Template talk:Wikipedia languages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Wikipedialang)
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for template updating[edit]

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zlobny (talkcontribs) 18:28, 18 July 2013‎

Protected edit request on 15 March 2015[edit]

Add the Macedonian Wikipedia to 50,000+ per this. Also Georgian, Occitan, Chechen, Newar / Nepal Bhasa, Urdu, Tamil, etc. Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 14:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Just read the doc, but still, a few might be added. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 14:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Has a particular Wikipedia not consisting primarily of stubs and placeholders been omitted? —David Levy 14:57, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

mk.wiki[edit]

Could you please add Macedonian (mk.wiki) as it has passed the 80.000 mark some time ago? Cheers! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Having previously discussed the matter extensively, you know perfectly well that the minimum article quantity isn't the sole inclusion criterion. —David Levy 15:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
It's evident that David Levy draws conclusions solely on the evidence that he's found in the past. There was a lengthy discussion on the inclusion of the Hindi Wikipedia to the list almost two years ago, where some users even complained on the relevance of the quality testing used by David Levy and proposed changes which, unfortunately, have never been implemented without even a single attempt to change something in the whole process. Later that year, I requested more thorough examination on the case with the Macedonian Wikipedia with no result even though David responded that he would do it after becoming less busy. That said, I'm strongly inclined to think that David doesn't want to put any efforts on examining the state of the Wikipedias any more and just responds by copying his usual automatic rejection to turn down any users requesting inclusion. His last two comments "Has a particular Wikipedia not consisting primarily of stubs and placeholders been omitted?" and "Having previously discussed the matter extensively, you know perfectly well that the minimum article quantity isn't the sole inclusion criterion." are clear indicators of unwillingness, hubris and disparagement of the work done by the communities on the other Wikipedias. Considering the involvement of users from other communities, this is not a minor issue and deserves further consideration. I think it's worth reporting on the administrators' noticeboard to see if any helpful suggestion come from it. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for failing to follow up in the earlier instance. It was an honest oversight that occurred during a hectic period, not a deliberate brush-off.
As anyone familiar with my long-winded messages can attest, I'm not one to shun discussion. I'm baffled as to why you've perceived my responses as "clear indicators of unwillingness, hubris and disparagement of the work done by the communities on the other Wikipedias".
"Has a particular Wikipedia not consisting primarily of stubs and placeholders been omitted?" was a sincere question, directed toward an editor who'd just become aware of our inclusion criteria and suggested that perhaps "a few" absent Wikipedias qualified (without specifying which).
My above reply to B. Jankuloski, which you've evidently interpreted as something along the lines of "Get lost! I have spoken.", simply reflects the user's feigned ignorance and intentional omission of relevant information, apparently intended to mislead a passing administrator lacking familiarity with our conventions (which, incidentally, I didn't institute unilaterally), which is exactly what happened when B. Jankuloski did this previously. —David Levy 12:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are obvioiusly under the impression that our wiki mostly consists of very small articles, and that our situation is somehow similar to what it was years ago when we made the request. I can assure you that now his not the case at all, In the years that have passed since our last suggestion, we have created many articles of very good size and this painstaking labour and it is very untoward to dismiss it. What I am talking about can best be illustrated by tjis list of long pages. On it, this article ranks at no. 50.000 by length. As can be seen, there are 49.999 articles larger than it, and a good number of them considerably so. I am sure that we more than meet the relevant criteria for inclusion. I expect that that, whoever decides, will take an objective look at our wiki in accordance with the relevant criteria and conclude what I have just expounded. --B. Jankuloski (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

ur.wiki[edit]

Urdu Wikipedia has passed 70,000 mark but not included in the list. Please update. --Tahir Mahmood (talk) 07:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the template's documentation, "this is not a complete list of Wikipedias containing 50,000 or more articles; Wikipedias determined to consist primarily of stubs and placeholders are omitted." —David Levy 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Danish Wikipedia has more than 200,000 articles[edit]

Please update the front page at the bottom. --94.189.38.110 (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll copy this to Template talk:Wikipedia languages, where it belongs. Art LaPella (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Done. —David Levy 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The same goes for the Bulgarian Wikipedia.--Givern (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Capitalize first letter of all language names[edit]

