Talk:List of Wikipedias/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Soft Redirect?

Perhaps this article should just be {{softredirect | meta:List of Wikipedias}}

That page has much more information than this article, and seems to serve the same purpose.--Absurdist

Strongly disagree. That page is not a part of the English wikipedia encyclopedia while the subject is notable enough for inclusion as an encyclopedic article, SqueakBox 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If the article were to be expanded to include all Wikipedias, and their statistics, it would virtually be a mirror of the meta page.--Absurdist 20:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well that would be an issue for the meta page, SqueakBox 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
How so? --Domthedude001 05:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggest redirect

If the stats aren't going to be updated and most of the articles will never grow past stub-length, we may as well redirect this to {{Wikipedias}} or meta:List of Wikipedias. Teh Rote (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this has already been argued and rejected at this article's AfD. The consensus, I believe, is that the proliferation of Wikipedias (not just Wikis) is a notable enough phenomenon to not be self-referential and to deserve a presence here. If anything, I think the consensus leaned toward just removing the stats, since no one updates them anyway. Ford MF (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
That is rather short-sighted. Roughly 85% of the articles on Wikipedia language editions are one paragraph or less. It just doesn't work. Teh Rote (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur, this page should redirect to m:List of Wikipedias

Why not have one list of wikipedias that always up to date?

Perhaps a disambiguation page, linking to m:List of Wikipedias and Category:Wikipedias by language. Teh Rote (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if this is a dumb question

but how do we know that http://s23.org is a WP:RS? Bwrs (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Updates needed

I think this list needs updating. I followed the link to the Marshallese Wikipedia only to find it discontinued (I do not speak Marshallese; I just did this out of curiosity). Also, are not some entries on this list separate dialects, rather than languages? Take for example the entry "Simple English" - could we really describe this as a separate language to English? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Some one really ought to scrutinise this list - there are other language editions beneath that of the Marshallese Wikipedia which have now closed, such as Herero. 92.3.154.33 (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Other languages

Although this list shows that there are many language editions of Wikipedia,there are still some languages which yet to have a Wikipedia - for example, the Lakota language is not on this list. Any offers to start a Lakota Wikipedia? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

See meta:Language proposal policy and http://incubator.wikimedia.org which currently lists Lakota at http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/lkt. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A contradiction

The bar chart of Wikipedias by article number contradicts the list. This bar chart displays number of articles from German to Swedish, but omits Russian, which according to the list,should be between Portuguese and Swedish.

Giving a more accurate impression

Just having this list is misleading. Perhaps it should be grouped into those "Wikipedias" that do have enough articles to be considered encyclopaedia, those which are now closed (see my above comment), and those which have less than 20 articles? The Choctaw Wikipedia currently only has 15 articles and an English comment that this is the place for you if you think it would be "cool" to have a Wikipedia in Choctaw; this could hardly be considered a useful encyclopaedia, unlike those Wikipedias in the Top 40 listed here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it seems that of the Wikipedias from Choctaw downwards, i.e. the twelve bottom entries - only one - Cheyenne -appears to be open and active. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

==Are these really all up to being called "Wikipedias"?

I read somewhere on the web that the Volapuk Wikipedia is mainly stubs, created by a bot. Do you think that this would be a "Wikipedia"?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Links to en-wiki articles about specific wikipedias

Maybe this list should contain links to the articles like English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, etc? Jonah (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

did it. TalkChat (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mergefrom Romansh Wikipedia

Romansh Wikipedia was recently voted to be redirected here. However unlike a number of fairly nonnotable and unreferenced wikipedias, this one actually has some referenced info. Please accomodate this list to include such bits and pieces of verifiable text which is not enough for aa full separate article but nevertheless may be encyclopedic. - Altenmann >t 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, just redirect it here, as was decided in the AfD, when all the info that was currently in the article was already there. Not everything that is verifiableis notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, no matter if it is in a separate article or in a list. Ignoring this AfD result in such a blatant manner is not the way to go. Take it to the closing admin or to DRV if you disagree, but don't just start a new discussion elsewhere to get what you like. Fram (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, not everything is notable, but the creators and the source of financing (by state!) is cerainly not a nonnotable trivia. Please be careful with loud words, such as "blatant". I can use them myself: "blatant deletion of notable and verifiable encyclopedic information, bla-bla-bla". On the contrary, I presented a reasonabe trade-off solution: I am not against a redirect, but only after a notable information is preserved. And what is wrong with getting what I like? You also want to get what you like. I hate to believe that you like deletion of relevant, verifiable and referenced information. What is more, I am aware that it is not just beween you and me. Therefore I started this discussion where non-random people may help. I also mentioned this issue in Template_talk:Wikipedias#Romansh_Wikipedia. If you know where else to post a notice, please do so. (I don't care whom will you address: inclusionists or deletionists). - Altenmann >t 03:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
We already had this discussion, it was the AfD. You are trying to get a different result by starting a new discussion. We have a process for this: WP:DRV. This was pointed out to you already. And I don't consider editors inclusionists or deletionists unless they declare themselves to be one or the other. Most people don't correspond to one of these labels. And I don't consider the names of the editors that started a non notable Wikipedia version as notable. Anyway, I've merged the rest of the info and redirected it again. Fram (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for finding a good solution for how to merge. I was stupid to think that the only approach was to expand the table, that's why I did't do merge myslef. Your idea to use footnotes is very good and well-suited for small pieces of info. - Altenmann >t 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem, your insistence on keeping the info was correct as well, but I didn't see the solution earlier. Fram (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Faroese Wikipedia

