MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages

See Wikipedia:Watchlist notices for documentation of how to add, maintain or hide watchlist notices.

Notice to help reference BLPs

{{editprotected}} Proposed:

• Help is needed to reduce the backlog of unsourced biographies of living people.

Gigs (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple, direct, to the point, looks good to me. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks great, well done. Have you thought of creating a banner that editors can display on their user and user talk pages to advertise the project? --JN466 23:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we have propose that is a recurring banner, maybe for a week each month. Try it simple, as above first, then add a target value for a future run (ie under 15,000 by Jan 31 or similar), until we get the backlog under 1000 (it's just above 20,000 now). If anyone not heavily involved in the task to date thinks that the target link page isn't clear enough, then please give us feedback at WT:URBLP (or edit/improve it yourself).The-Pope (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Agree with this proposal. —J04n(talk page) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support the original notice, but I don't think that a recurring notice is a good idea. People tend to disregard things like that once they become routine. That, and it's a bit of a slippery slope: there are lots of other projects and backlogs that would love to "advertise" like this, but we can't let them all have a week. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This case is a little exceptional considering how much strife and controversy this backlog causes. Since everyone seems positive on the idea, and no one has objected, I'm going to go ahead and mark this with an editprotected request. Gigs (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Perhaps we could directly incorporate this randomly unreferenced BLP generator into the watchlist notice? NW (Talk) 15:02, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could suggest the exact wording that you think would work. Thought you were an admin anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not these days. How about this?

<div class="watchlist-message cookie-ID_84" id="UBLP">• '''[[WP:URBLP|Help is needed]]''' to reduce the backlog of unsourced biographies of living people ([http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Unreferenced_BLPs&subcats=1&d=2 random unsourced biography]).</div>

I don't particularly like it much, but it might work. NW (Talk) 15:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, doesn't really add much to what's there, and disrupts the flow of the sentence. The big red button on the link takes you there anyway ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if it could be incorporated better, I think it would be nice to have it, to show people that finding an unreferenced BLP isn't as hard as they thought. In addition, far more people are likely to go to it from their watchlist that would otherwise not travel to WP:URBLP. NW (Talk) 17:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

How about something like the following? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

• You are invited to source a random biography and help with the ongoing drive to eliminate unreferenced biographies of living people.

I think that would be excellent. NW (Talk) 18:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty good. bahamut0013^words_deeds 22:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

 updated — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Please put a plainlinks class around the random bio link, like so: • You are invited to <span class="plainlinks">'''[http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Unreferenced_BLPs&subcats=1&d=2 reference a random biography]'''</span> and help with the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons|ongoing drive]] to eliminate unsourced biographies of living people. Although the link is to an external tool, it leads back to a random article, which is internal. —mc10 (t/c) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Whilst it's very difficult to work out if the spike in UBLP reduction is due to this notice, or other influences, but not much else has changed in the past month other people going on holidays... and we have removed over 4400 UBLPs in the 25 days since Dec 4 (when I think the notice went live)... the previous 4400 took almost two months to do! Thank you to everyone for your assistance in this. It's been amazingly successful, much more than I ever would have hoped for - my original "stretch target" of 15,000 by Jan 31 will probably be done a whole month early!The-Pope (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it time to remove this notice now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it as it has been up for quite a long time now. We could perhaps run it again later in the year? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I've plotted the number of UBLPs based on the log and the increase during the time the watchlist notice was in effect is quite dramatic! Definitely might need another run in a few months to try to finish them off. The-Pope (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It did really help, wow! And yeah, another run in a few months might help us polish this off, thanks to everyone who worked on this! --j⚛e decker^talk 08:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

10th anniversary

Any objections to 10th anniversary organizing message? We've got less than 30 days to go, and there's lots being done and more yet to do. My idea is as follows, but revisions are definitely welcome...

Wikipedia's 10th anniversary is less than a month away. Visit [[:tenwiki:Main Page|ten.wikipedia.org]] to help plan the celebrations.

Thanks, Steven Walling at work 22:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We already have watchlist geonotices (see MediaWiki:Geonotice.js) posted for NYC and DC. Would this be instead of or in addition to the geonotices? --Aude (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to usurp the geotargeted watchlist notices. I do think we really need a notice that shows up regardless of geography though, since there are online-only activities that are being organized and because there are a significant amount of English editors outside the obvious areas like U.S./U.K./Canada/Australia. Steven Walling at work 02:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Suppose there can't be too many notices about this :) It would be good to make sure everyone sees a notice. --Aude (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support this. It sounds swell! bahamut0013^words_deeds 12:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Posted. Courcelles 19:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gracias amigos. Steven Walling at work 20:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to removing it at 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)? While tenwiki:Category:Events by date lists more meetings in the next weeks and months, the anniversary and most meetings were this weekend, which will end in all timezones this UTC noon. Amalthea 23:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If not, someone needs to change it to "was on January 15", instead of the current "yesterday". – SMasters (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Duly removed. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 15:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors recruitment notice

I'd like to run a notice for recruiting Wikipedia Online Ambassadors for about a week or two:

The [[Wikipedia:Ambassadors|Wikipedia Ambassador Program]] is looking for experienced Wikipedians to be [[Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors|Online Ambassadors]].

