Difference between revisions of "Talk:List of Wikipedias"

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Volapük: new section)
Line 952: Line 952:
Yesterday, German and French were in a separate category of Wikis of languages with more than 500,000 articles. I anticipated Japanese, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese would soon join that list, and possibly Polish and Dutch too. (Russian and Chinese would have to wait until Wiki enthusiasm takes off among speakers of those languages.) But today German and French are back in a list of "over 100,000." Why is that?
Yesterday, German and French were in a separate category of Wikis of languages with more than 500,000 articles. I anticipated Japanese, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese would soon join that list, and possibly Polish and Dutch too. (Russian and Chinese would have to wait until Wiki enthusiasm takes off among speakers of those languages.) But today German and French are back in a list of "over 100,000." Why is that?
== Volapük ==
I request that Volapük be removed from this list. As it consists almost entirely of bot-created stubs, its listing as the "15th largest" Wikipedia is misleading. It is a special case and should be treated as such. It could be listed at the bottom with an explanation of why it is there. It has one contributor.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:09, 14 November 2007

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)

Closed wikipedias

a number of closed wikipedias (mostly with one article) are indexed at the bottom. Suggest removing them. 13:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The note on Depth

"The "Depth" column (Edits/Articles × Non-Articles/Articles) is a rough indicator of a Wikipedia’s activity, showing how frequently its articles are updated; depths above 200 for Wikipedias below 10 000 articles are dismissed as irrelevant "

The second part of that sentence after the semicolon doesn't seem to flow right. I think a word is missing. Does anyone know what it was intended to say? -- 20:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Depth Calculation

$nonarticles=$row['total']-$row['good']; "non-articles is 'total' minus 'good'"

$depth=round(($row['edits']/$row['good'])*($nonarticles/$row['good'])); "depth is the rounded result of (edits / good ) * (non-articles / good)"

if ($depth > 200 && $row['good'] < 10000) { $depth="--"; } "if depth is greater than 200 AND good is less than 10000, then depth is irrelevant"

Mutante 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Definiton of 'article'?

Looking over a lot of the wikipedias, many of the statistics count stubs, redirects and disambiguations as full 'articles'. An example would be the Ido wiki, which from what I've seen is made up mostly from stubs. Assuming a full article discounts these kinds of pages, how would you get accurate statistics for the number of articles in each wiki?

Hebrew is the largest Wiki????

It should be English, not Hebrew, the largest Wiki. Sorry that I do not know how to fix it. May anybody fix it?

Clotho 09:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Is Moldovan blocked or not?

If it is, why? Wheres the discussion about this decision? If it is blocked, shouldnt this be explained together with Klingon, etc, on this page?

If not, why does it look so on the http://www.wikipedia.org/ page?

togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2006-09-12

I think I was the one who put a line through the Moldovan link awhile back, when the project as more or less "closed". There was a ton of discussion about this at the Wikimedia mailing lists, and I'm surprised that no one has complained about the link being struck out yet. Seeing as the project currently has a big "go somewhere else" sign at the front, I'm not sure whether I should unstrike the link... As for Klingon, that project was closed and locked some months ago; it never reached 100 articles, so it never got on the Wikipedia portal. Same with Tokipona. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

--— mark 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ɛʋɛ > Eʋegbe

Where should I go if I want to change the language name of a Wiki? The name of ee.wikipedia.org, the Ewe Wikipedia, is currently spelled "Ɛʋɛ" in interwikilinks (among other places). This should be Eʋegbe however.

I'm a sysop on ee.wikipedia; you can reach me over there or on my English talk page. I'll also check back here. Note that I crossposted this on the Babel page. — mark 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You should file a bug at Bugzilla. Thanks for bringing up the issue. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 01:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick answer. I have done so, and it has promptly been fixed (bug 7448). — mark 12:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


This Wikipedia doesn't seem to be on the list... --Dijxtra 21:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

How to add them? My own Siberian Wikipedia is not in the list too --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

New language?

Someone has just added an interwiki at the English language Wikipedia in the Min Nan article for a language "cdo." It's not listed in the complete list of Wikipedia languages. What language is it? Also, someone should archive this discussion page! 03:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

cdo is Min Dong, one of twenty Wikipedia editions added Sunday. I've already contacted Mutante, who wrote the script that generates the code for the statistics table, so hopefully that'll get resolved soon. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You have not included the Sudan(Africa) language, which is different to classical arabic. The people of eastern Chad also speak the similiar language to the Sudanese.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)


Toki Pona was, if I've understood it, "ejected in a friendly way" from the Wikipedia system.

Now something called "Tokipona", which I guess is the same thing, is at list number 142. However, there is no Wikipedia under the tokipona http://tokipona.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page link, nor are there instructive Wikipedia articles linked under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokipona_language (rather obvious, as the english Wikipedia article about the language Toki Pona is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona ).

So what's the point of all this? The post-Wikipedia netlink to the present Toki Pona encyclopedia (or whatever it is) isnt here at all. There are 3 links that lead to nothing, and the listing gives an impression that there is a "Tokipona" Wikipedia which doesnt exist, not even a frozen one like the Klingon one.

I find this needless and useless? It must be utterly confuzing for people not in the know who seek information about languages really used in the wikipedia system?

So why has this been put in here, and who decides on these kinds of things?

Togrim, user of the norwegian Wikipedia, 2006-10-06

Technically spoken, as long as it provides a retrievable statistics, it is to be seen as an existing Wikipedia. RobiH 12:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Can it? As far as I get it, you are wrong!
The Lingua Franca Nova Wikilexicon provides stats, however it is NOT linked as an existing Wikipedia. Neither were the Kölsh nor Pennsylvania Dutch Wikilexicons, which altso provided stats, before they were explisitely included in the Wikipedia system.
IF the Toki Pona thing is a genuine part of the Wikipedia project, HOW do you then explain that NO ARTICLE IN THE OTHER WIKIPEDIAS LINK TO ARTICLES IN THE TOKI PONA thing, nor vice versa?
IF it is a part of the Wikipedia system, how comes then that this link leads to THIS page:
Main Page
From Wikipedia
There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page.
And whats your comment to this statement on what is a Wikipedia?
Wikipedia is trademarked, only encyclopedias hosted at Wikimedia servers can use the name Wikipedia.
And this statement on the REMOVAL of the Toki Pona Wikipedia in november 2004?
Toki pona encyclopedia
The toki pona encyclopedia is a Wikia which started life as a Wikipedia. This encyclopedia in the constructed language of toki pona was felt to be unsuited to the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation and was moved to Wikia in December 2004.
My comment: It STARTED its life as a Wikipedia, and after DECEMBER 2004 it is NO MORE a Wikipedia. That's what it says here!
And this statement about Toki Pona itself which is upon the very page that lists the REAL Wikipedias?
3. Toki Pona wiki: tokipona – Wikipedia no longer hosted by Wikimedia (now hosted by Wikia)
And, finally, HERE is the Toki Pona lexicon now:
Now can you find ONE WORD on the front page of the Toki Pona lexicon ITSELF that claims that it is a Wikipedia?
No my friend RobiH. Toki Pona is NOT a Wikipedia, at least according to the rules that define a Wikipedia now.
If some organ making rules about this reinstates the Toki Pona lexicon as a Wikipedia, thats no problem for me. However, here it seems that somebody make the rules and other people dont know the rules or dont follow them.
Togrim, user of the norwegian Wikipedia, 2006-10-06

You are right, two criteria have to be fulfilled to be listed as a Wikipedia:

  1. A hostname under the wikipedia.org domain
  2. A functioning Special:Statistics?action=raw

Both criteria seem to be fulfilled. RobiH 21:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


The statistics is broken (http://s23.org/wikistats/wikipedias_wiki.php).

Fatal error: Call to undefined function mysql_connect() in /var/www/wikistats/wikipedias_wiki.php on line 6 04:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional Languages

Hey, does Wikipedia have Klingon, a fictional language? How funny :) Why we don't create other Wiki for fictional languages, such as Elvish languages from Tolkien? (I don't think it would have much more information than about it's own universe, but I still think that's interesting) Daniel. 13:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived this page

As seen at the top of this page, I've archived all discussion from before about 6 weeks ago into three separate archives. The first division point is a logical one: all discussion before script-based updates (including some discussion afterwards that didn't comment on the change) went in the first archive. The other two date ranges are more or less arbitrary. Someone else can change them if they'd like. Just be sure to change the dates in the list above and be careful not to lose any old discussion in the process. - dcljr 05:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Updating automatically ?

Could someone tell me how it is possible for data to be automatically updated ? (I mean number of articles, edits, admins...). It seems to work in this page, but in the French page (Liste des Wikipédias), it doesn't work... Thanks ! --Bsm15 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Its only 3/4 automatic. An off-site script pulls all the Special:Statistics?action=raw from the wikis and creates the wiki syntax for the table. The last step, actually posting it to this page, is being done by humans (which i even prefer over fully automatic, because its more fail-safe). So in order to get your french version also updated, we would have to put all the french language names into the script im running, save it under a different name and then you could copy/paste from there. I would think about it if you help me and provide the french names in a format i can import to database right away. Mutante 18:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

stats link

Link to statistics http://stats.wikimedia.org does not work. Who owns the targeted server and why is it not open to public anymore?

Anyone here knows????