Where is the Faroese Wikipedia? I can't find it in the list or in the box at the bottom. This Wikipedia is often execluded from lists of Wikipedia, can somebody make sure it is to find here and there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.64.51 (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Faroese Wikipedia is in the list but not in the box at the bottom. There is some discussion about which Wikipedias to include at Template talk:Wikipedias. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Basque Wikipedia

Hi from the Basque Country!
This is a message to the administrators of wikipedia in English or for someone who can help me with this issue:

I´m an user and contributor of the Basque Wikipedia., Basque language is one of the oldest in Europe and the world, it has thousands of years old and is one of the few languages that survived the arrival of Indo-Europeans to Europe. Perhaps being one of the oldest nations or countries of the world not even have their own state, but our language is our homeland and pride. It put us on the map and give a reference recognizable to English speakers, the city of Pamplona (Iruña in basque language), where they celebrate the internationally famous festival of San Fermin are in the Basque Country.

After this brief introduction I would kindly ask you this request:

On July 15, 2009, in the Basque wikipedia we exceed the figure of 40,000 items, today (August 8, 2009) and we have 42,000 items, achievement of which we are very proud, because if we compare proportionately the number of speakers of the Basque language (about a million) with other spoken language Wikipedia in more than one state or nation in the world with millions of speakers is like to be proud.

Because one of the aims of Wikipedia in addition to expanding human knowledge worldwide is also to expand the knowledge of all languages of mankind: From the Basque Wikipedia We wanted to make the request to the users and particularly to the Admin of the English wikipedia would be possible if you put the link to Basque Wikipedia in your English Wikipedia´s language list of everyone in your main cover ("Languages" section: as is currently the case Galician or Catalan language) and the Wikipedia list of more than 40,000 items that is below your main entrance page ("Wikipedia languages" section). Since English is currently the most powerful, influential and widespread in the world (your wikipedia already has 3,000,000 articles), the presence of Basque Wikipedia in your list of the world would be a great help to supervival of our language and their knowledge in the world.

Awaiting your reply.

Greetings from the Basque Wikipedia.
. --Euskalduna (tell me) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.101.120 (talk)

Hello. You might want to take this to Wikipedia talk:Village pump, as I don't think many people watch this page. Miremare 15:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Miremare.
--Euskalduna (tell me) 15:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Other Wikipedias have been locked

Towards the end, this article says that certain Wikipedias have been locked; so too have other ones. Just click on the hypertext and you will see what I mean. This means that the number of currently available Wikipedias is almost certainly below 260, although it is probably between 240 and 250. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing valid language links

Please do not remove valid language links from this article. By removing valid language links from this article, you are reducing the quality of the article. This is not a typical "namespace mismatch" or interwiki issue. I am aware of the guidelines for interwiki links, but it is wise to equally be aware that the different language wikipedias have their own individual different ways of organizing their articles. German Wikipedia for instance has a special namespace for this here. Thus You cannot remove such valid language links from english wikipedia articles. If, for instance, you create a german article about the Norwegian Wikipedia, and place that article in the german article name space, what will happen is that a german admin will come along and take that article out of the article namespace, and place it into the appropriate name space in German Wikipedia. So the language links on this article are valid and correct. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not right if that cross wiki linking causes interwikiconflicts. Please revert your revert. --Obersachse (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
That conflicts do you speaking of? Weren’t any conflicts since I cleaned up interwiki in all languages on January, 30 (I manually checked every link), but prior to voluntary creation of a duplicate page ru:Языковые разделы Википедии (see also this topic in ru.wiki). Now you and infovarius try to mess it up again. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. In some wikis the language list is in the article namespace, in others - in Wikipedia namespace. Some wikis have two lists (in both namespaces). --Obersachse (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Please, provide some examples of languages where the list of Wikipedias exists in both namespaces. There was such a situation in Vietnamese Wikipedia. They had such a duplicate vi:Danh sách Wikipedia in articles space (deeply outdated) and a set of redirects to it, just like what recently was created in ru.wiki. Now it redirects to their Project: space (apparently vi.wiki has no strict rules about namespaces of redirects). Some languages have their version of the obsolete project: multilingual coordination page, but I never saw a clear duplicate of the list somewhere except the vi.wiki. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So, no examples of a duplication were given. I answer myself: there are currently two cases of list duplicates.

Only two cases, from which only one is related to articles space (Anexo: is yet another namespace). 37 languages, only 2 of them have a duplicate. Conclusion: no interwiki separation is needed, recent activity of Obersachse represents anything but a namespaces’ purism, but here is not a good place to demonstrate it. There is also project: multilingual coordination and its interwiki (sometimes also containing a list of languages), they all lie in project: namespaces. Some of these languages have their own list of Wikipedias, some do not, but lists in that pages are unmaintained and outdated in all cases. That pages now form a separate cluster (there is some background), we should not link to there from here.

