Talk:List of Wikipedias

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Please see the following archives for older discussion.

  • Archive 1 (2004-08-08 to 2006-03-21) — earliest discussion, before script-based updates (35K)
  • Archive 2 (2006-02-10 to 2006-06-14) — mostly about the switch to script-based updating of the "All Wikipedias" table (51K)
  • Archive 3 (2006-06-06 to 2006-09-01) — miscellaneous fixes to table formatting, vandalism reports, etc. (<32K)
  • Archive 4 (2006-09-12 to 2007-08-04) — debates over language inclusion, automatic updates, depth calculations, etc. (70K)
  • Archive 5 (2007-08-20 to 2007-12-31) — (67K)
  • Archive 6 (2008-01-13 to 2008-12-23) — (53K)
  • Archive 7 (2009-12-06 to 2011-05-02) — (39K)

Contents

How do you change the English name of a language (viz. "Anglo-Saxon")?[edit]

If this list is automatically generated, the English names must be taken from somewhere. Where is that? The language name "Anglo-Saxon" is wrong; this is the name in very old sources (c. 100 years ago), but all current sources use "Old English". Benwing 00:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

redo depth again?[edit]

I posted the following also over at Depth. The upshot is that I really think that the "depth" values need to be multiplied by something like the # of active users in order for them to make sense; this applies also to WP's over 100,000 articles with depths below 300.


The current "depth" seems to do an OK job of sorting out the "real" large WP's from the "fake" ones (e.g. Volapuk, Waray-Waray) where evidently someone has just copied a large number of articles from elsewhere, but a terrible job of measuring some concept of overall encyclopedia quality when it comes to the smaller WP's. I suggest multiplying by the number of "active users". The # of active contributors seems like an important measure of "depth" by any reasonable definition of "depth". In addition, because the # of active contributors usually tracks closely the total encyclopedia size, it will help to downweight the very small encyclopedias (hence avoid the totally random depth ratings of the very small ones currently). In addition, it has a big advantage over any actual measurement based on encyclopedia size (e.g. log(#articles)) in that it won't get spoofed by small numbers of users using bots to auto-create lots of pages. Note, for example, that currently the Polish WP has a depth of 13 whereas the Volapuk WP has a depth of 12, which seems completely wrong; a measure of active users (5,265 for Polish vs. 49 for Volapuk) will clearly separate these two. Likewise, I doubt that the Serbian WP (143,000 articles, 4.6 million edits, depth 47) really has comparable quality to the Japanese WP (753,000 articles, 39.6 million edits, depth 53); the active user count (669 Serbian vs. 10,753 Japanese) will separate the two. At the same time, the active user count will help keep the depth relatively high for WP's which seem to have unusual activity for their size -- e.g. the Hebrew WP (depth 226), with only 119,000 articles but whose edit count (11.3 million) beats every one of the larger WP's up through Catalan (342,000 articles, depth 18, only 7.8 million edits), and whose active user count (2,105) is likewise high for its size (cf. Catalan's 1,602 active users). Likewise, the active user count is higher than average for the other mid-size WP's with high depths (e.g. Arabic, Turkish).


Benwing 02:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and recomputed the depth using my new formula to see what you get, and the result are in Talk:Depth. It looks pretty good to me and fixes many of the problems I note above while still keeping a lot of good things about the current depth; see discussion there. Benwing 03:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually using a bunch of new formulas, one of which ("new depth #2") seems to stand above the rest and should likely be the substitute for the current depth computation. I also computed a "spoofing ratio" ("spoof #5") which seems to successfully find the WP's (e.g. Classical Chinese, Bengali, Volapuk, Macedonian) that seem to have a lot of bot activity on them, which is spoofing the depth values (but much less with my new measurements). Benwing 09:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If actually the depth measurement will be revised, I would suggest to rule out the discussion pages containing bot entries only from the total number of pages (If technically possible). Discussion pages containing nothing more than one or two bot entries linking to some WikiProject do not contribute to WP quality in any sense themselves, as administrative pages should. -- Käptn Weltall 18:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
There's not a useful criteria to distinguish between a bot created stub article and an article created by a human at all. It's technically impossible to measure such a value. Given enough information, a computer can start decent article, which is essentially indistinguishable from a human-started article. Though you can mark bot-started articles, there may be still thousands of alike human started articles and your struggle will be meaningless.--Alperen 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Articles per speaker?[edit]

An interesting category to add to the table might be speakers per article. Some languages have quite a lot of articles per speaker (e.g. Polish, Dutch), whereas others have fewer (Hindi). Perhaps this could be an additional column. 205.155.72.125 00:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's done. ~ Iketsi 22:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Simple English article in English Wikipedia[edit]

According to the summary at the top of the page, each language's English name should be "linked to the English Wikipedia entry for the language". But w:Simple English language links to a dab page. Which of the articles on that dab page is the correct one describing the language in which the Simple English Wikipedia (simple:) is written? Set theorist 07:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

None of them really describe SimpleWp, since the main idea is simply using small common words, though some do have a preference for Basic English, this is by no means the only system allowed.
We suggest that articles should use only the 1,000 most common and basic words in English. They should also use only simple grammar and shorter sentences. Writers can also use a special system, for example, Basic English.
...
There are no rules about vocabulary, tense or suffixes. Some articles use only Basic English (850 words), but this wiki has no strong rules about which words can be used... -Wikipedia:Simple English Wikipedia.
Hope that helps to clear that up. :-) Avic (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


...

Megrelian Wikipedia[edit]

Megrelian Wikipedia is newly endorsed. It has been moved from incubator to official page recently. However, it already counts more than 300 articles. Regrettably, this wikipeida is not mentioned in the list of wikis.

