AreaAudit

Which languages each generator says it supports, and where

Checking a language declaration yourself

The interface column here is produced by one procedure that anybody can repeat: read the markup, count the alternates served from the host you are reading, ignore the fallback entry, and write down the date. As of 2026-09-12.

The whole procedure, and the two steps where people disagreeRead the markup, discard alternates on other hosts, discard the entry naming no language, count by language while keeping the codes as written, and record the date. Steps two and three are the only ones where two careful readers would differ.Read themarkupThe alternatedeclarationsare in thepage source,in one placewith onesyntax.Which belong tothis host?Apply twoexclusionsDiscardalternates onother hosts,and the entrythat names nolanguage atall.What unit isleft?Count bylanguageKeep the codesexactly aswritten, sothe variantinformationsurvives.When was this?Record thedateThe figuredescribes apage on oneday, which isall anyreading canclaim.
Fig. 1 Everything else in the procedure is mechanical, which is why writing those two decisions down is what makes a figure reproducible.
The procedure, step by step, with the decision each step makes. Recorded 2026-09-12.
StepWhat to doDecision it settles
1Open the page source and find the alternate declarationsWhere the evidence is
2Discard any pointing at a different hostWhat belongs to this vendor
3Discard the entry naming no languageWhat counts as a language
4Count by language, keeping the codes as writtenThe unit
5Write down the dateWhat the figure describes

Inclusion rule. The steps this atlas applies to every vendor in the interface column. Applying them in a different order produces the same figure. Order. In the order the steps are performed.

1Two of the five steps are the whole argument

Discarding alternates on other hosts and discarding the fallback entry are the two decisions where careful people disagree. Everything else in the procedure is mechanical.

Both decisions have defensible alternatives, and both would change several figures. What matters is that the choice is made once, written down, and applied to every vendor including the ones it costs.

2Keep the codes, not just the count

Writing down the codes as the vendor wrote them preserves the only variant information the exercise produces. A count alone loses the difference between naming a language and naming a market.

It also makes the figure auditable. Somebody disagreeing with a total can be shown the list it came from, which is not possible if only the number was recorded.

3Then open one of them

A declaration can point at a redirect, a stale page or an English page with a switcher on it, and the count looks identical in all three cases. Opening one address and reading the page is a few seconds of work.

Check the navigation and headings rather than the body text, because a partly translated page usually has translated prose and untranslated furniture. That is also the quickest sign of an unreviewed automatic translation.

4What the exercise cannot tell you

Whether the translation is any good, whether support exists in the language, and whether anything the product generates will be in it. Those are the questions a buyer has, and none of them is in the markup.

The procedure answers a narrower question exactly, which is why it can be repeated. A method that tried to answer the larger questions would produce figures nobody else could reproduce.

An explainer about method and structure, not a count. No vendor number appears here that is not also in the register. The sourced material is on the register. Related: Regions nobody addressed, The document layer.