I propose the following solution. Let us put both Russian and both Spanish links in each page with no discretion by its namespace. In Russian and Spanish pages, of course, a link to same language duplicate will be made as an internal link instead of interwiki. Objections? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: There is third duplicate, pl:Edycje językowe Wikipedii – pl:Wikipedia:Kompletna lista języków, which I overlooked. So, 3 duplicates for 35 languages (one list was recently deleted, and another one I counted by mistake)? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that you would like to place 2 Russian and 2 Spanish language links into List of Wikipedias? If so, then on my part I agree with that, as long as the links are valid. Amsaim (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I do. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly convinced that Obersachse’s solution is what we should accept here. Not (or not just) because it may be potentially conflict-generating, but due to logical considerations. See: articles (in namespace 0) and various exotic “lists” are semantically encyclopedic articles or encyclopedic lists. Pages in Wikipedia namespace are technical pages, and it is a fun accident that there exists a technical ability to place interwikis to them. Wikis should decide whether they want an encyclopedic entry, a technical page, or both, on their own; entries should be interconnected with entries, same goes for technical pages. No mess, everyone is happy. If these pages were placed on Meta or an external server, there wouldn’t be a temptation to give an interwiki to them. So why is it there in our case? — Kalan ? 19:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not a fun accident, indeed. There is a possibility to move a page from space 0 to space 4 and back, and there was such cases as a moving an article on Meta-wiki in ru.wiki to space 4 (ru:project: Мета-вики). How Obersachse’s system would treat this? Yes, such page will be wiped from links and lost (if it was Obersachsebot who detected this situation fist), or interwiki will be messed up yet one time (if some other bots came first). Also, in wikipedias with several thousands of article there is no such strict border between encyclopedic and meta spaces as in established ones like en.wiki or ru.wiki, for example. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
They are not lost, but linked with the right interwikilinks.
If small wikipedias have errors we all should repeat them? I think, we should help them avoid such mistakes, not spread them to established wikis. --Obersachse (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Help to avoid making decisions at their own mind, do put the list to №0, №4, to both or to neither? What “errors” are you speaking of? In all languages the Meta-wiki article resides in the space 0, except ru.wiki. Is it an error, and if it is, then who made that error at your opinion? Who did spread it, from what source and to where? Why do you not fight this “error”? About losing of links, I say this again, suppose that some wiki move its list from article space to project. Will your bot bind it with other №4 pages or just drop all “conflicting” (i.e. not space-matching) links? If you would promise that your bot (or you, manually) will repair such cases in the future, then I’ll cease my opposition to the separation №0↙||↘№4 and renounce my proposal of 22 February. Otherwise let us wait until a better technical solution appeared in the future. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
What a strange idea - personal responsibility for interwikis. There's a lot of interwikibots and thousands of users who cares about interwikis. Wikipedia is a common project.
But of course, yes, I often deal with the solution of interwikiconflicts. --Obersachse (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
At least personal responsibility for the bot, and a promise that you will either carefully fix links or do nothing (at your choise), but not such things as [1] without any investigations and further correction in case of mistake. Namespaces’ issues have a bit lower priority than restricting interwiki links to relevant pages only, isn’t it? It is easy to make things like one made by Volkov, but quite hard to trace and remove such bad links. I know, a responsibility (including personal responsibility) is something strange and uncommon for people from Russian Wikipedia, but this case is a matter of all Wikipedia. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm german and not "people from Russian Wikipedia". Please don't discuss people, but wikipedia related stuff. EOD --Obersachse (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Basic order of list?

I added Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia to the list, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Punjabi Wikipedia. I was not sure what, if any, order the items in the list follow, so I put it at the bottom. I realize that this is a sortable list, but is there some preferred order for items? alphabetic by name? descending by number of articles? If there is none, should there be one? Cnilep (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian wikipedia

The list of wikipedias include both the Bokmål and the Nynorsk edition. However while the Bokmål edition is here termed simply the Norwegian wikipedia, the Nynorsk wikipedia is termed The Nynorsk wikipedia. I find this problematic, as the two written languages are both official forms. Either both should be termed Norwegian wikipedia or they should be termed Bokmål and Nynorsk wikipedia. --Oddeivind (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. --Harald Khan Ճ 08:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


273 figure is problematic

As of September 2010, we are told that there are Wikipedias in 273 languages,but some of them have been locked. Would it not, therefore, be more accurate to say that "there are Wikipedias in over 240 languages"? I think the number of active Wikipedias is between 240 and 250. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to close Old English Wikipedia

I thought I had better let people know that if ones goes to Wikipedia: Village_Pump (proposals), some one has put in a proposal to close the Old English Wikipedia. I am not in favour myself - in fact, clicking on the hypertext where the proposal is made, I have added my voice to those who oppose the move - but if more people are aware of this proposal and can add their voices against it, we have a better chance of keeping this Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


