Talk:List of Wikipedias/Archive 1

Add topic
Active discussions

This is an archived discussion page. Do not add any new comments to this page. Add them to the current talk page.

current talk page | next archive


Older discussionEdit

Hey, hey, hey, can we get the links to the language descriptions back?

- Josh


Hello

I am a user of the Dutch wikipedia

And I don't understand: In these list of 185 languages, aren't all the languages of future wikipedias.

Example: Kikuyu, Karuni are not on the list, but I try to put Kiribati on the list, and by "ki" I see the future Kikuyu wikipedia, and by "kr", I see the future Karuni(or something) Wikipedia.

I will start with a Kiribati Wikipedia. You can help? And please, make these list complete with other languages, whose allready are as a future Wikipedia.

And... sorry for my bad English.

Greets, the Belgian Cars en Travel, who works for the Nauruan, Dutch, English and French Wiki.


81.164.230.206 14:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Hello,

I'm Kostik from Russia. I help to Russian and Esperanto wikipedias, and now I'd like to start also Buriat wikipedia, though I myself don't speak the language, but it's near to me (geographically).

So, what am I to do? In Esperanto wikipedia they say I should ask you to launch the new language version. So, I do. The language name is Buriat, ISO-code is bua.

I can tell about this new wikipedia in a Buriat community, so that they can do the job on translating etc. As original help files they can use also Russian versions.

Best regards or what it should be written in such cases I don't remember so I'm just sorry.

195.239.175.246 20:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Limburgish wikiEdit

Well, I see you updated somenthing in this list. Maybe you can upgrade the number of articles in the Limburgish Wikipedia as well. When I last checked it (a few minutes ago) there where no less than 55 articles, slightly more than the 18 you list here. The only sysop of the Limburgish wiki is abroad now for half a year, so he asked me to look after it. Thanks in advance.

Breton wikiEdit

The Breton Wikipedia was listed too low. It does not contain 22 articles, but as many as 70. Very probably, the compiler of this list was misled by the date this Wikipedia was created 22 something 2004 (I can't read Breton either). That is why re-placed it on the list--Caesarion 18:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops, that was my fault. Indeed, I was probably reading the date. TUF-KAT 21:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NumbersEdit

Just to make it easier to read the numbers on certain language wikis:

Standard numerals
٠ 0
١ 1
٢ 2
٣ 3
٤ 4
٥ 5
٦ 6
٧ 7
٨ 8
٩ 9
Persian numerals
۰ 0
۱ 1
۲ 2
۳ 3
۴ 4
۵ 5
۶ 6
۷ 7
۸ 8
۹ 9
Devanagari numerals
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Gujarati numerals
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Numerals 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Telugu
Kannada
Malayalam
Bengali
Tibetan
Khmer
Lao
Numerals 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Sign LanguagesEdit

Has anybody ever thought about providing a Wikipedia in one or other sign language? Not a trivial matter, that's for sure, but a very interesting and rewarding project it seems to me. Just to start a discussion. Greetings, Adri.

That's hardly needed, as people who speak sign language, use the same system of writing... -sterio
Yes, but most people who speak Welsh also speak English. Signed languages are languages entirely independent of the local spoken language -- American Sign Language has a very different grammar and different idioms from English. Although in Western nations, most deaf people are literate inthe local spoken language, this is not true in countries such as China and India, where there are millions of speakers of Chinese Sign Language and Indian Sign Language respectively, many of whom live in towns or communal farms of deaf people and most cannot read a spoken language. --Node ue

BengaliEdit

What does "no actual content" mean?

This means the articles exists but there is just no text readable after the title of the article, this happens when users edit new pages for all articles possible without putting any article like descriptions below the title. Hence, the no actual content mention. Lincher 11:54, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

VANDALEdit

There is extreme vandal on gn: and tlh: that people should look at. Lincher 12:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

TahitianEdit

Although I do not understand Tahitian, I have the impression that there are at least 3 pges (not counting the initial one) in this language (wiki: ty). Can somebody check on this and change it? 62.56.224.133 11:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Norwegian Bokmal vs NorskEdit

