Template talk:Wikipedias/Archive 1

Archive 1

Which Wikipedias should be listed?

This template implies that there are only 14 Wikipedia language editions which have between 1,000 and 10,000 articles. But actually, there are 71. (See meta:List of Wikipedias.) I am not suggesting that the other 57 Wikipedias with that level of articles be added to the template. Actually, I would prefer that there be fewer Wikipedias listed in this template. It would be better to refer users to meta:List of Wikipedias if they want information along these lines. --Metropolitan90 17:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Volapük

I removed Volapük Wikipedia claiming to have 100,000+ articles. This Wiki has one active (and computer savvy) user and he generated most of the text using a bot.

More details can be found on Meta, in discussion about the proposal to close this Wikipedia. Although the decision was to keep vo: it didn't change anythiong on the fact that there's practically no content. I believe having vo: on the same level as es: or ru: is unjust and farce. Since there's no indication that vo: has at least one thousand of human edited articles I left it out altogether. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC) alleged

Any criticism of the Volapuk Wikipedia should also include other Wikipedias like the Lombard wikipedia which is even worse off than the Volapuk. It's about 100 articles away from reaching 100000 articles, and is terribly bloated with fluff and nothing (and I found a fair amount that is in English and not Lombard). Do we have a fair metric to remove Wikipedias off this list? For example: Maybe Depth must be equal to or greater than Log({{ARTICLECOUNT}})*2. So, then, a Wiki with 100000 articles must have a depth equal to or greater than 10 to be shown. (For Depth statistic, see meta:List of Wikipedias. The higher, the better.) Lombard's depth is currently ZERO, and Volapuk's is 2. By comparison, Norwegian's depth is 18, and the Rumanian depth is 16, and both are of comparable article-number sizes to the Volapuk and Lombard. What do you think? -- Yekrats (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there probably is a better metric to use to organize this template than pure article count. However, since there is not yet consensus on what that metric should be, I think it's best to leave languages like Volapük in here for now in the interest of completeness. Etphonehome (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the template should not include robot inflated Wikipedias. Their article counts is an unsolved internal problem of Wikipedia, not an fact that is useful for the readers. Pavel Vozenilek 18:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Given article count is a horrible measure, why not simply list alphabetically? –Pomte 08:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Red links

I don't like the red links here. What is needed is a thorough review of the notability of each article. Those that don't exist are redlinked as if they should have their own articles, which I think is highly questionable. Some have probably been deleted for not being notable in the past. Richard001 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think I have a solution. There must be a page somewhere that lists all the different Wikipedias, with one entry for each language Wikipedia. So perhaps we should point those red links to their respective entry on that one page for now? But probably simpler to just leave them red.

--David Göthberg (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That right, Richard001, I think so. But about sulotion I wonder something wrong in original properties of teamplate (target article changed), David Göthberg. But now I also have only way similar that (reset all target page/article to remove redlinks). nnq2603 (Talking about Template) 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

1 million+ or 2 million+ ?

I just saw the edit that S.Örvarr.S did today. It confused me and I had to investigate and think for a while. The English Wikipedia has indeed reached over 2 million articles. So what Örvarr must have meant in his edit comment was that no other Wikipedias will reach 2 million in a while. But the German and French are about to reach 1 million soon. (Its a tight race! :)) And I agree, it would be nice to then be able to move them up to the 1 million+ group together with the English Wikipedia. It looks a bit lonely up there, doesn't it?

--David Göthberg (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. But it shouldn't be a race. The English Wikipedia will always be bigger than the others and should not be so easily threatened by other Wikipedias that it can not stay in the same field, that is 1 million+, as some other Wikipedias. --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ehm, I meant that it is a tight race between the German and French Wikipedia about which one of them will first reach 1 million articles.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well a lot of people look at it as a race, cheers --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was just a humoristic comment, there is a (somewhat hidden) smiley there: (Its a tight race! :))

So yeah, its not a race, or should at least not be seen so.

--David Göthberg (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedias not in the template

While we don't have articles on these Wikipedias, perhaps they should be in the template?

• Ten Wikipedias with 10,000 or more articles
  • Azeri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.179.226.161 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Belarusian
  • Belarusian (Tarashkevitsa)
  • Kurdish
  • Low Saxon
  • Luxembourgish
  • Marathi
  • Newar / Nepal Bhasa
  • Occitan
  • Piedmontese
  • Sundanese
• Fifty-two Wikipedias with between 1,000 and 9,999 articles
  • Alemannic
  • Anglo-Saxon
  • Aragonese
  • Armenian
  • Aromanian
  • Banyumasan
  • Bavarian
  • Bihari
  • Chuvash
  • Corsican
  • Divehi
  • Faroese
  • Franco-Provençal/Arpitan
  • Friulian
  • Gujarati
  • Hawaiian
  • Ilokano
  • Interlingua
  • Interlingue
  • Kannada
  • Kapampangan
  • Kazakh
  • Ligurian
  • Limburgian
  • Lingala
  • Manx
  • Min Nan
  • Mongolian
  • Nahuatl
  • Nepali
  • Norman
  • Novial
  • Ossetian
  • Pali
  • Pangasinan
  • Pashto
  • Ripuarian
  • Romansh
  • Sanskrit
  • Scots
  • Tarantino
  • Tatar
  • Turkmen
  • Upper Sorbian
  • Uzbek
  • Venetian
  • Võro
  • Waray-Waray
  • West Flemish
  • West Frisian
  • Wu
  • Zazaki