Can someone please correct this omission?

This is the link to Megrelian Wikipedia itself: xmf.wikipedia.org The preceding unsigned comment was added by Machirkholi (talk • contribs) 20:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC).

Give it a day or two for everything to catch up - It's currently not listed in the servers yet, and updating the list by hand is way too tedious. Avic (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Avic, thank you very much for the information. Hopefully, it will be corrected in coming weeks :) Kind Wishes, --Machirkholi 10:40, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. :-) XmfWp should now be listed. Avic (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Volapük[edit]

This artificial language has 118,000 articles and 2.5 million edits, yet the article on Volapük says that it has only 20 speakers. Even if speakers are distinguished from readers, this does not seem possible Dudley Miles 08:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It was mostly generated by bots. Seb az86556 13:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Dudley Miles 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Add colon to language code[edit]

I suggest to add a displayed colon in the language code column so it becomes easier to find a language with a browser search (Ctrl+F). This would often have saved me time. PrimeHunter 13:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Depth again[edit]

I want to strain again the topic of the "depth" column. In my eyes the computation formula is still profoundly misleading, as it is giving much too much weight to so called "administrative" pages. Using the "random pages" button I see on some Wikipedias an expose of about 90% of articles, that have "discussion" pages attached with no real explicit article related content other than wikiproject link templates, often with no less than 10 edits on that account. Whether bot-edited or not, I can see no real contribution to the quality of the articles themselfes. For that reason the current estimate depth of a Wikipedia, that counts such administrative pages by the power of two, is not only misleading, but also animates some people to produce scrap content just to heighten the count of the depth column. This, IMHO, increases load and cost of our servers and undermines the seriousness of all our articles. -- Käptn Weltall 19:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


Errors in counting and grouping?[edit]

Sorry to bother, but the way the table lists the Wikis by number of articles is totally wrong.

"1+" means "all the wikis that have one or more articles", not "all the wikis that have less than 10 articles", and so on for every other grouping... "10.000+" should includes even wikis with millions of articles, for example. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.184.45.195 (talk • contribs) 22 September 2011.

  1. OK, so we need to change 1+ to 1-10 articles. If we do like you want the list will became really confusing. Sarilho1 17:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not what I want, it's simply basically wrong and I find very funny that an enciclopedia contain such an error, but in the end who cares, Wikipedia still rocks :-) The preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.39.183.101 (talk • contribs) 26 September 2011‎.

This isn't Wikipedia. - dcljr 16:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Another error, I think, in counting: some languages register a negative number of active users. Mingrelian, for instance, has "-1" active users. If this is a mistake, they should be corrected.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnoble3 (talk • contribs) .

Show variations of number of articles with time[edit]

It would be interesting to have information available about how the number of articles in each language has changed with time, maybe every year, or every month. This could either be part of the same page, or a different page. If this information is available, please add it.The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dnoble3 (talk • contribs) .

exists. Seb az86556 01:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Myanmar (Burmese) Wikipedia Name[edit]

Myanmar should be encoded as "မြန်မာဘာသာ" (U+1019 U+103C U+1014 U+103A U+1019 U+102C U+1018 U+102C U+101E U+102C) instead of existing input မ်ရန်‌မာစာ (U+1019 U+103A U+101B U+1014 U+103A U+200C U+1019 U+102C U+1005 U+102C). I have tried editing a few times. But it switched back to မ်ရန်‌မာစာ everytime stats got updated. How can I fix that? @=={Lionslayer> 04:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is in the database as: မ္ရန္‌မာစာ, which is neither of the two, so which is correct? Mutante (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Updated in source scripts to "မြန်မာဘာသာ" 19:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

koi.wikipedia.org[edit]

This Wikipedia is currently missing in the list. Regards. --87.217.184.227 18:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, it is there. I must have made a mistake while checking. Sorry. --87.217.184.227 18:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

nso.wikipedia.org[edit]

nso: is missing from the list. --Iketsi 12:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

was in old source meanwhile, added to new source Mutante (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Serbo-Croat[edit]

Could someone please explain why there is a Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, when there are already Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian versions? It all seems a bit of waste by not pooling resources. 131.251.252.74 23:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Politics. --Iketsi 16:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Soon we'll also have a Montenegrin Wikipedia. Just wait. Basemetal00 (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Active users of Mingrelian (megrelian) wiki[edit]

The megrelian wiki is this one: xmf.wikipedia.org it is quite a vibrant wiki which is slowly but steadily growing, both in number of articles as well as quality of articles. Currently, this wiki is on 217 position among the wikis and I think it will soon be shift to 216 or even 215 position. However, for some reason, the schedule given in the list of wikipeidas , in the column of 'number of active users' along the Mingrelian Wikipedia is a figure -1 (minus one). Why is this so? I think this figure did not change since this wiki has been approved.

please, help! thanks in advance. --Demythicizator 16:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Data in the table is automatically gathered from Special:Statistics of each wiki. So, I guess, something is wrong with xmf:Special:Statistics.--Imrek 06:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but who should check whether its wrong or not? or who should I ask about it? --Demythicizator 03:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
How about administrators of Mingrelian wiki?--Imrek 09:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

netherlands?[edit]