I just noticed that nb: (Norwegian/Bokmål), listed in the Canonical language list, merely redirects to no: (Norwegian/Norsk). - dcljr 06:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. It does and it's a matter of megabytes of discussion on :no. Just briefly: "nb" stands for Norwegian Bokmål, "nn" stands for Norwegian Nynorsk, and "no" stands for just Norwegian (=norsk). The two former are the two official written standards of Norwegian, which is the name of the spoken language (no) with about 200 discernible dialect variants. Ask a user of either written standard, and they will tend to say they write "norsk". However, the morphologic, syntactic and semantic differences between the two are considerable. An analogy to describe the differences for somebody who writes English would be the difference between Lowland Scots and English.
Ninety per cent or so uses bokmål and about 10 per cent uses nynorsk. The nynorsk wikipedia was started in July last year. Up until then "no" had been accepting any standard, but bokmål was in reality the most represented language there. Many felt that there was a need for a nynorsk wikipedia due to the differences in the language. It has proved a very successful wikipedia with many people who previously didn't feel at home in the mainly bokmål :no joining. This has left no: as the de facto bokmål Wikipedia. The language policy of pre-Nynorsk Wikipedia days has remained, however, and we are currently having polls and trying to stake out the course ahead. The code "nb" may or may not be a part of a future solution, and I think its best left alone for now. You can read more about the situation in the working document for Skanbot. Bjarte 01:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Point of this pageEdit

What is the point of this page? We have both the list (which is also manually updated; if less people worked on this we might have more developers) and the statistics on other pages. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 10:12, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

The list I am referring to is the template Template:Active Wikipedias:


Acèh (ace) · Ænglisc (ang) · Afrikaans (af) · Akan (ak) · Alemannisch (als) · anarâškielâ (smn) · aragonés (an) · armãneashti (roa-rup) · arpetan (frp) · asturianu (ast) · Atikamekw (atj) · Avañe'ẽ (gn) · Aymar aru (ay) · azərbaycanca (az) · Banjar (bjn) · Bahasa Hulontalo (gor) · Bahasa Indonesia (id) · Bahasa Melayu (ms) · bamanankan (bm) · Bân-lâm-gú (zh-min-nan) · Basa Bali (ban) · Basa Banyumasan (map-bms) · Bikol Central (bcl) · Bislama (bi) · Boarisch (bar) · bosanski (bs) · brezhoneg (br) · català (ca) · Cebuano (ceb) · čeština (cs) · Chamoru (ch) · Chavacano de Zamboanga (cbk-zam) · Chi-Chewa (ny) · chiShona (sn) · chiTumbuka (tum) · corsu (co) · Cymraeg (cy) · dansk (da) · davvisámegiella (se) · Deitsch (pdc) · Deutsch (de) · Diné bizaad (nv) · dolnoserbski (dsb) · Dorerin Naoero (na) · eesti (et) · emiliàn e rumagnòl (eml) · English (en) · español (es) · Esperanto (eo) · estremeñu (ext) · euskara (eu) · eʋegbe (ee) · lea faka-Tonga (to) · Fiji Hindi (hif) · føroyskt (fo) · français (fr) · Frysk (fy) · Fulfulde (ff) · furlan (fur) · Gaeilge (ga) · kriyòl gwiyannen (gcr) · Gaelg (gv) · Gagana Samoa (sm) · Gagauz (gag) · Gàidhlig (gd) · galego (gl) · Gĩkũyũ (ki) · Hausa (ha) · Hawaiʻi (haw) · hornjoserbsce (hsb) · hrvatski (hr) · Ido (io) · Igbo (ig) · Ilokano (ilo) · interlingua (ia) · Interlingue (ie) · Iñupiak (ik) · isiXhosa (xh) · isiZulu (zu) · íslenska (is) · italiano (it) · Jawa (jv) · Kabɩyɛ (kbp) · kalaallisut (kl) · Kapampangan (pam) · kaszëbsczi (csb) · kernowek (kw) · Ikinyarwanda (rw) · ikirundi (rn) · Kiswahili (sw) · Kongo (kg) · Kotava (avk) · Kreyòl ayisyen (ht) · kurdî (ku) · Ladin (lld) · Ladino (lad) · latgaļu (ltg) · Latina (la) · latviešu (lv) · Lëtzebuergesch (lb) · Li Niha (nia) · lietuvių (lt) · Ligure (lij) · Limburgs (li) · lingála (ln) · Lingua Franca Nova (lfn) · livvinkarjala (olo) · la .lojban. (jbo) · Luganda (lg) · lombard (lmo) · Madhurâ (mad) · magyar (hu) · Malagasy (mg) · Malti (mt) · Māori (mi) · Minangkabau (min) · Mìng-dĕ̤ng-ngṳ̄ (cdo) · Mirandés (mwl) · Na Vosa Vakaviti (fj) · Nāhuatl (nah) · Napulitano (nap) · Nederlands (nl) · Nedersaksies (nds-nl) · Nēhiyawēwin / ᓀᐦᐃᔭᐍᐏᐣ (cr) · Nordfriisk (frr) · Norfuk / Pitkern (pih) · norsk bokmål (nb) · norsk nynorsk (nn) · Nouormand (nrm) · Novial (nov) · oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча (uz) · occitan (oc) · Oromoo (om) · Pälzisch (pfl) · Pangasinan (pag) · Papiamentu (pap) · Patois (jam) · Picard (pcd) · Piemontèis (pms) · Plattdüütsch (nds) · polski (pl) · português (pt) · Qaraqalpaqsha (kaa) · qırımtatarca (crh) · reo tahiti (ty) · Ripoarisch (ksh) · română (ro) · romani čhib (rmy) · rumantsch (rm) · Runa Simi (qu) · Sängö (sg) · sardu (sc) · Scots (sco) · Seeltersk (stq) · Sakizaya (szy) · Seediq (trv) · Sesotho sa Leboa (nso) · Sesotho (st) · Setswana (tn) · shqip (sq) · sicilianu (scn) · Simple English (simple) · SiSwati (ss) · slovenčina (sk) · slovenščina (sl) · ślůnski (szl) · Soomaaliga (so) · Sranantongo (srn) · srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски (sh) · Sunda (su) · suomi (fi) · svenska (sv) · Tagalog (tl) · Taqbaylit (kab) · tarandíne (roa-tara) · tetun (tet) · Thuɔŋjäŋ (din) · Tiếng Việt (vi) · Tok Pisin (tpi) · Tsetsêhestâhese (chy) · Tshivenda (ve) · Türkçe (tr) · Türkmençe (tk) · Twi (tw) · Vahcuengh (za) · vèneto (vec) · vepsän kel’ (vep) · Volapük (vo) · võro (fiu-vro) · walon (wa) · West-Vlams (vls) · Winaray (war) · Wolof (wo) · Xitsonga (ts) · Yorùbá (yo) · Zazaki (diq) · Zeêuws (zea) · žemaitėška (bat-smg) · Ελληνικά (el) · Ποντιακά (pnt) · авар (av) · адыгабзэ (ady) · адыгэбзэ (kbd) · алтай тил (alt) · аԥсшәа (ab) · башҡортса (ba) · беларуская (be) · беларуская (тарашкевіца) (be-tarask) · буряад (bxr) · български (bg) · гӀалгӀай (inh) · ирон (os) · коми (kv) · къарачай-малкъар (krc) · кыргызча (ky) · кырык мары (mrj) · қазақша (kk) · лакку (lbe) · лезги (lez) · македонски (mk) · мокшень (mdf) · монгол (mn) · нохчийн (ce) · олык марий (mhr) · перем коми (koi) · русиньскый (rue) · русский (ru) · саха тыла (sah) · словѣньскъ / ⰔⰎⰑⰂⰡⰐⰠⰔⰍⰟ (cu) · српски / srpski (sr) · татарча/tatarça (tt) · тоҷикӣ (tg) · тыва дыл (tyv) · удмурт (udm) · українська (uk) · хальмг (xal) · чӑвашла (cv) · эрзянь (myv) · հայերեն (hy) · Արեւմտահայերէն (hyw) · მარგალური (xmf) · ქართული (ka) · 𐌲𐌿𐍄𐌹𐍃𐌺 (got) · अवधी (awa) · कॉशुर / کٲشُر (ks) · नेपाल भाषा (new) · नेपाली (ne) · पालि (pi) · भोजपुरी (bh) · डोटेली (dty) · गोंयची कोंकणी / Gõychi Konknni (gom) · मैथिली (mai) · मराठी (mr) · संस्कृतम् (sa) · हिन्दी (hi) · অসমীয়া (as) · বিষ্ণুপ্রিয়া মণিপুরী (bpy) · বাংলা (bn) · ਪੰਜਾਬੀ (pa) · ગુજરાતી (gu) · ଓଡ଼ିଆ (or) · தமிழ் (ta) · తెలుగు (te) · ಕನ್ನಡ (kn) · ತುಳು (tcy) · മലയാളം (ml) · සිංහල (si) · ꯃꯤꯇꯩ ꯂꯣꯟ (mni) · ᱥᱟᱱᱛᱟᱲᱤ (sat) · ཇོང་ཁ (dz) · བོད་ཡིག (bo) · ไทย (th) · ລາວ (lo) · ភាសាខ្មែរ (km) · ဘာသာ မန် (mnw) · မြန်မာဘာသာ (my) · ᨅᨔ ᨕᨘᨁᨗ (bug) · ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး (shn) · ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ/inuktitut (iu) · ᏣᎳᎩ (chr) · ትግርኛ (ti) · አማርኛ (am) · 한국어 (ko) · 日本語 (ja) · 中文 (zh) · 文言 (zh-classical) · 吴语 (wuu) · 客家語/Hak-kâ-ngî (hak) · 粵語 (zh-yue) · 贛語 (gan) · ייִדיש (yi) · עברית (he) · اردو (ur) · العربية (ar) · الدارجة (ary) · پښتو (ps) · سرائیکی (skr) · سنڌي (sd) · پنجابی (pnb) · فارسی (fa) · گیلکی (glk) · مازِرونی (mzn) · مصرى (arz) · تۆرکجه (azb) · لۊری شومالی (lrc) · ئۇيغۇرچە / Uyghurche (ug) · کوردی (ckb) · ܐܪܡܝܐ (arc) · ދިވެހިބަސް (dv) · ߒߞߏ (nqo) · +/-

Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 10:16, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/Sitemap.htm The wikistats page wasn't updated for months after the last Christmas. Also, it doesn't analyze, how many articles in the smallest Wikipedias are in a wrong language or blanked. I also think that this page is easier to read than the template above. But it was new to me that anyone can edit that template. -Hapsiainen 15:39, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
My comment on that is that many people who update this list are not real developpers and do that to reduce work on their hands and in that matter, giving them more time for real developper work. Lincher 01:22, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian wiki on first pageEdit

The main page that opens when you enter wikipedia.org includes links to the wikis in different languages that count above 100 articles. The Macedonian wiki counts 232 articles at present but still isn't included in the 100+ articles section. Can anyone help? Ivica83 15:29, 6 Apr 2005

I've asked it on Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template. --Puzzlet Chung 15:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mucho renamingEdit

This page has been renamed so often, the "What links here" is getting a little messy. - dcljr 08:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed the double redirects, single redirects are no big problem.--Patrick 09:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


TestEdit

  1. Ossetian (Ирон æвзаг) - os - 1045 articles Statistics page malfunctions. See AllPages (no actual content)
  2. Ossetian (Ирон æвзаг) - os
  3. Scottish Gaelic (Gàidhlig) - gd - 1034 articles
The no actual content goes to the fact that WP that don't have more than 50% of their info being other than bot entered duplicates of dates or are only stub compared to what stubs would be on big WP. This mention will be removed as soon as the languages made substantial changes to their languages and show interesting information instead of stylised pages containing no encyclopaedic information. 24.201.116.26 01:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
You are not even a registered member (~ community member) to decide. ;)
What's your real motive? Why don't you fight the year stubs at fy:, ru:, uk: or others? They have them much down the year 1300 which is our last at the Ossetian WP. - Slavik IVANOV 07:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Slightly active ?Edit

Hi,

I think the "Slightly active" list should start at 10 articles. It is quite clear that Pali and Lao (as an example) with 2 articles are inactive. Yann 19:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree because some new wikis only get an article by month meaning they are slightly active. Because it is an arbitrary choice, i removed the mention added. Lincher 22:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
An article a month ? Then these wikis should be over 10 articles. I don't understand how a wiki with 2 articles can be considered "Slightly active". It doesn't make sense. Yann 22:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

French / English SwitchEdit

Is there a reason I'm not seeing why currently French is showing as 607K articles and English is 122K? Those two should be switched, right?