All right, here is the link you can click on to save having to visit the Village Pump:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_74#Proposals_for_ closing_projects.2FClosure_of_Old_English_Wikipedia

ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC) Sorry, the link I actually meant was:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Old_English_Wikipedia&action=history

ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)


It now looks as if the proposal is closed, and the Old English Wikipedia (or as it is called here, the Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia) will be kept open. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Redundant Wikilink

Does there need to be wikilink around Volapuk Wikipedia? It only redirects here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall that at one time, there was an article on the Volapuk Wikipedia, which said that a lot of the articles on it were by a bot. I would hardly say it has been merged with this article - a lot of signicant content was in it which must have been deleted. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Decadic logarithm

The "code number" under the ==List== section is kind of silly and will doubtless confuse most readers. Why don't we just type out ">10,000", which any reader will understand, instead of "4", which most of them won't? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree! Greenman (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


Isn't it time to remove the page about the updates being needed?

Isn't it about time to remove the tag about a page needing updating, when it has been in existence for over two years now (i.e. since June 2009)ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


Autralian Aboriginal languages

Although there is a Maori Wikipedia listed in the list, there do not appear to be any Wikipedias in the List of Australian Aboriginal languages. Would any one like to rectify this?ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Italian Wikipedia

Readers of this might be interested in the discussion about the Italian Wikipedia which is currently taking place at Wikipedia: Village Pump (proposals). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion on how to order this list

Just a suggestion - I wonder whether this list might be better ordered chronologically, i.e. in order in which the different Wikipedias appeared (so that the English and German Wikipedias would still be at the top) rather than ordered according to the number of articles each Wikipedia has? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see an alphabetical list. If you don't know where the language is in the list, how are you going to find it?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Embarrassingly outdated tables and stats

Why are the graphs and stats from 2007??? Tony (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia missing

Wikipedia in Dutch language is missing in the table. There are 15 with over 1m and currently here we have 14. --Obsuser (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I see you fixed it by reverting vandalism. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Multiple redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirects Wîkîpediya, WikipÆdia, Guiquipedia, Gueiquipedia, Oiquipedia, Oiquipedià, Wikipédien, and Википеди. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 12:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 10#Previously deleted non-standard foreign names for Wikipedia, but the discussion is now closed. - dcljr (talk) 08:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Latest on Lakota Wikipedia

From this website:


http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/lkt/Main_Page

It looks as if the Lakota Wikipedia has been approved. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Incubator is where anyone can help start a new language edition of Wikipedia (or another Wikimedia project). This is also the case for Lakota, so it is not yet approved (and doesn't yet have its own subdomain lkt.wikipedia.org) but it will be when there is an active editing community. SPQRobin (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been on the incubator since June 2008; it looks as if there is now a Lakota Wikipedia with 41 articles. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about the Scots Gaelic Wikipedia

I clicked on the link to the Scots Gaelic Wikipedia, and I got through to a page that "This page is in Irish". All right, I am aware that Scottish Gaelic and Irish are both similar languages, as, along with Manx, they are both Goidelic_languages (for all I know, they may be mutually intelligible) but I have always taken them to be separate languages, so why does the Scots Gaelic Wikipedia have this at the top? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the "this page is in Irish" bar is the translate feature of your Google Chrome browser. While it's in Scottish Gaelic, Chrome determined that it is written in Irish because they are so similar and because Google Translate doesn't support Scottish Gaelic (yet). SPQRobin (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ought sco.wikipedia.org to be included in the "Some deviations include" table - it doesn't seem to have an ISO code (yet) ... --195.137.93.171 (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fun Wiki's

Has anybody maybe considered some 'fun wiki's'? For example a slang wikipedia, not really a point to it ,but people might like it? Kane (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


A slang Wikipedia would have to clarify (assuming it is English slang) where the slang would come from - American English slang is probably quite different to U.K. English slang, not to mention the fact that there are probably variations in slang around different parts of the British Isles. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To create a "new" language version of Wikipedia (or another Wikimedia project, like Wiktionary), the project must pass the m:Language proposal policy. Since slang doesn't have an ISO 639 code, it cannot be created. Also, it probably doesn't pass this requirement: "language must be sufficiently unique that it could not coexist on a more general wiki". A Wikipedia in slang would not promote the WMF's goal of sharing knowledge to all humans because everyone who can understand slang English can understand normal English. In addition, if created (which will never happen), it would set a precedent for creating wikis for different registers of languages. Other language Wikipedias might want their own "slang project". Besides, how do we decide what is "slang" and what isn't? If you are interested in creating an encyclopedia in slang, I suggest you try Wikia. πr2 (t • c) 02:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Link to pages on en-wiki?

Many of the Wikipedias listed here have their own page in en-wiki, but there are no links to them from this list. Would there be an appropriate way to add them? Ansh666 18:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

En interwiki link

en doesn't work in the table. Is there any way to solve this problem? Bennylin (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the link [2] so it works currently, but this or something similar has to be done again if the list is copied from meta:List of Wikipedias. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

List by usage?

