Talk:Wikimedia News

Note: If you are here to suggest a news item about a significant milestone at a Wikimedia project, please go ahead and add it to Wikimedia News yourself. You do not need an account here to edit the page.

• /archive 1.

Hmm

Is this somewhere for news other than how big the projects are? I wondered about posting some WMF items like 2007 Wikipedia Selection for Schools? --AndrewCates 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Too frequently update?

Recent reports contain "31000 articles", "26000 articles" ... etc and the page become thin. The recommendation is "1k, 2k, 5k increments to 20k". How do you think? We are better to weed out those minor milestones? Or keep them? --Aphaia 08:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should remove them - the page is kind of useless if every thousand is reported. — Timichal 08:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we should keep them because a milestone shows a progress a one project, minor or major. A-yao 14:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What the Wu?

What the heck is going on over at Wu? Pages for temperatures in 1°C increments?? - dcljr 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Rename this page?

Since this page only deals with milestones now, rather than general news, I think it should be renamed to Milestones or something similar. At the moment the name is confusing and overlaps with Goings-on. The sidebar link should obviously be changed too. I'm not sure what to do about the archives though, some of the older ones do contain news other than milestones. What do other people think? the wub "?!" 13:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, given that Milestones exists already, what about Recent milestones? the wub "?!" 07:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that maybe a merge is required. Having both "Recent milestones" and "Milestones" seems superfluous. --Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we were to move, yes, we should certainly merge the pair.

As to whether to move this page in the first place, well. This page is for news about the various Wikimedia projects; we didn't intend originally for that news to be purely for "milestones". Maybe we might want to add other items in (e.g. like for the Commons section, which talks about the press releases too)?

James F. (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I would expect from the current title, but how is it different from Goings-on? the wub "?!" 08:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Goings-on includes WMF news as well as WM news, I guess. But yes, there's a whole lot of over-lap. What do we want to do about them?

James F. (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe just merge Wikimedia News with Milestones and leave Goings-on by itself? Goings-on is a bit different from the other 2, which are quite similar to each other. Cirt 05:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Cirt took the words out of my mouth :-) —Giggy 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Should we action?

James F. (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Milestones hasn't been updated very well, and this page looks to have been designed better. Maybe merge the data from Milestones to here instead? —Giggy 03:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

See the most recent comment is Aug 2008! Abiy lost here is this Meta or Betya Wiki?How about updating ?Great anyways fast connections useing thjisAndrevictor 00:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)(4PMFriJan8210mytimePST@1stcnt.decded!

Sorani article explosion

The Sorani Wikipedia has jumped to over 1,500 articles recently. Because I periodically collect article-count statistics from the various wikis, I can say that the wiki's "raw" statistics was reporting 791 articles on Jan 23 at 20:07 UTC and then 1,492 articles 12 hours later on Jan 24 at 07:58 UTC. The count is now 1,523 (Feb 12 at 03:43). Initially ckb:Special:Allpages didn't seem to be showing nearly as many articles as the stats page count, but now I think it is (rough estimate based on how many pages of results there are). OTOH, ckb:Special:Newpages still doesn't show a large amount of activity over the same time period, so I can't explain why the number of articles has more than doubled. Does anyone else know anything about this? - dcljr 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this conversation [1] (bottom of page)? Apparently, imported articles have been there for a while w/o having been included in the statistics... (up to now) Seb az86556 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Aro-mania

The Aromanian Wikipedia has gone completely crazy. Bot activity in the last 24 hours, for example, just added almost 4,000 articles on (mostly) obscure medical conditions with no actual content on them except two links to "index" pages that listed only the titles of the articles that were being added! In other words, no real content was added to the wiki at all, just a bunch of titles. Is this what the other 45,000 articles that have been added in the last 3 months are like? - dcljr 06:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer my own question, yes, it appears so. Hitting the "random page" link 30 times over there turned up 27 articles looking very much as I described above and 3 that consisted of one brief sentence. - dcljr 07:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a fact that random gives nearly always a blank article with only titles and a link. I think this kind of edtis are worse for Wikipedia. Also happens with waray-waray language robot edition. Maybe they should be stopped. -Theklan 01:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

'book modules'

By that do you count full books or including subpages? Kayau WP WB WN 07:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't know,I also not have nothing the look with it. @KnuxD 13:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Georgian 40k milestone date