Article number sectionsEdit

Is it really necessary to have that many article number sections for > 10,000?

Test WikipediasEdit

Today by chance the line "complete list of all 206 [Wikipedias]" caught my eye. I was pretty sure we have "only" 205 at the present moment. So I added up the various sections and the result was ... 206! It took me a few minutes to find the reason. Someone had added the Banyumasan test Wikipedia to the list. IMHO, test WPs should not be listed among the regular ones. So I made a new separate section for them (not sure if it's complete). Arbeo 14:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

There are several others (including Venet) listed at Test-wp. I agree that they shouldn't be listed with the regular wikipedias, because, apart from anything else, they don't have the same system of counting articles. Some, like Banyumasan, are probably nearly ready to go public, but others are just in the early stages of testing, so I didn't add them to the list. Chamdarae 09:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
The Norman Wikipedia looks great and has (right now) 140 articles (many which are extensive, and most with illustrations or images)—that's more articles than 43% of the "real" Wikipedias. We haven't been able to get the attention of a developer to make the full Wikipedia, however. Jade Knight 01:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Here is a list of Test Wikipedias for languages that have been approved, categorized by size, if anyone is interested. Jade Knight 06:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia frontpageEdit

Tamil wikipedia has 790+ articles currently, but it is not mentioned at http://wikipedia.org Can someone add it so that it gets the necessary visibility on its way to 1000+ articles? -- Sundar 09:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Check again - it's 7th on the list of wikipedias with 100+ articles, but I guess it'll move up pretty soon anyway.

Thanks. Now it has 1000+ articles, please promote it accordingly. -- Sundar 07:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

InupiakEdit

Inupiak-wiki turned alive, has now about 4 articles.

Qualifying article countsEdit

I see that notes have been added in parenthesis qualifying the types on articles on the Wikipedias available so I've begun writing notes on the English one and perhaps the other larger ones as well. Please help by adding notes whenever you find articles with little content on the English Wikipedia. Thank you. 211.58.237.50 03:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC) Wow, this is great having comments next to the article numbers. I'm really getting into this. Capital idea started by ip# 67.65.20.222. 211.58.237.50 03:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Too much info to see on the pages, just looking at numbers is enough for ppl that want to have a look at wikipedia's progression. 24.201.116.26 17:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the "all articles" link? 80.185.145.104 11:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

In some small wikis it's the only way to see how many articles they have because their article-counter ({{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}) is broken. - dcljr 22:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

More subcatagoriesEdit

Why don't we add more subcatagories? Say, 25k and 100k? This might encourage editors in languages other than english to keep extending their encyclopaedias? Just a thought :) 64.231.39.170 05:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. I would suggest: 1M, 500K, 200K, 100K, 50K, 20K, 10K, 5K, 2K, 1K, 500, 200, 100 and even 50, 20, 10.

Much too many classes! I see only one additionnal relevant subcategory for the 3000 articles milestone which splits nicely the very long class for 1000+ articles into two milestones (both lists for 1000+ and 3000+ containing roughly as many languages, around 30 each.
The 1M milestone, for English only, makes no sense: 1 title for only 1 line in the table, this does not really help the reading, and the layout of the page where the focus should be on locating languages easily, when 100M+ and 1M+ would fit into the same class with 10 languages. This would not change the order of appearance of English in the list, but it makes things more readable, with all classes containing about 30 languages each, except the first one for 100M+ containing the 10 languages selected on the www.wikipedia.org home page.
I have tested the 3K+ milestone since many months and this division is really stable, and makes more comprehensive sublists of languages, simply because it is a geometric progression.
Before adding many milestone, consider the geometric progression (by a nearly constant multiplication factor) and not the arithmetic one (for submilestones), so I would use these:
10+, 30+, 100+, 300+, 1K+, 3K+, 10K+, 30K+, 100K+, 300K+. For now, there's not any need of the 1M milestone on this page (this 1M milestone is only for news and press releases, on separate pages more appropriate for discussing and promoting milestones). My opinion is that using only and every 10^n milestones is not very appropriate for reading the page. 86.221.101.95 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

