Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template/2013

Re: Multiple updates needed

I am going to edit Www.wikipedia.org template/temp per Talk:Project portals#Multiple updates needed. Please check for any errors and changes that need to be made. – Allen4names (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the section title was changed to Update project icons. – Allen4names (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, synced. Thehelpfulone 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear why the other projects aren't using <li>. And the id "otherprojects-div" is pretty silly. It's also not clear why there are all of these HTML comments about style attributes (e.g., "Use style parameter in HTML until these rules can be made to work"). The code seems messy and I'd like to see it cleaned up (and made to work, if necessary...) before being synced live. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

McBride. If you are going to use list markup you may want to edit MediaWiki:Gadget-wm-portal.css. The various logos are of different dimensions so the style sheet need to be tweaked so that the text will line up. I did not want to start this myself because of my inexperience so I left a message at Talk:Project portals (see link above) but I started after Wikivoyage launched. I hope you will be able to do a better job then I have (see my user page). Thank you. – Allen4names (talk) 05:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage has been officially launched since January 15, but it looks like the edit to add it to this page was reverted on February 10. Similarly, Wikidata was also removed. Is there a simple solution that would allow re-adding these, or does the entire page's CSS really need to be cleaned up as a prerequisite to making the change? I'm fairly new to the processes on meta (I'm mainly active on Wikivoyage) but would very much like to see the new projects reflected on this high-visibility page. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

After a bad page move the HTML code at Www.wikimedia.org template/sandbox (Allen4names) can now be viewed using the Wikimedia Portal Preview gadget. Please feel free to make any edits that you feel would improve this as an example for the other project portal pages. – Allen4names (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Allen - the template in your userspace is actually for http://wikimedia.org rather than http://www.wikipedia.org. Is there a corresponding template for www.wikipedia.org? Alternately, if the idea is to duplicate the sister project links at the bottom of the wikipedia.org page it looks fine to me, although Wikipedia would need to be removed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I intended that page (in mainspace by the way) to be either the basis for a true sandbox portal template or the sandbox itself. The Www.wikipedia.org template/temp page can be used as a sandbox but you should be prepared to revert your edit(s) if things do not work out. The "Custom margins for project logos" style rules and all but the Wikipedia, Incubator, and Foundation otherprojects-items can be used and with some care the "For testing only" in the subpage only. I have been busy editting items at Wikidata so I am not likly be be of much help. Good luck. – Allen4names (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: See Sandbox below. – Allen4names (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything to do in this section. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata and/or Wikivoyage in the other projects section

Hi all. Is there any plan to incorporate either of our two newest projects into the section at the bottom? On en we've added both, along with MediaWiki to balance things out. I haven't been keeping up to date with the status of Wikivoyage, but since Wikidata will be going live on all 'pedias by the end of the month, I figure it could be useful to include a link to it, at least. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

See the section above. – Allen4names (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok. Sorry 'bout that. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Synced as per above. Thehelpfulone 01:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Update

Galician Wikipedia (gl.wikipedia.org) has reached 100,000 articles. Needs update. Thanks! --Toliño ^{Fala aquí comigo} 08:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Have you updated www.wikipedia.org template/temp? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please update www.wikipedia.org template/temp and I'd be happy to sync this for you. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've made the update on www.wikipedia.org template/temp. Regards! --Toliño ^{Fala aquí comigo} 08:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Toliño! I compared those two pages and could not find differ difference. so I suppose this had been synced. -Mys_721tx(talk) 03:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Danny B. did it on March 15. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
The temp page should be checked and updated again. I may do it later but I don't have the time to do it correctly now. – Allen4names (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Www.wikipedia.org_template/temp&oldid=5358217 202.127.20.56 13:17, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Www.wikipedia.org_template/temp&oldid=5362699 202.127.20.56 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Www.wikipedia.org_template/temp&oldid=5368849 202.127.20.56 05:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Www.wikipedia.org_template/temp&oldid=5375929 202.127.20.56 07:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please sync. with /temp. See request on my talk. As I'm not expert in this page I preferr if somebody with more experience could handle this. Thank you. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Www.wikipedia.org_template/temp&oldid=5474326 202.127.20.56 08:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Www.wikipedia.org_template/temp&diff=5527798&oldid=5510661 202.127.20.56 09:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that that version has a 'millions' section, but the current doesn't (see below) - maybe move Geitost's to the sandbox and update the current one? PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