See [1] and Wikimedia site feedback#Where are the STATS?. At least for now, you can still get a cached copy by searching Google for that tool. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

thousands separator

The user who has manually inserted all those spaces as thousands separator [2], doesnt have to do it manually anymore :p. I have changed the script output [3] to include them already using PHP's number_format() because ISO 31 says: "Numbers consisting of long sequences of digits can be made more readable by separating them into groups, preferably groups of three, separated by a small space.". Actually "small space" would be Unicode character U+2009 "THIN SPACE" like between these words [4], but we dont want to be overly correct and make syntax ugly by having all those "#x2009"'s in it, or do we? Mutante 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they were special characters, it would be a little easier to strip them out (at the expense of everyone who doesn't have the thin-space character in their fonts). As it stands now, I basically can't track the article counts anymore. It was just barely convenient enough for me to cut and paste this information into a spreadsheet every couple of weeks to predict what languages would need promoting by the end of the month. Now I'd have to find a quick way of stripping the damn spaces out so my spreadsheet program (Gnumeric) will recognize them as numbers (not relishing the idea of whipping out Perl or Emacs regular expressions on it). Screw it. I think I'll just stop doing it, instead. I don't know if anyone was actually using the info I was posting at w:Wikipedia talk:Milestone statistics, anyway... - dcljr 04:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I provide the same data already as csv, ssv (excel) and xml. You could have used those for your spreadsheet program all the time. Mutante 19:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Thanks. I never saw the Wiki Stats homepage, just the single page the instructions above the milestone table(s) linked to. I didn't know there were so many other options. Thanks for clueing me in. - dcljr 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mutante, can you do the same thing for the other script[5]?--Imrek 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ripuarian: Article count

The ripuarian wikipedia is displayed to contain ~5600 articles. However, almost all ~2000 year articles have no encyclopedic content, only standard headlines created a bot. Which cuts the real article number down to 3600. 19:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that wiki currently has "−4" images! Why is it that these counters sometimes break? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The -4 images are in MediaZilla singe ages. Its most easily fixed, but noone cares. True count is 23. The footnote about these facts keeos disappearing from the page. :-(
Some 250 year articles do have (some) content, and it is gradually increasing. Btw. this wiki is not even a year old. At that stage many wikipedies do have lots of semi-empty "date" and "year" articles, see e.g. siberian, boypurian, alsatian, and MANY more -- 11:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, many Wikipedias much older than that have just as little content... Neapolitan, I'm looking at you (try their nap:Speciale:Random several dozen times). The problem is that many of these editions don't have enough contributors with enough time to write real encyclopedia articles (prose, as opposed to lists). And writing good encyclopedia articles doesn't just take time; it takes skill with the language too. The African-language Wikipedias were created long ago, but many of those wikis have stagnated. There's not much we can do about this situation, unless the Foundation suddenly has enough money to send a bunch of Wikipedians to study African languages for a year (or three). – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

depth parameter calculation wrong

It does not reflect the forumula displayed, i.e., edits/articles * non-articels/articles

Yes it does. You likely calculated (edits/articles) × (total pages/articles). In fact, the formula should read (edits/articles) × [(total pagesarticles) / articles]. So for the English Wikipedia, (94845617/1513595)×((6602908 − 1513595)/1513595) gives 210.7. I'll clarify the explanation on that page. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Confusion was about what is 'non-articles'. Now the page expalains it and all is well.
Asnatu 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, implemted in script output. Mutante 06:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What does the "edit" counter indicate: Edit count for the actual encyclopedia articles, i.e., main namespace articles or edit count for all articles, including user page and discussion page crud? -- 20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
All edits. Erik Zachte's tool does offer the average edits per article (not page) over time for each language edition, if you're interested. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Why not use that, then? It seems more reasonable to use than all edit count. --Zaheen 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There is imho a problem with redirects, which are neither articles nor project nor talk pages and are only edited once. Imho they should deserve an extra count for clarity.
Similarly, category pages can at times be like articles, explaing something and requiring quite some editing so as to be good. At times, and more often, thy do not. -- 11:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that it's a pretty crude measurement. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of processor time to make detailed statistics of every Wikipedia edition, which is why Erik's tool is updated so infrequently. Many times I've temporarily lowered the Vietnamese Wikipedia's edits-per-page count by as much as a fifth, just by creating some much-needed redirects. It isn't so much of a problem at the larger wikis, where the sheer number of pages offsets the redirects, but at the smaller languages especially, having redirects and categories actually hurts the statistics, even though I see them as being beneficial. Mutante has attempted to account for categories by placing the number of non-articles in the denominator, meaning that the more categories you create, the higher your depth. Unfortunately, that doesn't take care of the redirects. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I would've thought that since redirects are each one line of code for a page, in a strict format, they would be pretty easy to filter out of the page counting.

Inlogger 12:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Some languages have a higher need for redirects than many others:
  • Many spelling variations in
    1. Languages with frequent spelling changes over a short time,
    2. Languages using a variety of spellings, or spelling systems,
    3. Languages having many dialects which are spelt differently.
  • Many synonyms, such as in
    1. Lanuages that borrough from different sources a lot of words which can be used interchangeably,
    2. Languages that converged from different sources, having quite many words, the meaning of which essentally does not differ a lot,
    3. Languages with many different dialects again, which do have a lot of different words or vaiants for identical concepts.
I know that we do not currently have redirects counted separately, which I suggest to consider doing in the future, so as to increase clarity. --Purodha Blissenbach 17:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


The note at the bottom reads: "Uyghur is comprised largely of image-only pages." From the page, that does not seem to be true, but I don't actually apeak Uyghur so I could be wrong, so I'm too hesitant to remove it, howver if I don't see anything posted in the next few days telling me NOT to, I'm going to come back and delete that sentence. 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Try their Random article tool a few dozen times; you'll get mostly headings and images, but very little text. We have quite a few Wikipedias like that, but they just happen to have over 1,000 pages of it. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Their bots are not good enough, i guess :) Khutuck

West Flemish

The West-Flemish wikipedia appears here in its native language as "West-Vlaoms". This should be "West-Vloams, this interwiki has been changed by the developers a few days ago, can someone fix it in the code here too? Tbc 15:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

fixed. Mutante 20:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the PALI advance real?

I dont know any Pali. And a genuinely growing Pali Wikipedia would gladden my heart.

However, when looking at some articles in the Pali Wikipedia that has just passed 100 articles, it seems to me that they look identical, and are put in at the same day (16.th december or just before?)

Can someone literate in Pali check if this advance is oky or not?

Togrim, user of the Norwegian Wikipedia, 17. december 2006

About Pali, I used my bot to create year articles. I know a bit of Pali and can contribute to filling the events in the page as well. However, I am working on 8 wikipedia of which I am the only user in Nepalbhasa, Pali, Bhojpuri, Sanskrit (there are some "on and off" users in Sanskrit), Oriya and Kashmiri. I am not a programmer. If someone could build me a bot which allows edits faster than one edit in 2 minutes, and allows to edit any article, I can create some meaningful stubs in these at least. Also, Pali can progress a lot if we can allow multiple scripts there like in Kazakh or Chinese wikipedia. There are other users who use thai, burmese and singhale script to write Pali. If we could have a separate column for these scripts and a script transliterator connecting all as in Kazakh, Pali has the potential to be at least a reasonable wikipedia. --Eukesh 19:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Why this page causes javascript's erros in Mozilla Firefox? --Slade 14:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

War editing

This kind of war editing is not a proper way to make things run smoothly, and can lead to users' account blocks and semiprotecting the page. Please try to find a consensus on this page. --M/ 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, but I just update the list every time, so that the war editing would disappear. Johnny Au 23:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but if the two users seeking for two different formats and contents would merge their efforts, the updates might be more efficient and everybody will be happy about that... :) --M/ 23:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"Editing War" or "Editing Bug"?

What do you mean "war editing"? My work looks like a war to you? There's no disagreement at all. I am the promoter of the Depth column which was considered a good idea and accepted in less than three days. But my format was not completely understood from the very beginning and I had to continue to add these two more changes. And there's no disagreement between me and the owners of the s23 site, it's more like they haven't added the changes to the script yet. It's a matter of time, not of dissent.

I haven't received any answer from the owners of the s23 site yet. As soon as we get in touch, we will discuss. There's no war. In the meantime, I have to do my job. As for Johnny Au, I don't see any "war" between Johnny Au's edits and mine. Johnny Au's simply doing th/eir job too. Johnny Au's purpose was never to revert my edits, but to update. Actually I think you've already noticed it, so I don't understand why the strong wording.

In conclusion, Johnny Au and I are not the ones you're looking for, but the owners of the s23 site. And not for an anti-"war editing" discussion, but for a notice on these two modifications that were lost in the process. I would be very pleased if you managed to contact them, because they seem somewhat unaccessible. Which makes the s23 script not a very Wikipedish idea. Which directs us to the real issue:

THE "Updated automatically but not a bot posting itself" ISSUE

I keep on seeing lots of people trying to implement some small changes here and there in the table, many of which are quite nice, but they are reverted as soon as a new update arrives. These people are nobody's fools, I assume. They are Wikipedia editors, not some s23_owner-patronizeable kids creating ephemeral sand castles or crawling bugs to be finger-kicked back into uselessness for smart amusement. This is why Wikipedia doesn't love bots. Such a script which is "updated automatically but not a bot posting itself" is clearly a lie. If they need to bend some Wikipedian principles, they should just make it an explicit policy.