I'm using an analysis tool, Qlikview, to analyze growth rates of the language wikipedias. The program can parse out the data from the list of wikipedias as well as this page and hopefully merge the two. The end result would be a continual log of all of the datapoints on the list of wikis with the ability to slice the data a bunch of ways and calculate growth rates over varying periods. This page acts as a great set of datapoints in that I can get point-in-time values in the past where we knew what the article count was. I have only one sticking point, the milestone date for the Georgian wikipedia. Does anyone have a more refined date for the 40,000 milestone? I can always fudge unknown dates to the beginning of the month, but when we don't know the month either it's a little more questionable. Between January and now, Georgian grew at a rate of about 28 articles/day. In the past few days it grew at a rate of about 15 articles/day. That puts the estimated date between March and May. Any thoughts? Aremisasling 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found it on Wikipedia Statistics. I didn't find a specific date, but it hit the mark in early May. Aremisasling 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

French Wikipedia 1-million date

I'm curious which time zone the report that French passed 1 million on Sep 21st is based on. These three pages at the French Wikipedia (pointed out by en:User:Adam78, BTW) seem to corroborate this. However, I checked the raw statistics given by http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial:Statistiques&action=raw 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

I always try to use UTC for dates that I report here. What time zone was used for this French milestone? - dcljr 05:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

There was a bug with the count of articles. This bug was fixed the 23rd, during the sprint for the million. For the reason the counter reached 1,003,000. Then a developper looked into the database, a saw that the millionth was - at this time - fr:Louis Babel. That's how the millionth was decided. So we now the date of was the 21st at 06:54 (CEST). We use the time of France.

Regards

--Hercule 20:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Colors

For years now, the table of milestones (at the bottom of the page) for Wikipedia has used a different color scheme from those for all the other projects. I just made an edit (which I then immediately reverted) in which I changed the Wikipedia table to more closely match the colors in the similar table at en:Wikipedia:Milestone statistics. (Full disclosure: the color scheme there was my idea. This one here had to be a bit more complicated to account for the entries for multiples of 1.5, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9, which aren't used in the other table; I decided to just use linear interpolation between the colors for the multiples of 1, 2, and 5, which are exactly those used in the other table except they're all "shifted down" since this table starts at 100 instead of 1000. It sounds more complicated than it really is...) Anyway, what do people think about using this color scheme (or something similar) for all the tables? Do the additional levels just make the colors too distracting? Can anyone suggest a better color scheme? - dcljr 12:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair warning: If no one says anything soon, I'm going to make the change. - dcljr 02:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

be bold :) Przykuta 08:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have made the changes for the tables up to Wikisource, which has an "Updated" column, unlike the others. Most of the rest of the tables have a little different selection of milestones, so I have to think about what I want to do with them... - dcljr 08:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Stats in MW 1.17

For those who were using the "action=raw" URL option to track wiki statistics, as of MediaWiki 1.17 that option is deprecated. You now have to use an API query such as:

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=siteinfo&siprop=statistics

See the helpful links at the above URL for other options. For example, if you append "&format=xml" to the end, you get just the XML output without the HTML wrapper. Thanks to User:Hydriz for this info. - dcljr 23:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Which stats and which milestones

After tracking just Wikipedia article-count milestones for a few years now, and then adding Wiktionary entry-count milestones for the past few weeks, I finally have a general-purpose script that can track any desired milestones for any stats returned by the type of API query discussed in the previous section.

My question is, which milestones should be announced here? For the last couple of days, I've only announced the ones that seemed to be the "most important", but today I posted all 8 milestones detected by my script. This seems to be a pretty typical daily amount (based on what I've seen over the past few days), and it seems excessive to me.

To cut back on the number of announcements going forward (although it wouldn't have affected the number posted today), I propose that only the "1-", "2-", and "5-" milestones be announced for the stats other than articles (this includes pages, edits, users, activeusers, admins, and images, but not jobs, which is generally uninteresting). Or maybe I should cut some of these stats back to only powers of 10 (like maybe users and edits). Opinions? - dcljr 07:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that users, admins, and edits milestones are only important when they are powers of ten and considerably large, and that pages (not content pages) milestones aren't important at all. Also, I don't think the "dropped below" parts are important enough to list. --Yair rand 07:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