NumberingEdit

It would be helpful to have a continuous numbering of Wikipedias (not as now when each subcategory begins with No.1). --Eleassar 11:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm doing it.--Jérôme 14:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
It is making the list very awkward. Lincher 02:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Ilokano WikipediaEdit

For some reason the Ilokano Wikipedia can't be linked even though it exists. --Harvzsf 05:39, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That sometimes happens immediately after a new wiki is created. Ever if normal interwiki links don't work, you can still use a normal external link. In a little while, they'll begin working. Tuf-Kat 07:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This list distortsEdit

Yes it does. A lot of Wikipedias look big but are extremely poor in content. They create all of the Gregorian calendar years and days with an article robot, which are subsequently left empty and give no single information. Just try some Wikipedias that have grown explosively in the last few weeks. I think we should make that clear on the list. Caesarion Velim, non opto 11:52, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's bad to create lots of stubs, also the automatic ones, in a newly created Wikipedia. That helps much the newcomers: they come, see a stub and feel like adding something to it. As for years, when a structure exists, a new user can easyly add new information into it. A good point is not to segregate "good" wikipedias from the "bad" ones, but we might instead introduce a column more: the average number of edits per article ;) It could show well, how much an average article is ellaborated, and do it without calling names. What do you think? The average edits/article is on every Wikipedia's Statistics page. — Slavik IVANOV 08:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd be rather in favour of displaying the average article size of a Wikipedia, if that is possible. Caesarion Velim, non opto 13:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe mentioning the quantity of non-stub articles would be another idea to ponder on to show the real values of the article quality of each WP. 24.201.116.26 23:21, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
1) Average article size for a smaller Wikipedia might be large enough because of scanned texts out of copyright. I would estimate higher the smaller-sized but actual articles created inside of the project.
2) Quantity of stub/non-stub articles is absolutely non-neutral, for it can't be counted by a program. The edits-per-page number is automatically created and easily taken at the Statistics page of any Wikipedia. - Slavik IVANOV 23:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Slavik, this is largely an oratio pro domo, but let us face my particular concern: I am a frequent contributor to the Limburgic Wikipedia. Now we are listed 73rd or even lower. Above us on the list there are numerous Wikipedias with more articles but with MUCH LESS content. I could have spent my time on writing lots of stubs instead and we'd be working on perhaps 5,000 articles now, but I chose to write longer articles which tell a lot about the subject; a lot more than other Wikipedias do. And to be sure, we wrote all of it ourselves or translated it. There are no Limburgic encyclopaedias other than li.wikipedia, so we could not possibly scan one single letter. Caesarion Velim, non opto 10:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I would be in favor of another list with the actual number of words in the database as well. That's usually a better indicator than number of edits because a lot of edits come as a result of edit wars, and a lot of smaller wikipedias don't have that as they often just translate articles that are already stable from the English or Simple English Wikipedia. A good wikipedia should have a few people doing everything though; some won't write articles for dates because it's too mind-numbingly boring while others don't mind. Then there's also usage of templates and whatnot, that sort of thing never gets recorded. Mithridates 12:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Neapolitan WikipediaEdit

The Neapolitan Wikipedia tripled in size today; approximately 1,000 articles (one for each year 1 – 1000 AD) were created/imported. None of these new articles seem to have any encyclopedic content. I moved the Neapolitan Wikipedia to the 1,000+ section and created a note next to its article count for the time being. –Swid 16:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, this was exactly what I meant when I opened the "this list distorts" topic... Caesarion Velim, non opto 18:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Please bring back the wikipedias with more than 50,000 articles grouping.