Being "owners of the s23 site" (I am only using it as a metaphor) can't be any few person's job, available and receptive to changes as they may be! I'm not implying anything mean about the owners of the s23 site, but only implying we need more openness and wikipedianness. It's obviously hard to cope with so many modification requests.

As a solution, perhaps there's a way to "open source" that damn s23.org script and provide access to the source? There are plenty of ways to moderate changes -- for instance, they could provide access to relevant sections of the script only. Please, join this "campaign", as this is the root of our "war editing problems" (again, wrong label). And such a script controlled by only a few persons is not an acceptable idea, anyway. It's not even on the Wikimedia site, FFS!

Khenriksen 01:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think "open sourcing" is possible or even desirable. The solution is is to have the s23 script retrieve all table-related text from this current page on each update and only substitute the numbers with the updated ones. This is the very BEST solution and not difficult to implement. This way everybody will be able to edit everything within the tables (as long as they don't mess with the tables' structure) except for numbers and everybody will be happy. 14:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, whats this all about? I am the one who made those scripts on S23, but i didnt make them to bend articles on wikipedia,i just had provide those statistics tables in html and merely as an extra service i also provide it in mediawiki syntax and i thought it saves people some time who were editing this very page all manually before that and asked for a bot. But even when other people asked, i never wanted a bot that is also posting automatically to avoid exactly these problems with automatic posts reverting changes made on the wikipedia side. The wiki syntax i provide is just an offer to save people's time. S23 does not do anything automatically by itself. Humans can use it and post it or they dont. Or they add the code that is missing before they post it. If you would like to ask me to add bits to the code, no problem. Just ask. And why am i hard to reach? I have posted contact data on my Wikistats site and on S23 Wiki there is User:Mutante. So what do you need added to the code? Or if you dont like to use it, thats fine with me too. Mutante 18:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

After robih explained to me what is needed i added the "if depth over 200 in wikipedias" then just show "--" instead" line. Is this what you needed? Anything else? Mutante 14:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Why are table lines and table sections not created via template calls? This would make changes of any kind totally simple - just amend the template source - and would safe the ease of updating the entire table in one go without having to go to fuzzy details. Templates can even use conditionals evaluating the language code, so e.g. adding footnote remarks to individual ones. --Purodha Blissenbach 23:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

YES, there are two more things

(1) Actually the full formula would look like this: IF Depth > 200 AND [number of] Articles < 10 000 THEN s{<Depth>}{-}g. This is because ANY Depth of a Wikipedia above 10 000 articles IS relevant. (In other words, statistics about a Wikipedia with more than 10 000 articles can't be a joke, can't be [dismissed as] irrelevant.)
(2) Also, tables look much better when aligning the title row of each table in the same way as the rest of the table (so I suggest right-alignment for each whole table).
Khenriksen 04:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
(1) Okay, if ($depth > 200 && $row['good'] < 10000) { $depth="--"; } implemented. (To be exact lets always refer to the terms used in Special:Statistics?action=raw pages, so total,good,views,edits etc..
(2) Uhm, both, title rows and the rest seemed already right-aligned to me. Probably treated differently by different browsers? Anyways, i added |- style="text-align: right;" in the table heads as well. Mutante 23:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Right, my browser was not aligning them well. Actually, it's strange that yours was, since the real problem lies "right at the root", in the table properties:
=== 100 000+ articles ===
{| border="1" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="width:100%; background: #f9f9f9; border: 1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse; white-space: nowrap; text-align: left" (notice left),
while the |- style="text-align: right;" property was always coming after the title row, in each table.
So my suggestion would be that you simply replace all occurrences of "left" in table properties to "right" and then eliminate any |- style="text-align: right;" (which would thus become superfluous). That way the source will become quite a few KiBs shorter.
To see it for yourself, this is an example edit: 00:51, 31 December 2006 Khenriksen (Talk | contribs) (Removed superfluous code, an example for the maintainer of the s23.org script, Mutante, to consider.); alternatively, you can directly access the diff between the original s23.org script version and my "removed superfluous code" edit". You'll notice my version is about 7 KiB smaller.
Khenriksen 01:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, i followed your suggestion. Please check if its ok now. And happy new year. Mutante 18:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, happy new year to you, too :)
Yes, it's perfectly OK now.
Khenriksen 21:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit note

I edited it, which broke it, so I reverted it. Turns out I was wrong in the first place; I was looking at the wrong number. Just in case you were wondering what the hell I'd done. 12:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain, What are you talking about, more specifically? (Khenriksen 19:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC))

Does a higher Depth number indicate better quality

If that is the case, congratulations to the English Wikipedia and someoen needs to help Cebuano! DaGizza 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks quite plausible to me. The English Wikipedia is no surprise, as everybody keep their eyes on it. The Cebuano Wikipedia seems to post articles with almost no further editing, which either means all Cebuano articles are miraculously perfect from the very beginning (which doesn't sound very Wikipedish to me even if true) or it means they are almost never improved. If the former is true, then I would conclude Depth is sometimes miraculously flawed. If the latter is true, then I would conclude Depth is quite a correct indicator of quality and you're right: god save Cebuano. :) 05:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Depth overrates a bit the non-articel pages. If a Wikipedia does not make regular cleanup of old user-subpages aleady redirects to articles and stuffs like that, uses smaller archive pages etc. shows a better quality here than the ones which do. - 14:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
It may indicate better average quality... am: had a rating of 39 when our article count was 790... but when a bot made disambiguation pages telling exactly what date each European AD year started on, relative to the Ethiopian year, the count dramatically increased to 2790. With 3/4 of our articles now bot created, the average depth figure dropped from 39 to 7. Then it climbed back to 9 as interwiki bots raked each of the new articles for interwikis, making more edits. None of this seems connected with human activity in refining the articles and createing non-article pages. Would it make more sense if the two fractions were added together instead of multiplied? Codex Sinaiticus 16:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
As Codex Sinaiticus pointed out, improving the usefulnes of an article base can both increase and decrease depth, and is not related much to human activity (given that getting a bot to create 2016 articles was about as much labour as creating 3 dozen of them manually, in this case). Another observation is that obviously specifically long and futile edit wars usually increase depth unproportionally in comparison to the increase of quality brought by them.
Imo, in counting all edits equally, depth is much too much depending on "average increase of usefulnes per edit" - which deviate too widely to be useful. Another question may be risen about usefulness. Even small pages, such as redirects and little disambiguations, may be extremely valuable to someone who would not find something without them. On the other hand, not having detailed content pages renders disambiguations etc. relatively useless for those in need of answers exceeding one-sentence dictionary style ones.
All in all, I don't believe depth to be a good overall indicator of quality in its own right. Without having done any reseach backing this assumption, I suggest better using a vector approach, where the number of words in non-discussion pages, the number of words/expressions/page titles available in search indices, and the number of edits by average "size of edit" are as well taken into account. As Wikipedia currently is, images, sounds, etc. do not play a huge role, and measuring their real "information content" is even more difficult, but links, external links, images, etc. should imho also be considered useful ressources. --Purodha Blissenbach 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Use square root of (Depth x Count).
Asnatu wiki 21:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Silly thinking. Good articles need less editing than bad ones. 02:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the result of this calculation is labeled "depth". Does it mean the "depth" of content in a wikipedia? Does it denote some kind of quality of that encyclopedia? What is meant by "rough indicator"? Who, rather impulsively, made up this parameter and included it in the tables? If it cannot satisfactorily answer exactly what it is trying to indicate, or if it is labeled incorrectly, then I think it should be corrected to address the above questions. --Zaheen 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

From what I read here, "depth" could be more acuratly labeled "involvement" or "modifying edition rate". Maybe the information that "depth" currently gives could also be indicated as a mean of the quantity of human changes by articles 07:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


The title of the language SWAHILI (code SW) on the Meta page has been changed to COMORIAN?

I suppose this is some villainry?

Togrim, user of the Norwegian Wikipedia, 2007-01-13

Ukrainian Wikipedia

They did it again; 6000 articles in few hours! The second time in the last 4 month. Yesterday they became 6000 new articles and left two other Wikipedia's behind.. again! I think that 80% of this "encyklopedia" must be cancelled. Someone must stop this rubbish. --Erdal 05:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The Romanian Wikipedia is doing the same. Just check out some random pages. At least 50% of the Romanian pages is a one sentence article saying "... is a city in ...". What the point of that is beyond me. Someone over there must be thinking this is some kind of a race... 19:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's good that people are making stub-sized articles because it will encourage other users to expand on those articles. Hopefully, those 6,000 new articles are mostly beneficial, and not spam. Nishkid64 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Unless you are an editor of the Ukrainian/Romanian Wikipedia, this is none of your business. If you are, complain there. --Purodha Blissenbach 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposition about the futile Inter-Wiki Race