They are currently written in sentence case of the language itself. This gives a weird mix of capitalizations like "Deutsch · español · français · italiano · Nederlands · polski · русский · svenska". It looks ugly together and many readers will probably think it's an error. Language names are capitalized in English and although the names are written in the respective languages, it seems more natural to capitalize them all in the English Wikipedia, especially when they are all capitalized in the language list to the left of the main page and other pages. The first letter is also capitalized at https://www.wikipedia.org and most foreign Wikipedias under "Languages" at {{Wikipedia languages}}. We capitalize the first letter in many similar bulleted lists in navboxes so there would be nothing odd about doing it here. The implementation would be a trivial addition of {{ucfirst:}} in a single place in {{Wikipedia languages/core}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: I started this discussion after seeing Talk:Main Page#Wikipedia languages. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Agree with capitalizing.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 23:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Years ago, we decided to list the links in accordance with the individual languages' conventions (not those of English), reflecting the fact that the section was created mainly to serve said languages' readers. In the context of a list intrinsically comprising a "mix" of dissimilar languages, I see nothing "weird" or "ugly" about applying the same standard to the capitalization.
    Unlike "the language list to the left of the main page and other pages", the language names are not bulleted (only the four tiers are, and each does begin with an uppercase letter), nor is a style employed in the English language contextually relevant. Attempting to make the text look like English actually strikes me as counterproductive, given the inherent impossibility of succeeding. Many of the items don't even begin with Latin characters, so what uniformity would this change achieve? It would merely cater to (some) native readers of English via a superficial resemblance thereto and the illusion of consistency (because, after all, who cares about those funny squiggles?) within a template that exists primarily for other readers' benefit. I don't know what drives the various Wikipedias' formatting decisions, but that certainly isn't consistent with our longstanding approach. —David Levy 00:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    As discussed below, I find PrimeHunter's argument persuasive. Accordingly, I'm now neutral (and might decide to support the proposal). —David Levy 13:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    The first letter was upper case from 2001 [1] until 18 June 2012 where gerrit:7306 changed the behaviour of the used magic word (compare 18 June and 19 June). The switch to lower case was an automatic consequence of that and not the result of a decision about the main page language lists. Krinkle changed it to upper case in January 2013 [2] and you changed it to lower case 24 days later.[3] Has there been a discussion which decided to accept the automatic change to lower case? PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    I didn't mean to imply that the lowercase formatting was present from the beginning or adopted as the result of a decision about the section; I noted the behavior's addition to MediaWiki (and a couple of issues that arose as a result) in the discussion to which you linked in your proposal. My point, as stated above, is that it makes sense (in my opinion) to "[apply] the same standard to the capitalization" that we've long applied to the list's formatting in general. For most of the template's existence, we've adhered to the principle that it's intended to function primarily as a resource for readers of the languages listed and should be tailored accordingly (not for optimal accessibility in English, which we've consciously reduced for the sake of improving its accessibility in the other languages).
    I don't recall the idea of adjusting the template's capitalization arising before the MediaWiki improvement occurred, nor am I aware of any conversation on the matter of how to handle the MediaWiki update occurring before yesterday. The technical change certainly was discussed, and its impact on this section was covered, but I don't think that any sort of proposal or debate materialized. Much more attention was focused on the sidebar's language links, for which unforeseen side effects generated a good deal of concern. When it came to this template, conversely, any "discussion which decided to accept the automatic change to lower case" amounted to little more than the following exchange:

    "Hey, I just noticed that some of the language links at the bottom of the main page have become lowercase. What's that about?"
    "The software was just updated to use each language's native formatting of its name. If one appears in lowercase, that means that it's customary in that language. The rest are still capitalized."
    "Oh, okay. Thanks for the explanation."

