Jump to content

Template talk:Main Page interwikis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kurdî/Kurdish

[edit]

Please add Kurdî main page languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.165.67.152 (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nynorsk

[edit]

{{editprotected}} Nynorsk Wikipedia (a.k.a. nn:) passed 20 000 articles yesterday, so it should be included here. Jon Harald Søby 22:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's already on Template:Wikipedialang. Proto::► 18:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki links: 

[[ca:Plantilla:Portada interwikis]]
[[es:Plantilla:Portada:Interwikis]]
[[ia:Patrono:Altere paginas principal]]

Thank you in advance, Julian 06:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dragons flight 06:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

How does the link to the Complete List (of Wikipedias) I can see on the Main Page work? I couldn't find it anywhere... (I'm just curious how this works :)) --Church of emacs 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an explanation at Wikipedia:Main Page FAQ#How do you put the "Complete list" link at the end of the interwikis?. - BanyanTree 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks for your help :) --Church of emacs 12:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to use that stuff. I want to apply it to the Malay Wikipedia, as I'm an administrator there. Thank you. --Edmund the King of the Woods! 20:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Double Newari

[edit]

On the Main Page there are two links to Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia. I guess one is superfluous. --xRiffRaffx 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Dragons flight 22:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for introducing this error. —David Levy 23:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

{{editprotected}}
Please add [[th:template:หน้าหลัก-ลิงก์ข้ามภาษา]] link to the same template in Thai language, Thanks. -- Portalian 04:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — xaosflux Talk 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please add lo:ແມ່ແບບ:MainPageInterwikis to the template page (same template in Lao language). Best regards. --125.24.38.7 (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - only Wikipedias with over 20,000 articles are listed on the interwiki list. Happy‑melon 13:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The interwikilink to the same template but on Laos Wikipedia. It's not adding to the list, but added the interwikilink of the same template --125.24.52.181 (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - the "only Wikipedias with over 20,000" aspplies only to the main page itself, not the interwiki link page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Simple English first?

[edit]

I'm curious to know why Simple English interwiki is first for Main Page while it is alphabetized on other articles? Gary King (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I'm guessing that it is because it is the most relevant link to an English reader. --Puchiko (Talk-email) 13:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's one reason, though it should be noted that the simple English Wikipedia is of particular value to non-native English-readers.
Other reasons for the placement are that "Simple English" isn't the name of a language (so alphabetizing it under "S" is unintuitive) and that people might not be aware of the simple English Wikipedia's existence (and therefore won't think to look for it at all, even if it's alphabetized under "E").
The community should discuss the possibility of arranging for a bot to adjust the placement of the simple English interwiki links that appear in articles. —David Levy 18:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change from 20000 to 10000

[edit]

Remember the dot changed the list from the 20000+ article wikis to all the 10000+ article wikis with the comment: "there's plenty of room on the main page for all the Wikipedias with 10,000+ articles"

I don't particularly like this. First of all his comment is false, since on my screen resolution the interwiki box now extends noticably beyond all the other content. Secondly, the goal in limiting the entries is not just about how many we can fit in the side panel, but also in maximizing the utility of the box. Going from 49 to 70 entries increases the difficulty in finding the well-developed wikis that are most likely to be useful to the reader, while adding lots of relatively low value wikis. Personally, in that regard, I'd actually be in favor of capping the number of entries to the X largest wikis (for some to be determined value of X). Dragons flight (talk) 05:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I've changed it back. You're probably using a widescreen monitor, right? —Remember the dot (talk) 05:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am (1680 x 1050, which for the curious represents about 5% of web traffic on sites I control). Though if other people would like more entries, I wouldn't get upset over it. Dragons flight (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Wikipedia

[edit]

Just to let you guys know, I added the Hindi Wikipedia to Template:Wikipedialang, but not to this page, because it has a depth below 5.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, please disregard this. I didn't realize that the depth of 5 rule applied there too.--Danaman5 (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azeri wikipedia have 22863 pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.118.156.222 (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Wikipedia

