Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Archive 4

message: On July 9 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of Wikipedians by number of edits for a record of the discussion. – Rich Farmbrough 01:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for deletion

message: Hello, I've opened a case regarding updating the list at Computer help desk/Dmcdevit 20050718. It seems to me the best way to solve this problem is to generate a new SQL script that runs against the database. Downloading over 20 gigs of data for one report seems like overkill. Unfortunately I don't have the time to create the new script right now but if someone sees this before I can get to it and they do create it, please attach the SQL to the case above so in case this happens again a starting point for another solution is archived. Triddle 16:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Good plan.  I didn't know we had a computer help desk...  Of course, I'm not allowed to post there anyway. anthony 10:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasnt this done by Jamesday with this script? ∞Who?¿? 10:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the list 

message: With the growth in number of users, it would be useful to show more than just the top 1000, maybe 2000 or 3000 users (we could put this in daughter articles if this makes the project page too big).  NoSeptember 03:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea, but would prefer it on a sub-page possibly. Not to extend load time of current page.  ∞Who?¿? 03:46, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Good idea. The list has previously been extended from 200 and 500 people so a further extension to, say, 2500 to take account of greater user numbers seems appropriate. I think all users with >1000 all namespace edits should be listed. Pcb21| Pete 21:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, in the original list you only needed 100 edits, and that time mav had made 10% of the edits to WP! old data here Pcb21| Pete 21:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of List 

message: Is there going to be regular updates here, or is it too much work? I don't know the computer work involved but from the discusions above it sounded like people had things figured out. Anyways, just wondering. - Trevor MacInnis(Talk | Contribs) 15:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamesday did the last update using direct (developer) access to the database.  He posted the script somewhere, so I think pretty much all it would take is someone with developer access to re-run the script.  -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's also usually pretty busy, but here is the link for the script Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/script. ∞Who?¿? 20:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its been two months and a week. It could really use an update maybe. JobE6  16:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to d/l the full dump again, but there is an issue with d/l it or something, we get an error at the same spot. So basically I think we need a developer to run the script, I wouldn't ask atm though, they are pretty buzy with a few nasty bugs.  ∞Who?¿? 17:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Is there any way to get a partial dump, just of the tables needed to run the script? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 15:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to get the two latest dumps, thought I had one, but it was corrupt. You can't get a partial one because you need the entire edit history, which we use scripts or programs to filter out the contributors. I tried again a few days ago, and plan to try again here shortly.  ∞Who?¿? 19:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit history isn't separated from the page content (that is, in separate tables) in the database? — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 01:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't opened up the entire db in awhile, so I dont know all of the tables.  I dont know if you can get just the history w/o direct access to a slave to run a query. It's not an important query, so not one that we would ask to be ran.  If you look on http://download.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/  , I don't see a dump of just the history. The only way to do it, is to have a copy of the entire dump, which for some reason fails on d/l. I read something about changing d/l options, but I dont remember where. ∞Who?¿? 03:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another update maybe? 

message: I expect to be beaten down now (hopefully only virtually), but, in light of the recurring problems arising with updating this page, and the new outlay of Kate's tool (which discourages editcountitis rather strongly), are we sure we really need this page any longer? Lectonar 10:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we are sure. Ambi 10:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not essential, but it'd be nice. Grutness...wha? 11:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Our opportunities of having random, purposeless, curious, no-stress fun on the Wikipedia are so limited already, so why take away one of the few of such opportunities? An incredibly big deal is made out of editcountitis and etc... really, we hear so damn much about it. But seriously, how many times have you actually seen it in action other than in cases where the user is a newbie with 500 edits? Once you break the 1200~1500 edits barrier nobody gives a damn anymore. We really should start concentrating on real issues instead of this sort of non-existent problem. (PS: I don't know if my message sounds a little too informal, but I am only speaking this openly because I respect you). Regards, --Sn0wflake 17:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that editcountitis is mostly an imagined problem.  I also agree that seeing contributors' edit number standings is kind of interesting/fun.  I do think it is one good measure of how much work contributors have done, and it thus serves as a kind of reward for the hard work. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work</span> 20:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A "blasphemous" proposal 

message: *Main namespace: 11942
*all spaces: 9069
for me: Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they're reversed.  Acegikmo1 04:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. the "Article-space" number for me tallies very closely with Kate's tools' total for all namespaces and vice versa. Grutness...wha? 04:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, definately, I just added ranks. I will swap them now. «»Who?¿?meta 07:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: ISTR that ranks aren't normally given to bots, either, so you might want to change that too! :) Grutness...wha? 07:16, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew someone was gonna say that :)  I was lazy this time. I have a generic script to do it, i'll see about weeding them out. Unless someone else does first. «»Who?¿?meta 07:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, doing it now, but I have to go flag all the bots that arent "flagged" as bots. «»Who?¿?meta 07:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I think i got them all. Some of them don't have flags, so I had to check their userpages. There are 2 more, but there userpage doesn't indicate that they are bots.  Something else odd though, User:John Price doesn't exist, but has a contribs link which shows 0. But kate's shows it has contribs. Not sure what's up with that, unless it's just me. «»Who?¿?meta 09:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Error?