What's going on with the netherlands? Though there are lots of serious articles not only on major topics, since some time there are tens of thousands of articles bot-spammed that lack any specific content. These are species articles stating nothing more than that there is some species of a certain name belonging to some family. Additionaly we find tons of geographic articles also stating no more than existence, coordinates and number of inhabitants (though this is a rather common bad habit sadly introduced by volapuk). Recently about 15 thousand articles per day are bot-added this way. Should we, maybe, exempt the netherlands from our statistics to stop them ruining their own reputation and that of wikipedia at all? -- Käptn Weltall 19:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Lies, damned lies and statistics. These statistics list the number of articles, where 'article' is defined as 'any page that is in the article namespace, is not a redirect page and contains at least one wiki link'. The bot-generated pages are in the article namespace, they are not redirect pages and they contain at least one wiki link - and they are therefore articles as far as these statistics are concerned. Therefore, any concerns about reputation are bogus: the number is perfectly fine. The problem lies in interpretation.
The number articles clearly does not mean what you think it means - it's not a measure of 'good articles', it's not a measure of 'how big a wiki is', it's a measure of 'the amount of pages that conform to these criteria'. This means there are two options (and removing nlwiki from the statistics is not one of them): stop drawing wrong conclusions from the number, or create a statistic that actually helps you to draw the right conclusions. Valhallasw 20:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahem, exactly where did I lie? Even according to your a bit raised output, I can see no evidence of me lying in any way. And while talking about what might be an article and what might not be, have a look at the link [1] which is a key reference in the here discussed article. It states that "The article should contain a readable summary of everything within the scope, given due weight, based on what reliable sources say". If some "article" not even tries to do so, and if articles like that make up great parts of some wikipedia, we might discuss exclusion from this statistics page, we're talking about here. Like it or not, to me the current going ons at nl seem nothing more than fraud to achieve some mad idea of statistical greatness. And, to say it one more time, this, IMHO, seriously undermines the reputation of nl wikipedia in the first place, and wikipedia at all, in the second. -- Käptn Weltall 21:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
So far I know have all major Wikipedia's large quantities of articles which contain not much information. So if you want to exclude some Wikipedia's, I think you should recalculate the top 10 Wikipedia's because they all have many many articles with not much information. I see no problem with those articles. The reason users want this kind of articles is for several reasons, for example to have all parts of a country covered even when there is little information available but still have a map of where that place in the country is (basic information & navigation), also for having the taxonomical tree more complete so that visitors can learn the basic facts about a life form, and so on. The articles on nl-wiki must comply to minimum standards that are more extensive then the standards of en-wiki. So what is left is interpretation of statistics and editcountitis, a very worse disease where people think numbers are too much important. Greetings - Romaine 21:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but have a look at the discussed biological "articles" at nl. They contian actually nothing, and thus apply to no minimum standards at all, nl, en, fr or de. This is just bulk-sized spam with no encyclopedian value at all. And if bulks of articles, let's say 30-40%, make up a wikipedia, we might think about exempting such a, IMHO fake, wikipedia, from our statistics. My favourite solution would be that nl adminisrators just delete those void articles, to save reputation of nl wikipedia in the first place - it's worth it, after all. -- Käptn Weltall 22:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
All this might be worth discussing, but picking on nl. for it isn't right. Go to en. and look at some obscure mollusk or butterfly entry; you'll find "yeah, exists, Latin name is so-and-so". (btw, "lies, damned lies, and statistics" is more of an English saying/proverb than accusing you of anything; no-one said you were lying) Seb az86556 00:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Not showing the Dutch Wikipedia in a list of Wikipedias seems a bit strange in my opinion. besides this, the content of the Dutch Wikipedia is up to the Dutch Wikipedia. The majority of the Dutch Wikipedians support the creation of bot articles and they do this for good reason. The bot articles follow all guidelines of a Wikipedia article. Bot created articles are wikified, sourced and checked, not to mention guaranteed to be made by experienced users (who need permission to have a bot) (examples [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]). Not all articles on Wikipedia have sources, standard layout or someone checking them. Furthermore, all Wikipedias have stubs (examples ca, en, pt). Excluding any Wikipedia that has these articles and asking their admins to start deleting these articles seems a bit strange in my opinion. Sincerely, Taketa 21:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
PS, calling someone's article "spam" is unnecessarily insulting.
PS2, a nice example of bot articles is the creation of all Brasilian municipalities [8]. Where the creation of these articles on the French Wikipedia takes one editor 15 articles daily for a year, the Dutch, Russians and Norwegians can do it in 12 hours. Same quality. The Dutch, Russian, and Norwegian editors spend their year working on other things, expending the Wikipedia.
PS3, things like the creation of all Brasilian municipalities do not need to be limited to the Dutch Wikipedia. It can be done for all projects like he Russians and Norwegians show.
Simply use better statistics I guess, like the number of edits, instead of the number of articles which indeed isn't botarticle proof. Local rules shouldn't be changed to benefit statistics, it should be the other way round. Mvg, Basvb 23:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I just wonder why isn't English Wikipedia updated (or downgraded, to say) for statistics while it has hundres of thousands of stub articles. [9], [10],[11],[12],[13],[14]. Do you really think that it's fair to advertise en.wikipedia.org as the largest edition while you mask the number of stubs in nl.wikipedia? Why has the listing on wikipedia.org main page not been updated so far? (nl edition should have been marked as the fourth largest)--Alperen 17:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
what if we just count inj the size of all articles combined Monkaap (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Remove locked wikipediae[edit]

The main pages of the following wikipediae state that they are locked, and I propose that they should be removed from the list: cho, ho, hz, ii, kj, kr, mh, mo and ng.--Snaevar 03:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The list is automatically generated copied to this place. a×pdeHello! 11:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
And? That's beside the point. I support this suggestion. Change it. Seb az86556 12:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are they locked and not completely removed? As long as it still exists as a Wikipedia i say keep it in the list of all Wikipedias. Mutante (talk) 18:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
i already commented to revive (or re-open) closed wikipediae. Vincentangeles005 (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

vep.wikipedia.org[edit]

Veps vep: is missing from the list. ~ Iketsi 23:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

was in old source meanwhile, added to new source Mutante (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

for wikipedia of yue, wuu, gan, etc.[edit]

they are in the list as zh-yue, zh-wuu, zh-gan and so on, but they had moved to yue, wuu, gan etc. for a long period of time already...

