| | ::::: I just tried it out and you're right... I'm rather surprised! In any case though, we can't rely on anything being 'universal'. Interwiki links are necessarily a point where different practices across Wiktionaries will clash. There isn't really much we can do about that. All we can do is choose what fits best for us. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | | ::::: I just tried it out and you're right... I'm rather surprised! In any case though, we can't rely on anything being 'universal'. Interwiki links are necessarily a point where different practices across Wiktionaries will clash. There isn't really much we can do about that. All we can do is choose what fits best for us. {{User:CodeCat/signature}} 22:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC) |
| | :::::: Well, I'm in favor of keeping the current alphabetical order by (virtual transliteration of) native name. Sorting by code benefits editors, not readers. —[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 22:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | | :::::: Well, I'm in favor of keeping the current alphabetical order by (virtual transliteration of) native name. Sorting by code benefits editors, not readers. —[[User:Angr|'''An''']][[User talk:Angr|''gr'']] 22:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC) |
| | + | ::::::: As, as I pointed out above before this became sidetracked, I disagree with you on both issues. (1) We're not "keeping" anything because there is no current standard. Most editors I've seen add them alphabetically by ISO code. (2) Readers don't benefit from either order, because the interwikis on Wiktionary are used mostly by editors and not by readers. --[[User:EncycloPetey|EncycloPetey]] ([[User talk:EncycloPetey|talk]]) 22:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC) |
