Wikipedia talk:Milestone statistics/Archive

message: The table colors make my eyes hurt. AidepikiW 18:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. They're gone now. -- Merphant 09:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly disagree.  I could be mistaken, but I believe the consensus decision last time to have been to mute the colours, not remove them.  The colours clearly separate the different milestones.  If a clear consensus emerges to remove the colours, I will go with the majority, but in the meantime, please let's discuss the matter first.  For the time being, I have reverted the change pending consensus.David Cannon 11:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that AidepikiW made that comment before I toned down the neon glow coming from this page. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  My eyes still ache looking at this table. The lines in the table clearly separate the different milestones, and whitespace could be added, too (e.g. increase cellpadding). Having said that: I don't really check in on this table very often, so it doesn't really bother me. If the consensus is that the colors should stay, so be it, but I still think using colors like this makes it harder to read, not easier. Merphant 15:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors 

message: Fair warning: I plan to change the colors on the article page to the above scheme shortly after the English Wikipedia hits 500,000 articles (that way I can "safely" remove the "400,000" row). - dcljr 01:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color change when en: hits 500,000 

message: I've just promoted the Wikipedias that used to have 1,000+ articles but now have 2,000+ articles into the 2,000 section, but I haven't added the dates that they reached that milestone. Also, I haven't checked the rest of the smaller 'pedias for any additional 1,000-article milestones, nor have I checked for any other milestones. Obviously, this needs a lot more work, but I figured I'd put it out there so others could help with adding/updating the info. I'd recommend contributors make many small edits in case more than one person is working on it at any one time. - dcljr 19:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates needed for 2,000-4,999 range 

message: FYI, I've been going through David Cannon's Interwiki page today and haven't yet come across any new 1,000+ 'pedias nor any that need to be promoted in the table. I'm up to L, although I couldn't check Gujarati, Hindi and Kannada because I don't have the right fonts on this computer. - dcljr 22:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress on updating table 

message: You might have noticed I've moved all the "watch" warnings into the second section at the top of this page, followed by the older dicsussion. I did it this way so the latest updating info will always be in the same place on the page. Let me know if this bothers anyone's sensibilities. - dcljr 22:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to this talk page 

message: I just removed the "Exact dates unknown for some of the following" message in the 2,000 section; Walloon is about to be promoted to the 5,000-article section and the other two 'pedias with month-only dates are still like that only because it's (apparently) no longer possible to find out the exact day they reached 2,000. - dcljr (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "dates unknown" message 

message: By my calculations, Ossetian actually reached 1,000 articles on May 20th, not May 23rd. Since Ossetian's  counter is broken, the article count on the Main Page is updated manually and appears to be incorrect. I counted the articles at the Ossetian Allpages (just hit Go without specifiying a starting point to start at the beginning of the list) and got 1,125, whereas the Main Page currently says 1,050. According to their Newpages, the article created 125 articles ago was dated May 20th. - dcljr (talk) 08:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note about Ossetian reaching 1,000 

message: I don't see why this was removed... 600,000 is the next logical milestone.  —Sean κ. + 05:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not. 1,000,000 is the next milestone. Just because English reaches a new multiple of 100,000 doesn't mean we should abandon the 1-2-5 scheme of this table. There are plenty of other places to celebrate the 600,000 milestone. For example, m:Wikimedia News, m:Milestones, and Wikipedia:Announcements. - dcljr (talk) 05:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added an empty placeholder row for one million. That might help discourage people from breaking the pattern. -- Cyrius|✎ 10:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: All I can say is, "Oh jeez.  Come on."  —Sean κ. + 03:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The logic behind the 1-2-5 scheme is that it's roughly exponential (2.15x). -- Cyrius|✎ 10:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It's just that the scheme has to be consistent.  If we have milestones at 1000, 2000, and 5000, it logically follows that we should do the same at 10k, 20k, and 50k, then at 100k, 200k, and 500k.  The next milestone will be 1m.  David Cannon 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, if we include 600K for English then shouldn't we include 300K and 400K for German and Japanese when those milestones occur? I say no. (And about the above example, it didn't have a 2K row either. That was before the table was completely standardized.) - dcljr (talk) 17:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  600,000 for English 

message: The comment below is in response to my description of the List of Wikipedias at Meta as a "static" list in the Date of last complete update section at the top of this page. - dcljr (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Dcljr, the article counts on the list are updated practically every day. It's not static. --Node 14:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they not updated by humans? That's what I meant. They are not current in the same way  is current. For example, Swedish (:sv:) is now at 95,492 according to their article counter, but the list at Meta says 95,296. - dcljr (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Static vs. live 