We haven't been able to recruit enough ambassadors for the coming semester based on more local recruitment efforts (individual invitations, messages on discussion pages, etc.). We're still hoping for at least about 65 more. For background, see "Wikipedia Ambassador Program growing, adjusting" in the Signpost.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Bump.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Jujutacular ^talk 21:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Can this be put back up? It was working pretty well, but going much slower than I expected. We still needs a lot more Online Ambassadors. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure; done. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

As Jujutacular pointed out to me, it's getting crowded. This one has probably done most of the good it will; it'd be fine to take it down. Thanks for leaving it up so long! I really appreciate it.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, removed message 89. Can always go back up when you're looking for folks for next semester Courcelles 01:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist collaboration notice

There is a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Watchlist collaboration notice to introduce some kind of an opt-out article collaboration notice to the watchlist to attract users. —Noisalt (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Guide notice

I'd really like to put a notice up for the wiki guide study we're trying to start (both getting some direct data on how/why new editors start/stop editing (or don't) and how direct outreach can help that). Below is probably what I'm thinking of:

The Wikimedia Foundation is looking for volunteers to try directly reaching out to new editors. Find out more about the study, volunteer and/or share your own new user experience at the the Wiki Guide project page.

(wording thoughts etc obviously welcome) Jalexander--WMF 05:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest rewording so that the link is closer to the front of the notice. Jujutacular ^talk 00:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a huge rewrite.. (well it's very little I added another link to basically the same wording). Any thoughts on a better way to get it there? Jalexander--WMF 01:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps:

Volunteers are sought for the Wiki Guides project to help in directly reaching out to new editors.

Or something like that. Feel free to tweak, add, etc. Jujutacular ^talk 01:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I want to make sure as many people come see it (Even if you're not interested in volunteering, joining the discussion/sharing experiences etc hmm. Part of me wants to get in the fact that it's a Foundation study but I can't find a great way to put it.

Volunteers are sought for the Wiki Guides study looking at the effect of directly reaching out to new editors. Come learn more, volunteer or just share your own new user experience on the talk page.

or something like that. Jalexander--WMF 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jujutacular ^talk 03:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This has been up quite a while now, so I've removed it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to supplement 'Suppress display of the fundraiser banner'

It used to be that banners were rare. The intrusions were tolerable and effort to dismiss the banners was low/infrequent. Unfortunately, the banner frequency has increased to the point where I sometimes get multiple banners on login. This is very frustrating, particularly if I'm on a slow connection on a small device with limited time. I don't want to work so hard to get rid of stuff I don't want.

In preferences there is an option 'Suppress display of the fundraiser banner'. I'd like an additional option to 'Suppress all banners'. Alternatively, there could be a suppress option for each type of banner. As long as I can cut down on unsolicited messages, I don't mind. What's the process for modifying the preference options? Lightmouse (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

I've proposed a full-on sitenotice pointing to this but so far it is not looking too likely and I've been told this is a better option. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anybody home here? Can I just do this? Will I be yelled at by a million people if I screw it up? Lil' help? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Propose how you want it worded and I could put it up. Jujutacular ^talk 20:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

How about "There is a community discussion underway to decide the future of pending changes protection. Click here to participate." Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Click here" should be avoided: WP:ACCESS#Links. How about "Join a community discussion to decide the future of pending changes protection." Jujutacular ^talk 21:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jujutacular ^talk 22:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As of today this discussion has been reset to more structured format. Could we get an update? Something like "The community discussion to decide the future of pending changes protection has entered a second phase and users are asked to endorse position statements." Or something maybe a bit less clunky that still emphasizes that the previous free-for-all has been curtailed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to endorse this most recent request. I think that most users do not realize that this is actually now a new discussion. Perhaps a more succinct wording would be "Join the second phase of a community discussion to decide the future of pending changes protection." --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Y Done. Amalthea 09:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I should warn you there is already talk of further phases. This is a big issue and will not be resolved easily. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

An announcement for second phase discussions Watchlist seems premature, or not the right landing page

Moved to appropriate thread. — Martin (MSGJ · talk)