For the moment, I've settled on powers of 10 for pages, edits and users; "1-/2-/5-" milestones (which I like to call "canonical") for images and admins (keep in mind, this covers "all" Wikimedia wikis, not just the Wikipedias); and all currently used milestones for articles (although, if I had my way, I'd make those canonical, too ;). Because it's so variable, I have stopped tracking activeusers (first time I included it, my script found 23 milestones for that one stat, in only one day!). I never entertained the idea of tracking jobs (although it might still be worth checking for unusually large values of it). Once I start tracking activeusers in a reasonable way, I may drop users entirely (look through Special:ListUsers on a typical wiki and note how few look "legitimate" — I guess the same could be said for edits, but that stat seems a little more informative). - dcljr 04:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ever since CentralAuth was implemented, the user count has been pretty much useless. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a way of determining how many users have a particular wiki set as their home wiki. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, to anyone who cares: I've modified my script to stop announcing wikis that just bounce up and down repeatedly around a single milestone (actually, it just reports them differently so I can decide myself whether it's worth posting). This should cut down on the number of "useless" milestone announcements. - dcljr 03:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia Statistics to fill in gaps

As there are a lot of unknown milestone dates, I've determined a possible way for filling them in. Is there a reason why we couldn't use the below pages to at least target the month and year a milestone was reached? They are listed in the referring pages as "Article Count (official)"

[2] - wiktionary [3] - wikipedia [4] - wikiquote

There are corresponding pages for the other projects as well.

Aremisasling 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A good idea, but unfortunately it looks like the figures in those tables are being rounded (sometimes up) to the nearest tenths decimal place, since the table for the Wiktionaries lists French at "2.0M" in "Feb 2011", whereas the French Wiktionary is not yet to 2,000,000 entries as of the time I'm posting this. Bummer... Still, if used properly, the tables can probably be used to get the date to the nearest couple of months, anyway, in most cases. - dcljr 02:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been using some of these "official" article-count pages (linked to above by Aremisasling) to give date ranges for some of the entries in the tables. As I've been going through them, every once in a while I'll come across a language that has wildly different article counts compared to the "s23.org counts" given in the various "/Table" pages here at Meta. For example, the Wikisource Statistics page at stats.wikimedia.org lists the Chinese article counts so far this year (through March, anyway) at around "55k", but a quick glance through the page history of Wikisource/Table reveals that the Chinese article counts have been over 102,000 during the same time period. Is it just a coincidence that the amount of error is approximately a factor of 2? (Chinese text requires 2 bytes per character—but how could the article count be affected by that??) I'm confused! - dcljr 07:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikistats uses xml dumps, and builds all stats fresh on each run. So for wikistats deleted articles have never existed, it relates history of current content. For most wikis it counts as articles: pages in namespace 0, with internal link on the page, which are not redirect. For some wikis, like wikisource, a few other namespaces are considered so crucial they are now included into article count. These are for wikisource 102/104/106, for commons 6/14 for strategy 106. Erik Zachte 13:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

For the benefit of anyone stumbling across this discussion who doesn't know how to look them up, these namespaces are:

• Wikisource: 102 = Author, 104 = Page, 106 = Index
• Commons: 6 = File, 14 = Category
• Strategy: 106 = Proposal

Note that you can see what namespace corresponds to what number by adding, for example, "{{ns:106}}" to a page on the wiki of interest (e.g., the Sandbox, or any page if you just use "Show preview" instead of "Save changes"). - dcljr (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Also note the an API query such as this one (run on the wiki you're interested in) will show you which namespaces count as "content" (search for that string in the results), and thus contribute to the "article count". - dcljr (talk) 05:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot-dominated wikis

The Malagasy Wiktionary is but the latest example of a tiny wiki suddenly rivaling the largest projects in only one metric: article count. This time, ‎Bot-Jagwar has mostly copied entries verbatim from other wikis (see the majority of this list). The same bot has also been creating entries for declensions or conjugations of words that aren't defined anywhere in the wiki.

While plenty of other Wiktionaries have benefited from bot-generated stubs in the past, these wikis have always coupled the stubs with imports from real dictionaries. But with these nonsensical stubs alone, who can seriously argue that the new entries inform visitors, or that they will encourage a commensurate number of volunteers to improve the wiki? These are the standards that bot operators must meet when applying for bot flags at well-established wikis. Unfortunately, when the Malagasy Wiktionary rises to the top of Wiktionary's front page, its dearth of useful content reflects very poorly on the entire project, belittling the hard work of countless non-programmers. As a French Wiktionary contributor has noted, the mass imports also lack attribution and thus infringe on the original authors' copyrights.

