Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:52 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 6548 - Introduce {{NUMBEROFINTERWIKIS}} magic word
Introduce {{NUMBEROFINTERWIKIS}} magic word
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Database (Other open bugs)
All All
: Lowest enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-07-05 00:15 UTC by BloodIce
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:05 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description BloodIce 2006-07-05 00:15:50 UTC
Simply counting the number of interwiki links on particular wikipedia. It could
be used in  statistical approaches and to pointing the degree of
internationalization of a wikipedia.
Comment 1 Antoine "hashar" Musso (WMF) 2006-07-05 18:08:36 UTC
See the statistics generated with the database dumps:

You even got charts:
Comment 2 BloodIce 2006-07-06 01:28:47 UTC
Thanks, but I know about them. My intention is to include this number in a page
(in my user space), and to calculate dinamicly the link per article. Is it
possible or it is much work? I wonder what is the mechanism to count interwikis
trough database - does it includes scan of all pages, or there is some clever way?
Comment 3 Rob Church 2006-07-08 11:36:37 UTC
The only mechanism we've got at the moment would be to count all rows in the
langlinks table. That would drive people spare if implemented as a magic word,
so someone is going to have to come up with a clever solution.
Comment 4 Platonides 2006-09-25 15:57:29 UTC
Add it to Special:statistics, maybe?
Comment 5 Rob Church 2006-10-30 13:06:31 UTC
That's not a mechanism, that's a further output location. We need an effective means of 
calculating the number, first, that won't cause our database servers to whimper and die.
Comment 6 Jamie Hari 2007-07-13 04:34:46 UTC
How about a cached number?
The data wouldn't be 'live and accurate', but then again... what is these days with a dozen or so squids up-front?
Comment 7 Brion Vibber 2007-07-13 14:03:46 UTC
I don't think a single number would really be meaningful here, even if it was added. There'd be no distinguishing between wide coverage (many pages marked) and deep coverage (many languages linked).
Comment 8 Chad H. 2009-04-10 14:13:10 UTC
Going ahead and WONTFIXing this. Not a massive use case, and as Brion mentioned above, it's not a very useful number anyway.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.