It has been requested that I put the millions section into the temp version. So now, it shall not be updated? Why? I don’t see any reason, why it hasn’t already been updated weeks ago. Why update a newer version and put it back again? I really like to know cause I don’t understand it. I could have done other things than waste hours of time and noone says why it shall not be taken then. I really don’t understand it. I don’t think that there should be done sandboxes or such things, if noone can tell, what shall be wrong with this version now. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 16:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the now-being version has the same order as the other newer versions, it has no other order. It just says that is has, but is hasn’t. So argumenting that the order should not be as it is means argumenting against the now-being order and also its updates. Noone ever argumented against a millions section, but only against the order which now already is in the template and on the page. I didn’t want to change the order as it is. It seems to be silly to me to argument against things that I didn’t change at all, but the things that should be changed don’t get live. I don’t understand anything here anymore. I’d really like to see any change here and not just letting things undone and not even saying why. I’ve asked for the reason, but I’m getting no answer at all. I explained very long, but no reaction. I should have let this whole thing the way it has been before. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 16:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Www.wikipedia.org_template/temp&oldid=5543040 202.127.20.56 14:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

ru-WP and en-WP both have 10,000 articles more now. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 19:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox

I have created Www.wikipedia.org template/sandbox to allow experimental edits without interfering with update edits at Www.wikipedia.org template/temp. Currently this sandbox differs by listification of the language list (langlist) and other projects (2nd list), using classes to allow JavaScript to be added later to sort the langlist by the rough number of articles, and comparing two different styles for other project lists. – Allen4names (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't see this ever being synced live. You're making a lot of changes for completely unclear reasons. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

At this point, if I just wanted to update the existing HTML of Www.wikipedia.org template to add Wikivoyage and Wikidata without making any other changes, should Www.wikipedia.org template/temp be reverted to match Www.wikipedia.org template and the new projects added, is Www.wikipedia.org template/sandbox the right page to update, or is some other process appropriate? Any info would be appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The sandbox subpage is not for updating the main template, if updates are needed the temp subpage should be updated first. The sandbox version uses HTML list tags whereas the main template as of yet does not. I am hoping that future updates need only change a class value instead of moving code around but I have almost no experience writing JavaScript. Is there anything that remains unclear to you McBride? – Allen4names (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

OK, I've restored Www.wikipedia.org template/temp to match Www.wikipedia.org template and then added updates to include Wikivoyage and Wikidata. I've also included MediaWiki so that there are three items in all columns - this matches w:Template:Wikipedia's sister projects, so hopefully that makes sense. Please let me know if anything else is required. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I've followed the steps required to get Www.wikipedia.org template updated with the (new) contents of Www.wikipedia.org template/temp, but if anything else is required please let me know. -- Ryan • (talk) • 23:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Synced. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

W3C found errors while checking www.wikipedia.org as HTML5

W3C Markup Validation Service found 6 Errors and 26 warnings at Wikipedia when I open this website. I figure it could be resolved.--Great Brightstar (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the HTML5 spec? If so, try out changes to the raw HTML code on Www.wikipedia.org template/temp (the "preview html" button) and validate by direct input. PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed by User:Putnik. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