The multilingual portals and pages like Wikimedia News offer a strong incentive for bot operators to game the wiki rankings, as we saw with several Wikipedias long ago. As a first step, to prevent Wikimedia News from being dominated by one wiki, I propose noting only power-of-ten milestones for fast-growing, bot-dominated wikis like the Malagasy Wiktionary. We should make sure power-of-ten milestones are accompanied by an explanation of how the wiki managed to add the latest spate of articles.

Thoughts?

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 07:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed ak

I have taken the liberty of removing Akan (ak:) from the Wikipedia table because it fell sharply from 119 articles to 68 in one day, back on 3 Apr 2011, and has only gotten to 74 articles as of the time I'm posting this. This fact indicates to me that the 100+ milestone was most likely not based on "legitimate" content, so the wiki shouldn't be listed in the 100 row of the table. - dcljr 08:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Argentina

The opening of "the Argentine and Mexican Wikimedia chapter wikis" was just announced here. What is the relationship between the first wiki just mentioned and "Wikimedia Argentina", which is linked to from m:Wikimedia coordination and other projects? - dcljr 01:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Malagasy Wiktionary moved to 500K in table

I have taken the liberty of moving wikt:mg: to the 500,000 row of the table, since its rise to over 1 million was based entirely on "controversial" bot-created stubs that have now been deleted. - dcljr 13:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

:it Wikipedia

Shouldn't the current situation at :it (just visit their mainpage) be mentioned on the Wikimedia News page? --Túrelio 18:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

article-count changes

Can anyone offer an explanation for the jumps? 1.18? Seb az86556 01:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

This is referring to the Oct 6th changes, BTW. - dcljr 01:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Minor question about chronology

Since I often check the wiki stats and update this page a little after midnight UTC, sometimes a news item will have to be added to the "next" day's entry (literally, I guess I'm referring to the "current" day's entry). Then when I update it again (approximately 24 hours later), I might have more entries to put under the same day. When this happens, I add the entries at the bottom of the list. Other people, I have noticed, add new entries at the top. The latter way would match the reverse-chronological nature of the days themselves, but for some reason I prefer doing it the other way. Does anyone have a strong opinion (but hopefully not too strong ;) about which way is "best"? - dcljr 00:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Loud and clear... [g] - dcljr 04:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Neapolitan WP

Someone just tried to demote the Neapolitan Wikipedia to 10K in the Wikipedias table, except they didn't change the date (from the one when it reached 40K), so I reverted their edit. Apparently, in early August 2011, User:Vituzzu deleted a bunch of articles from that wiki, saying, "pagina praticamente vuota e in italiano" (which Google Translate informs me means, "virtually empty page in Italian"). So I've re-demoted it and restored the date that it first reached 10K, 20 June 2006. - dcljr 04:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Standardizing interwiki links in archives

In the older archives of this page, many of the interwiki links are in "external-link" style (e.g., [http://ro.wikipedia.org Romanian Wikipedia]). Does anyone object to me changing these to "internal-link" style ([[:ro:|Romanian Wikipedia]]), as we prefer to use nowadays? - dcljr 00:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A news

We r happy to announce Movement. We love movement cause reality. We love to be unedited. We r editors. We r in movement. We love movement. The vision has created. Now we r in vision. We can change the course of the humanity. The vision has created. One day fast of the 18ht Jan 2012 should going to be a milestone in the history of the Wikimedia Movement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ansha (talk • contribs) 06:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC).

Emphasis on article milestones?

Since we're getting a lot more non-article-count announcements on this page than we used to (largely my fault), it's getting harder to pick out the article-count announcements (a.k.a. "entries" for Wiktionary, "book modules" for Wikibooks, etc.), I'm wondering if we shouldn't start emphasizing those announcements with, say, bold text on the article counts (which kind of makes sense, given that the introductory text at the top of the page uses bold text on the phrase "article-count milestones"). Interested parties can compare the current version of the page without bold article counts and with bold article counts (but only on announcements back to Januray 1st, since I had to add the bold markup "manually" and got tired by the time I reached that date — oh, and I included a file-count announcement for Commons, even though technically those aren't "articles" on that wiki). Comments? Objections? Should we use bold text on article counts from now on? - dcljr (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would support this proposal. Additionally, we could emphasize the names of "large" Wikipedias (having more than, say, 100k articles). - Ace111 (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Very good idea. - Iketsi (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll make the change soon... - dcljr (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Done. To be clear on the criteria I was using, I decided to use bold only on article counts for individual content wikis:

• Articles include Wikipedia and Wikinews "articles"; Wiktionary "entries"; Wikibooks "book modules"; Wikiquote, Wikispecies, and Incubator "content pages"; Wikisource "text units"; Wikiversity "learning modules"; and Commons "gallery pages". So, not "total pages", "page edits", etc. The only exception to this rule is for "media files" on Commons (as mentioned in my opening comment above).
• Individual means not groups of wikis, such as "Wikipedias in all languages" or "Slavic Wikipedias (20 languages)", which have gotten announcements here in the past. I have nothing against such announcements, I just felt that they shouldn't be emphasized the same as individual wikis.
• Content wikis include all the projects just mentioned, but not Meta or things like the Wikimedia Foundation wiki, the various Wikimania wikis, and so forth.

This is just what I've decided to do. Others might have different ideas... Ace111, I have not emphasized anything else because that might dilute the benefit of adding the emphasis in the first place. - dcljr (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

May 10 article count updates

On May 10th a bug report requesting that the updateArticleCount.php script be run on all Wiktionaries and Wikisources was acted upon, resulting in 58 of those wikis surpassing or falling below one (or more) of the article-count milestones tracked on this page (not counting the new wikis whose milestones were already announced on May 10th). Some of the changes were quite large and therefore questionable.

Here's a summary table (initial order of the rows is by the percent change). Note that for each wiki the article count that's closest to my estimated count is highlighed.