Is there a list by usage? I mean page loads. (Probably this does correlate with amount of articles) Palosirkka (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Depth

What's that parameter for (in the list of wiki qualities)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

It's explained in the meta version of this page, m:List of Wikipedias#Notes, and expanded on at m:Wikipedia article depth. –Quiddity (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "detailed list"

I think the "detailed list" section should be removed as it is just a copy of the list on meta wiki, by looking at the page history, it looks like it was started by an IP editor --TheChampionMan1234 09:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Updating intro

I noticed that the intro statement on the number of wikis was "as of August 2012". Is this still current or does it need to be updated? 64.6.124.31 (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I second that. Intro says: "as of August 2012, there were 285 Wikipedias". Were more Wikipedias introduced after that date or we are still just at 285 still? werldwayd (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia sizes

In "List" section, we say: "Size is given in decadic logarithm of number of articles. '6' means more than 1 000 000, '5' more than 100 000, '4' more than 10 000." Fair enough. But what does size 3 or 2 mean? These are used in the list, but no explanation in intro to the "List" sub-section This needs clarification. werldwayd (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It's counting the number of Zeros. 3 = 1000+, 2 = 100+, 1 = 10+, 0 = 1+. There's a link to decadic logarithm there, and the first three appear to be examples to describe the process.--173.161.113.17 (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The new pie chart is an excellent idea, but it does not seem quite right to me. It is saying that the others are 51% yet the angle shown is clearly less than a semi-circle, not slightly more. Is this a bug? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorting of depth column doesn't work

Sorting for the depth column at the "10000+ articles" tables isn't working properly. It uses lexicographic sort (ie. 1<12<123<2) instead of usual sorting. Could someone correct it? I don't know how, otherwise I would do it. Also, can you mention how to correct it? Anachor (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sort by active community size

I find sorting the Wikipedias merely by the number of articles rather curious. The article puts a lot of emphasis on the sheer number of articles. Would there be much resistance if it was changed to emphasize the number of active editors in the given language instead? --denny vrandečić (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Should discontinued languages be included in this list?

The Choctaw version of Wiki was discontinued in 2007, among several other languages. Should the deleted and discontinued versions be included in the "Detailed List" section? Jarble (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

new colomn ISO 15924

Hi! I thing that a column showing the used ISO 15924 script codes would offer a new view on the varieties of the WMF projects. Only a few language projects are using more then one script: sr:, etc. lɛʁi ʁɑjnhɑʁt (Leri Reinhart)

‫·‏לערי ריינהארט‏·‏T‏·‏m‏:‏Th‏·‏T‏·‏email me‏·‏‬ 00:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 15 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is not enough support for any one alternative, and this seems like the kind of significant change that would need more than a 3:2 vote to take action on. Other languages don't seem to have any concern about using 'Wikipedias' as a plural noun. Some language versions put their list in project space. Nobody proposed making this a redirect to meta:List of Wikipedias. Obviously, editors can discuss this idea further on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


List of Wikipedias → List of Wikipedia language editions – "Wikipedia" is not a plural noun, the title would be confusing at first glance. If you look at the same article in other languages, they might translate as Wikipedia:Other languages or Wikipedia:List of Wikipedia language editions, etc (particularly see zh, ja, and it)). I occasionally hear "the Wikipedia", but never "a Wikipedia", unless used in a more specific context such as "a Wikipedia article" and so on. This is not meta-wiki, nor is it project space, thus it (the current title) is an implausible search term - TheChampionMan1234 23:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Support

Oppose

  • Oppose, this is not needed, "Wikipedia" can easily be plural. This also seems to be the case on the relative Meta-Wiki article: List of Wikipedias. For this reason, please remember WP:UCRN. —Skyllfully (talk | contribs) 02:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that applies, as that title is not recognised outside meta-wiki (or Wikipedia, for that matter). - TheChampionMan1234 03:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. They're both equally clear, and the current title is shorter. If there ever become competing entities also called "Wikipedia" that aren't other language editions then I agree this list should be moved, but that isn't true at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

perhaps we might appropriately consider language versions of the page as at: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q859417

This presents:


Reference to languages is quite common.

GregKaye 11:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

We need to identify the List of Wikipedias ([3]) and Wikipedia:All Wikipedias ([4]). -- Kanghuitari (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Kanghuitari: The first Wikidata entry you provided lists the items in article space whereas the other one lists pages in project space, otherwise there is no difference, I will try to merge the two items. - TheChampionMan1234 02:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
I tried to merge the two but some editions have versions in both article and project space. - TheChampionMan1234 02:45, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Growth numbers

I think it would be great to have an additional column for the year-to-year growth in active editors. ChristianKl (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Lsjbot

I really wonder why Lsjbot isn't mentioned in this article at all, since it greatly artificially inflates the counts for Swedish, Cebuano, and Waray. (Also, Volapük was artificially inflated by a different bot in the past.) The nice-looking pie chart graphic unfortunately suffers from a basic GIGO problem... AnonMoos (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

