000+ articles could have depth < 5, that is not the case here. —Centrx→talk • 02:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly my concern representing a small language with a working wikipedia organisation. When the list gets too long it will be the end of the list. Hogne 07:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Am I correct in my understanding that the current measure of depth does not distinguish edits by bots from edits by non-bots? If so, I don't think it's an adequate measure of quality. You can find thousands of stubby geographic articles on a number of Wikipedias that have been edited five or more times by bots but never touched by a "real person." So all Cebuano or Volpük has to do is make more bots and run them through their articles a few more times and they'll match the other wikis in quality, no? --Cam 16:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at depth is just a good way of finding the obvious cases. If a Wikipedia has higher depth and is still bot-created, it should not be listed either, but it is more difficult to find. There is some discussion of changes to the depth metric at m:Talk:List of Wikipedias. —Centrx→talk • 18:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I suggest this change in the Wikipdialang-list Hogne 18:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC) :


This Wikipedia is written in English. Started in 2001, it currently contains 2,405,340 articles. Many other Wikipedias are available; the best are listed below.

Complete list · Multilingual coordination

[edit] +Persian

{{editprotected}}

The Persian Wikipedia has reached 25,000 articles (verify). The text to be included follows:

· ویکی‌پدیا

Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Persian Wikipedia already was added as "فارسی" (which appears to be correct). —David Levy 04:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need to distinguish the >500,000 Wikipedias

It's just silly to lump the >500,000 article Wikipedias with the other >250,000 article ones. They should be on a separate tier. Tough if that makes it less "pretty" for people to look at. It's supposed to be functional, not a perfect geometrical arrangement of links. zoney ♣ talk 12:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Adding another tier makes it less functional Nil Einne 00:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnamese Wikipedia

{{editprotected}}

The Vietnamese Wikipedia has passed the 25,000-article milestone. Could an administrator here please list it?

[[:vi:|<span title="Vietnamese (vi:)">Tiếng Việt</span>]]

Thanks.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 20:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres(t.l) 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simple English

{{editprotected}}

Can somebody add [[simple:Main Page/Other languages]] to the collection of interwikis here? It's not a template, but is similarly transcluded on the page. Rigadoun (talk) 04:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done --ais523 11:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian Wikipedia at 75000

{{editprotected}} Please move the Hungarian Wikipedia ("Magyar" currently in 50000+ row) among the Wikipedias with at least 75k articles. Thank you --Dami 20:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done (by someone else). Mr.Z-man 02:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change

Given the small number of Wikipedias in the "more than 50,000 articles" section, I propose that we merge it with the "more than 25,000 articles" section for the time being. —David Levy 03:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing so would not reduce the number of lines for most screen resolutions, it would just make for an extremely long list that pushes onto the next line. This might work if a different minimum were chosen, such as 35,000, but then we might as well add another line for 20,000+ and re-make the whole listing. —Centrx→talk • 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the list would extend to a second line for most users (including me). My concern is that it's inelegant for this section to contain only six Wikipedias. (Ideally, each section should contain no fewer Wikipedias than the one above it does.)
As we've already established consensus for adjusting the numerical thresholds from time to time, I've done so with three of the sections. Four additional Wikipedias are now included (with the Bishnupriya Manipuri Wikipedia excluded because of its depth of 1). —David Levy 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclosed <span> in nn:

{{editprotected}}

Please change

[[:nn:|<span title="Norwegian, Nynorsk standard (nn:)">Norsk (nynorsk)]]

to

[[:nn:|<span title="Norwegian, Nynorsk standard (nn:)">Norsk (nynorsk)</span>]]

— Kalan ? 13:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done - Nihiltres(t.l) 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20-40-80,000

Funny, why is the Hunagrian in the More than 20,000 articles row instead of the More than 40,000 articles? It has over 75,000 already, not from recent inflation. - 78.92.35.16 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was due to an error on my part. I've corrected the listing. —David Levy 08:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix a typo

{{editprotected}} When pointing at the Ukrainian language (Українська) in the "above 40000" category, the text in English that appears is "Ukranian". It should be "Ukrainian", i.e., one letter "i" is missing. Please fix. 76.65.122.114 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —David Levy 08:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 160 000

Going with the 20-40-80 cutoffs, wouldn't it make more sense to have the highest as 160 000 for consistency? It would only change the position of one language too (and only 1 more in the near future).--Undc23 10:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reopening discussion: eliminate Wikipedias with depth<5?

I'd like to reopen the discussion on whether to exclude Wikipedias that are seen as "gaming" or "low quality" from the list -- I'm the main contributor at the Volapük Wikipedia. In the above discussion, I saw people argue that all current criteria -- number of articles, or even depth -- aren't realiable; so which one are you using to decide which Wikipedias to exclude? And how can you make them objective? Since you are listing Wikipedias on this template by number of articles, it seems misleading to use a different criterion than the one you mention to actually classify them -- you'd be making a false claim (there are other large Wikipedias that are not listed here). Even replacing "largest" with "best" doesn't solve the problem: it begs the question "what are the criteria"? Maybe we should talk a little about possible criteria? A suggestion: m:List of Wikipedias by sample of articles. --Smeira 15:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian/Српски/Srpski

Could someone please rename Serbian Wikipedia link from Srpski to Српски because primary alphabet is Cyrillic. Or, you can leave it like on interwiki with Српски/Srpski with both alphabets. Thanks and best regards. --SasaStefanovic • 11:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've switched it to "Српски," and it probably will go back to "Српски / Srpski" when we need to make that line longer again. —David Levy 11:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality requirements contd

Hi all, I am one of the users who has been using bots to create articles. I think that the anti-bot phenomenon that is observed at the moment is disproportionate. Here are some of my opinions on the matter

  • Wikipedia with bot generated articles will have low depth even for the same amount of information as a bot makes a single edit to enter information which may take about 6 or 7 edits manually.
  • An article being edited more does not ensure that the quality of article is better. For example, I may be able to translate a featured article in english (edited 300 times) and keep it in Hindi wikipedia after translation, editing just once! Even if the grammatical errors or other such errors are corrected by other users, the article would not be edited more than 100 times. At 150 edits, the article would be far more encyclopedic than the one in english at 300 edits!
  • There are many users who create nonsense articles, far worse in quality than bots. We need to check those articles first.