Proj.	Wiki	May 9 count1	Change	May 10 count	Percent change	May 9 level2	May 10 level	Content namespaces	May 10 activity3	Estimated articles4
WT	Nepali Wiktionary	4,821	−4,748	73	−98%	2,000	0	ns0	none	28/30 * 4,937 = 4,608 est. (~93% linked) [2012-05-11]5
WT	Pashto Wiktionary	4,082	−3,882	200	−95%	2,000	200	ns0	+4	22/30 * ~7,638 = ~5,601 est. (~73% linked) [2012-05-13]
WT	Tsonga Wiktionary	363	−344	19	−95%	200	0	ns0	none	20/30 * 345 = 230 est. (~67% linked) [2012-05-12]
WT	Hindi Wiktionary	105,353	−99,173	6,180	−94%	100,000	5,000	ns0
WT	Tigrinya Wiktionary	784	−673	111	−86%	500	100	ns0	none	10/30 * 561 = 187 est. (~33% linked) [2012-05-13]
WS	Slovak Wikisource	229	−194	35	−85%	200	0	ns0	none	28/30 * 230 = 215 est. (~93% linked) [2012-05-12]
WS	Azerbaijani Wikisource	2,381	−1,999	382	−84%	2,000	200	ns0		30/30 * 2,577 = 2,577 est. (~100 linked) [2012-05-12]
WT	Kyrgyz Wiktionary	3,375	−2,516	859	−75%	2,000	500	ns0
WS	Bosnian Wikisource	1,643	−1,214	429	−74%	1,000	200	ns0	none	30/30 * 1,687 = 1,687 est. (~100% linked) [2012-05-12]
WT	Bengali Wiktionary	713	−477	236	−67%	500	200	ns0	none	28/30 * 802 = 749 est. (~93% linked) [2012-05-13]
WS	Thai Wikisource	13,599	−8,548	5,051	−63%	10,000	5,000	ns0	none	16/30 * 11,101 = 5,921 est. (~53% linked) [2012-05-12]
WS	Ukrainian Wikisource	4,563	−2,616	1,947	−57%	2,000	1,000	ns0	+1	28/30 * 4,757 = 4,440 est. (~93% linked) [2012-05-11]
WT	Telugu Wiktionary	49,812	−26,739	23,073	−54%	40,000	20,000	ns0
WT	Amharic Wiktionary	373	−200	173	−54%	200	100	ns0	none	19/30 * 398 = 252 est. (~63% linked) [2012-05-13]
WT	Cherokee Wiktionary	376	−198	178	−53%	200	100	ns0	none	18/30 * 302 = 181 est. (~60% linked) [2012-05-13]
WS	Breton Wikisource	3,535	−1,654	1,881	−47%	2,000	1,000	ns0, 100 [Index], 102 [Page], 104 [Author]	ns102: +1	ns0: 30/30 * 1,734 = 1,734 est. (~100% linked); ns100: 71 (100% linked); ns102: 0/30 + ~11,175 = 0 est. (~0% linked?); ns104: 62 (79% linked) [2012-05-13]
WT	Divehi Wiktionary	138	−59	79	−43%	100	0	ns0	none	14/30 * 172 = 80 est. (~47% linked) [2012-05-13]
WS	Turkish Wikisource	5,156	−2,166	2,990	−42%	5,000	2,000	ns0, 100 [Author]	none	[2012-05-12]
WS	Estonian Wikisource	717	−282	435	−39%	500	200	ns0, 102 [Page], 104 [Index], 106 [Author]	ns0: +2; ns106: +2	ns0: 26/30 * 720 = 624 est. (~87% linked); ns102: 0/30 * 321 = 0 est. (~0% linked); ns104: 7 of 8 = 7 (88% linked); ns106: 17 of 18 = 17 (94% linked) [2012-05-14]
WT	Lao Wiktionary	60,674	−23,072	37,602	−38%	60,000	30,000	ns0
WS	Welsh Wikisource	271	−97	174	−36%	200	100	ns0	none	25/30 * 337 = 281 est. (~83% linked) [2012-05-13]
WS	Limburgian Wikisource	2,336	−811	1,525	−35%	2,000	1,000	ns0
WS	Macedonian Wikisource	2,734	−888	1,846	−32%	2,000	1,000	ns0
WT	Chinese Wiktionary	1,202,474	−376,510	825,964	−31%	1,000,000	800,000	ns0	+5	29/30 * ~1,234,526 = ~1,193,375 est. (~97% linked) [2012-05-13]
WT	Persian Wiktionary	78,864	−20,744	58,120	−26%	70,000	50,000	ns0
WT	Sundanese Wiktionary	238	−56	182	−24%	200	100	ns0
WS	Dutch Wikisource	5,524	−1,298	4,226	−23%	5,000	2,000	ns0, 102 [Author]	+6	[2012-05-12]
WT	Greenlandic Wiktionary	1,067	−230	837	−22%	1,000	500	ns0
WT	Gujarati Wiktionary	518	−107	411	−21%	500	200	ns0
WT	Macedonian Wiktionary	2,304	−333	1,971	−14%	2,000	1,000	ns0
WT	Sanskrit Wiktionary	219	−31	188	−14%	200	100	ns0
WT	Sindhi Wiktionary	1,073	−120	953	−11%	1,000	500	ns0
WT	Oriya Wiktionary	103	−10	93	−10%	100	0	ns0
WT	Tswana Wiktionary	100	−6	94	−6%	100	0	ns0
WS	Arabic Wikisource	20,844	−1,186	19,658	−6%	20,000	15,000	ns0, 102 [Author], 104 [Page]
WT	Samoan Wiktionary	102	−3	99	−3%	100	0	ns0
WT	Somali Wiktionary	203	−4	199	−2%	200	100	ns0
WT	Afrikaans Wiktionary	14,993	+338	15,331	+2%	10,000	15,000	ns0
WT	Luxembourgish Wiktionary	4,971	+150	5,121	+3%	2,000	5,000	ns0
WS	Hungarian Wikisource	19,293	+835	20,128	+4%	15,000	20,000	ns0, 100 [Author], 104 [Page], 106 [Index]
WT	Turkish Wiktionary	283,030	+18,640	301,670	+7%	200,000	300,000	ns0
WS	Portuguese Wikisource	87,931	+7,478	95,409	+9%	80,000	90,000	ns0, 102 [Author], 104 [Index], 106 [Page]