[edit]

what is the reason :ka was removed? - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 15:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my edit summary here.
In the past, it was agreed that we would periodically adjust the numerical inclusion threshold to keep the number of listed Wikipedias roughly static (due to space concerns). But over time, as Wikipedias grew larger, we added more and more to the main page. The problem is many of these Wikipedias increased in size but not quality; the quantitative figures are misleading, as most of their articles contain very little encyclopedic content. As we began to apply various qualitative criteria, it became clear that the "> 20,000" tier of Wikipedias simply wasn't sustainable at the present time. Hopefully, that will change. —David Levy 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I agree, so the new threshold has been set to 40,000 articles? The argument of quality wouldn't quite fit in this case. The number of articles in Georgian wikipedia exceeds 30,000, while the depth has nearly doubled (to 30) within past six months. - Alsandro · T · w:ka: Th · T 23:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there simply aren't enough Wikipedias at the 20,000–39,999-article level meeting the qualitative criteria for such a tier to be practical.
The Georgian Wikipedia is in better shape than some are, but it contains a substantial number of stubs and placeholders (such as nearly empty year articles) requiring expansion. If as much emphasis is placed on that task as is placed on reaching the 40,000-article level, I believe that both efforts could reach fruition simultaneously. —David Levy 02:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Georgian Wikipedia already has over 40,000 articles, so I think :ka should be added. –BruTe Talk 06:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's your response? –BruTe Talk 15:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ka wiki has More than 50,000 articles--David1010 (talk) 09:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh (Cymraeg) Interwiki

[edit]

Please could an admin put the Welsh Wikipedia interwiki link back on the English main page? By the end of this year we should have around 30,000 articles on our local project and as there are many connections between both languages, (Wales and England lie within the UK and most Welsh speakers are able to speak English) I think there should be an interwiki link. Thanks, Diolch, Rhyshuw1 (talk) 08:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we don't engage in favoritism. The Welsh Wikipedia is below the current inclusion threshold. —David Levy 18:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An Interwikilink to Latin is missing. Best regards -- Irene1949 (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, as I have read David Levy’s comments under the title “Georgian Wikipedia”, I’d like to add the following argument: I think that, taking into consideration the great cultural importance of the Latin language, the Latin Wikipedia should not be judged by exactly the same criteria as the Wikipedias of the languages of any small states. -- Irene1949 (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Template:Main Page interwikis in order to improve readability and standardize with "Main Page" title case. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:MainPageInterwikis → Template:Main page interwikis — To improve readability, on our Main Page the readability is even more important than elsewhere, see also {{Main Page banner}}, which uses this variant, and several other CamelCase templates that have been moved recently. Rarely used, so moving shouldn't create headaches. Since the redirect of the move will also be protected just like this template, no potential vandalism problems. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hi there. Please add interwiki link to Azerbaijani wikipedia on Main Page. So last week we have reached 50.000 articles. Wertuose (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew interwiki

[edit]

If the interwikis are sorted alphabetically according to their native names, then please move עברית ivrit right after "Italiano" and immediately before "Lietuvių". --Theurgist (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are currently sorted alphabetically according to their mediawiki codename. Thus Hebrew is sorted under "he". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(I re-activated the template.) This is untrue. "Magyar" (Hungarian, hu:) is sorted under "M", "Suomi" (Finnish, fi:) is sorted under "S", "日本語" nihongo (Japanese, ja:) is sorted under "N", and "한국어" hangugeo (Korean, ko:) is sorted under "H". See also WP:FAQ/Main Page#In what order are the other Wikipedias displayed? Where's my language?. --Theurgist (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

☒N Edit declined. Please find consensus for your proposal first and then make another protected edit request.  Sandstein  18:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi Wikipedia

[edit]

Hindi wikipedia has passed 1,00,000 articles. 59.182.139.203 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from , 9 November 2011

[edit]