add new section for Wikipedias with more than a million articles

{{editprotected}} See Talk:Www.wikipedia.org template/2012#Request to add a new 1 million section - Wikipedias. There are from today on (with es-WP at the least and a few days ago the ru-WP) 7 Wikipedias with more than a million articles, and one of them, the nl-WP has now more than 1.5 million articles, but isn’t listed in the Top Ten because it still has much less views per day (about 250,000) than zh-WP (about 400,000). So, following the proposal of 2010 and the discussion about this of 2012, I propose that now a new section with the 7 Wikipedias with more than a million articles should be listed, because it looks odd to list nl-WP with 1.5 million articles in a section with more than 100,000 articles, but not on top of the page. It looks like there ain’t no update of the page and big WPs like this were forgotten at all. Also sv-WP (974,213 articles and also not in the Top Ten) and pl-WP (967,547 articles) won’t need very long to reach this, so the section would get bigger from now on. Please add the new section in the template now – and despite the fact, that sv-WP and nl-WP both have more than 40 percent articles created by bots, that shouldn’t matter for this, because it looks very odd to the readers like it is now. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 12:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to add this to Www.wikipedia.org template/temp and preview it? PiRSquared17 (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I can try, let’s see. :-) --– Geitost ^diskusjon 12:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I updated the page. But I can’t see how it looks now, how can I see the result? Is there any special page for it? --– Geitost ^diskusjon 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there a tab on the top next to "Diskussion" and the edit button that says "Preview HTML"? If not, then go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check "Wikimedia Portal Preview". PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I don’t have such a button, maybe it’s only there with JavaScript? The gadgets are all only to use with this, so I can’t do that now. I’ve switched off JavaScript cause my browser makes nothing senseful with that and only produces further errors. I think the JavaScript is just too old for all the gadgets here. But at least, other things go faster without all that scripting. ;-)

I wanna add something else about the changes, perhaps you can check that, too?:

Since the first two sections for WPs with over 1 million and over 100,000 articles are now both in the size very large, I’ve set the next section for WPs over 10,000 articles the same size as the ones with over 1000 articles. Also, the section for the WPs over 10,000 articles is getting bigger and bigger. So, I hope it looks ok this way.

The bookshelves are very wide now also, but in the now-being version there’s no problem with it, if you shorten the window, so I don’t think, there will be any problem with that. Just see, how it looks like. Maybe it could be a better idea for all sections to put less of the bookshelve images to it, don’t know. The way it is up to now, it should be better this way. But that could also be changed later, if people think that it gets to wide.

I also wondered about the fact that the language names here differ from the ones at List of Wikipedias/Table, so I changed a few names the way they are named there, cause I think that they can be changed easier there and therefore should be right there, but I could be mistaken. Perhaps there’s also a list anywhere how the WPs name themselves? --– Geitost ^diskusjon 17:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the gadget works only with JavaScript enabled, sorry for not clarifying that. You can just save the raw HTML as a file on your computer with the extension "html", and open it in a browser. I'm not sure about the language names and the images of bookshelves, but feel free to try anything. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I tried that way. I don’t see any of the images, when opening the local saved file in my browser, and all the text is at the left side instead of centered as here. Which also means, that the Top Ten are at the left side of the page, but not around the image that I can’t see. And then, the changed sections have all the same letter size, so I don’t see any difference between the different sizes. Assuming that these things only are due to the fact that I don’t see the result immediately but just indirect, I suppose that the page could be ok this way, but I just can’t say. So please take a look at it, and if you see images, text in the middle instead of at the left side, all languages around the puzzle ball, and if you think the size of the text in the sections is ok this way, then you can save it the way it is. I assume I can see the result tomorrow on the other page and can then see there, if anything could look even better (and perhaps think about the bookshelves or sizes once more). --– Geitost ^diskusjon 19:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you just enable JS for the gadget and then disable it? Saving the HTML locally isn't the best way to test this kind of stuff. If you really want to try stuff, paste the HTML code in the top left box of http://jsfiddle.net/ and press "Run" at the top. Sorry for not being able to come up with a better solution right now. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven’t explained it right: It doesn’t matter at all, if I have JS enabled or not (and the button in „Wikimedia Portal Preview“ is already enabled), there’s never such a button at the top, so it’s better to let JS away, because it doesn’t do anything else but errors that I don’t have without it. And with or without it, there is something missing (perhaps also something else), because I can’t write or copy any text into the top left box on http://jsfiddle.net/. Perhaps I should just revert everything again. I only said I can try, but if it doesn’t go, then just let it be. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 00:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