message: I've removed the Sanskrit entry in the 1,000+ section (it reached 1,000 articles on 10 October 2004) because it has dropped below 1,000 now. - dcljr (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Sanskrit 

message: I listed the 1000th article for the Pennsylvania Dutch Wikipedia, even though it is technically not at pdc.wikipedia.org yet, it has been accepted to be moved to wikipedia.org and is just waiting for a developer since october. Stettlerj 18:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, someone removed the mention of the 1000th article in the Pennsylvania Dutch wiki, so for the record it occurred on january 6, 2006 :). Stettlerj 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pennsylvania Dutch Wikipedia 

message: Started the English wikipedia with 1 million articles or is there another reason why the English one then is first noted? --Edroeh 13:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The languages are listed by the last article-count milestone reached, in decreasing numerical order (then by date within each section). As the largest Wikipedia, the English one is listed first in the table for that reason. It didn't start at 1 million articles, but it's the only one so far that has reached that milestone. - dcljr (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: Such milestones don't tell us much about the Wikipedia.
The Javanese Wikipedia, for example, is full of articles entirely in Indonesian with a template at the top that says "This article needs translation" (to their credit, there are a few articles entirely in Javanese, and perhaps a couple hundred articles with at least a couple of paragraphs in Javanese).
The Northern Sami Wikipedia has only stub articles with a handful of possible exceptions, see :se:Special:Longpages. The same is true for the Frappucino® Wikipedia (really Francoprovençal) :frp:Special:Longpages, 
Others, such as the Uzbek Wikipedia, are filled to the brim with apparent copyvios (one wonders if the admins there understand the GFDL policies of WP), :uz:Special:Longpages
On the other hand, we have such wikipedias as the Taiwanese Wikipedia, which has a relatively small number of articles (not 2000 yet), but most of them are of superior quality, for example :zh-min-nan:Chhùi-khí ê hoat-io̍k, an article about tooth development. The Faroese Wikipedia is alright, although most of its articles are a little stubby, they're not as bad as the Northern Sami or Francoprovençal Wikipedias, and they aren't all copyvios. (:fo:Special:Random).
I think that we should have some way to come up with a general "rating" of Wikipedias, based on not only their number of articles, but on their average number of bytes per article (obviously accounting for different byte lengths for translations of the same text between languages, perhaps this could be based on the text of UDHR or, if that's not available, the Our Father).
An obvious statistic would be Bytes of text in a Wikipedia, but then, would you not agree that a Wikipedia with 50000 bytes divided over 10 articles is better than one with 50000 bytes divided over 100, given that 500 byte articles are going to be next to useless, no matter how many of them you have? If a Wikipedia has a stub for every country in the world saying "(country) is a country in (continent)", is that as valuable as a Wikipedia that has well-developed articles on just 10 countries, but is entirely missing articles on the others? --Node 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note - the taiwanese tooth development article you cite appears to be a verbatim translation from the en featured article on the same. Raul654 09:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't mean it isn't a quality article. Are verbatim translations illegal? If you checked all the good, long articles in smaller wikis, you'd find a good portion of them are translated. What's wrong with that? --Node 05:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, actually. I think the people who do translations do good work. I mentioned hte fact because I thought it relavant to the discussion Raul654 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfortunately... 

message: This table lists the Newar / Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia as having reached 1,000 articles on October 21st instead of the 11th. As :new:Special:Newpages currently stands, it looks like it did actually happen on the 21st. But m:Wikimedia News lists the date as October 11th. Someone once explained to me how the "Newpages" output can't be trusted since it lists all new pages in the main namespace, not just those that would count toward the "official" article count; OTOH, it doesn't list any "new" articles that have since been deleted. So, I guess I'm asking, should we keep the October 21st date or go with the one listed at Meta? (See also m:Talk:Wikimedia News#Clarification about Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia.) - dcljr (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newar date discrepancy 