To move the "Simple English Wikipedia" between the relevant two languages instead of at the top of the links. Albacore (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Albacore (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Anomie⚔ 23:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakh WP

[edit]

The following exchange appeared on the Main Page talk page:

I must say I find it strange that criteria such as "mainly stubs" (after looking at random articles) are being used to judge whether or not a wiki with more than 150,000 articles should be included in the list. I see that the Kazakh wiki is not even included in the main page list of those with 50,000 articles although the Malay wiki (given a depth of only 12 at List of Wikipedias), which also appears to consist mainly of stubs, is indeed listed. Yet Azerbaijani (depth 23) is not! Rather than personal judgments, I suggest that the criteria for inclusion are clearly defined to avoid the possibility of elements of xenophobia creeping into the selection. In any case, it seems to me to be significant that any wiki has reached a total of 150,000 articles. The information is also useful to those of us who research other wikis when creating new articles for the English wiki. Any comments? --Ipigott (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While tossing out 'xenophobia' isn't the best tactic, you have a good point. Like a lot of Wikipedia selection processes, this one is lacking clear, detailed, and well-defined criteria and standards (cough{like RfA}cough). That does not change the fact, however, that the Kazakh Wikipedia has a depth of one and a cursory glance at a few (dozen) articles shows nothing encouraging. Why a given Wikipedia is or isn't listed yet is probably due to: lack of activity on this page (this is the first new section this year), Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and respect for WP:PROMOTION (the best wikipedias don't feel the need for advertising on the en.wiki main page). But, as I'm not in the business of altering main page templates (and we'd need an admin anyway), I submit to more experienced editors. Mysterious Whisper (SHOUT) 12:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you didn't like the term xenophobia but it seemed to me that the comment comparing Kazakh to linux distribution was grossly insulting to the 10 million or so Kazakh speakers living in the world's nineth largest country. Maybe one of the reasons many of the articles are not very complete is that many Kazakhs also speak Russian and that many articles about the country are indeed written in Russian. Giving the Kazakh editors some recognition for their work would probably help to get the articles improved. It seems to me strange that this discussion has to be moved here where the discussions are so rare. It's tantamount to sweeping the issue under the carpet. If you feel concerned about the lack of rules, maybe you could alert one or more administrators who could do something about it. --Ipigott (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you didn't like the term xenophobia but it seemed to me that the comment comparing Kazakh to linux distribution was grossly insulting to the 10 million or so Kazakh speakers living in the world's nineth largest country.
A silly joke from an IP address with no other contributions hardly reflects the attitudes and behaviors of English Wikipedians as a whole.
Maybe one of the reasons many of the articles are not very complete is that many Kazakhs also speak Russian and that many articles about the country are indeed written in Russian.
And as a result, the Russian Wikipedia is far more useful to readers.
Giving the Kazakh editors some recognition for their work would probably help to get the articles improved.
That could be said of any Wikipedia (and isn't the list's primary purpose). —David Levy 20:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like a lot of Wikipedia selection processes, this one is lacking clear, detailed, and well-defined criteria and standards (cough{like RfA}cough).
This is by design. We don't want to encourage efforts to meet technical requirements x, y and z (as opposed to general efforts to improve a Wikipedia's quality).
When we relied strictly on article counts (and didn't gauge quality), some Wikipedias were deliberately creating stubs and placeholders (sometimes via the use of bots) with the specific goal of reaching the quantity needed to make our list. We don't want that sort of thing to happen again.
lack of activity on this page (this is the first new section this year)
Discussion usually occurs at Template talk:Wikipedia languages (because the {{Main Page interwikis}} template is simply an alphabetical duplication of the {{Wikipedia languages}} template's tiers). —David Levy 20:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I find it strange that criteria such as "mainly stubs" (after looking at random articles) are being used to judge whether or not a wiki with more than 150,000 articles should be included in the list.
Why is it strange? Is a Wikipedia containing 5,000 long articles and 145,000 stubs/placeholders as useful to readers as one containing 75,000 long articles and 75,000 stubs/placeholders is? (These numbers are hypothetical.)
We can only include so many links before people complain that the main page is too cluttered. If we were to draw the line based purely on quantity, Wikipedias of higher quality would be pushed off the list.
Note that the "depth" measurement alone is not a reliable gauge; the use of multiple bots performing trivial edits inflates this number.
In any case, it seems to me to be significant that any wiki has reached a total of 150,000 articles.