To end this, I think that year articles should be excluded from the total number of articles, what do you think?Toira 19:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a better idea for a new rank system: tr:Kullanıcı:Erdall/Derinliklerine göre büyük Vikipediler .. ranking by depth! --Erdal 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Imho, depth is not more valid than many other arnkings, see also above, since identical data, gives a higher depth, if added in small installments, e.g. — But you can start as many pages using alternative sort orders, as you like, just go ahead. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Falls es eine Möglichkeit gibt, regelmässig die durchschnittliche byte/Artikel von jeder Wikipedia zu kontrollieren, dann wäre dass doch die beste Methode um die wirklich "grossen" Wikipedien bestimmen. Weisst du vielleicht ob es so eine Möglichkeit gibt? Ich glaube ich hab daß mal irgendwo gesehen, wo es nicht so oft aktuallisiert wird. Aber um so eine Rangliste zu führen bräuchte man regelmässig frische Daten. --Erdal 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that the greater the article count gets, the more accurately the list gives an impression of actual strength. At the bottom (below 10 and below 50 especially) there are a number of de facto nonexistant Wikipedias being spammed to death, article count means nothing. Between 100 and 10 000 especially, there are a number of "fake" Wikipedias that are artifically pumped by year stubs and similar shite. (It appears to me that the PALI Wikipedia is pure bluff, the same (Identical!) short stub posted about 100 times. I cant read it, so I may be wrong ...). Very few "fake" wikipedias make it beyond 10 000 articles, it seems to me that the biggest ever is Cebuano, wich is just above 30,000. Above that there is still some pumping, but even the pumped Wikipedias have masses of bona fide and useful articles too.
About Pali, I am the one who created the 2000 year related "pages" there. I am not in this rat race to climb up this list of wikipedia. But you people need to understand the condition of the language as well. You know, when I started Nepalbhasa wikipedia or talked about Nepali wikipedia to people in Nepal, they used to say "Is it allowed to write in Nepalbhasa or Nepali online?" as if these languages are forbidden online! There are virutally no websites of these langauges and wikipedia is likely to be one of the first website or at least the largest website for these languages. I am really grateful to wikipedia for this. Now, one problem which I faced working in these wikipedia is that most of the people do not receive University level education in these languages. So, whenever someone visits these websites, they use it as a blog or as a place of literature, story etc. which wikipedia is not. One thing which helped me in Nepali wikipedia was the creation of blank pages with headings. There are many people who have information but dont know that they are allowed to write these information or dont know where to write them. So, by creating these sort of template pages, we can help these people help wikipedia. In fact, a number of pages have expanded in the similar manner in these wikipediae. In short, it helps a person who has never seen a website in his/her language or someone who has never visited wikipedia to know what s/he is supposed to write here. Now, I dont think that wikipedia is here for a year or two it will stay here for a lot of years to come. If just five accidental users edit a single article per year in this manner, we will have at least 25 articles in 5 years (which might not be possible if this approach is not implemented). In this way, we can reach the communities that are not reaching us. Also, if someone has problems with Pali, Bhojpuri, Oriya, Nepalbhasa, or any other wikipedia where only my bot has significant edits or think that these wikipediae are pumped up, I dont mind having any of these wikipediae listed at the bottom of the list. To me, wikipedia is not about this list or any other lists, its about the creation of good wikipediae and strategies to make them happen. Thanks. --Eukesh 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As an addict of this list Im distressed by the spammed microWikipedias and irritated by the fakes and pumping. I dunno if it is possible to fight the spamming more efficently, if so I think it would be good. (I would plead for a cleanup preening of the passive spam-hit Interlingue Wikipedia for instance. Nobody works on it now but there are real articles in Interlingue in it, and I hope someday it may be revived. In the meantime, I'd like it not to be abused.) If it were possible to pull the year and date stats out of the results I think that would be good too.
HOWEVER: I am altso gladdened by experiencing how real and useful Wikipedias are constantly emerging from hardly existing and abused microWikipedias. Some times this happends to the most incredible cantidates. Look at the Volapük Wikipedia for insance. One year ago this was a dead microWikipedia, bad looking and somewhat spam hit. Now it is a growing Wikipedia of more than 1,500 articles, exeptionally good looking, and rather solid too. It has NOT been pumped up by the help of dates and shit, it has some stubs but they are mostly relevant (among others, lists of Volapükists and Volapük clubs, the first and only online resource of this type, and very potentially useful to Volapük researchers and other historians tumbling into this area), it has a number of good translated articles and some interesting original articles too. It really is a small medium sized Wikipedia the Wikipedia movement as a whole can be proud of. One year ago, who would have believed this? Not me, as I know a bit about the state of the Volapük movement.
This makes me think that things will improve with time. After all, the flagship English Wikipedia has been pumped up too, with robotic geography articles etc. Arguably lexically relevant, but hardly examples of the mass participation that we want Wikipedia to be about, is it? It seems to me that for SOME Wikipedias, pumping may be an infantile disease by Wikipedia activists which creases in time, while the pride in real articles with interesting and useful content grows. Something like minor teen-age hooliganism. The norwegian bokmål Wikipedia is passing 100,000 any day now. The community is certainly proud of this result. It wants the Norwegian Wikipedia to LOOK GOOD, and it certainly wouldnt be axepted if anyone tried to fake the increase with irelevant stub articles.
For those who are seriously interested in wether the stats mirror real lexical work, there are indications which can be used at least on the beyond 10,000 Wikipedias (which are where most of the real serious work is done anyway, I guess?) like depth, the number of collaborators (if it is below 100, this is pobably pumping or even mainly fake, below 500 serious reason for suspiction), etc. So if stupid people who dont understand what Wikipedia is really about - REAL knowlege, not FORMAL article stats! - sabotage the value of our stats with faking, this is in general not so serious as it may look.
After all, look at the GREAT NUMBER of really serious, "handmade", "solid" Wikipedias out there. Like Esperanto, Nynorsk, Icelandic, Interlingua, four different-sized Wikipedias growing at various rates, but all solid and un-faked, I have been looking at recently. So maybe we should not exagerate this problem?
Togrim, user of the Norwegian Wikipedia (100,000 any day now!) 2007-02-18
What do you think of this [6], I hope that these kind of statistics are a good weapon against fake wikipedias.Toira 11:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Togrim, check the Volapük Wikipedia now: they are using bots very-very well, hehe. Slavik IVANOV 01:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

kr: - article count

The list keeps claiming that Kanuri has three articles. In fact, there is no article except for the main page, see kr:Special:Allpages. What is broken here? --Johannes Rohr 22:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Also the Image count is -1.


What about the Oriya Wikipedia [7]? I think you may talk about it in the notes. It has less than 30 articles, and most of them are proposed for speedy deletion. I think there are no native speakers here (but there are in the English Wikipedia). -- 16:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Interlingue Wikipedia spammed

The rather passive Interlingue Wikipedia isnt all junk, there are some decent articles and stubs inbetween. (However, most of it is dates ...) Its passive state has unfortunately been used by spammers. Some kindly person with the authority should go in and DELETE many articles. Me and others have marked some articles for deletion, its easy to see they are junk. Togrim, user of the Norwegian Wikipedia, 2007-01-22

Dates when datas are last updated

Shouldn't the tables add a column to show when datas were last updated?--Jusjih 10:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, if it wasn't daily ... --Purodha Blissenbach 19:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is Klingon still on the list?

In my view, the long-closed Klingon edition should no longer be included in the main list of Wikipedias nor add to the count of regular WP language editions. The note in the "Deprecated, moved and other" section will probably suffice. --ARBE0 16:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For a time Klingon was NOT on the list. I have raised the same question before and never got a satisfactory answer. The same question can be raised about Tokipona, altso discontinued as a Wikipedia for reasons of principle, which is still on the list with a non-functioning link and a wrong article count (the Tokipona Wiki lexicon continues outside of the Wikipedia system and appears to have grown a little, but neither the correct statistical info nor the correct link is on this page). Togrim, user of the norwegian Wikipedia, 2007 02 18
tlh and tokipona are still online. This is the reason why they still are in this list. 13:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
NO, this is wrong: 1) Tokipona is online at ANOTHER ADRESS than the one the list gives, with another article and user count etc. So the stats on the list are irrelevant to any real wikipedia, and the link doesnt lead to any real wikipedia either. 2) The KLINGON Wikipedia is closed - dead. There has been talk about moving it to a non-wikipedia host, but apparently, nobody is interested. So in what sence are the stats relevant, and how can they be compared with the stats of the other, living wikipedias on the list? Togrim, user of the norwegian wikipedia, 2007-02-27

What is the other adress of Tokipona? Then i can update it. About Klingon: From our point of view a Wiki is not dead yet as long as we can open the statsurl and get back numbers, also you can read http://tlh.wikipedia.org/wiki/ghItlh%27a%27 ,just the fact that is not editable anymore didnt make the numbers wrong, right? Why isnt the tlh subdomain simply deleted if its so im important that its not a Wikipedia anymore. In that case i would say lets move it to the list of private Mediawikis. Mutante 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Active Wikipedias ordered by language code

This list says its ordered by language code, but it is a hybrid of language-code (e.g. fr:) and language name - most confusing. Is there a chance of having it split into two lists; one sorted by the code, the other by name? (]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bazza_7 ) 13:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Best would be a sortable table which is reordered according to the column you click (unless the JavaScript used for that purpose brings firefox to its knees.)--Johannes Rohr 14:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias by order of creation

Do we have a list like this anywhere? I'm not saying it should be at this page (which is already fairly crowded), but such a list would be a good thing to have. It wouldn't even require much maintenance because new languages could just be added to the bottom.--Pharos 20:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seps of the Rankings

10-100, 100-1000 .... and 100-1.000.000??? Shouldn`t the small steps be left out and one or two steps included in the huge gap between 1.00000-1.000.000?-- 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I find small steps usefull here.--Pere prlpz 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Lingua Franca Nova dumped - why?

For months, the unoficial Wiki-lexicon of Lingua Franca Nova has been mentioned on the Meta page (below the 250 wikis with full statistics).