AnonMoosAgreed, and I keep adding it, but a new editor keeps removing it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I doubt I'll be editing this article at all (unless for a minor typo fix or something like that), but I certainly support including the information. AnonMoos (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
To further put a point on it, to the casual observer, the chart appears as though Swedish and two obscure filipino languages have enough editors to create organic content to rival English and surpass biggies like German and Japanese, each of which has taken 15+ years and thousands of editors to earn their rankings. I think this should go to 3O if the weak reasoning for removal continues.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I take issue with the assertion that the reasoning for removal is weak. The reasoning is as follows:
  • First and foremost, the claim fails WP:V.
  • Second, and less a reason to remove than to rephrase, the meaning of "artificially inflate" is not clear. Perhaps phrasing it like "The majority of the articles in Swedish, Cebuano, and Waray were created by Lsjbot." would be better. It should at least be fairly easy to find sources for.
An alternative solution would be to simply remove the pie chart and avoid the problem altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would would call Cebuano "obscure", since it has about 20 million speakers (Britannica says 18.5), which is more than Swedish does. However, it isn't official in its own country, it has a relatively low Internet impact, and it's extremely absurd to pretend that it would have a bigger Wikipedia than German or French by a natural collaborative process of encyclopedia-building among real people (not bots). I really don't see anything substantially hindering us from taking note of this vast disproportion in out article. Claims that we can't take note of the vast disproportion would appear to belong more to technicalistic legalisms than practical encyclopedia-building. AnonMoos (talk) 03:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, even if we removed the pie chart, the same issue would raise its head down in the "Detailed list" section... AnonMoos (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, the "Detailed list" has the "Depth" column, the "Users" column, and the "Active users" column, all of which show the difference between those languages and e.g. German or French. So it's not as misleading as the pie chart, assuming the pie chart is misleading to begin with (I'm not sure what its purpose actually is. If the purpose is to show the number of articles, it does that just fine. If the purpose is to give a rough ranking based on "size", maybe not.)
Anyway, I decided to be WP:BOLD and changed the phrasing. I have tried to find the number of articles created by that particular user, but I have so far been unsuccessful in doing so (seemingly because there are too many for the server to handle—the page (sv, ceb, war) won't load). TompaDompa (talk) 03:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

Should the Simple English Wikipedia be in this list? It is not a Wikipedia in a language other than English, just Wikipedia in a basic, simple form of English. Vorbee (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a list of Wikipedias not languages that have Wikipedias based off them. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The detailed list contains closed projects

At the bottom of the list that shows all Wikipedias, the active user count, article depth, etc., there are a few Wikipedias that have been closed that are still listed, but are shown as having 0 articles. The list on Meta-Wiki handles these differently, saying these were closed in a separate section. Should the closed projects be removed from the list?

Thanks, DraconicDark (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional alphabetical list

@Ffabian11: I see you've added an additional alphabetical list. Is this really necessary? The existing list is the exact same thing, with the same links. It can be alphabetized with a mere click on the "name" header - although granted, less tech savvy readers (aka most of them) won't know this. Even still, seems of questionable value to add... if nothing else, {{TOClimit}} should be used to not bloat the Table of Contents, but I suspect removal would be even better, unless there's some value I'm not seeing. SnowFire (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Khmer

Khmer wiki has 6000 articles. I have tried to re-create Khmer Wikipedia, that was deleted, because this wiki is too weak or something like that; some wikis have 1000 articles and have an article. What should I do to have this page restored? It had 250 views in the last 90 days. It's probably time to do something about it. --Io Herodotus (talk) 07:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Io Herodotus: It has nothing to do with how many articles the wiki has, it has to do with how much independent third-party coverage that wiki has recieved. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gan Wikipedia (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern Sámi Wikipedia for better explanations than you got for Khmer wiki at AfD. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:49, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

List by number of articles

This list could display the Wikipedias in descending order, going by descending order of number of articles it has in it - after all, it used to display the Wikipedias in this way. Vorbee (talk) 08:04, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

@Vorbee: The table under "detailed list" is sortable. You can click the little up and down arrows next to the "articles" heading to sort by number of articles. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The constructed language Interlingua

Interlingua is in this list, but has no link to its wikipedia (https://ia.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagina_principal). I see by looking at the editable text of "List of Wikipedias" that simply adding the above URL is not the correct way of restoring the link. I would like to see the link restored. Can someone do it, please? Or is there a historical reason not to that I'm unaware of? Thanks!