A bot creating one stub/placeholder every eight seconds will exceed 150,000 in two weeks. I'm not suggesting that this occurred in the case of the Kazakh Wikipedia, but it would occur routinely if quantity were the sole inclusion criterion. —David Levy 20:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David Levy for your extensive explanations. On the basis of your comments, I tend to agree that the Kazakh WP may well not merit inclusion. Perhaps the main page should make it clearer that quality considerations have also been taken into account in the listings. I note btw that you failed to explain why Malay is in and Azerbaijani is out. Do you not agree that it would be useful to define the criteria for inclusion more clearly in order to ensure a flat playing field for all? --Ipigott (talk) 08:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the main page should make it clearer that quality considerations have also been taken into account in the listings.
The main page is written primarily for readers (not editors), so we don't address such matters there. It wouldn't be very helpful, as a vast majority of persons accessing the main page are unfamiliar with the relevant issues and terminology. (However, this is why we note that "some of the largest" Wikipedias are listed.)
We include an explanatory note at Template:Wikipedia languages.
I note btw that you failed to explain why Malay is in and Azerbaijani is out.
I'll need to consult the discussion archives and examine the Wikipedias themselves.
Do you not agree that it would be useful to define the criteria for inclusion more clearly in order to ensure a flat playing field for all?
As noted above, advertising concrete criteria (i.e. "cross these thresholds in areas x, y and z, and you're in"), would invite Wikipedias to engage in measures resulting in artificial compliance, purely for the sake of making the list. For example, if we were to dictate that x percent of articles must be y words in length, a Wikipedia might be compelled to arbitrarily delete small articles and pad others with boilerplate text.
We know this because when we relied solely on quantity, many Wikipedias created essentially empty articles specifically for this purpose. —David Levy 12:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All very useful information, David. Thanks for directing me to Template:Wikipedia languages. This did indeed throw a bit more light on the discussion but I saw from the talk page there that there have been a number of discussions in connection with the "rules" you have been applying. I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill but I would argue that there is far more widespread interest than you may think in the number of articles in a given language Wikipedia. Not too long ago, when the German wiki reached a million articles, the item was widely covered in the German-language press with articles similar in length to the announcement of the first iPad. I am interested too in the analysis of the ratio of stubs to longer articles in each language wiki. Is there a reliable source for this information? And why do you think the "depth" ratings are not sufficiently reliable? Just to demonstrate how misleading a look at a series of "random articles" can be, I have just carried our a test on the English wiki: first set of 10 articles: 7 stubs, 1 list, 2 longer articles; second try: 8 stubs, 2 longer articles; third try: 4 stubs, 1 near stub, 5 longer articles. So it looks very much as if a random sample needs to be quite extensive if it is to be used as a basis for inclusion. Do you think it would be useful to take this further, perhaps by inviting some of those who have commented on these issues in the past to discuss ways and means of improving the reliability of selection criteria? --Ipigott (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make a mountain out of a molehill but I would argue that there is far more widespread interest than you may think in the number of articles in a given language Wikipedia. Not too long ago, when the German wiki reached a million articles, the item was widely covered in the German-language press with articles similar in length to the announcement of the first iPad.
Similar coverage occurred when the English Wikipedia (and presumably other Wikipedias) reached a million articles. How is that relevant to the discussion?
I am interested too in the analysis of the ratio of stubs to longer articles in each language wiki. Is there a reliable source for this information?
Our standard test is a 50-article sample. We need only a rough determination (not precise statistics), so this is more than sufficient.
We have no official cutoff ratio (for the reason discussed above); we simply omit Wikipedias that overwhelmingly comprise stubs/placeholders.
Rarely does a borderline case arise. When one does, we examine various factors (e.g. the presence of stubs vs. placeholders and the existence/nonexistence of placeholder sections in longer articles) and generally err on the side of inclusion.
In other words, when in doubt, we don't omit a Wikipedia. So if we were to institute greater formality, this probably would result in the exclusion of more Wikipedias due to quality concerns.
And why do you think the "depth" ratings are not sufficiently reliable?
I explained why above.
Just to demonstrate how misleading a look at a series of "random articles" can be, I have just carried our a test on the English wiki: first set of 10 articles: 7 stubs, 1 list, 2 longer articles; second try: 8 stubs, 2 longer articles; third try: 4 stubs, 1 near stub, 5 longer articles.
A 10-article sample is insufficient. A 50-article sample is far more reliable for our purposes. In the past, multiple 50-article samples of a Wikipedia have never generated significantly different results. The quantity of long articles might vary by one or two, which isn't a meaningful disparity in this context.
Do you think it would be useful to take this further, perhaps by inviting some of those who have commented on these issues in the past to discuss ways and means of improving the reliability of selection criteria?
Discussion always is welcome. But "those who have commented on these issues in the past" aren't an impartial group, as most did so to request the inclusion of Wikipedias to which they contribute (with some hurling accusations and even threats when their demands weren't met). —David Levy 17:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why 'includeonly'?