Limburgish[edit]

"Limburgian" ought to be changed to "Limburgish". 98.111.154.158 14:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Trijnsteltalk 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Fixed in source scripts, also for wiktionaries,wikiquotes and wikisources. Mutante (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Tifinagh[edit]

Tifinagh (Azawad and arabian states) is now teached at schools in north Africa, as a basic-second language. With ongoing rebellion there are possibilities to make it a second or main official language and alfabet. Even with the cheap tablets now(for e.g. cheapest Ubislate cost ~60$ new) and full population(>1 million ) of Azawad clamed territories it is possible that this Wikipedia will have some users. I don't found it on the list(and not speaking this language), but this will be a great opportunity to create new ascending Wikipedia (and there is some diaspora in Western countries too). The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.68.103.25 (talk • contribs) 5:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

As far as I'm concerned, Tifinagh is not a language, but a series of scripts used by Berber people. New Wikipedias have to incubate in the Wikimedia Incubator before they become official editions. There are currently some "proto-Wikipedias" in Berber languages maturing in there (Wp/shi, Wp/tzm, Wp/rif) and there is also the Kabyle Wikipedia that graduated some time ago. --Iketsi (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

What about list of wikipediae by date of foundation ???[edit]

--82.139.5.13 13:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Update information[edit]

Some of the non-English Wikipedias have reached over 1,000,000 pages, but they are still not in that category. Why? 99.38.244.81 00:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-standard language codes[edit]

In the section on non-standard language codes something should probably be said about eml, bh, and nah. The code eml (Emiliano-Romagnolo) has been split by ISO 639-3 into egl (Emiliano) and rgn (Romagnolo). bh (Bihari) and nah (Nahuatl) both consist of several languages with their own codes.

Wikipedias having codes which are macrolanguages should by rights be given more specific codes. e.g. Estonian should by rights be ekk rather than et, since et is defined to be equivalent to est, a macrolanguage comprosing both ekk (Standard Estonian) and vro (Võro, which has its own Wikipedia). Likewise ku for Kurdish should by rights be replaced by kmr, since ku is defined to be equivalent to kur, a macrolanguage comprising kmr, ckb (Sorani, with its own Wikipedia) and sdh.

Here is a list of Wikipedias which have macrolanguge codes (with some suggestions in brackets for possible more specific codes): ak, ar (arb), ay (ayr), az (azj), zh (cmn), cr, et (ekk), gn (gug), mn (khk), ku (kmr), kg (kng), lv (lvs), fa (pes), mg (plt), ne, or, qu, sc, sq, sw (swh), uz (uzn), za.

It is not clear what language arc.wikipedia.org refers to. The code arc stands for an ancient language, "Official Aramaic (700-300 BCE)". The link in the Language (local) column looks as if it might point to an ancient language. However the link "Assyrian Neo-Aramaic" to the English Wikipedia in the Language column points to information on a modern language.

Caoimhin (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Language names[edit]

Why is it that some of the names in the language list on the left of the Wikipedia page are written in 'abc' form ratter than 'Abc'?? Is it laziness, sloppiness or is there a logical reason for it?

Hebrew[edit]

Would you mind if I'll translate this page to Hebrew? --Orel Beilinson (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Chinese Wikipedia[edit]

In the edit page, Simplified Chinese users tend to see a Traditional Chinese, but some Simplified Chinese users do not know Traditional Chinese, so Simplified Chinese users can not edit Wikipedia better. And Simplified Chinese users and users of Traditional Chinese words used there many different. So the Chinese Wikipedia should divided into two sites of the Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lilidfgs (talk • contribs) 09:07, 11 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Minor transliteration error?[edit]

This looks wrong:

Саха тыла (Saxa Tyla)

It's line no. 125, in the autonym (?) column.

Shouldn't the transliteration be "Sakhsa Tyla"?

Best regards, Nikevich. 72.74.254.33 08:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(Please note that I have been using DHCP for some time, and
my IP numeric address is subject to change.72.74.254.33 08:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC))

Tikese[edit]

I know of a language, a conlag (constructed language) - like Volapük or Esperanto, that doesn't have a Wikipedia in it's language - I am fluent in this language therefore can be the main editor, etc. Is there any way that admins or other people high in the Wikipedia business could set one up? - I was thinking maybe tik.wikipedia.org as the website as that hasn't been used? - --Tommy-g-98 (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

See this page Requests_for_new_languages Mutante (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why was the Grand Total section removed?[edit]

The table subsection showing the total articles, users etc. in all Wikipedias has vanished. Was it removed on purpose or accidentally? That total is actually cited in a number of references in Wikipedia articles; its removal is baffling. Can someone restore it, please? Michaelmas1957 (talk) 11:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the gand total is useful and should be inserted again, the WMF also use it as one of it's strategic goals for 2015. Ulflarsen (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Why was the Grand Total removed? Is there no one that know the answer for this? Ulflarsen (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Why was the Grand Total removed? Is there no one that know the answer for this? Really guys, this is the kind of stone-walling that makes serious users contemplate quitting Wikipedia. It was a useful feature, someone removed it and there is not even an answer to why it was removed? Do I have to message Jimmy Wales to have it back, or at least get an answer for why it was removed? Ulflarsen (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
+1 :) Samat (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the answer is here, there need to be made some automagic update for this, so it may take time. Ulflarsen (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

maybe the new source had the wrong number of articles, and its count is wrong, like this. currently it is 35,009,923.Vincentangeles005 (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
the grand total is there again. Vincentangeles005 (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't find the grand total numbers in the current version, therefore I introduced it to the page — a special table after all current tables. The numbers are updated daily. Enjoy! — Ace111 (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
nice, thank you! A. Mahoney (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Vepsian Wikipedia[edit]

Vepsian Wikipedia has had over 1000 articles already for several months. In the list, there is written 0 articles at Vepsian Wikipedia, and updating date 15th September 2012. Is there any problem with the updating process? --Mmh (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Czech Wikipedia: What about the images?[edit]

There is not only 2 images used in the Czech Wikipedia. Why don't show the system the real number of images?The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.22.41.9 (talk • contribs) .