This might be a silly suggestion, but if you use the Vector skin, then the Preview HTML button is hidden under the arrow button next to the search box. (You have to enable JS first, of course.) odder (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) I personally think it looks great. The problems you mentioned (alignment) don't occur when I try it. There is definitely a font size difference between the text used for the first two, including "100 000+", and "10 000+", etc. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, too, and as far as I'm aware, the font size difference is intended. odder (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sure intended. If you take a look at the actual version, there are 3 different sizes:

• langlist-large for 100,000+ and 10,000+
• normal for 1,000+
• langlist-tiny for 100+

If it wouldn’t be changed for 10,000+, then there would be one small, one normal and three big sizes. I thought that this would not look very well, therefore the change. Now there are also 3 sizes as before, but (also as before) not 3 sections with the same size, but instead 2 with big and 2 with normal size:

• langlist-large for 1 mio. and 100,000+
• normal for 10,000+ and 1,000+
• langlist-tiny for 100+ (as it were before)

Instead, there could be a bigger size for 1 mio. than langlist-large, but I think that wouldn’t look very well and I even don’t know if there is a bigger size. So I believe it’s better that the 3rd section with 10,000+ is smaller now than before (I had no other idea for that, otherwise there have to be 3 equal sized sections or something else). --– Geitost ^diskusjon 22:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Technical details aside, I  Support a "1 000 000+" category. Seven Wikipedia editions are enough for it not to look lonely or barren. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I partially updated the portal with this edit (and this edit). However, many of the other changes appear to be wrong currently. Comparing http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm with www.wikipedia.org_template/temp, it appears the order of various lists is inconsistent. Please adjust the lists and I'll be happy to take a look and re-sync as necessary and appropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean. Perhaps you have an example where anything is or shall be wrong? --– Geitost ^diskusjon 10:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The page http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm is ordered by „Prim.+Sec. Speakers“, so Simple English is on the 2nd place there. I don’t think that this should be the same order for this page here. Here, the order shall be by „Views per hour“ which is at the time the order here (just for the Top Ten, the other data doesn’t come from that page at all, so the order clearly can’t be the same). --– Geitost ^diskusjon 10:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

And the list on that page is old, it’s from March. The dates about the Wikipedias (number of articles, number of users and native language names) in the section below the search field are from List of Wikipedias/Table as of 2013-05-17, which now is a week ago already again. The number of views isn’t listed at the actual table at List of Wikipedias/Table, that is a bit older on the page http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm (March). There may be changes in article and user number between the end of March an 17 of May, for example Spanish Wikipedia now has a lot more articles listed than in March, because in March the lists articles in that Wikipedia, weren’t counted at all (it was a bug in that WP that has been fixed between March and May). Is that, what you mean?? --– Geitost ^diskusjon 10:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The lists below the Top Ten are ordered by their native names in the sections, the native names differ at different pages, I took some of the names from List of Wikipedias/Table, because here, they are clearly not so easy to change, so I think the names on the list of Wikipedias should be more correct. The search box below the Top Ten is sorted by pagecount (last updated 2013-05-17), so with that update date, the data is also from the lists of Wikipedias page, and I sorted it like the lists there on 17 of May (maybe it is now already another order there, it’s a week ago, but I can’t change this page here every day like the lists of Wikipedia is updated every day). I still don’t understand, what should be changed with that now or why. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 11:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps that’s what you mean. The order of the search box. There isn’t any pagecount at the lists of Wikipedia. The search box at the time is listed by number of articles of the lists of Wikipedia page as of 17 May. So it isn’t ordered by pagecount. But should it be? Then it can’t have a date like 17 May, it then can only be ordered by pagecount as of 31 March. I had the impression that it is at the time also ordered by article count and not by pagecount. If I change that, then it will be ordered not the way it is now. If you take a look at this page, then you can see, that there you are told, that the search box is ordered by pagecount, but it isn’t. The German WP is on the 2nd place there, and it is by articles, but not by pagecount. So, the description is wrong, there should stand order by articles, because that is the order (and it’s newer and easier to order by that). --– Geitost ^diskusjon 11:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the description, because it was wrong like it is sorted up to now. If you don’t want to have an order by article there, then you have to change Www.wikipedia.org template, cause it has also been ordered by article up to now and not by pagecount. And it would be too difficult for me to order these many languages by pagecount, cause I don’t see any list which is ordered like this, I would have to write down all pagecount numbers and order them manually (which is not the case with article count order which is easy to get from List of Wikipedias/Table). If someone wants to have such an order, then he would have to sort it himself, that’s too much work and actually, it would also mean a change of order from now on.