[edit]

I really do not see why one must include this template to see it's contents. Please can we remove the <includeonly></includeonly> tags? --Jwikiediting (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No, there's a good reason for them. If we don't use <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags, then the interwiki links meant for the main page are displayed in the sidebar of the template page. However, there are already interwiki links in that sidebar - those for the template itself. So if we removed the <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags, the interwiki links would get mixed up, with some links going to the main page of another Wikipedia, and with other links going to the equivalent of this template at another Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. This makes perfect sense now! --Jwikiediting (talk) 14:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Bosnian Wikipedia to the list

[edit]

Hi. Could someone please add the Bosnian wikipedia to the specified list? The number of 50k articles has been passed some time ago. I did the random 50 article test, and based on these results it seems that this wikipedia is worth including. Regards, -- Edinwiki (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edinwiki Seems like the Bosnian Wikipedia needs to have the average quality of its articles improved to be added - in 2014 at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian interwiki

[edit]

Hello, could you please add Armenian (hywiki) to the list of interwikis? It contains more than 195,000 articles as of now but has not been added to the list yet. Chaojoker (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

An Interwikilink to Sindhi Wikipedia is missing, Kindly add it, thanks...Jogi 007 (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Wikipedia

[edit]

Portuguese Wikipedia has surpassed the 1 million articles mark. When possible, please update. - Sarilho1 (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grats ptwik! Updating per w:pt:Especial:Estatísticas. — xaosflux Talk 02:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done already by Mike Peel (talk · contribs) via Template:Wikipedia languages. — xaosflux Talk 02:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello, can anybody link the main page of Bengali Wikipedia (bnwiki) with English Wikipedia's main page? Bnwiki has currently 1,00,000+ articles with a depth of 324. It is the largest Wikipedia by depth among the South Asian languages and third largest among 1,00,000+ wikis after English and Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia. Best regards Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 10:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Meghmollar2017: I've added bnwiki to the iw sidebar links. — xaosflux Talk 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vector 2022

[edit]

After switching to Vector 2022 skin, this page is not shown anymore. Are there any reasons to TfD it? Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 00:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Central Kurdish (ckb) to interwiki

[edit]

Hello, Central Kurdish (ckb) Wikipedia has more than 52,000 articles, and its depth is 50, 2 months ago it inserted to 50K Wikipedia Languages. Please add ckb to Main Page Interwiki. Thanks. Muhammed taha (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Main_Page_interwikis&oldid=1224929372"