Maybe because there is only two images locally on Czech Wikipedia. The remaining images that is used is uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. See the Polish, Spanish and the Swedish Wikipedia that has 0 images. -- Tegel (Talk) 16:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Vepsian again[edit]

It is still claimed in the list, that Vepsian has 0 articles. When I checked the Vepsian wikipedia, it has many. I , like user Mmh, seem to remember that Vepsian had much over 1000 articles already several months ago 128.214.145.20 12:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You are right, this time Vepsian Wikipedia has more than 2,000 articles. Please you visit the following pages. Does anyone know, why did it happen? Wagino 20100516 (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The Veps Wikipedia also fails to load at Wikistatistics.net --Iketsi (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Images: 0?[edit]

Many Wikipedias in this show an image count of zero (Spanish, Polish, Swedish to name a few). Why is that, when they obviously have more than zero images on them? Steel Wool Killer (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I can answer this for at least one (Latin): we don't have any images of our own, but only use images from Commons. We Latinists find this convenient: Commons manages permissions, categories, searching, and so on, and all we have to do is link to the pictures. It's always a surprise to see a good picture in an article in some other language, think "hey, we could use this picture too," and discover it isn't in Commons but local to the other Wikipedia :-( Latin Vicipaedia is thoroughly illustrated, but we're not maintaining our own image bank. A. Mahoney (talk) 12:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Buginese wikipedia[edit]

Report: Buginese or Basa Ugi wikipedia (:bug:) has 10,681 articles. Of these, about 10,500 of them are tiny locations in France. There are very few of the articles contained in most wikipedias, however. 71.127.134.254 20:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Average size of article by Wikipedia? (Moved to the English Wikipedia Village Pump Idea Lab)[edit]

There are still unresolved technical issues regarding this, so discussion here may be premature. Please let's continue to discuss this on the English Wikipedia Village Pump Idea Lab. There was one intervention by A. Mahoney which I've copied over there. Please do not post anything regarding this topic here any longer.

close wikipediae that are historical or ancient[edit]

i announced that around 2 projects will be closed because they are historical or ancient wikimedia projects. they are:

  1. old church slavonic wikipedia which has 509 articles
  2. gothic wikipedia which has 431 articles.

i hope that the useful content is moved to the incubator.Vincentangeles005 (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not the place to propose closing a project. See Proposals for closing projects. sumone10154(talk) 04:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Please see also Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Gothic Wikipedia, etc. These were not closed and it is unlikely that they will be closed in the future due to the closing projects policy. πr2 (tc) 04:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Isn't cuwiki actually about church slavonic rather than old church slavonic anyway? Snowolf How can I help? 07:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
gee, i don't know how to do this. can somebody help me, please?Vincentangeles005 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
i dont know how to close these.Vincentangeles005 (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
note: only wikisources in ancient or historical languages can be approved. you try these suggestions. Vincentangeles005 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

reopen closed wikis[edit]

re-open these wikipediae that are currently closed. they are:

  1. herero wikipedia with 0 articles
  2. kanuri wikipedia with 1 article
  3. muscogee wikipedia with 2 articles
  4. hiri motu wikipedia with 3 articles
  5. kuanyama wikipedia with 5 articles
  6. afar wikipedia with 6 articles
  7. marshallese wikipedia with 10 articles
  8. choctaw wikipedia with 15 articles
  9. yi wikipedia with 16 articles
  10. ndonga wikipedia with 21 articles
  11. moldovan wikipedia with 401 articles, but remove the cyrillic script or merge it with the romanian wikipedia.
i hope they will have better performance when they are re-opened Vincentangeles005 (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in continuing Wikipediae that will hardly benefit anybody (that's my view) (This argument is continued in all of the deletion logs of the wikipediae you mention) BlueRoll18 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What happened to the original Gothic language page in Gothic? The link where it is supposed to be listed goes to a something else. It appears that it has been deleted.Sandhillman (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Remove entries of closed Wikipediae[edit]

Wikipediae such as the Kanuri and Herero Wikipediae are still mentioned in the main article, although those Wikipediae have been closed.

Should we remove these Wikipediae since they are closed, or keep them there in the hopes that someone may come along and provide a good enough reason to re-open them?