Any thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that this question has been asked many times and nobody has answered. Here's my solution: either include all of them, or rename this template to "Notable language editions of Wikipedia by number of articles", and remove all wikipedias which are not judged notable enough to have a devoted article about them on the English wikipedia (personally I think that it's ridiculous that many Wikipedias had their articles deleted - after all, where else would one find information about them? - but if such is the "consensus" then it must be applied equally to all cases. Esn (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the template, all editions have included. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Order

Is there any order in the rows intended? Alphabetical or by size? Cant really see any pattern now...--Kozuch (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

New Order

Can we create a new tab called +800,000 and move german there and move french to 750,000 when it reaches it in the next few days.--86.165.168.253 (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why both can't remain at 750,000+. The increments ought to increase, not decrease, at higher levels. So after 750,000+, the next interval should be 1,000,000+. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I propose keeping the increments above 100,000 at quarter-million intervals: 250,000 - 500,000 - 750,000 - 1,000,000. Please resist the impulse to create a new category when your favorite Wikipedia pulls ahead of rivals in its class. This is not a horse race. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 14:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is 3 million + now a category? The highest should be 1 million so that in future years it wont be so thinly spread out. 216.99.54.62 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Also brackets listed (e.g. 250,000-500,000) are not needed since the range of each tier is self-explanatory, based on the previous, or following tier. 216.99.54.62 (talk) 03:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alpha order

As the relative size of Wikipedias constantly changes, I've alphabetized each class that has ten or more members. For now, the "elite" WPs with 250,000 or more articles are listed by number of articles.

Also added Luxembourgish Wikipedia to the 10,000+ class simply because I once translated some info from one of its articles for an English WP article. I agree, though, that it's not ideal to add every existing Wikipedia to this template. For now, I'd say if a Wikipedia has an article about it in English (see Category:Wikipedias by language), it can have a place in this template.

In the future we might employ a formula based on a threshold "Depth" in this table (as was proposed above). — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 02:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The Swahili Wikipedia

Hi there! The Swahili Wikipedia, now has more than 11,000 articles. I'd really apreciate it if one of the admin would change it from the lists of Wikipedias with 1,000+ and add it into the list of Wikipedias with the articles more than 10,000+. All the best.--_{Mwanaharakati}^(Longa) 07:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Romansh_Wikipedia

Please join the discussion in Talk:List_of_Wikipedias#Mergefrom_Romansh_Wikipedia. - Altenmann >t 03:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedicity

As this template is intended for use in articles, not internally, it is subject to our content guidelines. This is not the same as linking to sister projects from our Main Page, as the Main Page is not an article.

While it is traditional to "count articles" within the Wikipedia project, this isn't in any way a useful or objective measure, let alone one endorsed by third-party independent sources.

Coverage of Wikipedia on Wikipedia has always been somewhat difficult, and here especially do we need to make sure that every bit is established as notable based on third-party independent references.

Listing Wikipedias by number of articles here, no the largest project, significantly distorts the already dubious method of measurement. Many of the smaller Wikipedias artifically inflate their article count with garbage just so they rank higher in this list. So on top of being completely unencyclopedic, this ranking is also causing damage to the very thing it is trying to measure. --dab (𒁳) 11:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

True and Good point -- so what do you suggest? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

well, the quick fix would be to move the whole list of Wikipedias into Wikipedia: space. But of course there is nothing wrong with keeping around a list of Wikipedias in article space too, so I am really not sure.

I just want to remind people how flawed and actually harmful this "article count" idea is. I have tried to propagate the "megaword" as a more meaningful measure, but nobody was interested. At first sight "number of articles" sounds so intuitive.

Counting articles isn't going to go away, but it shouldn't be used unthinkingly, or gratuitously as in this template. --dab (𒁳) 23:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Updated template

We need to update the model (template fr: is complete). Force92i (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

4 million?

In a correspondence I've had with User:HansM, HansM argued: "The boundaries on Template:Wikipedias follow a 1-2-5-10-20-50 etc pattern. I think it would be silly to make the highest bracket deviate from this pattern just because the only language currently in that bracket happens to have over 4m articles. One day, other languages will have 2m+ articles and move up to this bracket. That's why I want to keep to boundaries as they are. When English reaches 5m, a new bracket for 5m+ can be created." Does this make sense? I think that millions are a special case – mainly because of the length of time it takes to write a million articles, and their rarity – and that 4m for WP:en should be noted. Ericoides (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree with Ericoides. Antonio1952 (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Western Punjabi Wikipedia

where is western punjabi wikipedia here ? we have 25000+ articles. please add |punjabi wikipedia in templateعرفان ارشد (talk) 09:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

is anybody here???عرفان ارشد (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

This template is not a list of Wikipedias. It is a list of articles about Wikipedias. Western Punjabi does not appear in the template because the Western Punjabi Wikipedia article has not been written. —Iketsi (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)