There was a link to this lexicon and an article count (which I updated, sometimes).

As far as I can see, this is a real project, free of spam and artifical "pumping" with date stubs and such shit. So a work of some value.

Now it has been dumped off the Meta list.

I believe this link and article count was of interest to us who try to follow multinational wiki lexicon developtment.

So WHY has it been dumped off the list?

Togrim, user of the norwegian Wikipedia

  • Probably because it's not a Wikipedia, but rather an independent project. Tuf-Kat 12:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, independent projects - like the Kölsh Wiki, the Pennsylvania Dutch Wiki - have been reported here before (they are now functioning wikipedias, but they werent then!).
The Toki Pona isnt a Wikipedia, but it is still on the list, absurdly. And the Klingon is blocked, no new articles, no users, but still on the list.
So WHY was the Lingua Franca Nova on the meta page for more than 1/2 year, regularely updated, but is now suddenly jerked off?
I dont see a logical policy here, nor does it seem possibly to find any responsible person who makes and unmakes such policy.
Is this up to any individual, what he or she prefers? So if I like Lingua Franca Nova as an add-on to the list like before - well, then I just add it, and thats it?
Togrim, user of the norwegian Wikipedia


This page would be more useful if it also tracked the age of the Wikipedias. That would put the number of articles and users in perspective. m:en:User:MrZaius 05:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


The Language Kanuri is listed as having -1 pictures. Is this some sort of bug, obviously this is not possible.

Yes, that is a bug in the mediawiki software itself, where sometime statistics numbers "overflow"/"underflow". Check the Special:Statistics?action=raw page manually and report to an Kanuri admin who has mysql access to correct it or something. 14:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now it says the Spanish Wikipedia has -317 images...

And now -711 images and still counting :)

Policy of inclusion

Very simple: If it's *.wikipedia.org, if it delivers Special:Statistics?action=raw, it is included. If one of the two are not, it is not included. 11:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I ask for respect for the Valencian History and Culture, that has been eliminated in this encyclopedia under the catalan aggression.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

Linking the native name to the native Wikipedia

Would there be any point in modifying the tables so that the native name of the language would point to an appropriate article in the native Wikipedia, while keeping the English name pointed to en.wikipedia.org? Now they're both pointing to en.wikipedia.org which seems a bit unnecessary. I have the impression that even the smallest Wikipedia editions usually have an article about the language they're written in. In the rare cases where this isn't true, the link to en.wikipedia.org could be kept as is. Here's an example:

Language Language (local) Wiki Articles Depth Total Edits Admins Users Images
188 Min Dong Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ cdo 95 -- 1 038 3 780 1 61 48

I would be ready to do the editing part, if no one opposes. Should they be done here or on some other (template-like?) page? I assume the tables on this page are actually copy/pasted from somewhere else. Malhonen 10:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you really want this and you could provide a plain list of all prefixes and their according page titles that should be linked here, i could probably include that in the script which creates the syntax for this table (the place people are copy/pasting from). Mutante 14:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please see User:Malhonen/Native language list. Malhonen 20:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done too. I just pasted a new version. The 35 ones with missing links now link to their mainpage. Ok like that? Mutante 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, looks good! For some reason, the link to the Sanskrit Wikipedia (sa) reads Сибирскоसंस्कृत instead of just संस्कृत which is how it is in my list. Otherwise I'm very happy :) BTW, I noticed I had forgotten Cheyenne from my list, but that doesn't change anything since there was no article for the Cheyenne language in the respective Wikipedia edition. Your script seems to be doing fine even without that information. Malhonen 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I still noticed a couple of glitches: bpy and got are missing some letters at the end. Now they are বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপু& and 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌰𐍂𐌰𐌶𐌳 , while they should be বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী and 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌰𐍂𐌰𐌶𐌳𐌰 , as per my list. In addition, dv has some extra letters, so ދިވެހި ބަސ instead of ދިވެހި ބަސިވެހި ބަސ . Thanks! Malhonen 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed those and updated. You may check again. Mutante 07:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry to bother you still, but it seems that this time it was me who accidentally gave you the dv page with missing characters, even though my list had it right... (I don't know anything about the Divehi script, so that's why I didn't notice it before) So, the real page should be ދިވެހި ބަސް instead of ދިވެހި ބަސ . Malhonen 14:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm,ok, done. But that still looks very similar, i hope i got it right. Mutante 07:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. The leftmost letter was just missing one diacritic, that's all. Thank you very much for your efforts, now everything's in its place! Malhonen 11:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism against Belarussian?

See the strange change of Belarussian to "old belarussian" and the stats for Belarussian down at the bottom of the list with 6 articles? Togrim, User of the Norwegian Wikipedia, 2007-03-28

some details here --Bunker by 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Belarussian TWICE on the list!

Belarussian is number 74 on the list - and again, number 242! Togrim, User of the Norwegian Wikipedia, 2007-03-29

This is the reason. 12:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Norwegian Bokmål

There are different Wikipedias in both Norwegian language forms (Bokmål and Nynorsk). Therefore it would be correct to state "Bokmål" for the large Norwegian Wikipedia which currently is on the 14th place, as all their articles are written in this form, so it is not correct to simply call it "Norwegian". I added the term Bokmål 3 times during the last 2 days but it was always reverted by a user named Johnny Au without any explanation. If this is intended, please state at least a reason why you are doing this. Thanks. -- 18:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bokmål is Standard Norwegian and thus it has been labelled as "Norwegian" by the steering committee. 21:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I only updated the list. It is not my fault that this happens. Johnny Au 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If there is/would be consensus on a change needed, then you can tell me here to change the script that outputs the prepared wiki code that Johnny pasted to update. Same applies if the comment below requires changes on my side. I am just trying to offer autocreated wiki syntax so people dont have to build that table all manually. (of course they could still change it before hitting save) Mutante 22:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Added a note regarding this so that when I update the entire list, Norwegian would be specified as Norwegian Bokmål.

Language name changes

I just did all the language name changes requested on User_talk:Mutante#Wikipedia_stats_updates at once. Now the pasted material wont revert those changes anymore. Mutante 22:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional local name changes done as requested on User_talk:Mutante#Wikipedia_stats_updates. Mutante 19:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Who knows what's happen to Russian Wikipedia? All links and urls work opening http://searchportal.information.com. Mashiah Davidson 18:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Question about depth

The list says that "The "Depth" column ... is a rough indicator of a Wikipedia’s activity, showing how frequently its articles are updated; depths above 200 for Wikipedias below 10 000 articles are dismissed as irrelevant." So what does that mean for the larger Wikipedias? Is a higher depth number a good or a bad thing? What does it mean, for instance, that the depth of the English Wikipedia (289) is three times higher than the depth of the German Wikipedia (95), for instance? en:User:Aecis 22:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Higher "Depth" means higher collaborativeness (therefore better "quality"). See my explanation on this same page. Khenriksen 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics not updating automatically


The statistics on the Bulgarian list Списък на уикипедии are not updating automatically. Could someone help me fix that? Thanks, --Vanka5 17:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Wikipedias#Updating_automatically_.3F--Imrek 17:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Спосибо, Imrek! I don' quite understand the directions above but I'll contact User:Mutante and see if he can help. I appreciate your reply though. Поздрави, --Vanka5 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. :-) In case you are interested, there's another way of building the table, you can read about it here or here. With this variant you'll be able to change the names of the languages and some other features by yourself, so you won't have to bother Mutante each time.-Imrek 19:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Number of images

Sorry but how is it possible that some Wikipedias (for example, the Spanish Wikipedia) have a negative number of images? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

It's a bug. MaxSem 19:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually the Spanish Wikipedia has no images. The last one was erased today. If someone can reset the counter to zero will make us a big favor. Best regards, Alpertron 02:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

finding other language wikipedias

I think the list of "Active Wikipedias by language" should appear near the top of this page. I don't think the Main Page on English Wikipedia is very friendly for finding, for example, "Simple English" wikipedia. One has to click right at the bottom on the "Complete list" and then hunt on this page. If we really can't have the link to Simple English (at present less than 20.000, and even that limit is now bumped up to 25.000), if the complete list were near the top of this page it would be much easier. The full table with statistics could be further down.Hikitsurisan 16:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

update the Icelandic article count

Could anybody update the Icelandic article count? There are currently 15.967 articles on the Icelandic Wikipedia but I guess you gotta calculate the depth but I don't know how to. Could anybody help me out, and show me here how it's done? And the total sum of pages is 43.259. Thanks. --S.Örvarr.S 07:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all updated automatically once a day. You don't have to edit it. - 17:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean? Then why has it been out of date for weeks? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


How can the count of imgages on the Spanish Wikipedia be a negative number?

As I explained above there are no images in the Spanish Wikipedia. The negative number is an error. But notice that this Wikipedia takes the images from Commons and is the fourth wikipedia with more images after the English, German and French ones. Please see http://stats.wikimedia.org --Alpertron 15:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

About Emilian-Romagnol

The local language name is still uncorrectly reported as Emilià. It should be changed to what is currently used in inter-wiki links, that is Emiliàn e rumagnòl. It is to be remarked that the local language link points to Dialètt_rumagnòl, which is only one of the varities accepted in that wiki; however, there is little which can currently be done about this, since a page giving an overview of the dialect spectrum of Emilia and Romagna is still missing there.