    Krinkle's edit and mine, respectively, constituted the "B" and "R" in "BRD". Had someone pursued it, "D" would have been a discussion along the lines of this one, presumably. —David Levy 03:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose A solution in search of a problem. David Levy explains why the current convention works, no impending need to change to another arbitrary convention. --Jayron32 02:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support If you look at es.wiki or other languages where in the native language all languages names are lower case, even they capitalize every entry in their list of Wikipedias.[4][5] I think our approach is quite foolish. In bulleted navboxes throughout en.wiki, we use capital letters for every navbox entry (even when some are proper nouns and others are not). There is no reason not to use the same approach here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    If you look at es.wiki or other languages where in the native language all languages names are lower case, even they capitalize every entry in their list of Wikipedias.
    Do you possess first-hand knowledge of why other Wikipedias use that format, or have you simply assumed that it reflects a particular convention of equal relevance here (despite the existence of significant differences between English and any of those languages)? Various Wikipedias do all sorts of things differently, on their main pages and elsewhere. You've cited a particular practice resembling one that you wish to implement at the English Wikipedia, thereby ignoring countless other differences between those Wikipedias and this one.
    For all we know, many Wikipedias may have simply copied the formatting used here (before we began basing the template on language codes, thereby enabling the subsequent change), as they often do (and we copy some of them too, of course). This might be a situation analogous to one in which a source cited in a Wikipedia article based its information on claims that originated in an earlier, unsourced revision of the very same Wikipedia article.
    Of course, I don't know that to be the case. It's sheer speculation, so I don't assert that it carries any weight. We should base our decision on the merits, not on what other Wikipedias do (for whatever reasons they do it).
    In bulleted navboxes throughout en.wiki, we use capital letters for every navbox entry (even when some are proper nouns and others are not).
    Firstly, there appears to be continuing confusion regarding the meaning of "bulleted". Again, only the template's four tiers (the text of which does begin in uppercase) are bulleted.
    Secondly, content from an English Wikipedia article differs fundamentally from that of this template (which, by its very nature, contains a combination of items that neither can nor should be presented in a homogeneous manner.) I don't understand the desire to manufacture pseudo-uniformity across an assortment of items inherently written in entirely different languages. It's like affixing blue ribbons to an apple and an orange in an attempt to pass them off as two of the same fruit.
    And again, many of the language names aren't written with the Latin alphabet, so we can't even pretend to harmonize them. Under our current format, each language name is presented in its native format. This maximizes their consistency. Under the proposed format, some language names would be altered purely because of their superficial similarity to others (as perceived by native readers of English, the users for whom the section is least useful). Meanwhile, a bunch of other language names will remain untouched because they differ more, which prevents us from even pretending to apply the same treatment to them. So what will we have accomplished? (So much for consistency.) —David Levy 06:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    I'm Danish and find "Dansk" in an upper case list easier to locate than "dansk" in a mixed list. The mix gives a confusing impression that the list may consist of segments starting at each capital. And after seeing some capitalizations I don't know whether to look for dansk or Dansk. I suspect most people across languages would expect their language to be upper case in a language selection list. The Google search español français italiano português (four languages we write lower case) shows it is much more common to use upper case, also for horizontal lists. Maybe bulleted list is the wrong term for a horizontal list with terms separated by bullets/interpuncts/whatever, but we do generally use upper case on such lists. The main page itself has many and all except the languages use upper case. While each language is intended for people who know that language, this is still the English Wikipedia and most readers of the language lists will know few or none of the languages. And while there is logic in both systems, the logic in mixed capitalization is hard to guess. Lots of readers will think we goofed up on our main page and fair or not, it can easily affect their impression of us. When I see a text with poor capitalization, it negatively affects my view of the author. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    The dots separating the languages are, indeed, interpuncts. A bullet is a different mark, typically used at the beginning of a text line (not between items appearing thereon).
    While anecdotal, your explanation of why you find "Dansk" in an uppercase list easier to locate than "dansk" in a mixed list certainly gives me pause for thought. If most native readers of the languages listed (or those that use the Latin alphabet, really) share this view, I'd be inclined to reverse my position. Perhaps we could solicit input from such individuals. —David Levy 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    Since this is the English Wikipedia and not our common entry point https://www.wikipedia.org, input from native English readers who sometimes visit other languages would also be relevant. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed, all good-faith input is desirable. Historically, we've prioritized the template's utility among native readers of the languages listed (to the extent that we relegated their English names to the hover text, thereby reducing clutter and freeing up space), but accessibility to native English readers certainly isn't unimportant. —David Levy 13:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I stand by my original point from 2013 (see Revision #530893992). The rules about language name capitalisation apply to contexts where the name is used as a word. For example "View page in English" would be something like "Leggi in italiano" in Italian. However that doesn't change the fact that a title starts with a capital letter (sentences, list items, buttons, tabs, etc.). That is the case in Italian as well. This template doesn't produce a natural language sentence that happens to include some language names. Instead, these are clearly presented as independent entities for linking purposes. Each link is essentially a button. Title casing is therefore appropriate and expected. --Krinkle (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support this change. Krinkle is absolutely correct; the horizontal list is akin to a bulleted list (just visually laid out slightly differently) and should be formatted the same way. — This, that and the other (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Given the clear consensus to restore the capitalization, I've self-reverted its removal. The discussion can continue, of course, but a shift in the prevailing view seems highly unlikely. —David Levy 14:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)