By the way: Does pagecount mean the number of all pages on a wiki i.e. the page number, or does it mean the number of pageviews? And why should it be ordered like this and not by article number which is much easier to update? I think I don’t understand that. The lists below also aren’t ordered into the sections by pagecount or page number, but by article number (content pages) and then in the sections by their native names. This is too confusing for me. --– Geitost ^diskusjon 11:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - I have synched the changes creating the new 1 Million articles section from /temp. Because it seems like there were no opposes to that here and there were not really any style changes in the difference between /temp and the real page now. --MF-W 03:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Remove search box labels

Hi. I think the page no longer needs the search box label. It's grown considerably in size and it doesn't really add much value to the page, in my opinion. Thoughts on removing the search box label? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Without objection, removed. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

autofocus problems?

A tweet drew my attention to some odd behavior on the WP portal (and a couple of the other portals). It appears that the autofocus on the search box (which has been around for quite a while) is drawing the scroll down a ton for at least Chrome and FF (Chrome more then FF). You can see the Chrome page in [this screen shot where you actually skip the entire globe and main part of the page. This seems highly un ideal but I have not yet been able to find any recent changes that would have caused it... which is very weird because I swear this has not been happening for long. I don't visit the portal every day but I generally do every week or so at least at some point. It appears this is 'working as designed' for HTML5 and so the only fix I can think of right now is removing the auto focus but is anyone else able to figure out what I'm missing that 'changed' for this? Jamesofur (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there's some JavaScript that tries to ensure that the search field is always visible when the page loads. Consequently, if the browser window is small enough, the page will jump down in order to ensure that the search input is visible. However, the JavaScript seems to be a bit wonky and sometimes misfires, it seems. It has nothing to do with autofocus or HTML5, as far as I'm aware. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this in MediaWiki:Gadget-wm-portal.js? Is it the part near the "a.focus()"? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It may be that the JavaScript there is interfering with the HTML5 autofocus attribute. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

.focus() only happens if the browser doesn't recognize the autofocus attribute. Originally, autofocus only focused the input box, but it looks like some browsers additionally scroll the input box to the center of the viewport, even if it would've been visible anyways. I've added code to scroll back to the top in this case. Hopefully that doesn't annoy anyone. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 10:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Autonym font

Please see my proposal for enabling the new Autonym font as a fallback font here. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Dashboard for detecting needed changes

I've added a new section above, "Current issues", that automatically lists any changes we need to make to this portal as a result of article counts changing or new wikis being added. The dashboard comes from Module:Project portal, which is updated automatically based on the contents of List of Wikipedias/Table.

The module parses both www.wikipedia.org template and www.wikipedia.org template/temp using Module:SLAXML. Because the portal is written in HTML5, the module performs some quick and dirty string replacements to turn it into more-or-less well-formed XML for the parser to digest. It'll handle minor changes to the portal's HTML code, but the Lua code will have to be updated whenever we make structural changes to the portal.

When significant issues arise (new languages, promotions, demotions), the module automatically transcludes {{Edit Protected}} onto this page so that other admins can quickly take care of them. If an issue is fixed in /temp but not yet pushed live, the issue says so.

The dashboard is also enabled at Talk:www.wikibooks.org template. As other portals are migrated to the same HTML structure as this portal, they'll each get a dashboard as well. But I think just automating this portal alone will save us a fair amount of work.

Let me know what you think. What other kinds of information should we be tracking? Would you support going the full mile and generating the HTML from within Module:Project portal instead of writing it manually in /temp?

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Request to promote Armenian Wikipedia

Hi, Armenian Wikipedia reached 100 000 articles today, so we need to promote it on index page. I've made changes mentioned in documentation, in "staging". Please take a look, and sync it with "production". --Xelgen (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Done Congratulations! – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)