WT	Sinhalese Wiktionary	935	+131	1,066	+14%	500	1,000	ns0
WT	Russian Wiktionary	327,449	+109,838	437,287	+34%	300,000	400,000	ns0
WT	Malay Wiktionary	1,465	+630	2,095	+43%	1,000	2,000	ns0
WS	Spanish Wikisource	52,159	+25,071	77,230	+48%	50,000	70,000	ns0, 102 [Page], 104 [Index]
WT	Greek Wiktionary	191,251	+99,440	290,691	+52%	150,000	200,000	ns0
WT	Interlingue Wiktionary	184	+99	283	+54%	100	200	ns0	−1	25/30 * 328 = 273 est. (~83% linked) [2012-05-12]
WS	Venetian Wikisource	1,974	+1,327	3,301	+67%	1,000	2,000	ns0, 100 [Author], 102 [Page], 104 [Index]	none	ns0: 21/30 * 2,836 = 1,985 est. (~70% linked); ns100: 9/30 * 126 = 38 est. (~30% linked); ns102: 3/30 * 4,902 = 490 est. (~10% linked); ns104: 61 of 62 = 61 (98% linked) [2012-05-18]
WS	Italian Wikisource	67,136	+48,308	115,444	+72%	60,000	100,000	ns0, 102 [Author], 108 [Page], 110 [Index]
WS	English Wikisource	369,323	+398,350	767,673	+108%	300,000	700,000	ns0, 102 [Author], 104 [Page], 106 [Index]	ns0: +84, −10; ns102: +4; ns104: +528, −6; ns106: +5, −1	ns0: 28/30 * ~256,071 = ~239,000 est. (~93% linked); ns102: 29/30 * ~12,947 = ~12,515 est. (~97% linked); ns104: 3/30 * ~732,203 = ~73,220 est. (10% linked); ns106: 30/30 * ~5,017 = ~5,017 est. (~100% linked) [2012-05-13]
WS	Polish Wikisource	35,682	+47,828	83,510	+134%	30,000	80,000	ns0, 100 [Page], 102 [Index], 104 [Author]
WS	Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikisource	1,667	+2,478	4,145	+149%	1,000	2,000	ns0, 102 [Author], 104 [Page], 106 [Index]	ns0: +2; ns104: +8; ns106: +2	ns0: 18/30 * 2,456 = 1,474 est. (~60% linked); ns102: 25/30 * 223 = 186 est. (~83% linked); ns104: 1/30 * ~38,389 = ~1,280 est. (~3% linked); ns106: 24/30 * 612 = 490 est. (~80% linked) [2012-05-17]
WS	Swedish Wikisource	17,732	+29,048	46,780	+164%	15,000	40,000	ns0, 104 [Page], 106 [Author], 108 [Index]
WS	Hebrew Wikisource	34,144	+57,112	91,256	+167%	30,000	90,000	ns0, 104 [Page], 108 [Author], 112 [Index]
WS	Catalan Wikisource	5,707	+10,754	16,461	+188%	5,000	15,000	ns0, 102 [Page], 104 [Index], 106 [Author]	ns102: +1	ns0: 20/30 * 2,780 = 1,853 est. (~67% linked); ns102: 5/30 * 13,013 = 2,169 est. (~17% linked); ns104: 30/30 * 350 = 350 est. (~100% linked); ns106: 30/30 * 385 = 385 est. (~100% linked) [2012-05-17]
WS	German Wikisource	86,340	+166,943	253,283	+193%	80,000	200,000	ns0, 102 [Page], 104 [Index]
WS	French Wikisource	281,166	+819,297	1,100,463	+291%	200,000	1,000,000	ns0, 102 [Author], 104 [Page], 112 [Book]	ns0: +~2,000, −3; ns102: +1; ns104: +~250; ns112: +7	ns0: 26/30 * ~89,424 = ~77,501 est. (~87% linked); ns102: 27/30 * ~5020 = ~4,518 est. (~90% linked); ns104: 0 * ~1,061,910 = 0 est. (~0% linked?); ns112: 30/30 * ~8,451 = ~8,451 est. (~100% linked) [2012-05-12]

Note 1: This and the count for May 10 are based on what the API-query equivalent of {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} returned.

Note 2: Milestone table row the wiki belongs in (assuming correct article count); level 0 means not in the table because it's below 100 content pages

Note 3: Any article creation or deletion activity on May 10, as seen in Special:NewPages (not checked for links) or Special:Log

Note 4: Estimated article (non-redirect content page with at least one [[link]]) counts based on check of 30 Special:Random articles and census (or ~estimated count) of Special:Allpages; in rare cases (small wikis or small namespaces on larger wikis), a complete census of articles (non-redirects with links) was taken (these lack "est.")

Note 5: Date actually checked

I'm putting this here mainly for my own benefit, as I investigate these changes to see whether they're actually reflecting correct article counts. If I find out there's nothing wrong with the new counts (and hence the new milestones), I'll add the info to the May 10th announcements and, I guess, change the Wiktionary and Wikisource milestone tables to reflect the new corrected milestones. (This means more dates become unknown in the tables... urgh!) Comments? - dcljr (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)