There are a lot of pros/cons of using bots. However, my primary concern at the moment is not the discussion in this issue. Its about assessing the quality of a wikipedia. I think we are betting on the wrong horse by using these statistics at the primary level. I think that number of articles, depth etc are only secondary meausres. For an end user, it does not matter a dime whether the depth is a zillion or 0 (given the loopholes that it contain) and number of articles is not a perfect criteria as well. Here is what I think we need to do-

  • About content: Create a consensus by wikipedians of all wikipedia about what articles must be contained in all wikipedia, similar to the List of articles in metawiki. For creating this, we might need to put on a notice in each wikipedia, we might need to vote and keep some articles in second list, third list etc. if issues are not resolved. But we need to have at least a rough framework of articles that must be present in a wiki to be encyclopedic
  • About media:Upload media for the selected articles in commons so that every wikiversions can have media for the articles. Having a media in english with probable non-copyright status, which can not be used by other wikipediae, is useless and so is having a gallery of selected topic, in english wikipedia, without any of the media in commons.
  • About quality assessing:Rank wikipedia depending upon the aggregate score of number of featured articles, good articles, long articles, medium sized aricles, short articles and stubs that are present from within the list. Whereas featured and good articles need to be decided by a community, the length of articles can be observed by anyone. Also, ranking should be such that featured and good articles should have maximum attention and long, medium, short, stub etc should have minimal focus lest people might start filling jibberish into those pages to have greater score.
  • About updates:Review the list of articles within a certain span of time eg every 2 years (or during emergencies e.g.-new groundbreaking discoveries) by consensus.
  • In disagreement:If a sizable number of users think that this system does not give proper emphasis on non-listed articles, we can divide the score into listed and statistical with total score being certain percentage of list, certain percentage of pure statistics and similar score from non-listed articles. eg total score=(80% of score from list)+(10% score from number of articles, depth etc combined)+(10% of score similar to listed from non-listed articles). However, if we are to create a serious encyclopedia, the percentage from the latter two should be minimal.

Thank you--Eukesh (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with bots is that they're used to spam empty articles. This is a perfect example. If the first 200 pages on Special:Shortpages don't have proper sentences, the Wikipedia is bad and won't be listed. No need for complicated quality assessment. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki link to th

{{editprotected}}
Please add [[th:แม่แบบ:วิกิพีเดียในภาษาอื่น]] link to the same template in Thai language, Thanks. -- Portalian 04:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The danish wikipedia

The danish wikipedia is now on 80000 articles. --Fredelige (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Icelandic

Just passed 20,000 :) --Akigka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.230.253 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Added. —David Levy 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Telugu Wikipedia > 20000

Hi,Telugu language wikipedia has crossed the 20000 article mark some time back. I am not seeing those wikipedias under the section. wikipedias with more than 20000 articles. It is currently having 38000+ articles. Will any user having permission to this add Telugu language Wikipedia add to the list. __Mpradeep (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We no longer include Wikipedias with depth ratings lower than 5. The Telugu Wikipedia has a depth rating of 2. —David Levy 05:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Volapük (114,588 articles, depth 5)

I recall that Volapük was removed some months back for having a low depth. It now appears to meet the depth >= 5 criterion and may need to be added again. Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the Volapük Wikipedia. -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 14:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Added. —David Levy 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know whether this would need some more discussion since all articles in Volapük have at least 12 to 15 edits by one bot vo:Geban:SmeiraBot. Only due through this high amount of edits, the depth is >5. The whole Volapük wikipedia consists more or less of automatically generated content. --René (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Depth?

I see a lot of references to "Depth" in the above discussion - what does this mean and how is it calculated? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 12:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

From m:List of Wikipedias:
The "Depth" column ((Edits/Articles) × (Non-Articles/Articles) × (1 − Stub-ratio)) is a rough indicator of a Wikipedia’s quality, showing how frequently its articles are updated. Note that it doesn’t refer to academic quality (which obviously can’t be mathematically computed anyway), but to Wikipedian quality, i.e. the depth of collaborativeness—a descriptor that is highly relevant for a Wikipedia. Depths above 300 for Wikipedias below 100 000 articles are dismissed as irrelevant.
—David Levy 12:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll add info to the main page FAQ's where it is also referred to. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] uk 100.000+

--Ilya K (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latin wikipedia > 20,000

Needs updating. Harris Morgan 14:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC).

Y Done --CapitalR (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese and Chinese

{{editprotected}}Please add the {{lang}} template so these links are displayed in the proper font:

[[:ja:|<span title="Japanese (ja:)">{{lang|ja|日本語}}</span>]]
[[:zh:|<span title="Chinese (zh:)">{{lang|zh|中文}}</span>]]

-- Prince Kassad (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Y Done --CapitalR (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Estonian Wikipedia > 50 000

Needs updating. Oldekop (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Note that I also added Hindi to this page, but not to Template:MainPageInterwikis, because it does not meet the minimum depth requirement for that list.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind about Hindi. Looking at the talk page, it appears that the depth of 5 rule applies here too. Maybe we should say that somewhere?--Danaman5 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)