Talk:Wikimedia News

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Wikimedia News/2002)

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. If you do not have an autoconfirmed account (and thus cannot edit the content page), please feel free to post the information here on the talk page.

Year-end summary[edit]

Each of the past few years I've added a "little" year-end summary about article and language counts for each Wikimedia project to the end of the December section (as can be seen at the top of Wikimedia News/2017, Wikimedia News/2016, and so forth). I will be doing that again this year; I just haven't gotten the chance to type it all up yet (that is, copy last year's text and update all the numbers). Stand By. - dcljr (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. - dcljr (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, dcljr, for this summary and all your work on this page over the year(s). :) Quiddity (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks also from me! --Antonio1952 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons content pages[edit]

I've decided to be bold and remove the note to editors about announcing milestones for Commons' "content pages". We already track and announce file-count milestones for Commons. I see no benefit to announcing content-page-count milestones also, given that (1) the content-page count has actually included files for quite a while now, and (2) despite this fact, the content-page count continues to be paradoxically lower than the count of files (presumably because of the 'link' criterion for article counting, but I'm not 100% sure about that). For the record, Commons just passed 70 million "content pages" today (April 19th), more than a month after passing 70 million files. - dcljr (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese Wikipedia reached 1,200,000 articles on May 31[edit]

see zh:WP:A. --悔晚斋 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I writted it. --Tmv (talk) 14:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, but we don't usually announce such milestones (we announce 1M and 1.5M, but not 1.2M). - dcljr (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark this page for translation[edit]

I request to mark this page and this archive into a translation group, because it can be translated and easily localized into other groups. Thingofme (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have serious doubts as to whether that would be an improvement. Can you point to a similarly "high-traffic" page on this wiki (i.e., one added to basically every day) that has seen consistent, up-to-date translations maintained over a span of months or years? Also, forgive my ignorance, but what exactly does "localized into other groups" mean? - dcljr (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another example of this is d:Wikidata:News, although someone forgets it. In the past, some translations of this page has done, but it is inactive. Thingofme (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Changing date format in tables[edit]

How do people feel about changing the dates in the tables from, e.g., "9 February 2022" to "2022-02-09" (ISO 8601)? I think this would make the tables easier to understand by readers who are not comfortable with the English names of months (and easier to scan even by native English speakers). And I don't think it would introduce any ambiguity, since a date like "2022-02-09" shouldn't realistically be expected to mean "2 September 2022" by anyone. (Even if someone were uncertain about such a date, there would likely be several other dates nearby in the same table that would make it obvious what the correct interpretation should be [e.g., "2022-01-23"].) Opinions? - dcljr (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The whole page is written in English so, in my opinion, the most difficult terms to understand are not the names of the months which, in any case, remain in the text outside the tables. For me, it's fine as it is. --Antonio1952 (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia News entries[edit]

Does every million page should gain an entry to the Wikimedia News? Because after the 1M mark, new entries are slowed down dramatically. This would only effect Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons with more than 80M entries, but we would mark every million for other wikis, and every ten million with Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons. Thingofme (talk) 02:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We already do every million up to 10M, so you're really asking whether we should keep doing every million from 11M onwards. Thus only the very largest Wikipedias and (I guess) Wiktionaries would be affected by this proposal, and I don't see any of those getting to 11M anytime soon (perhaps not even in the next decade). So at the moment, I see no need to seek consensus about this. Maybe in 2030. [grin] - dcljr (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022[edit]

Please add the following — The Sakha Wikipedia has reached 3,000,000 words. Thank you.

216.234.200.179 17:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donexaosflux Talk 15:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata lexemes[edit]

Wikidata lexemes count has reached 1M, and should we add this info into the page? Also property count? Thingofme (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a "lexeme" and an "entry" at Wikidata. I guess lexemes count each individual language listed in each entry? In any case, where are you getting the figure 1M? According to both d:Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Statistics/Counts of various things by language and d:Wikidata:Lexicographical data/Statistics/Count of lexemes by lexical category, the lexeme counts sum to less than 1M. (And where is the count for properties?) - dcljr (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only the L1000000 lexeme is created but there may be fewer than that exists. Thingofme (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see: they're in a different namespace: d:Lexeme:L1000000. - dcljr (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about properties and lexemes? The official counts for properties and lexemes are hard to known. Thingofme (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If those counts can't easily be found or cited (because they aren't obvious), should they be reported? I say no, but others should weigh in here. - dcljr (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The number of properties and lexemes in Wikidata are reported by the existence of P... or L... page. Thingofme (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But where would someone go to see how many of those pages there are? For example, d:Special:Statistics shows how many entries there are ("Content pages"). If someone claimed that there are 1000000 lexemes (as you did), where would I go to check that? Note that the two pages I linked to above (1 and 2) aren't actually current counts, since they are only occasionally updated by a bot. - dcljr (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia projects[edit]