I updated the local language to Emiliàn e rumagnòl in the script creating wikisource. Mutante 11:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you -- Tèstaquêdra 10:33, 14 lug 2007 (CEST)

Dead link - Help:How to start a new Wikipedia

Sorry, I am not a very talented user, and lack knowledge on almost anything related to formatting, tags, etc. In fact, I'm not even sure if this talk page I'm posting to is really all that active. But...shouldn't the link that leads to the page Help:How to start a new Wikipedia really direct users to Meta:Language proposal policy? The former page claims to be "obsolete or no longer maintained" and has a link for the latter. Clemenjo 06:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I fixed it.--Patrick 09:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparision: speakers vs. articles

Is there any comparision table to show the approximate number of speakers (who are potentially able to contribute to certain language-wikipedia) versus number of articles? Thx., Sl-Ziga 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is in "see also": w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia articles per population.--Patrick 21:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thx., though it's a little bit obsolete info about the number of articles. Sl-Ziga 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent spree of vandalism

Can an administrator semi-protect this page please because of many page-blanking anon vandals? Thank you. Johnny Au 17:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw what was going on - and thanks for the reverts/warning - the problem as I see it is that the page is often validly edited by IP who for whatever reason do not have user accounts. I'm sure we will keep an eye but even semi prot seems awkward for now --Herby talk thyme 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


I notice that the updates for sw-wiki don`t show. Counter has been on 5014 for roughly 2 weeks. If I click on the figure I get the "Special:Statistics?action=raw"- Count which looks accurate but the table does not change. Verified from different access points. Any clue? --Kipala 12:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mutante 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


Please, change Uzbek language local name from Ўзбек to O‘zbek, since we use Latin script in UzWiki. -- 07:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Italian dialects

I`d like to say a few words about the wikis in italian dialects. I think that creating a wiki in a language that is spoken by few people and that it should be considered a proof of ignorance, (considering that is mainly spoken by people that were unable to attend a decent education or that are unwilling to do so)that it`s a waste of space, and that is not worth even the electricity of the computer of the admin of those wikis.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk)

I'd like to state firmly to anyone going to start a flame war from this anonymous rant that feeding the trolls is the real waste of space, time and electricity. - εΔω 07:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

@ IP: thanks for your consideration (by an ignorant vec.wp admin and venetian speaker/writer)--Nick1915 - all you want 13:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there really a language called "Siberian" or "North Russian"?

I find it a little odd that the 79th largest Wikipedia is in a language so obscure that neither Ethnologue nor the English Wikipedia has heard of it. 04:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There is the Northern Russian group of dialects, which is very distinct from the Central and Southern dialect groups. In Siberia, a group of people which is known to have been ethnically and linguistically quite distinct are the Old Settlers including Old Believers who settled east of the Urals quite early on. They are said to have preserved a particularly archaic flavour of the Northern dialect, see ru:Сибирские старожильческие говоры for brief information and links.
However, the "Siberian Wikipedia" is mostly a product of fantasy and its contents would hardly be intelligible to the few remaining speakers of the Old Settlers dialects. Therefore and for other reason its closure has been proposed.
It should be noted, that most pages in the "Siberian Wikipedia" are bot generated year stubs without any content. --Johannes Rohr 08:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please delete or redefine "depth"

The current definition for "depth" is in my opinion not usable, actually it doesn't make any sense. Using the total of "edits" is something I can partly understand, but the number of non-articles is not relevant at all. Different communities will use different ways of discussing subjects, archive their talk pages and the number of discussions is not naturally a indicator of quality in all communities. So why not use variables like article-length or something? Until nothing better exist it's better to remove this "rank"! --Jeroenvrp 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

–Agreed! 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, lets delete it, i never got it in the first place, before i just had "stub ratio" but then the "depth" idea came up here by another user. 13:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We removed "depth" from the script. RobiH 17:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Why? It was the most interesting element!Benoni 20:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Replacing something with nothing? Not an improvement! -MarsRover 06:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I defined "Depth" better, as some people requested. And note that both "Non-Articles / Articles" and "Edits / Articles" are important. Here's why:
1) The first formula emphasizes the fact that the article count of a Wikipedia is just the tip of the iceberg, User Pages and Discussion Pages being a crucial indicator of "Wikipedianness" (at least more so than the article count itself)
2) The second formula emphasizes the fact that some Wikipedias might only include some copied & pasted articles (and many of them may even have copyright issues) or articles written by only one person (which doesn't necessarily mean they are biased or non-academic, but surely means they are not "Wikipedian"). It also emphasizes that many articles in many Wikipedias are automatically generated (for more or less "honorable" reasons), which this second formula reflects quite accurately, enforcing more transparency (whether some admins like it or not).
Khenriksen 18:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Addressing some objections. "Depth" is all about the ratio between the authoring work and the end result. Yes, I am aware that the current formula for depth is only the best one available. I still hope somebody can find a way to collect even more relevant data as a basis for a more accurate depth formula. The current one is just a quick fix. On the other hand, most objections to the current formula are easily refuted by the next two arguments:
1) All the other parameters are exposed to similar distortions that make them less relevant than we would like them to be -- actually this "Depth" parameter is based just on them! Here they are: "Edits" is affected by the edit wars, the "Articles" count is affected by automatically created articles, and "Non-Articles" is affected in many Wikipedias because of outdated pages. Shouldn't we then eliminate them all from the table?
2) A correct understanding of its definition makes "Depth" much less objectionable. As stated above, "Depth" is not about academic "static perfection", but about "ecosystemic vitality". For instance, while it is true that editing wars can affect "Depth" (just as/because they affect "Edits"), editing wars are a normal part of a wiki-based Encyclopedia's life. They still show how much editing attention a certain Wikipedia gets. The more editing wars, the more Wikipedianness. When we understand the FREE part in "Wikipedia, the FREE Encyclopedia", we certainly start to appreciate Wikipedia's "ecosystemic" (lack of) accuracy and (lack of) perfection -- and we are happy with such more fuzzy-logical parameters as.. "Depth". :)
Khenriksen 20:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There are images on the Spanish wiki

This page says '0' for number of images for the Spanish wikipedia. Is this because all the images are from commons or has nobody bothered to check. - FinalWish

The Spanish Wikipedia has no images since 11 June 2007. All images used come from Commons. This Wikipedia is ranked fourth in number of images used. Please notice that in few days, the Portuguese Wikipedia will delete its last image. Best regards, Alpertron 16:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the absurd politics of the awful Spanish wikipedia, as you can see it is one of the poorest wikipedias and it has 500 million of potential users, please thank the Spanish administrators

Quenya or Sindarin

I think a lot of people would love it if Elvish was included. I personally am not proficient enough to write article but I know at least a hundred who would be.

There is a problem: Klingon is also a fictional language and no articles can be created or edited for that language's Wikipedia. Quenya and Sindarin would have the same fate if they were created. Johnny Au 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The Klingon Wikipedia was closed (resp. moved to http://klingon.wikia.com) mainly because it was dead, not because it is a constructed language. There is a number of Wikis in constructed languages, including Lojban and Esperanto. So constructed languages are as such eligible for new projects. However, before a Wiki can go live, it has to have an active editing community and a successful test project. Looking at the Quenya test project at the incubator, you will see that it is dead. Somebody started it, but apparently lost interest. --Johannes Rohr 09:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

New Metric

I think that the formula (edits x users) would be a better metric than just articles. 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

# of Users is easy to inflate. Advise against it. 17:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hiri Motu

http://ho.wikipedia.org/wiki/ has been closed, but it's still listed. I read the comment in the namespace page there saying not to bother editing as it'll be overwritten soon, but it's been closed for months but is still listed... just thought I'd let you know. (en:Nach0king) 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, but where's the depth disappeared?

I was thinking the same thing
Yes, it's probably the most important element to make a difference between true encyclopediae and "fake" or "artificial" ones (i.e. volapük, lombard and cebuano which have a depth of 0 since most of their pages are the creation of bots)...Benoni 20:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

but where's the depth disappeared?
please see Talk:List_of_Wikipedias#Please_delete_or_redefine_.22depth.22 Mutante 22:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, please bring the "depth" column back! If you think it's relevant enough, then mention that in the note, but don't remove it completely, especially considering that there are other columns even less relevant than Depth. Sometimes even the Article Count is less relevant than Depth!