JaykeBird (talk) 08:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

They should be moved to the Deprecated Wikipediae section, or create a new section 'Closed Wikipediae'. BlueRoll18 (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I support a 'Closed Wikipediae' section. Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I also agree, the closest wikipedia should be remove from list.--Aplikasi (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Minangkabau Wikipedia[edit]

The Minangkabau Wikipedia has recently been created: http://min.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laman_Utamo and needs to be added to the list. Sonitus (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Bennylin 14:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please add it soon. SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, please add Minangkabau Wikipedia into the list.--Aplikasi (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been over three months since the Minangkabau Wikipedia was created, and three months since I mentioned it on this talk page, yet it's still not been added to the list of Wikipedias. Does no-one with the power to add entries to the list actually read this talk page? Sonitus (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I plan to start collecting data from project statistics immediately. Unfortunately, it is not evident how to get local and english names of languages for this table, because the page Special:SiteMatrix have some differences from current data from wikistats.wmflabs.org. For example, there a lot of local names with not capitalized first letter (see aragonés, авар, azərbaycanca, etc), that's why it is not very appropriate. Is there anywhere else such data in correct format? May be, translatewiki contains it? --Emaus (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Emaus, thanks for adding min-WP to this list and not waiting any longer for Wikilabs, where it is still missing. It’s already at position 143 with 5,462 articles at the moment.
If I’ll find any page with the correct local names, I’ll come back here. ;-) I was already wondering, where to find such correct data. --Geitost diskusjon 19:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Strange thing with the number of edits[edit]

There is something strange with the number of edits in the French Wikipedia. Now it is equal to 88,835,168 and on February 1 it was equal to 94,017,003. How can the number of edits decrease? — Ace111 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe mass deleting? Bennylin 14:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Galician wikipedia[edit]

Hi! Wikipedia in Galician reached 100,000+ articles by 4th March, just 6 days before its 10th aniversary. However, in the main Wikipedia page at www.wikipedia.org, Galician is not in the list of languages with 100,000+ articles, but in that of 10,000+. Is it possible to fix it? Thanks!!!

Aromanian wiki[edit]

Why has the Aromanian wiki been decreasing in article numbers these past few days? 41.207.36.33 05:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

They've been deleting pages with no content. See roa-rup:Wikipedia:Community portal.--Imrek (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia rate of growth[edit]

Is it possible to include a figure showing the rate of growth for the wikipedias? For example, growth per week compared to others? That way it would be easier to estimate the fastest growing wikipedias

41.207.36.33 04:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Define active user?[edit]

In general there should be a definition given for every statistic provided. This would include "active users".

Isn't that "someone who has performed at least one edit in the last 30 days"? A. Mahoney (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

New list[edit]

Could someone create the "List of Wikipedias by speakers per active user", please? (the Finnish Wikipedia seems impressive with 5 million speakers and 1610 active users the ratio is 3105.6, while for the Portuguese Wikipedia it is 250kk/5823 = 42933.2). 187.107.18.171 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

[15], "Editors (5+) per million speakers".--Imrek (talk) 07:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! 187.107.18.171 07:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Autocreated Wikipedias[edit]

I propose we put Wikipedias with depth of 10 (15?) or less on a separate list, because they have predominantly bot-created content and there's no sense in comparing them with real encyclopedias in their article number class like they were somehow equivalent. That should hopefully discourage people from doing it . — Yerpo Eh? 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

i agree with u. there should be a separate list for bot created wikipedias like waray waray and cebuano wikipedia. now they supassed chinese wiki may be ne xt 30 days they will b e in top 10عرفان ارشد (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Another option would be to at least mark them visually like in the list of Wikipedias by speakers per article, which would inform the visitor that he should be careful in interpreting the ranking. — Yerpo Eh? 12:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Now that wikipedia site is already connected through wikidata, I believe ranking per language articles is no longer the correct way of ranking. It should be the articles related per country. I would propose that we create another table to rank articles per country/territory. For example, geographical articles per country. pop articles per country. For example, look at article depth on Philippine related geo article here versus articles for japan articles here. The article for US wont even load because it is too much.

I think this would make it more visible which articles need more focus or in need of more attention. The statistic could have several facets, like rank of geo articles per country. rank of person articles per country of citizenship. rank of music articles per country of origin. My only fear in this is it will trigger a stub article race per country. Which would make wikipedia a directory listing. But the positive side of this, people would know where to focus.

--Napoleon.tan (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

number[edit]

There are 286 languages, not 285. Please rectify this data.The preceding unsigned comment was added by 5.15.25.175 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 22 July 2013‎.

Yes check.svg Done. [16] --Glaisher [talk] 16:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
According to this the Wikipedias are 285, but what is most important is that it provides a very different number for the grand total of the articles - see bottom of the page. We are some 10-11 millions short... --Elitre (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:List_of_Wikipedias/Table#Error_in_.22Grand_total.22_number_of_articles and Bugzilla:50556. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Tuvinian Wikipedia[edit]

The entry for the new Tuvinian wikipedia currently has the native name in the "Language" column, and the English name in the "Language (Local)" column. Could someone with the power to do it please switch these around? Sonitus (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

  • I fixed bot's settings. --Emaus (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bengali Wikipedia depth[edit]

why bengali wikipedia depth is not showm in list?? --عرفان ارشد (talk) 12:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Same question here. The problem is there for quite a long time. Bodhisattwa (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
See this discussion.--Antonio1952 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikistats site dead?[edit]

Hello,

Is the wikistats site, maintained by Eric Zachte, dead/dormant/inactive? I understand it's "usually a few weeks behind", but it's been almost 2+ months since it was updated. Any indication when the next update is coming?

Thanks,

अभय नातू (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How often is the active users stats updated?[edit]

How often is the active users stats updated? I see the same number in Tamil Wikipedia for long time. Earlier it used to fluctuate regularly. I am not talking about updating this page. The actual stats shown in each project site. Thanks.--Ravi (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Updates of some stats might get discontinued if they consume too much resources. But I'm afraid this isn't the best place to ask about it, try contacting the developers. — Yerpo Eh? 20:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification--Ravi (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Local language[edit]

The table cell with foreign-language language name should be formatted appropriately with language code and the class for autonym font. For example:

<td lang=nl class=autonym>Nederlands</td>

Where is the template used to build this table? Michael Z. 2013-12-08 16:46 z

Could you please?[edit]

Hi, I notice Language (local) column of Acehnese Wikipedia (ace) refers to main page (not refers to local Bahsa Aceh article). It should be ace:Bahsa_Aceh Could you please change it? Thank you. — 👦 rachmatwhd talk 13:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Done; I hope the bot won't override it again. --MF-W 22:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Hi, a couple of comments...