Does 1000 Wikimedia projects (reached on February 27, 2023) notable? Or some kinds of 100 Wikipedias, 200 Wikipedias, 300 Wikipedias would be sufficient to include in the page? Thingofme (talk) 02:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like a pretty unique and worthwhile milestone to include! Legoktm (talk) 04:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1,000 count is slightly less impressive sounding when you realize that it includes over 100 closed wikis and a bunch of arcane "behind-the-scenes" wikis that the general public never interacts with, like test2.wikipedia.org and chair.wikimedia.org. - dcljr (talk) 05:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think 1,000 count does not include closed wikis. Thingofme (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't include wikis that have never been created (like Afar Wikinews), but it does include wikis that were created and then closed/locked (like Afar Wikibooks). Special:SiteMatrix reports "Total count: 1,002" at the bottom (2 wikis have been added since Feb 27th). This includes 886 language-specific content projects in the first table and 116 "Other" wikis in the second table. These counts include all "bluelinks" in the (main body of the) tables, whether they are "struck out" (which indicates they are closed/locked) or not. If you doubt this, you can verify the count "by hand" for the Wikinews column (the smallest count that includes closed wikis): there are 34 bluelinks in that column, 4 of which are struck-out ("bg", "hu", "sd", and "th" are all closed). Here are some other facts, just for the record: There are a total of 2,804 "possible wikis" linked to in the two tables (bluelinks and redlinks). 1,802 of those are redlinks (marked class="new" in the HTML source, if you want to verify this using text-processing software), meaning they are not created yet. That leaves 1,002 bluelinks. But 135 of those are struck out (using <del>), meaning they are closed/locked. That leaves 867 wikis that are "open". Of those, 777 are language-specific content wikis in the first table and 90 are other wikis listed in the second table (like advisors.wikimedia.org, shown as "advisors"). Of those 90 open special wikis, only a handful are of interest to the general (wiki-editing) public in the way that the other 777 are. Commons, Central Wikisource ("sources"), and Wikispecies ("species") are typically considered regular content wikis on the same level as the others (Wikipedia, etc.), but Beta Wikiversity and Incubator contain test wikis that only have the possibility of becoming standalone content wikis in the future. Wikidata is kind of a special case, as is the MediaWiki wiki. Meta, Wikimania, and the various chapter wikis (e.g., "amwikimedia" or Wikimedia Armenia) are typically considered "coordinating" wikis (or whatever term you want to use). The "Foundation wiki" is hardly even a wiki at this point. And the rest are very arcane behind-the-scenes wikis, like "advisors", "auditcom", and so forth. - dcljr (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templatize as much as possible[edit]

Hello,

Since pages have been tagged for translation, we need to minimize the translation work using template when it is possible. As an example, I have created {{Wikimedia News/milestone}} which allows to easily format milestone information. I have started to implement it in Wikimedia News/2005. Please use it for all new additions.

Also, please use {{dateT}} template for date headings.

If some other news are reccurent, they might need to create other templates.

Thank you for your help. -- Pols12 (talk) 18:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The current state of the template doesn't capture all the conventions we are currently using, even in the most basic announcements, like bold text for (only) the article counts on the main content wikis (see the <!-- HTML comment --> in the section for the current month at Wikimedia News for details) and the use of words other than "articles" for certain projects, like Wiktionary's "entries" (again, see the HTML comment). If you can implement these features in an easy-to-use way, I'll consider using the template. At the moment, though, it's "not ready for prime time". (BTW, making every single day its own section seems to me to be a very bad idea.) - dcljr (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have bolded the article count.
  • I have used “entry” instead of “article” for Wiktionaries.
Please note using a template also allow to apply new formatting style to old pages by the way.
Please also note that “as much as possible” does not mean “everything”. Many items will still not use template and will have to be manually translated.
Any other suggestion? (I’m opening a new section for single day formatting.)
-- Pols12 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Single day formatting[edit]

Old new pages used to bold single day number with description term syntax (starting the line with a semicolon). Given there was no description detail element, I have replaced this bad syntax with level-4 headings, considering the day is the title for following items. I see recent pages use simple bold: it has no issue, but it has a lower semantics and does not allow to edit a single day as a section.

@Dcljr, can you elaborate why you think it is a very bad idea?

If you dislike the large table of contents, we can consider hiding level-4 inside it. -- Pols12 (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One reason is that it results in a great many identically-named sections, which makes working with them very awkward. For example, if someone wants to link to, say, January 29, 2005 — which they might want to do if that "looks possible" because it's a separate section — they might figure out that they can use Wikimedia News/2005#29_10 to do so (especially if they jump there from the extremely long TOC — well, unless we hide the "days" level of detail in that), but what happens if someone adds or removes a 29th-of-the-month entry in any of the subsequent (higher on the page) months? Then that link won't lead to Jan 29th anymore. This is obviously not much of an issue on the page for 2005, but would potentially be an issue on last year's page (sometimes there is a late addition or removal after the archiving happens), and it pretty much wouldn't work at all on the current year's page (Wikimedia News), since new sections (higher on the page) would be added almost every day throughout the year, each time potentially (and likely) changing the "id" anchor names for multiple sections below it. The counterargument might be that we can't link to indivudal days at all now, so making it possible is an improvement. Given the issues I'm raising, I'm not so sure that's true. In any case, it is currently possible to link to any position on the page, if you add an {{anchor}} there, and that method (done correctly) doesn't cause any other problems (as far as I can think of). As for editing, yes, I can edit the individual day for (again, say) January 29th, but when I save my edit, I find myself at the URL "…Wikimedia_News/2005#{{DateT|||29}}", which doesn't correspond to any section on the page (i.e., my browser returns me to the top of the page). And that template markup ends up in the page history, as well, unless I remove it from my edit summary before saving (see this edit I just made). Yuck. (And don't even get me started on the "translate" syntax, if you're planning on making Wikimedia News translatable. That's a nightmare for regular editors like me.) - dcljr (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource total words milestone[edit]