message: Can someone please check both lists and tell me where I am. I cant seem to find it. I know I should be on the list because on September 11th I reached 5,000 edits. Can anyone find it? Look under the name Moe Epsilon please. — Moe ε 22:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, there was a problem loading part of the list part way through the process. I'll prepare an updated list because others may also have been affected. Your counts were: all namespaces: 5542, all in September: 757; main: 5090, main September 667. Jamesday 03:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I checked the original data, before I added rankings, and I don't see you. My bot isn't on there either, so I'm not sure. «»Who?¿?meta 23:13, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: yes it was updated the 15th by James Day. Check the history. It was data from September to early October. «»Who?¿?meta 01:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am sorry for the inconvenience! You are right. Svest 01:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where am I? 

message: The message at the top says the list is out of date.  Then it says it is current as at 15 October.  Seems pretty up to date to me.  Am I missing something?  JackofOz 00:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was updated but someone forgot to remove the message.  See the conversation above this one. --tomf688{talk} 00:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.  JackofOz 01:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What date is out of date, just out of curiosity? (1895 edits for me now, my quest for 2000 before January 1, 2006 is on! Very rationally of course :) ). -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 02:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification required

message: If it's of interest to anyone, I've parsed the full dump from c. 20 October 2005 and done a ranking for IPs, - some of which have names for historical/technical reasons. I've listed those with over 1500 edits here.  Intersting to note that the top "true" IP is Microsoft. Rich   Farmbrough 20:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IP addresses

message: Curiously this page claims I have more edits than does Kate's counter which I have been monitoring for a while. I am 223rd. Any ideas? SqueakBox 17:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Differing figures

message: It's been over a month since the last update.  Time for another one I think.Gator (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with that. :) --Andylkl (talk) (contrib) 10:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Agree.  JackofOz 13:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you launch script for generating this list? Dump in download.wikimedia.org does not include user table, that is necessary for getting names and so on. Thanks. --Porao 08:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you need to exactly do to retrieve the data? If it's easy enough, any of us can do it. Can anyone include a comprehensive walkthrough? -- WB 22:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The script (here) requires SQL access to a slave copy of the master database.  Developers have this, and pretty much nobody else. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... now contact the developers then? That seems like the only solution... -- WB 01:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Do users who were missed out from the last update need to do anything to ensure they are included this time? CLW 09:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've completely redesigned the script, and nice pretty new (and hopefully correct) numbers are posted. If desired, I can change the page to transclude the tables and set a cronjob to automatically update the table pages once a month. --Gmaxwell 22:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Gmaxwell, that's a good idea. Could you do that? --maru  (talk) contribs 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an update? 

message: Not being a big one on edit count, I hadn't really checked my edit count tally for a while.  When I did, thinking I'd try and figure out when my 5000th edit would have been, I was a little confused, as my edit count had actually seemed to go down.  A few weeks later (i.e., today) I just figured out why, thanks to the WP:1000 page.  For some reason, as of 29 November, I'm on there twice, at #1099 (with 3990 edits) and at #1340 (with 2119) edits.  Can anyone explain this to me?  Is there some way of rectifying this?  Please let me know on my talk page if possible.  I wub yew all. Proto t c 15:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: answered on user's talk page Lectonar 15:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes. *shamed* I am hella dumb. Proto t c 15:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Maybe I am missing something, but it might be an idea for the introduction to have a bit more explanation about the rank/sorting order. I thought the first table used to be sorted by the total number of edits in the Article space, but that doesn't appear to be true any more. The second table does seem to be sorted by the number of edits in all namespaces. 
Similarly I assume the 'rate' items are something like 'number of edits per day' in each namespace. -- Solipsist 15:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the sort is by the sum of the "total" and "this month" numbers, which seems to be some sort of bug (either the "total" isn't the actual total, or the sort order is wrong - pick one). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's definitely wrong. 62.31.55.223 19:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about the sorting order as well.. -- WB 22:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Pile on, how is this sorted? xaosflux Talk/CVU 16px 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, eh, how is this sorted? Who sorts it? -- Ec5618 21:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's sorted on the sum.. which is a bug. I've fixed the bug, but the DB server wasn't staying up long enough to finish the query at that point in time.. They are more stable now, so I can run it again.. but I need to know what form people want first. :) Ideally I'd like to include a little more information than the orignal. (at least have a rank number that skips bots...) I agree that the table is a browser killer.  --Gmaxwell 06:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: *Thanks for the explanation.  I have added a note to the page to explain that the sorting is a little bit off.  Thanks for your work at maintaining the updates! Johntex\talk 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sorting

message: One for main namespace, the other one for all namespace. Since it is too long to edit (over 2 MB), split to two would make it much easier to edit. — Yaohua2000 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: good idea - even then it would be too big in its current form. Do we need the split by namespace? See more comments under "Chash!" above. Grutness...wha? 01:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Why not, when the script generates it, insert a heading every 50 rows?  You'll get a nice little edit button for a 50 row section, rather than the whole thing.  Joe D (t) 03:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd still get the problem that its impossible to load on some browsers. And simply splitting it every fifty rows might well make the job of updating it quite a chore. Grutness...wha? 03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split this article? 