Mivarsh (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Interlingua is linked on the language code like all the other languages. If you mean that the text "Interlingua Wikipedia" is not linked then a link would have gone to an English Wikipedia article Interlingua Wikipedia but there is no such article. It redirects to the list itself so a link would be pointless. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

"Southern" Azerbaijani

There is no Northern and Southern Azerbaijani. Historically, there is only one Azerbaijan and that is Iranian. What is nowadays known as the state of the Republic of Azerbaijan has adopted this name for it's state and it's people. The land on which the state exists was historically, and still is referred to by many, was Arran and Shirvan, and the people which inhabited there are Caucasian Tatars. They adopted these names and they now believe they are Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan is "South" Azerbaijan. This is historically incorrect and its terminology is incorrect but this term carries political charges and is used by the Republic of Azerbaijan to encourage and create separatist tendencies, which might I add is not at all successful or succeeding. There is everything wrong with this naming and I would like to request that the name be changed to Iranian Azerbaijani, which is it's correct name. Please, I suggest anyone which sees this do some minor research into what I have stated because there are no lies or fabrications. Thank you. Migboy123 (talk) 11:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Things like this should probably be taken to the Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee (read that page for information, but make requests on the corresponding talk page). - dcljr (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Request Dz Algerian Dialect wiki

Algeria have Arabic as Official, but Algerian Dialect is the one used even in teaching.As Egypt they have a wiki for their dialect , we want one too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raousoft (talk • contribs) 12:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To request that a specific language edition of Wikipedia be created, please see Incubator:Wikis to see if one already exists, and then m:Requests for new languages. - dcljr (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Language: Kurdi (Badini)

hello, I want to add a missing language and it is a very important language because many users know and understand this language well, and I want to add this language Ahmadkurdi44 (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Tables in this article should only list languages that have existing Wikipedias at subdomains of "wikipedia.org" (e.g., "de.wikipedia.org" for German). To request that a new Wikipedia be created in a specific language, see m:Requests for new languages. See also Incubator:Wikis at the Wikimedia Incubator for languages that currently have "test wikis" there. - dcljr (talk) 07:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

"Written Standard Chinese"

If you will take a glance at the way that the zh-wp module displays on the China (中國) page, you will see that eight Wikipedias are linked. This is fine. My only problem is, one of the Wikipedias is labeled as "Written Standard Chinese". List of Wikipedias calls that Wikipeda version 'Chinese'- and I changed it to Mandarin Chinese just now ([5]). Who's right? What language is that Wikipedia written in? I will post a similar question in the Beer Parlor of Wiktionary ([6]). Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC) I tried to find a sort of compromise position ("Chinese (Written vernacular Chinese, a form of Mandarin Chinese)") --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Update

Hi, why Acebot stop updating the "detailed list"? especially Arabic wikipedia--فيصل (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

فيصل, Acebot has been down since December. Recommend converting the Arabic Wiki chart to follow the example here, by using {{WP7}} which is already installed on arwiki. No bots are required with WP7. -- GreenC 00:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Grand Total

Do we know why the grand total numbers includes math that subtracts from the total certain wikis like mowiki? 

{{formatnum: {{#expr:{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|total}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|mo}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|ng}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|cho}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|kj}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|mh}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|ho}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|ii}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|aa}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|mus}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|hz}}-{{NUMBEROF|ARTICLES|kr}}}}}}

Thanks, ​ -- GreenC 00:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe some projects (the ones subtracted) are inactive/read-only or something, and are not counted as belonging to the "genuine" total. I saw mention of that somewhere but I've been to a lot of places lately and I don't know where. Johnuniq (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah makes sense. mowiki is not in config.tab so NUMBEROF will return "-1" error which is subtracted causing a plus one (!). The rest are in config.tab .. I'll add mo -- GreenC 00:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
The −1 is what I had in mind when I asked about whether zero should be used. By the way, I remembered one place I saw recently. ru:Module:NumberOf has a table called readOnly which lists: aa, cho, ho, hz, ii, kj, kr, mh, mus, ng. The table is used in various interesting ways that I haven't examined. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq, Looks like Moldovan Wikipedia is exceptional. MediaWiki API does not return data which causes the bot to abort and throw an error-email to avoid damaging the file on Commons. Thus, NUMBEROF can not support it, and I removed it. The -1 is not ideal but 0 is a valid statistic, and a string might cause unintended side effects during calculations? -1 is probably the least worst option, unless there was a multiplication which would shift it from a positive to negative number. These are very edge scenarios (Moldovan Wikipedia + multiplication of statistics which seems unlikely). The readOnly() feature might be replicated with a new column in config.tab for status (active|closed) and a new set of total stats (totalactive, totalclosed, totalall). -- GreenC 02:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
It might be a bit ugly but can the Commons config include a manually specified list of exceptions? If you search meta:List of Wikipedias for "closed" you see a dozen weird ones. I'm not sure what the bot should do for those exceptions. If any return valid data, it might include them but perhaps it could trap API errors for the exceptions and return zero for each value? I can see that API exceptions need to be handled as you have done, but perhaps an exception for exceptional exceptions could occur. Sorry, couldn't resist. Johnuniq (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I just installed Module:NUMBEROF on meta and now meta:List of Wikipedias by edits per article is up to date. Ideally we'd convert meta:List of Wikipedias to the same system as on Enwiki with {{WP7}} but a lot of work. The first step is create a new column in config.tab for status and like you say gracefully skip closed sites. The talk page for meta:List of Wikipedias/Tables has a string of requests for the botop to update every time a site is added or removed, one advantage of config.tab anyone can update the list. -- GreenC 04:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
That's good. One day I could investigate WP7 and possibly incorporate what it does in Module:NUMBEROF or a new module. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnuniq: Now have the ability to express totalactive, totalclosed and total (active + closed). Documented at Template:NUMBEROF. Updated config.tab on Commons, changed the bot, changed List of Wikipedias (diff), and changed {{WP7}} for |depth= (diff). Everything seems to be working but extra eyes appreciated. -- GreenC 15:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The grand total numbers are a little smaller than before. The old method was subtracting 10 closed sites, but there are actually 12 closed sites. -- GreenC 15:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
That's good! I did a minor copy edit on List of Wikipedias after agreeing with your change. The edit at WP7 is also good although the module calculates depth as an integer, which seems desirable to me but may lead to unhappiness with some results now showing 0. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Chebbycraft34 (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia introduce Lepcha Wikipedia and Tai Lü Wikipedia?