Should/could we add this metric to the news? For example en.ws has 1,007,586,457 words, fr.ws has 1 090 056 847 wors, and zh.ws has 2,050,634,250 words on their statistic pages. Bennylin 14:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you can pinpoint the days that those milestones were reached (1B, 1B, and 2B words, respectively), then I say feel free to announce them. The problem is, I don't think there are historical records of what the levels of those have been over time, just the "current" counts (not sure how often they are updated) given when you visit the various Special:Statistics pages. - dcljr (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Afrikaans Wikipedia and milestones[edit]

I see my milestone re the Afrikaans 110,000 (and a depth of 41) article milestone was reverted. I find it interesting and sad that the biggest Wikipedia in Africa by miles does not not get any recognition here. Have it your way, we will continue creating quality articles on the Afrikaans Wikipedia. Oesjaar (talk) 05:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When the wiki reaches any of the milestones regularly tracked here (see the Wikipedia table for which milestones those are in the case of articles), it will be announced here, just like every other Wikimedia content wiki. All relevant milestones the wiki has reached in the past 10 years, at least, have been announced, and that will continue into the forseeable future. - dcljr (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fix All Milestones[edit]

I need all recommended milestones: 10, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, 15000, 20000, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 150000, 200000, 300000, 400000, 500000, 600000, 700000, 800000, 900000, 1 Million, 1.5 Million, 2 Million, 3 Million, 4 Million, 5 Million, 6 Million, 7 Million, and so on. Please also explain all milestones and how they are created. Wikipedia News should be in seperate page, rather than this news. Use all Wikimedia projects except Wikipedia in this news. Do it as soon as possible. 108.31.49.85 21:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What article do Bikol Sentral Wikipedia reach 15000[edit]

I just want to know what article is complete to reach 15000 articles in Bikol Wikipedia -- 175.176.20.71 06:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the wiki had 14993 articles at 02:32 UTC on 30 September 2023 and 15001 at 08:28 UTC that same day, and since bcl:Special:Log shows 8 main-namespace pages being created in that time period (with wikilinks either present when the pages were created or added to them in subsequent edits during the same time period), it looks to me like the 15000th article was bcl:World Cup Fountain. - dcljr (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh.[edit]

I thought this was going to be the events. CouchPotato0209 (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiquote. Table content pages without wikilinks. 28.10.2023[edit]

Wikiquote. Table content pages without wikilinks. 28.10.2023

For work. Hello. It is important to make internal links in articles, otherwise they will not be counted in the official number of articles. There are especially many such articles in the Polish, French, Serbian, Bulgarian, Igbo, Tagalog, Sanskrit, Thai, Central Bikol sections. Сергій Липко (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the place to discuss this issue. It appears to be a topic for discussion on the individual wikis you referred to, since that is where you will find editors who can take the desired actions (editing the relevant pages of each wiki). For example, you could post to the Village pump on each wiki. - dcljr (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other milestones[edit]

Other milestones, such as page edits, registered users or featured articles, can also be announced here, but typically only the powers-of-ten levels of these statistics are considered significant enough to announce, however for large numbers I would think that 200M, 500M, 1G, 2G, 5G... are significant enough because it is slower to reach these milestones.

Recommended milestones:

Articles: 10, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, 15000, 20000, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 150000, 200000, 300000, 400000, 500000, 600000, 700000, 800000, 900000, 1 Million, 1.5 Million, 2 Million, 3 Million, 4 Million, 5 Million, 6 Million, 7 Million, every million since then

Wikidata items/Commons: 10, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, 9000, 10000, 15000, 20000, 30000, 40000, 50000, 60000, 70000, 80000, 90000, 100000, 150000, 200000, 300000, 400000, 500000, 600000, 700000, 800000, 900000, 1 Million, 1.5 Million, 2 Million, 3 Million, 4 Million, 5 Million, 6 Million, 7 Million, 8 Million, 9 Million, 10M, 15M, 20M, 30M, 40M, 50M, 60M, 70M, every 10M since then

Others: 10, 100, 1000, 10k, 100k, 500k, 1M, 5M, 10M, 20M, 50M, 100M, 200M, 500M, and so on... JrandWP (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]