OghamEdit

Why doesn't someone make a Wikipedia in Ogham? We've got one in Gothic, so why not Ogham? -- 19:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Font problems, infinite. The Gothic Wikipedia never got beyond 10 articles. I can't read Gothic letters and I can't get the characters on my screen, otherwise I'd certainly have concurred. But why don't you propose an Archaic Irish Wikipedia yourself? (Btw little change that it will be approved, due to lack of vocabularly - better try Old Irish) Caesarion 20:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
No doubt you were aware that Ogham is the name of a script, not a specific language... Til Eulenspiegel 17:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I am (or are you addressing infinite?), and I think Infinite means "a Wikipedia in Ogham Irish". Caesarion 17:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Another argument against it is that there is virtually no literature in Primitive Irish. The Ogham inscriptions consist almost entirely of names; I don't think we have a single verb attested in any Ogham inscription. At best, there could be a Wikipedia in Old Irish (using the Roman alphabet). --Angr 18:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
We have a few verbs attested in it, but indeed you cannot make a language of it but by thorough linguistic reconstruction. Old Irish is a different story. Caesarion 22:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

DarnEdit

It looks like Swid and I were both working on 100+ simultaneously, but he beat me by 5 minutes. Since we both got exactly the same results, the only change I made to show up was a comment added to Sunda... Til Eulenspiegel 16:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

en-B, et. al.Edit

I find it hard to believe that there aren't any wikis available in en-B, my native language.

EsperantoEdit

Wait, you remove Klingon for not being a real language but you keep Esperanto? It's a constructed language to...

What do you propose? :) Klingon is not a universal language, it's fictional, limited purpose language, while Esperanto is universal and has information on most topics. That's why Esperanto wikipedia is so large and is in the list. - Slavik IVANOV 22:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Erm, Esperanto is hardly "universal". It may have aimed to be a grand international language, but it has turned into a hobby shared by a small group of enthusiasts, with no communities speaking it. It once had the chance of getting recognition of some kind with the UN but blew that. It's also splintered - as these things do - and has gone the way of Volapuk.

Other languages on the frontEdit

On the very front at www.wikipedia.org there is the following:

Other languages • Weitere Sprachen • 他の言語 • Kompletna lista języków • 其他语言 • Aliaj lingvoj • 다른 언어 • Ngôn ngữ khác

English (1st place), German (2nd place), Japanese (4th place), Polish (5th place), Chinese (11th place), Esperanto (16th place), Korean (25th place), Vietnamese (47th place). What's the reason for choosing these? I don't get the logic behind it. Mithridates 23:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I must own up to this. I chose them because they were the only "other language" pages that I could find at the time. If more of the top 10 languages have created such pages, then they should be listed here, possibly replacing lower ranked languages. GeorgeStepanek 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge w/ list of largest wikisEdit

I do not think that the way it had been made reflects all the languages that wikipedia has. Lincher 16:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

How to add new code PT-BR as in WikiPedia ?Edit

Hi!

In BABEL of WikiTree only PT code is available ?

Portuguese has diferences between Portugal and Brazil where PT code is correct for original Portuguese (from Portugal)...

How to add PT-BR code for "Portuguese (Brasil)" as existing in WikiPedia preferences of user ?

Thanks Morais (Brasil)

If you haven't ran across it yet, I think you'll find the commentary archived at Requests for new languages/Denied useful. –Swid 21:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Whats the trouble with the Kölsch Wikipedia?Edit

I see that as of today, the Kölsch unofficial Wikipedia have over 1600 real articles, and is growing rapidly.

It seems that this Wikipedia is much more established than tens of Wikipedias that figure on the 200 + official list.

So WHY is the Kölsch Wikipedia still regarded as an unoficial and experimental wikipedia?

Togrim 2006-01-29 (user of the Nuwiggin Wikipedia)

And today, over 1700 ... Togrim 2006-01-30
Today, 1862 articles ... Togrim 2006-01-31
Could you please give a link to those wikipedias? I'm really not sure what you are taling about. Blockinblox 20:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Not "THOSE" wikipedias, only ONE: Wikoelsch. Its on the meta page, Test Wikipedia no 10:
  Test Wikipedias
  1. Banyumasan - bdf - statistics - all articles
  2. Bolgar (Болгар) - bol - statistics - all articles
  3. Cantonese (粵語) - zh-yue
  4. Chinuk Wawa - wawa
  5. Dutch Low Saxon - nds-nl
  6. Ladin (Dolomitan Ladin) - lld
  7. Middle English (Middle Englisce) - enm
  8. Murciano - mur
  9. Novial - nov
 10. Ripuarian languages (incl. Kölsch) - WiKoelsch - statistics - all articles
More than 1900 articles, last time i checked ... Togrim, 2006-02-01
Here's the links directly to the Kölsh stats page and WiKölsh front page with content about article counts as of today 2006-02-02: http://wikoelsch.dergruenepunk.de/index.php/Spezial:Statistics