Requested move 9 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 22:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias → List of Wikipedia websites – In general, Wikipedia does not have a plural form, so this wouldn't make sense if the title reads "Wikipedias". Seventyfiveyears (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)@Seventyfiveyears, Kj cheetham, and Super Dromaeosaurus:. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
    • This needs further dicussion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm strongly opposed to this. Who said Wikipedia doesn't have a plural form? In fact, it is even used at the bottom of the Main page. Super Ψ Dro 19:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
        • For the record, I also object to this move. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose proposed title, since we're all on the same second level domain, I kind of view us as being on the same "website". According to this Google Scholar search, "Wikipedias" is not that uncommon, and editors do use "Wikipedias" in internal discussions. It may however look like jargon to outsiders, I would have been in support of List of Wikipedia language editions which was proposed in 2015. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The move request hinges on the unsupported assertion "Wikipedia does not have a plural form" but no rationale is provided in light of evidence to the contrary: Google search "Wikipedias", click drop-down "All results", choose "Verbatim". -- GreenC 23:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • No. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose maybe SNOW. Therapyisgood (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose (strongly). Even if there were any problem with the plural, it would have to be "Wikipedia versions", not "websites", a term tangled up with arguments about exactly what constitutes a "website". Imaginatorium (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I would want to withdraw this nomination. Instead of this, I would prefer to move this page to "List of Wikipedia language versions" instead. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
lol hope not. Is it pronounced "wiki-pee-dee-i" or "wiki-peed-i" -- GreenC 16:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Lol nope. I mean, no one says "encyclopedii", like, ever... Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, probably WP:SNOW at this point. Quahog (talk • contribs) 07:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No good reason has been put forward for the change and good reasons have been put forward for no change. --Bduke (talk) 07:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per literally everyone else, makes no sense.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to List of Wikipedia language versions as a more descriptive title. feminist (talk) | free Hong Kong 02:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge of Mon Wikipedia into List of Wikipedias

Doesn't seem notable; I'm not seeing why this warrants a standalone article. Adam9007 (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment That Wikipedia is already listed, there's literally nothing to merge. Suggest AfD if that is the intention to delete. -- GreenC 05:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Oh, I missed that :$. In that case, I suggest a redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 05:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Which is a deletion by redirect ie. AfD -- GreenC 14:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • AfD isn't the place to propose redirects, is it? Adam9007 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The redirect happens after the deletion, a two step process. First delete. Then redirect. The deletion falls into AfD territory, the results of which might include consensus for a redirect. In this case since the article contains 0 sources demonstrating notability I don't see the point in taking it further. But keep in mind, when you delete an article from mainspace it is deleted, regardless of it being replaced with a redirect which is an entirely separate question. -- GreenC 17:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect was the best solution here, but simply redirect will do as well now the A7 was rejected. Merging made little sense as there was nothing to merge. Fram (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)That sounds to me like delete-then-redirect, which, according to the essay WP:IGNORINGATD, can only happen if the page's entire history is eligible for WP:REVDEL (which it isn't). If I were to start an AfD with a rationale for something other than deletion, that could be considered disruptive. Adam9007 (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
  • This conversation is becoming incomprehensible. I decline to dance. -- GreenC

I redirected it. Nothing there to merge, and no idea why you rejected the A7 in the first place as there was not a single claim of importance, nor any source (there or online) indicating any importance. It shouldn't be treated different to other websites only because it has "Wikipedia" in the name, that's navelgazing. Fram (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

"Complete list of non-English Wikipedias available" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Complete list of non-English Wikipedias available. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Complete list of non-English Wikipedias available until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 01:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

List of Wikipedias → List of language versions of Wikipedia – The list composes each language version of Wikipedia. 2600:1700:6180:6290:5010:9EB9:D3A7:DB33 (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Resubstituted {{subst:requested move}} to fix malformed move request. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose While technically correct in a literal description sense, it's longer (per keep it concise), and it suggests there are other lists of Wikipedia according to something other than language versions. -- GreenC 23:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. I have to say that it sounds clumsy and implies that there's something like a "non-language" version of Wikipedia. Explodicator7331 (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose for reasons above, and some are multilingual I think such as India. Also oppose splitting of article.
An additional nitpick is that there is no differentiation of auto translated articles, so are those articles really a different language version or just a pidginWakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Wikipedias/Archive_1&oldid=1115460664"