When you first encounter this page, the list in the "Language" box at the very top of the page appears to actually be the list of Wikipedias. I suggest that the label "Language" is clarified. Also, the purpose of the "External links" box at the top of the page is unclear. External links to what?

Certain Wikipedias (e.g. Swedish, Spanish, Polish) have an implausibly small number of images, despite having very large numbers of articles. 81.159.111.79 12:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

As for the number of images, certain Wikipedias don't use local images (for example, they don't have a copyright exemption policy) and rely on Commons exclusively. So no, their low numbers aren't an error. A click on each number will take you to the local image list where you can see it for yourself. — Yerpo Eh? 13:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see, thanks. A note to that effect would probably be beneficial. Numbers that look wrong with no explanation tend to cast doubt on the overall validity of the stats. 81.159.111.79 13:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons why they're formatted as links to local file lists. — Yerpo Eh? 18:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
That is no help. Even if you think to click on the link, you just see an empty list, certainly in the three cases I mentioned, which for people who don't know the reason just looks like a glitch, probably the same glitch that caused the tiny number in the first place. It would be better to explain on this page that some numbers are very low because these Wikipedias don't use local images. 86.160.221.174 18:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Link to the main pages[edit]

In the third column of the tables, the link for each Wikipedia is to an article about the language of that Wikipedia. Wouldn't it make more sense to link to the main page of each Wikipedia? Green Giant (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The next column, headed "Wiki," is a link to the main page; are you suggesting there should be two links there? A. Mahoney (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, the current layout is a bit confusing. The link to the main page of a wiki is the most important, but is by far the least prominent of the three. If I were doing this I'd have put the link to the main page in the first column after the rank, under a heading "Wiki (local language)", followed by a link to the Wikidata item about that language. Having a special link to the local language article in that language's Wikipedia doesn't make much sense, IMO. So the layout would be like this:
Wiki (local language) Language Articles Total Edits Admins Users Active Users Images Depth
1 English English 4,447,491 32,189,810 689,277,750 1,415 20,708,458 131,430 827,377 833
2 Nederlands Dutch 1,724,024 3,248,543 41,178,135 54 580,165 4,583 19 10
3 Deutch German 1,686,472 4,678,713 133,122,676 255 1,814,043 22,701 163,256 90
Opinions? — Yerpo Eh? 10:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I would like to still have wikicode (e.g. zh for Chinese) for completeness and for easier quick search in the table by the code. If so, this link should point to the main page of each Wikipedia. I would also find it natural to have this in the 2nd column, next to the number. And having a link to the English article about the language would be also nice, for a quick check. To my mind, a link to Wikidata is not what one needs in the first place. It is a technical page. Also the names of the languages and wikis should be left aligned, IMO. And by the way, Germans call themselves "Deutsch", not "Deutch". -- Ace111 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, then, how about
Wiki (local language) Language Articles Total Edits Admins Users Active Users Images Depth
1 en (English) English 4,447,491 32,189,810 689,277,750 1,415 20,708,458 131,430 827,377 833
2 nl (Nederlands) Dutch 1,724,024 3,248,543 41,178,135 54 580,165 4,583 19 10
3 de (Deutsch) German 1,686,472 4,678,713 133,122,676 255 1,814,043 22,701 163,256 90
I still believe that a link to Wikidata is more natural for this page, because it won't just be used by English-speaking users. The Wikidata item page then lets you select the correct interwiki to the article in the preferred language. We could also format links like this:
[[{{int:lang}}:{{#language:de|{{uselang}}}}|{{#language:de|{{uselang}}}}]] (example for German)
But in this case, the link won't work if a Wikipedia doesn't have an article about this language. In any case, this is of secondary importance. — Yerpo Eh? 10:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, this is better. Still, for me wikidata page is of more technical nature. I went to Wikidata item for Dutch and see there the following. There is long list of properties which do not seem very understandable for a human like ISO codes, BNCF Thesaurus (value is "107"), NDL identifier ("00568910"), etc. Then comes a long list of languages, and while searching for English article the eye stucks at "ދިވެހިބަސް", "Ελληνικά" and other exotic notations. At the same time, going to the regular English article, the same information is presented as it should be done for humans. And if somebody came to this list at meta-wiki, it is most likely that this person understands English at least to some extent. Therefore it seems to me that having a link to the English article should be fine. If the person does not understand English, clicking at interwiki should be also straightforward.
    The second column could be divided into two ones: one for the code, and other the English name of the language, which could be linked to the English article on the language. Another option could be a link to the English article on this Wikipedia.
    In your last example I liked the usage of {{#language:nl|{{uselang}}}} which shows translation to my default language. — Ace111 (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • @Amahoney: - not two links, just a more logical order. Since it is mean't to be a list of Wikipedias, I think it makes more sense to have the local main page linked in column 2. I also don't see why the table needs to have the enwiki article about each language, instead of the wikidata link.
  • @Yerpo: - I prefer the second example table but I don't think the two-letter code is as important as keeping the table simple and straightforward for readers. However, a separate column for the codes would be fine. I would also suggest changing the title of column 2 to something shorter like "Name" or "Wiki" perhaps. Green Giant (talk) 12:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
My motivation was to reduce the number of columns, but three can stay if people think it's better. This way we just shuffle them around. However, I would remove links from one of them, because the link to the main page of a wiki and the link to the article about that language in English Wikipedia are enough. — Yerpo Eh? 18:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm in favour of simplifying these kinds of pages, so reducing the number of columns is fine by me. I'm not convinced that we need the depth column either, but that is a debate for another day. :) Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Depth is useful for interpreting the number (i.e. distinguishing bot- and human-created Wikipedias). If anything, low depth values could be visually emphasized like in the List of Wikipedias by speakers per article, or even used as a base for moving bot-created Wikipedias to a separate table like I proposed above. — Yerpo Eh? 12:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