message: I would prefer that the numbers appear with zeroes (eg as 100,000), rather than with a suffix of M or K (eg as 100 K). I think there will be many readers of Wikipedia for whom the suffix doesn't make immediate sense, and at least a few who will be unsure whether the letter refers to powers of ten e.g. Mega (which it does) or powers of two, e.g. mebi.-gadfium 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The 0s weren't hurting anything. I'm going to put them back. - dcljr (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: I see that Wikimedia Commons is not far away from reaching 2 million media files. Would it be worth adding it in here? Commons reached their 1 millionth file on 30 November 2006.
Also, I notice that the Māori Wikipedia reached 5,000 articles about a week ago. How do I determine the exact date that figure was reached to use in updating the table?-gadfium 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the Commons stat: no. Place that information at m:Wikimedia News. That's also the place to find the date a particular wiki passed a milestone, assuming someone else has noticed and posted it there. If you're the only one who's noticed a milestone, you can check the Special:Statistics and Special:Newpages pages for the particular wiki (those page names will work on any language's wiki). By comparing the current article count with the list of most recently created pages, you should be able to approximate the date that the wiki passed a certain milestone (assuming you can read / figure out the information presented on those pages — in certain languages, that can be a real challenge!). Only problem with this approach is, the article count at Special:Statistics doesn't include all pages that get created: they have to fit certain criteria to count toward the official article count. Plus, if any pages have been deleted since the milestone was reached, that will also skew the results. Another way that sometimes works is to check updates to m:List of Wikipedias, which is updated periodically by various users and will give snapshots of article counts for any particular wiki you're interested in. Problem there is, it's not always updated every day. - dcljr (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commons

message: Given the huge swings in article counts of the Lombard Wikipedia this year — from 10K in Feb to over 100K in Nov, and back to below 15K now — I've decided to demote that wiki in the table to the 10K section, using the Feb 27th date that the wiki first passed that milestone. Usually wikis that drop below a recently passed milestone only do so for a brief time, and then they pass the mark again; in such cases, the first date the wiki passed the milestone is retained in the table, but in the case of Lombard, the drop is so significant that, IMO, the 100K milestone should not stand. - dcljr (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. David Cannon (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, now Lombard is well below 5K, and has been for a couple of months now (currently stands at 2,756). I don't necessarily think it should be demoted again, but just thought I'd ask for others' opinions on the matter... - dcljr (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See also below. - dcljr (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demotion of Lombard 

message: I have changed the date Wu (:wuu:) reached 2,000 articles from Feb 17th to Sep 5th, since it dropped from over 3,400 articles to below 1,900 back in July (almost a 50% reduction), and then rose to 2,000 again. - dcljr (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wu 2K re-date 

message: As noted above, the Lombard Wikipedia dropped below 5,000 about a year ago and has only now passed the 5,000 mark again. For this reason I have demoted Lombard in the table to the 5,000 position with the date 2 February 2009. - dcljr (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lombard demoted again 

message: I've just added Western Panjabi (:pnb:), Hakka (:hak:), Lojban (:jbo:), and Wolof (:wo:) to the table, and promoted Burmese (:my:). The dates I've used for these are based on what I see at Meta. Unfortunately, in late August there were problems with the updating of article counts on that page, so the dates for Burmese, Hakka, and Lojban are only approximate — they passed their milestones anytime between the 21st and 26th, so I just used the 26th for all of them. - dcljr (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for late-August activity 

message: I have demoted Yoruba (:yo:) to the 2,000 level with the date 19 May 2007, following information in the similar table at m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias, because Yoruba dropped way below 5,000 articles sometime between Oct 1 and Oct 18, and has not rebounded significantly (currently at 2,421). Presumably, this means that most of the 5,000+ articles were not legitimate ones. - dcljr (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yoruba demoted 

message: Okay, I don't believe that the French Wikipedia hit one million articles on Sep 21st (UTC, anyway), despite the claims made on these pages — unless the statistics counter at http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial:Statistiques&action=raw is broken. I checked the count given by that URL at the following times, UTC, and none of them showed French having reached 1 million (I don't have a record of what the counts actually were, however):
* Mon Sep 20 08:44:01
* Tue Sep 21 18:50:23
* Wed Sep 22 07:37:18
(Note that the updates to :m:List of Wikipedias/Table are based on article counts collected daily, but shortly after midnight Sydney/Melbourne time (as far as I can tell!), and so are not synched to UTC.) I'm assuming, therefore, that the Sep 21st date was based on a "local" (non-UTC) time (I would have said France time, but even that would have been Sep 22nd by 7:37am UTC on the 22nd — unless I'm not thinking about this right), and so the date should really be reported as Sep 22 for consistency with other languages (I always try to report based on UTC, if possible). - dcljr (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For one response about this same issue, see :m:Talk:Wikimedia News#French Wikipedia 1-million date. So, I guess the 21st is correct after all. - dcljr (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date for French to 1 million 

message: I have removed Fijian (:fj:) from the 1K row since it's been below 200 for two months now following a clean-up, so the articles that pushed it over 1K were apparently not legitimate. - dcljr (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fijian removed 