Regarding relevancy of the Depth column, it may not show the absolute quality of a Wikipedia, but it surely does indicate it's "wikiness" (i.e. how collaboratively it was written, and how much attention the articles got).
And anyway don't remove it just because it was so requested by some frustrated admins of some artificially-inflated Wikipedias (which got low Depth rank)! Aren't more admins supposed to vote for this first? 04:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As for me the "depth" was quite a funny thing, for example in ukrainian community this word ("глибина") began to be like an idiom for some doubtfully usefull editings. I'd prefer the "Depth" to be reserved here --A1 09:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think depth has been restored now.. IT is really required.. Moreover.. we need a list of wikipedia sorted with respect to its depths..--Vssun 21:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that one (or more) user(s) has/ve begun an editing conflict against "depth".Benoni 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Probably those users have something to hide. Some Wikipedias are full of automatically created articles, you know, and their Article count is very nice looking. It's just this stupid "Depth" parameter that stands in their way for world domination... :D Khenriksen 20:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Many of us are just copying and pasting from the link to update the tables, but it is not my fault that it did not have depth. Others did the same thing as me. Please do not call us vandals if we are in good faith. Please look at my earlier contributions: they are mostly updating the tables. I actually have a neutral stance on depth. Thank you. Johnny Au 03:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
If you keep calling us vandals, then someone should change the link such that it shows depth, which would prove that we are in good faith. I added a note near the link to update the tables. Thank you. Johnny Au 03:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand you are in good faith, but were has depth disappeared in the table you use? Do you know were is this table coming from? There used to be depth until last week, and then it suddenly disappeared...Benoni 12:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably Johnny Au updated this page while the script was still not changed back to normal. Khenriksen 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I was only trying to be funny :), I am sorry that this happened to offend you, Johnny Au. I didn't even know it could refer to you, as I didn't watch the editing history. I am saying this because I know you from our previous "interaction" (I even mentioned you in my comments above) and I know all you do is update the tables from the script. Anyway, I never used the word "vandal(ize)" :). I guess some people thought (some of) you kept on updating the tables without the "Depth" column even after "Depth" was restored in the script. Khenriksen 14:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi all! I can understand that you want to keep the Depth in the list. But is it not contraproductive always to revert the updates on the table and to replace with a version that is totally out of date (at least one week old). This makes this page less useful than if it would be up-to-date and just the depth would be missing. The final solution should be to take the depth into the updating script. But as long as this not happens, please don't revert all updates. Thank you. Sökaren -- 20:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

"But as long as this not happens, please don't revert all updates." Who says it didn't happen? While I must agree your comment is simply idiotic, I must add it's not what you're saying that is stupid, but your timing. This "reverting vandalism" problem has been solved long ago.
You may think it's just a matter of a few days. Yeah, right, but it seems these few days matter to you too. After all, you're the one that was terrorized by "totally out of date" versions of this page (which were actually several days older). Probably seeing one hundred articles more in each Wikipedia mattered to you more than depth.
In other words, how on earth could this page be "less useful" with slightly outdated (and irrelevant) numbers but with depth? What are you, a.. counter, not a human? Isn't this page more useful with depth? I mean, honestly, who visits this page without watching depth?
Thanks for this great anonymous answer :-) I accept your point of view, but are all these affronts necessary? To call someone for stupid, idiotic, not being a human etc. as he has another opinion??? Really phantastic! One reason why I frequently watch this page is to see how the Upper Sorbian language is growing, I think this is a proper "human" usage of this page. That's why I wrote the above standing argument and I would ask you to accept this and other opinions in general, even if you dont agree. Thanks! -- 17:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC) (Sökaren)

I have included the depth column with the new formula given below in "Depth 2.0" discussion. Decide yourself if you post from [8], and please continue the discussion there. Mutante 12:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Name of the Irish language

The official name of the Irish language in English is 'Irish' not 'Irish Gaelic' as it states in the list. Can it be changed?

Official EU web site: Official languages of the EU 09:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed it to 'Irish'. 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I've also changed it to 'Irish' in my script database, also for wiktionaries, wikiquotes, wikisources. Mutante 17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Where'd aa go?

Why did the Afar Wikipedia disappear from the table? The domain still exists. You can even still edit the wiki. - dcljr 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, i have no idea how that slipped through, but now i (re-)added it. Mutante 19:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Kazakh is already 1000

Somebody please edit tables Ash

Depth 2.0

Thanks for the return of the depth metric. But I have a question regarding it (and please don't use this as an argument to delete it). Does it include Bot edits in the formula such as the ever increasing amount of interwiki links that are being generated? Also, an even smarter enhancement is to ignore a user doing an "undo" and the person that did the initial edit, so as to not include vandalism in the edit counts. --MarsRover 19:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, since this may be the reason why English and many languages with less than 10,000 articles have a high depth count, despite having little content. However, a better suggestion is to use the average (mean) article size as depth, i.e. total article size divided by total number of articles. Johnny Au 21:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Large articles are not necessary more "in depth". InfoBoxes, long lists and categories would inflate the depth. Also, bots could inflate that metric with verbose text. If you are interested in "bytes per article" that information is already available. The current depth formula does a good job is measuring how much work was done per article (copy editting, tweaks, updates, photos, graphics, etc.) and we can assume that work improved the article's completeness. But a lot of the edits nowadays are the result of "interwiki links" and "vandalism". I am wondering if that is the reason English wikipedia has such a high depth. What is the depth if we cleaned the 4 inputs to the depth formula? --MarsRover 23:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem; the bytes per article for English had not been updated for over half a year. If there are too many lists, which make up the largest articles in terms of size, then this is not a good indicator of depth. My new suggestion for depth 2.0 is to use the old depth formula, but ignoring bot edits and vandalism/reverts. Johnny Au 02:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Where did the depth go? I don't see it anywhere. Afrikaans had such a high depth :/  — Adriaan (TC) 10:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Some frustrated people from fake wikipedias keep suppressing depth :-(

I have some suggestions for a new depth formula. From S23.org, I see a column called "stub ratio". I think it can be used as one of the factor of the depth. The new formula can be (Edits/Articles × Non-Articles/Articles)/(1 + stub ratio) . If the stub ratio is high, the depth will be lower. -- Kevinhksouth 17:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have included the depth column again with the new formula given above. Mutante 11:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but how is the stub ratio calculated at first, because this new formula gives to it a very important weight? Otherwise, I think it would be better to keep to the closest round number. And there are obvious problems: see Ripuarian for example...Benoni 12:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for accepting my suggestions. However, I think that at most 2 decimal places (or even just round number) is already okay for the table on List of Wikipedias. -- Kevinhksouth 15:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, round to a whole number. It a rough estimate so giving that level of precision is misleading. --MarsRover 03:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Please, round up. --Meldor 07:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a important attribute of "Depth 2.0" is to be bot-proof. Having a bot add "redirects" shouldn't increase the depth. MarsRover 03:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I have rounded to a whole number now, and the stub ratio is calculated as good/total. Addiotionally there was a bug in my script that resulted in ratio being 0. Now there should be accurate numbers. Mutante 16:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

And what is a "good" article when calculating the stub ratio? Benoni 22:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Technically spoken, "good" articles are pages, that are neither
  • redirects
  • discussion pages
  • image description pages
  • user profile pages
  • templates
  • help pages
  • portals
  • articles without links to other articles
  • pages for Wikipedia administration

RobiH 20:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MarsRover that, if the point of the depth parameter is measuring human activity (is it? should it be?), not simply total activity, then bot changes (adding redirects and interwiki links, correcting spelling mistakes, changing images to newer versions, etc.) shouldn't be counted. NB: how is the stub ratio calculated? I note that most of the articles on the Volapük Wikipedia are small summaries with only the most important information (surface, population, geographic coordinates) and little text; yet the Volapük stub ratio looks surprisingly low at only 0.75 (see the s23.org list). I'd have expected something around 0.94. Smeira 15:23, 10 October 2007.

Mutante, I still believe the Depth column would fit best right after the article count. Also, you forgot to dismiss irrelevant depths. By the way, I suggest changing the relevancy rule to:

if ($depth > 300 && $row['good'] < 100000) { $depth="--"; }

It is a more realistic cleanup. Note that it's 300 instead of 200 and 100 000 instead of 10 000.

Reasons for the suggested change:

  • it takes into account the current depth of the English Wikipedia (which is the best candidate as a inter-Wikipedia "frame of reference"); the best alternative would be a condition like "$depth >= $EnglishWikipediaDepth" instead of "$depth > 300"
  • the old limit had already been loose enough, so, considering the steady evolution of the article count of most Wikipedias, we now afford to set the limit to 100 000
  • all Wikipedias between 100 000 and 10 000 are almost never expected to exceed a depth of 100, let alone 300, so they won't be affected by the new formula anyway

Khenriksen 05:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"yet the Volapük stub ratio looks surprisingly low at only 0.75" Well, they surely forgot to put stub templates at the end of their articles :) Anyway, an article can be stub if missing crucial information, even beeing long (e.g. unfinished biographies). So stub ratio depend also on the sincerity of the editors. 21:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That is certainly true -- though I suppose there could be some pressure from other wikipedias for people to add stub templates to articles that don't satisfy certain criteria (which?). Anyway, I work on the Volapük wikipedia; we do have a stub template there ({{sid}}), but I stopped adding it to stubby articles because it had absolutely no effect on the autmoatic article count of the statistics page. Nothing I did ever prevented all new stubs from being counted as "good articles"; at one point I thought there was a page somewhere (on Meta?) where stub templates could be reported, and that this would affect the statistics pages on all wikipedias, but I never found such a page. Also, I frequently see "stubs" being defined more or less mechanically as "articles with less than X words" or "articles without links" -- I'm not sure that's a good idea. Mutante, do you take stub templates into account when doing calculations? Would there be a way to add this feature to your programs, or are you limited to system variables like good and articles? Smeira 02:25, 24 Oct 2007

Just implemented the "if ($depth > 300 && $row['good'] < 100000) { $depth="--"; }" line. Mutante 17:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool! As I explained above, probably it would be best to use something like "$EnglishWikipediaDepth" instead of 300, if easy to implement, but it's OK as it is, too. Thank you for your cooperation. ;) Khenriksen 04:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A problem with Depth 2.0?

