Wikipedia talk:Milestones/Archive 2

message: This has reached 19000 articles. That has reached 19000 articles. English has reached 190000 articles... Something special about the number 19? Κσυπ Cyp     14:50, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: 19

message: : English wikipedia has reached 199,637 articles, a prime number.
I think that's a bit silly. There are lots of prime numbers. Primes up to 200,000, for example:
199637, 199657, 199669, 199673, 199679, 199687, 199697, 199721, 199729, 199739, 199741, 199751, 199753, 199777, 199783, 199799, 199807, 199811, 199813, 199819, 199831, 199853, 199873, 199877, 199889, 199909, 199921, 199931, 199933, 199961, 199967, 199999. Evercat 18:49, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime numbers 

message: For the record, en.wikipedia hit 200,000 a few days before it was announced, as the article counter had drifted due to some bugs that didn't update it correctly in some operations. --Brion 23:40, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article counter drift 

message: I doubt that the press release can have had that much to do with the increase in traffic.  So far I have only seen it on one german news site and on kuro5hin.  That can't possibly have caused much new traffic.Jrincayc 15:23, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The German news TV program was watched by 2.2 million people. So if as many as 0.1% visited Wikipedia then that would be 2,000 visitors... how many extra did we have? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:22, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity from press release 

message: Sorry, Simon.  It's the 29th where I am (New Zealand) - I'm on the other side of the international dateline.  I'll be more careful in future to make sure I go by ETC. Davidcannon 22:54, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a problem, I'm beginning to appreciate the difficulties; daylight saving has come into operation here, so now British time doesn't match UTC. Oh well, can't wait for the simplicities of Autumn *(I do know that GMT is not UTC, but it's near enough)SimonMayer 22:58, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time zones 

message: What's the page rank of the main page now?  Backlinks have passed 100k on Google.  +sj+ 21:06, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)
: Page rank is 8/10, backlinks 107,000.  :)  Catherine 02:03, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page rank? 

message: What do you think of removing foreign-language milestones from the ANNOUNCEMENTS page of the English Wikipedia, and publishing such stones only on the Meta?
===Meta only===
# Menchi 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The status quo is: Lots of announcements of non-significant milestones reached by non-en wps on en and (to a lesser extent) on meta. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: POLL

message: # Menchi 07:50, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Meta only

message: # Donar Reiskoffer 08:24, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep significant announcements on en as well as meta

message: # David Gerard 07:25, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
# Taku 16:19, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
-- What is the status quo?! Isn't it the same as Proposal 2? (Both here and on Meta, as of now). --Menchi 19:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The status quo is: Lots of announcements of non-significant milestones reached by non-en wps on en and (to a lesser extent) on meta. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 20:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep status quo

message: I have removed several milestones from the table.  Yes, I pushed for milestones to be retained, but the "consensus decision" was that only  major  milestones should be included, and I think it is important to hold ourselves to that decision.  Accordingly, I have removed a number of milestones that are not round numbers.  Please don't take offence, User:Alfio - given the recent dramatic growth of the Italian Wikipedia, you'll get your turn in just a few days, so don't run away just yet :-) Davidcannon 13:55, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the rate of progress is clearly visible in tabular and graphical form in the international statistics. Erik Zachte 14:43, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Milestones Table Edit

message: IS now 620 :) Ilyanep 18:50, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexa Traffic Rating 

message: This is moved from the main page.
* July saw the fastest rate of monthly growth in Wikipedia's history.  The total Wikipedia project (in 100 languages) posted a net gain of 81,859 new articles, shattering the previous record of 75,223 new articles in March.  The English Wikipedia gained 21,507 articles - breaking the March record of 21,037; other languages to make record gains included Italian (8659 new articles - the previous record was 1668, in May), Portuguese (4127 - the previous record was 1855, in May), Swedish (3095 - the previous record was 2874, in March), and Norwegian (1475; the May and June figures of 1001 and 1004 new articles had themselves been records).  On current trends, Wikipedia will number one million articles by mid-September.
I don't know where this claim is grounded. I mean what kind of growth? I added monthly but numbers suggest definitely not montly growth. Worse, it has no reference to those numbers; where do they come from? -- Taku 01:26, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
: Actually, it is monthly. See Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics. --denny vrandečić 11:29, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
::Those stats seem to differ significantly from the automated stats. Which seem to suggest the number of new articles across all languages was big in July 2004, but not as big as it was in March 2004. -- Popsracer 11:57, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  The automated stats are broken at the moment, and several of the stats are under estimates, including that one. Pcb21| Pete 17:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Which stats are broken? Please provide an url. And why are you so sure the stats are under estimates :) Erik Zachte 18:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Erik. There is a prelimary discussion of which stats are wrong at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Certainly the CSV file that outputs the number of edits isn't screwy somehow. People are reporting that their total number of edits has gone down! Also it says there were 7k new articles on EN in July (from 283-290K). However the count on the main page went from 283K to 315K. The number of new editors (again on en - http://en.wikipedia.org/wikistats/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm) is listed as 168 - the lowest since April 2003. However the webalizer stats say that July was by far the busiest month on record. The growth in database size (in MB) is consistent with webalizer - not the stats related to number of articles/number of wikipedians. I am pretty certain there is a problem somewhere - I for one would be extremely grateful if you could track it down. Pcb21| Pete 22:38, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "However the webalizer stats say that July was by far the busiest month on record." This is the number of page requests. The number of visitors was high but equal to 5 months ago. Page requests is a shady figure. It includes all robots. With official partnership to Yahoo and 10ths of mirrors (many of whom make money over the back of Wikipeda but that is another story) that get their act together and keep their sites up to date, instead of relying on a half year old dump this is bound to rise more rapidly than number of contributions to database. This does not mean all is well. I will have to look into it. Erik Zachte 00:39, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: I found the culprit. Now if someone would have alerted me to this problem earlier :(   It was relatively easy to spot once I stripped the original script to bare bones for specific tests. The script thinks it is ready reading the cur database when on 75% it encounters the SQL statement that signals end of data, but here as part of an article text. It was bound to happen sometime. Thus new articles which are all in the back of cur database are only counted after two edits (when they appear in old database). I'll send an update soon. Erik Zachte 01:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest growth 

message: I reverted the premature anouncement of Alexis 349 position. I look at Alexis sometimes several times a day: the stats for the current day are notoriously untrustworthy and will almost change markedly before tomorrow. Often a sharp increase has then been changed into a small decrease and vice versa. Erik Zachte 16:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they print the figure 349, but please look at . I always look at that one. There is no reason to show a 3 day average here, as there are 5 or 6 pixels available for each day. Yet the very high or low value shown at the far right usually has disappeared 12 hours later, nowhere to be found. Erik Zachte 21:15, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this one? Κσυπ Cyp   05:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Premature announcement