message: The Ripuarian Wikipedia (:ksh:) article count has been all over the map the last couple of months. Up above 20K, down around 10K, now below 2K (actually, right now it's back above 2K, but I'm not reporting that because :ksh:Special:NewPages doesn't show any article-creation activity since about 28 hours ago when it was still below 2K. Future reporters of Ripuarian article counts should check NewPages to see if it's plausible that the milestone was actually reached with "real" (nevermind "legitimate" or even "useful") articles. (The same could be said of any wiki, BTW. I try to always check NewPages to see when the milestone appeared to actually happen.) - dcljr (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ripuarian all over the map 

message: It appears that the Dutch Wikipedia reached 1 million articles on 17 December, becoming the fourth Wikipedia to reach 1 million articles. I failed to notice this when keeping track of the upcoming milestones because it was not in the top 10, but advanced faster than any that were there. JIP | Talk 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch Wikipedia 

message: I've finally compared all the dates in this table and the one at Meta and found the following discrepancies for languages that are still at the same level in both tables. I have to go through these and see if I can determine which dates are correct (I'm guessing probably the earlier date in each case, but I have to check edit histories of the tables and possibly other sources of info to make sure, to the extent possible). - dcljr (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date discrepancies 

message: Sould there not be included at the top, for the English wikipedia the dates of these two milestones?. I know it is the only one and will continue to be for long time, but nevertheless, it might be good as a reference. --Basquetteur (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The 2 million milestone has been there for five years. The 3 million milestone won't be created. All milestones must be 1, 2, or 5, multiplied by a power of ten. JIP | Talk 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias tracks more milestones than this table (i.e., 1.5, 2, 3, 4 million, etc.). See the archives of that page for the dates of past English Wikipedia milestones. (And also see m:Wikipedia milestones, although I can't vouch for the accuracy of that page, since I never check it.) - dcljr (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestones for 2 000 000 and 3 000 000 

message: What's up with the Cebuano Wikipedia? It has been growing at a monstrous rate recently. For seventeen months from July 2011 to December 2012, it gained about 130 articles, a proportional increase of about 0.3%. But in the two months after that, its size has more than quadrupled. JIP | Talk 08:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, As I think admin is not work. between yesterday and today, article increase 10,000. But user of ceb is 64. each user create or translate 150 articles. It's not ensure the quality. Would you notice to meta, this situation? I'm not good at english and don't know meta system. thank you --Darkbluesky (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

text: answered by korean language admin user:Sotiale, cebuano user lsj want to make all species on the cebuano wikipedia. So he make it by his bot Lsjbot's contribute. his wife use cebueno language. :) --Darkbluesky (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's up with the Cebuano Wikipedia? 

message: I've taken the liberty of demoting a few wikis to sync this table up with the one at m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias (which I also help to maintain). The dates are when they originally reached the relevant (lower) milestones. These demotions are (mostly) explained on m:Talk:Wikimedia News. - dcljr (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And today I removed the Russian Buryat Wikipedia from the table because it dropped below 1K due to an admin cleanup effort (in this case, the deletion of over 400 articles/stubs about years). - dcljr (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demotions 

message: Maybe I'm watching too much in the future, but we could add the Milestone of 5 million. It's more than the double of 2 million, but the milestone 4 was already reached. --Tn4196 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We can add it when it's reached, which won't be for a long while (probably more than 2 years). - dcljr (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:   The milestone is near. emijrp (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure. When it happens, it will be reported. - dcljr (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 million 

message: I just claimed, "date on na: was correct: '1000th' article on 12th was bogus article created by vandal to make wiki reach milestone; it has been marked for deletion; next legitimate article was created on 13th". Actually, the article that was vandalism (:na:A) was the first one created on the 13th, not the last one on the 12th. Still, if you ignore that article (since it should have been immediately deleted), the "legitimate" 1000th article would have been the next one, also created on the 13th (a very short stub, but apparently legit). This is something I noticed back at the time, when I tagged the bogus article for deletion and then went back the next day to see if it had been deleted (it still hasn't been). That's why I didn't change either of the milestone reports provided (we can assume) by the vandal him/herself (same IP address). Even though the milestone wasn't legitimately reached because of the vandal's work, the date on both reports was nevertheless correct. - dcljr (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, actually, it looks like the 1000th article (not counting the bogus "A" article) in fact resulted from this edit which added wikilinks to a previously linkless article, 6 minutes before the creation of the "very short stub" I referred to above. In any case, the date would still be the 13th. - dcljr (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date for na: to 1K