When the Swedish WP overtakes the German WP...[edit]

Can someone let me know when the Swedish WP overtakes the German WP? Just drop me a line on my talk page on the English WP en:user talk:Basemetal. A couple of Dutch and Swedish insane editors must have been creating articles like mad. Of course in most cases they're probably stubs. Not very serious I guess, but fun to watch:) Basemetal (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, automated scripts do the creating, not editors themselves. Example. You can see that such articles represent a large majority of Swedish Wikipedia's content by clicking on their equivalent of the "random article" button. Opinions differ whether this is a sensible way to build an encyclopedia or not. — Yerpo Eh? 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, dewiki has been growing faster than svwiki the last months. The create-articles-by-bot project run out of species when svwiki almost had reached the number of articles dewiki had. Boivie (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
They can still decide to start on all the villages around the world from demographic databases, like some other bot-driven projects. — Yerpo Eh? 09:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I actually don't agree with the person who is doing the Cebuano and Waray-Waray site. Most people will think that a Filipino is doing this but a Swedish person is actually doing this. I am not sure why he choose using our country's dialet in his experiement. It really is of no quality since most articles are not even read by Cebuanoes and Waray-Waray speaking people. English is the language used in academia in Philippines, so people are most accustomed to read wiki article on English. --Napoleon.tan (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikisummaries[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this, so let me know if there is a better place. Is there a way that wiki can incorporate wikisummaries into the main thrust of wiki projects? I think it is a great idea, but because it hasn't been highlighted much, it has not got much traction. Thanks.

--Hippocrates (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This idea has already been implemented within Wikibooks, and expanded with analysis and other details about book content. See for example Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. However, judging by the state of summaries in Wikibooks, the project hasn't really taken off there either, so you're very welcome to try to revive it by copying the content of your site and recruit new editors. Alternatively, you could try proposing a new Wikimedia project, but, seeing how well it fits within the scope of an existing one, I doubt that your proposal would stand much chance. — Yerpo Eh? 06:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What's the mechanism of choosing a language code?[edit]

I noticed there is a "shwiki" (srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски), I checked the w:List of ISO 639-1 codes and I can't find the "sh" code. How was "sh" chosen? —  Ark25  (talk) 08:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I see it's the deprecated ISO 631-1 code of w:Serbo-Croatian. —  Ark25  (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Separate List for Bot Generated Wikipedias[edit]

There should be a separate list of those Wikipedias that generate new pages through bots and grow artificially. It creates an unhealthy competition among wikipedias and negative feelings in those who are being run normally. Urdu, waray waray and cebuano should be put in that list. Or there should be an asterisk mark with their numbers. Otherwise this bot technology will be used by other wikis too and later it will be bad for whole Wikipedia movement.--الیاس سیتاپوری (talk) 12:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Then the Dutch, Swedish and Vietnamese versions should receive the asterisk too... IMO, the real problem is articles count being used to rank the wikipedias, when the best criteria for ranking are things like active users, daily visits and the evaluation of a sample of articles. Chen10k2 (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe we should rank it based on active views and users. But you cannot control people. Ranking leads to gamification. Next thing you'll know they will game it so smaller wiki have lots of view. People are competitive in nature. How about banking the bot creating auto generated articles? Should we vote for this? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 112.203.174.252 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 30. marec 2014‎.
Sorry, what does "banking" mean? I agree with you other points, though, people will always find a way. That's why I think we shouldn't complicate, it would be enough to make the ranking easier to interpret by labeling the low-depth Wikipedias as in the List of Wikipedias by speakers per article. — Yerpo Eh? 13:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Chen10k2, excuse me please, you just to comment here and to defend Urdu Wikipedia's mass growth made a user name, I could not see your work anywhere else. Urdu Wikipedia in the last 10 years could made 27,000 pages only but now with bot help has announced to in 6 digits and beyond within weeks !!! Every one can have mixed feelings on this situation. If here can be dodged, in active users, daily visits this kind of method used too. Interestingly an urdu wiki user User:عرفان ارشد above in Autocreated Wikipedia topic criticised such works but on Urdu Wikipedia talk page praised such work. I think if this continue there will be no interest in size or statistics of wikipedias. Wikipedia movement should consider it otherwise all smaller wikis will follow Urdu Wikipedia.--الیاس سیتاپوری (talk) 06:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have given you the answer on Urdu Wikipedia, Samarqandi its better for you that you use your own account and stop making puppets--عرفان ارشد (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't tell lies about me... Returning to the topic, bots can also manipulate depth... If some editors decide to fake the number of active users and number of visits it's harmless in the long run, but making the bots create millions of articles is a totally different story. Chen10k2 (talk) 12:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Soomaaliga[edit]

Why is the Somali Wiki called "Soomaliga" and not "Soomaali"? I am preety sure Somali speakers call their language Soomaali and not the other one. Can this be fixed?

Greek Wikipedia[edit]

Yesterday, greek wikipedeia counted 99450 articles. Few hours later counted more than 100 000 articles. But only few new articles were created, less than 50 from yesterday. How that can happened? Xaris333 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)