|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
amending title of our language
Hello. I guess it is a place to discuss all wikipedia projects. I have a question to you. when you visit wikipedia.org, main page, not wikipedia of any language, all available languages are listed there which wikipedia is available in. now, I am a native speaker of Turkmen language, I write on tk.wikipedia.org or on Turkmen wikipedia, I looked at main page, our language is not written in our Turkmen alphabet, can you change it? or who can change it? where I need to refer?
now, Turkmen is written: ركمن / Туркмен but, in our native language, in Turkmen, it needs to be written like this: Türkmençe please, correct it or tell me where I need to refer to. btw, ركمن / Туркмен is even not our alphabet, the first part is in persian alphabet and the second one is in russian alphabet. please, write it in Turkmen alphabet: Türkmençe
SVG with PNG fallback
Top 10 Criteria
What is the current method for choosing the top 10 on this page? I looked at Top Ten Wikipedias, but it's marked historical, and mainly a discussion page, so I was hoping someone could tell me the current status (for www.wikipedia.org in particular). Superm401 | Talk 22:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- "The status quo is to sort the languages by page views in the Top 10 ring and by number of articles on the rest of the page." (see documentation above, also www). PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
- I reiterate my frustration with "collapsed by default" sections. Even power-users regularly don't notice them, so how do we expect readers and newcomers to do so?! (I had to search around for a good 10 seconds before I realized what you were pointing to).
- The one on this page is particularly bad, as it can easily be mistaken for a green bottom-border, and the font is too small. Plus it has the usual problem with the [show] link that appears very similar (when visually skimming) to an  link, so can be too-easily ignored by the subconscious. (I should collate the years of grumbling about this, into an essay on mwo, or something). Quiddity (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Where is Dutch?
- @Ijon: the languages around the globe are determined by views per hour according to stats.wikimedia.org. PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ah! Good, that makes sense. It would be good, though, to explicitly state this (as small print, figuratively and possibly literally), on that page itself. I'm not involved with maintaining this page, nor am I an admin, so I'm not boldly Fixing It. Asaf Bartov (WMF Grants) talk 13:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I can not say that that assigning the 10 premium spots based on page views is fair. I understand the reason why to use this system; it is easy. But nevertheless; just look at Dutch as an example. 23 million native speakers of Dutch. And it is the 2the largest Wikipedia. English has 360 million native speakers. If you include the second language speakers some figures even say 1500 million for English.
Also Swedish (4th largest) is extremely large compared to there population of only around 9 million.
The accomplishments of some Wikipedia community's compared to there user base is nothing short of a miracle. But the can not hope to be rewarded, to shine, by getting one of the 10 places based on the number of page views if you are a small language.
This portal is nice but not really important from an operational point of view. It is not because an current Wikipedia listed here is removed from his spot users will have any trouble finding it. This portal is important to showcase the Wikipedia's to the world. I see no problem in using here an internal logic for assigning the premium spots.
Honor the language community Wikipedia's who despite there small native user base relatively speaking has done an exceptional work. And give those Wikipedia's, how obscure or exotic the also may be, one of the 10 premium spots. --Walter (talk) 22:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- The current policy is the result of a poll back in 2008. It could very well be time to revisit this decision. Feel free to start a new, community-wide discussion on this matter. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Walter, I'd say it only seems unfair if you misinterpret what that page is about. It is a portal, hence its layout is guided by the principle of maximizing utility, i.e. allowing the visitors to get to where they want to as efficiently as possible. In that light, it's perfectly clear how making the most accessible shortcuts those of the most visited wikipedias benefits the most people visiting the portal.
- In other words, you seem to assume that the page is a showcase aimed at rewarding the accomplishments of Wikipedias, but it is not. Even if it were, we'd have very unexpected results in the portal by using such a criterion (Volapük was a common example during the discussion in 2008). I strongly suggest you to take a look at the discussion from 2008 (not the poll, but the actual discussion with pros and cons of the various possible approaches, at Top Ten Wikipedias) and possibly reconsider your perspective.
- Minh Nguyễn, I do agree with Asaf Bartov that the criterion should be clear in the portal. How do you feel about adding such a small print? --Waldir (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
We already indicate the sorting method in HTML comments, for anyone interested enough to inspect the page's source code. You're welcome to improve the comments at /temp. But I would be against making that text visible. For starters, what language(s) should it be in? And any decent explanation will become a bit of a distraction. I view the sorting method as a political implementation detail, something that would only interest a tiny minority of the page's visitors. Perhaps we should measure major changes to the page by this simple rule of thumb: would the average visitor spend more (bad) or less (good) time on the page as a result of the change?
I would instead suggest that the article counts be removed from the top 10 or made to appear only on mouseover. Visitors can get a general sense of the article counts further down on the page and the exact counts on the respective wikis. As a happy side effect, removing the article counts would also make it much easier to maintain this portal.
- That's a great idea, removing the counts by default. That would make it less likely that people assume the entries around the globe are there because of the article count.
- I also agree that an (English, with translations) "About this page", or "About this portal" link in the bottom next to the ones already there, would be the ideal solution to the problem Asaf mentioned. This change should be fairly uncontroversial, so I assume we can move ahead with it if nobody expresses any objections. As for the first change, it might be worth opening up a separate thread to discuss specifically that suggestion, since it'd be a major change.
- Even better: as a third way, aiming to solve both problems at once (misdirection about article count being the criterion, and lack of clarity that view count is the criterion) we could, instead of removing that line, replace it by the latest views/hour count. (Plus, we could display the view count in the tooltips of the entries in the 1M+ section, to make it even clearer why some of those --like Dutch-- aren't around the globe. How's that sound? --Waldir (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don't think it would be practical to include page view statistics anywhere on the page (other than in comments). Any statistics would have to be updated manually, because the page is nothing but static HTML, mostly for performance reasons. Even if the developers were to agree to make the page dynamic, the statistics themselves are only updated monthly. I also know of no other major website that displays the equivalent of a hit counter; we'd open ourselves up to charges of navel-gazing. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Show top ten based on geolocation?
Currently, the top ten spots on the portal are listed based on number of page views total, from all users around the world. Anyone know whether it would be possible to specifically display those Wikipedias that are most viewed in the location of the reader? --Yair rand (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2014 (UTC)