Mutante and Kevinhksouth, I think there is a problem with the new formula: (Edits/Articles x Non-Articles/Articles)/(1+stub ratio). Since Mutante says stub ratio = good / total, then it really does not reflect the fraction of stubs, but the fraction of good articles in a Wikipedia. So a low stub ratio means many stubs and proportionally few good articles, and a high stub ratio means many good articles and proportionally few stubs. If this is so, then it seems the formula yields higher depth for Wikipedias with more stubs: many stubs => stub ratio (good/total) is small, i.e. close to 0 => 1 + good/total is close to 1 => the weight 1/(1+stub ratio) is close to 1, and depth 2.0 = depth 1.0; and few stubs => stub ratio (good/total) is large, i.e. close to 1 => 1 + stub ratio is close to 2 => the weight 1/(1+stub ratio) is close to 1/2, so depth 2.0 = 1/2 of depth 1.0. I.e., depth 2.0 tends towards 1/2 of depth 1.0 if there are few stubs, and it tends towards depth 1.0 if there are many stubs. So, as the number of stubs increases, depth 2.0 increases from 1/2 of depth 1.0 towards depth 1.0. Should depth 2.0 increase when the number of stubs increases? My intuitive expectation would be exactly the opposite. (This would be remedied by taking as the weight not 1/(1+stub ratio), but simply (1-stub ratio): i.e., make the formula be: (Edits/Articles x Non-Articles/Articles x (1-stub ratio)).) Smeira 15:21, 16 October 2007.

I changed the depth formula as suggested above, so 1-ratio at the end. Mutante 17:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The forumla and depth numbers on the table are out of whack. mr depth according to (Edits/Articles x Non-Articles/Articles x (1-stub ratio)) is ~16. The table says 26 16:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Uhm, well yeah it was $depth=($edits/$good*$nonarticles/$good)/(1-$ratio); :p, but i could swear i was told to enter it this way last time. Anyways, i changed that to $depth=$edits/$good*$nonarticles/$good*(1-$ratio); but now mr. depth is about 9 ?! [9] Mutante 19:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds right from the calcs. My previous calc used total/good instead of non-articles/good :) 22:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hm, with this definition the depth values end up looking a bit too high. Wouldn't it be a good idea to divide them by 10? It would just rescale the results, not change the order. Smeira 12:12, 19 October 2007.

I agree. It would be more readable.Benoni 22:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that we shouldn't divide depth by 10. The exaggerated depths you are talking about are irrelevant anyway so eliminating them (which has already been done) is more common sense than making them even more relevant than relevant by allowing them to influence all the other depths (the valid ones). Khenriksen 06:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I was actually talking about the upper part of the table: English with 2800, most others in the upper hundreds etc. It may be just aesthetical prejudice, but it seemed to me that keeping the values below 1000 by rescaling them -- without compromising their order, comparability, or information content -- would make them more readable. If most other people don't agree, that's OK, keep the old values, no big problem there. Smeira 02:30, 25 Oct 2007.
What the hell are you "actually" talking about? Are you sure you know what page you're talking about? When did you see depths above 1000 in the upper part of the table?
The problem had since been fixed. [10]. Try using the history page next time. Cheers. MarsRover 19:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I saw depths above 1000 in the upper part on 20 October, as MarsRover shows. But since then the depths have been divided by 10, so there is no longer a problem. No need to be so aggressive, nameless stranger. --Smeira 05:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Not-existent Wikipedias

Why listed not-existent Flemish and Pontic Wikipedias?!-- 05:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

West Flemish and Abkhaz deliver valid statistics. RobiH 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

mazandarani's articles

please count mazandarani's articles .

mzn is already included. RobiH 21:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
...that is an amazingly cool trick. Is there somewhere that these sorts of things are documented? EVula // talk // 21:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Percentage increase?

Hi, I read the stats with great interest, but I would be happy to have percentage increase in articles added. To have place for it one may remove total number of pages - as they are not that interesting, having articles is what is needed really. It is quite interesting to see how wiki's grow by average number of articles and this should be possible to integrate into the stats. Ulflarsen 12:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To calculate increases we would have to start collecting historic data, e.g. at least save the last update to compare to. Currently my script doesnt do that, but its planned. There are also graphical stats by Martin Kozák who saves data from my stats to create graphs. Mutante 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Page depth of Ripuarian Wikipedia

What does the page depth of the Ripuarian wikipedia (http://ksh.wikipedia.org) (= 2570) indicate? Is this is because of the huge number of the edits that wiki is having.

But I wonder how a wiki with only 271 users has more than 4 lakh edits. The number of images(42) are also less. I wonder whether there is any human activity happening in that wiki.

Is this is beacuse of the bot activity? In that case we should not include the edits by bots while calculating the page depth. If we are doing so there is no meaning in calculating the page depth.--Shijualex 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Why don't you go and have a look? Hillgentleman 06:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Ripuarian too is a reason to add the relevancy rule back to the depth formula and to update it (see my comments above). And it looks like it will soon pass the 10 000 limit.
Khenriksen 07:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is the bot activity that is increasing the number of edits. See the recent changes page http://ksh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Letzte_%C3%84nderungen (See the page with and without edits by the bots).

Today only 4 manual edits are there till this time. But the number of edits by bots are more than 1200!!

Also a huge number of stub articles are there. --Shijualex 08:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

pagedepth calaculation is too funny

The current pagedepth calaculation is too funny. Now the wikies with high number of articles (most of them stub atricles) got very high page deph!!!. (See the page depth of all wikies where the number of articles are less than 10,000). The smaller wikies with with less number of articles but higher number of edits and good encyclopaedic articles got less page depth.

I feel the earlier page depth calculation was far better than this calculation which depends only on the number of articles.

If this is the way the page depth calculation is going then the number of aricles field is more than enough to show the quality of wiki. -- 05:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Depth formula

What is the current depth formula? Borgx 14:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

if ($good==0) { $depth="-"; } else { $depth=$edits/$good*$nonarticles/$good*(1-$ratio);

if ($depth > 300 && $good < 100000) { $depth="--"; }

Mutante 11:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but how do you calculate $ratio, I mean there is no {{RATIO}}> keyword isn't? Borgx 00:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, Mutante said $ratio is good/total. I found it a bit misleading to call it "stub ratio"; it looks more like the "good article ratio". --Smeira 05:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
As Mutante says the stub-ratio is good/total. It is not the stub pages ratio, so it makes no sense in the depth formula:
(Edits/Articles) × (Non-Articles/Articles) × (1 − Stub-ratio) =
(Edits/good) × ((total-good)/good) × ((total-good)/total)
The Non-Articles are overvalued as they are included in two factors. --Vriullop 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
But where is the number of good article coming from?Benoni 23:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
From the raw statistics query (e.g. for de.wikipedia). Indeed total-good is overvalued. Depending on how much importance one wants to give to stubs, this may be good (depth will decrese inversely to the square of non-good/total = approx. fraction of stubs). I wonder then if it wouldn't be better to make the third factor the same as the second, i.e. either:
(edits/good) × ((total-good)/good))2
(edits/good) × ((total-good)/total))2.
Alternatively, I'm now wondering if it wouldn't be better to keep the two terms as independent measurements -- e.g. by putting edits/good and (total-good)/total in two different columns in the table. --Smeira 01:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)$
Now a different question: why is the first term edits/good rather than edits/total? Since the number of edits refers to all articles, not just good ones, edits/good is actually higher than the actual average number of edits per good article -- it is making them look like they were edited more often than they really were. --Smeira 01:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Common table

What about moving the table section to a common template used by all translations of this page? I think it's a bit difficult to upgrade all languages every time and most times it comports an out-of-date version of the page.--Iradigalesc 21:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do it. RobiH 08:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

How rename Tajik Wiki

Hi, Can anybody help for us? Problem: we want to rename the "tg.wikipedia.org" to "tj.wikipedia.org" because the short name of Tajikistan is "TJ". Thanks.

Tajik Wiki users 06:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

Hello, the ISO 639-1 for w:Tajik_language is tg not tj, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 07:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The codes for languages and the codes for countries differ: thus tg/tj, uk/ua, et/ee. Коды языков и коды стран могут отличаться: так таджикский и Таджикистан это tg/tj, украинский и Украина uk/ua, эстонский и Эстония et/ee. Поскольку речь о стандарте Международной организации по стандартам (ISO), сменить код языка невозможно (разве что через ISO). Slavik IVANOV

List of Wikipedias by sample of articles

The above is a new ranking of Wikipedias which I'm working on, based on the List of articles every Wikipedia should have. Would it be OK if I added a link to it to the content page here (under 'See also')? (Note that only the largest Wikipedias are listed thus far; the others are still being evaluated. Ultimately all of them should be there. My intention was to find an alternative to article count as a way of ranking and evaluating Wikipedias. Of course, there are also problems in the measure I propose there. I'd be thankful for any comments and insights.) --Smeira 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody has expressed any objections, I'll add a link to the content page. --Smeira 19:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Growth rate

Is there a way to add growth rate to this list? 17:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sub-groups of Language Wikis

Yesterday, German and French were in a separate category of Wikis of languages with more than 500,000 articles. I anticipated Japanese, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese would soon join that list, and possibly Polish and Dutch too. (Russian and Chinese would have to wait until Wiki enthusiasm takes off among speakers of those languages.) But today German and French are back in a list of "over 100,000." Why is that?


I request that Volapük be removed from this list. As it consists almost entirely of bot-created stubs, its listing as the "15th largest" Wikipedia is misleading. It is a special case and should be treated as such. It could be listed at the bottom with an explanation of why it is there. It has one contributor.--Jimbo Wales 23:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)