Statistik aus WiKoelsch, der freien Wissensdatenbank Seitenstatistik

Es gibt insgesamt 7141 Seiten in der Datenbank. Das schliesst "Diskussion"-Seiten, Seiten über WiKoelsch, extrem kurze Artikel, Weiterleitungen und andere Seiten ein, die nicht als Artikel gelten können. Diese ausgenommen, gibt es 1911 Seiten, die als Artikel gelten können.

Es wurden insgesamt 75109× Seiten aufgerufen, und 9783× Seiten bearbeitet. Daraus ergeben sich 1,37 Bearbeitungen pro Seite, und 7,68 Betrachtungen pro Bearbeitung.

http://wikoelsch.dergruenepunk.de/index.php/Houpsick

WiKoelsch — Wikkipedija op Ripoarisch

• Ööscher Platt • Bönnsch • Eschwiele Platt • Kirchröadsj • Kölsch • Nüüßer Platt • Sieshburjer Platt • Trooßdoorfer Platt • Vüürjeberschßplatt • WiKoelsch is en Testwikki för dä Möshlishkejte vun en ripoarische Wikkipdija ußzeloote. Jenaueres öwwer dä Hingerjründ iss em Arschiiv ze finge. Dä Aandraach op en Ripoarisch Wikkipedija ees jenemisch wudde un löß sich hee finge. Onß Strattejie för dat Jedöns klaa ze krijje könne mer heä zesammebaaßtele. Wi en Ripoarisch Wikkipedia heijße sull dum_mer hee beklaafe.

De Ripoarisch Testwikki hätt jez jrad janz jenau 1911 Atikkele övver Stėchwööt. Aanjefange ham_mer em Aujußß 2005. Im Interwikki-Verjleish eßß dat Plaatz 71 funn 212 Wikkipedijas, zweshe dä Shprooche Tamil (தமிழ்) op de eijn Sigg_unn Tshavash (Чăваш чěлхи) op de annder.

As they state, IF they were on the meta list, they oughta be no 71 now. (My comment: Well, really at no 70, as it seems that Neapolitan hasnt really passed 1000 articles in actual content.)
So I repeat my q: Whats wrong with Kölsh? Nothing wrong said about lingos with 2 or even 0 articles which are on the meta list. However, Kölsh, which has gone up like a rocket for the last coupla months, and will be passing 2000 articles one of these days, is NOT on the list.
Can somebody in the know answer a stupid nuwiggin: WHY? Togrim 2006-02-02
The people who frequent the Approved requests for new languages should be able to answer your questions as to why this particular Wikipedia hasn't been created yet. –Swid 16:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe my english is not clear enough or maybe there are some other communication problems? This Kölsch Wikipedia IS created. It has at present 1930 real articles, 45 users and several editors. My question is WHY IS IT NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST OF WIKIPEDIAS? Why is it still classed as a "trial wikipedia"? Togrim 2006-02-04
It's because the Kölsch Wikipedia is not (yet) hosted on a Wikimedia server. Once it's transferred to a wikipedia.org URL, the Kölsch Wikipedia will be added to this list. I do not know which Wikimedia users have the ability to create previously-approved Wikipedias and transfer information from the "test" Wikipedias, but if you would like help on finding these users, leave a message on my talk page and I will be glad to assist you. –Swid 22:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
That will be our hugely overworked and underappreciated developers. I would try talking to Brion as a first step. GeorgeStepanek 01:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Clarification: The Kölch test-Wikipedia is not an officially hosted Test-wiki, unlike several of ther others listed on the approved languages list. However, none of the languages listed there (some of which have been waiting longer than Ripuarian) have seen any developer attention. Jade Knight 06:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)



This is an archived discussion page. Do not add any new comments to this page. Add them to the current talk page.

current talk page | next archive

Return to "List of Wikipedias/Archive 1" page.