message: Could someone please explain (on the project page) what the "rate" number refers to? ··gracefool |☺ 23:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF does "rate" mean? 

message: does anyone know why the WP shortcut template on the top of the page is broken? I've tried fixing it and nothing seems to work.--Alhutch 19:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be because the page is too large.  violet/riga (t) 19:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  template 

message: Due to the new table format, this page causes some computers I use to lock up almost completely.  It looks nice, but it doesn't work that well for everyone.  Ingoolemo talk 17:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: Above, Gmaxwell asks for input on the best way to format the output from the script. Clearly the main problem at the moment is just that the tables are too large to sit comfortably in an average browser. I would say the items to consider would be;
#Remove the daily rate cells
#Remove the table formatting and go back to plain text layout
#Reduce the max rank back to 1000
#Merge the two tables and add an allnamespace ranking column in the first table
#Reintroduce the change in rank since last month/when the script was last run
For my part, I'd recommend doing 1, 2 and 4 and if that doesn't get it small enough try 3 too. It would seem a shame to loose the table formatting, but I suspect that could be the biggest thing that is choking the browsers. -- Solipsist 07:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say do 1, 2 and 4. The list went to 1500 before with no problems - it's the formatting that's stuffed things up. Grutness...wha? 08:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason not to do 3 other than simple vanity -- i.e., the people ranked in the second 1,000 not wanting to get kicked off the page. In fact, I'd be willing to go even smaller, say 500, except WP:1000 is still a shortcut to this page. So 1,000 seems a logical choice. (Full disclosure: In the present version I'm listed at 1,089 and 1,000, respectively, in the two tables.) - dcljr (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well given all the caveats and general pointlessness of counting edits, I've often thought that the main benefit of this page is that it tends to encourge people to do some more editing before the next update comes out in the hope of improving their rank. This slight competitiveness is probably a good thing. In that case, we would want a list long enough to encourage the most people. A short list would be rather exclusive, but that might make people try harder to get on it. A long list might get more editors watching their edit position (I kind of like the way the current list includes some anon IP editors). I imagine the length should grow as Wikipedia gets bigger and there is probably some objective way to decide how big it should be, such as including the top 10% of active editors or something, but it is easiest just to decide whether we want a long list or a short list and then pick a round number. -- Solipsist 06:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New page formatting

message: Why are the edit counts on this page higher than the ones on Interiot's Contributions Tree Tool which appears to be more up to date? Rmhermen 02:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this page doesn't count edits to deleted articles, which might make some difference. Not sure whether Interiot's tool does or not, but even if it doesn't, some articles may have been deleted between the time this page was last updated and the time interiot ran his tally which could account for the difference. Grutness...wha? 07:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page notes that the last month of edits were double-counted as well. - BanyanTree 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: Since my username was changed from SWD316 to Moe Epsilon could someone replace my old name with my new name? MOE Epsilon 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My name

message: Without any changes to the data, I removed all formatting and converted it to wiki table format and  the main Namespace table went from 1,566K down to 475K.  Couldn't we just do this? -- Ian ≡ talk 09:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I support this also.  The current table even overloads my computer, which has a 1.5 gHz processor and an enormous amount of RAM.  Ingoolemo talk 08:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support this.  While I can load up this page eventually, it takes awhile. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table size 

message: Can someone update this article? --James 03:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have requested assistance from Gmaxwell, and he has kindly agreed to try to update this page within the next few days.  Johntex\talk 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wish somebody would trim it back so I could load it without my browser crashing. Everyking 00:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this be a multipage list somehow? –Shoaler (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't have to be.  It used to load fine until the page size was increased so dramatically. --tomf688{talk} 15:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe we should move up the cutting line and update the rankings. Deryck C. 16:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I was in the process of uploading it still. :) I had intended to clean out both headings, but only nixed the one, the old 2mbish version made my browser choke. It should all be good now. --Gmaxwell 05:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can this be updated 

message: It's updated now, as of sometime today (I didn't notice when it finished). It's running faster than it used to, so I'll try to update it more often. We're back to the plain format because the excessive tables format was a failure. :)  I'll probably move this over to toolserver next time I update it which will allow me to go back to a more complex format without knocking things over. Let me know if you find any problems.  Oh, and I changes the criteria for inclusion in all namespaces.. You had to have a rank over 2,500. There are now 3,461 users with over 1,500 total edits. --Gmaxwell 05:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Updated

message: I dont seem to be listed. Can any one expalin why?--Light current 02:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you at #471 on the first list and #335 on the second list. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My (non)entry