IMNSHO dropping people into
• Join the second phase of a '''[[Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011|community discussion]]''' to decide the future of [[WP:PC|pending changes]] protection.
seems very premature for a broad scale announcement. It is an ugly bucket of poo at that page. If we are to going to direct people to a discussion then it needs to have something like a cover page that puts some context and manages expectations, not that sort of page which is realistically only for the enthusiast. billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be dropping people into messy discussions. Anything advertised here should be well structured and introduced for those not familiar with the issues. This particular discussion doesn't do such a bad job actually. The bolded link takes you to Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 which has several explanatory sections at the top including "Explanation of format", "Purpose" and "General information". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The third phase is live as of a few minutes ago. It is actually not a discussion but a questionnaire for users to fill out. I always seem to stumble over how to phrase these type of things, if someone could update the notice to reflect the new phase it would be very much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The next phase is now up, albeit quite a bit different from the last attempt that remains under discussion for the future. I suggest adding: Join the third phase of a community discussion about pending changes protection. —UncleDouggie (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest removing this now. The latest poll has been running for more than a week, has had plenty of input, and the consensus seems clear. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

 Removed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2011 appointments

Suggest publicizing this via the watchlist. –xeno^talk 23:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The process to appoint three non-arbitrator members of the Audit Subcommittee is underway. Applications will be accepted until March 7, and community input on applicants will be solicited starting March 14. If you are interested, please see the appointments page for details on the process.

I appreciate you are trying to publicise this committee a bit more, but I'm not sure this affects the average editor enough to warrant the notice here. No strong feelings either way though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy edit drive

Hi, I'm wondering if it's possible to put up a very short notice for the March copy edit backlog elimination drive? The drive is to fix articles with the {{copyedit}} tag on them. Proposed text:

The March copy edit backlog elimination drive has begun! Help reduce the backlog of 4,654 articles and get rewarded with barnstars.

This should only go up on 1 March. Thanks! – SMasters (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, would really appreciate if this could go up today. Many thanks! – SMasters (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! SMasters (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've put it up for two weeks, hopefully sufficient? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that should be more than enough, thanks. – SMasters (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unordered list

{{sudo}} Please change the format of this message to use <ul><li>...</li></ul> (an unordered HTML list) rather than &bull;s. It might be possible to use wikisyntax (* foo) in this message, even. There's no reason it should be using fake bullets, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Changing to an unordered HTML list seemed to create extraneous space between the items, while normal wikisyntax didn't work at all. At least that's from looking at the preview. Jujutacular ^talk 06:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I just tested it out and it only added about one more pixel of space between items. Barely noticeable. Note that in my testing I threw out the divs and added the classes to the li's. The code in MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js would need to be modified slightly if it is done that way. Reach Out to the Truth 07:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I see, yea I didn't throw out the divs. Jujutacular ^talk 07:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I've disabled the request as it seems to be controversial and/or require further discussion or changes elsewhere. Please reactivate when you've worked out the best approach. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason not to go with Max's suggestion. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Who's Max? Amalthea 16:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that's the first M in MZMcBride. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Well, as said above, the dismiss-script needs to be adapted first to work with both div and li, which will need a head start of IIRC 30 days so that it's updated in all browser caches before the structure can be changed here. Switching the import in common.js to the resource loader may speed that up, I haven't looked into the implementation though.
But in general I think everyone agrees that a proper list is certainly preferable. Amalthea 12:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the js earlier today, we can switch the HTML around April 29. Amalthea 16:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The era of 30-day decaching time is over with the introduction of ResourceLoader; now script- and style-changes are pushed within ten minutes to all readers. \o/ Happy‑melon 19:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I heard a rumour that the resource loader was broken. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean the problem with pop-ups and what not? That's fixed now, was only for the gadgets in the first place anyway, as far as I'm aware. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If RL was completely broken, you'd be reading plaintext. It was indeed broken for Gadgets, in the sense that the caching in the Gadgets extension wasn't playing nicely with the caching in RL; but that is AFAIK all fixed now. Happy‑melon 21:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I believe the importScript("MediaWiki:Common.js/watchlist.js") in MediaWiki:Common.js needs to be exchanged with the respective ResourceLoader call first, otherwise it's still loaded via wikibits. That is probably as simple as replacing it with mw.loader.load, but I haven't looked at the documentation thus far. Amalthea 22:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as far as I can tell mw.loader.load only accepts ResourceLoader modules defined in Resources.php and $wgResourceModules, and offers no way to load arbitrary scripts via ResourceLoader. We can still profit from Commons.js being loaded through the ResourceLoader by incrementing a version parameter, but can't use it directly at the moment. Amalthea 10:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog drove

• "The Great Backlog Drive has just begun – help clear Wikipedia's backlogs for the next six weeks for the chance to win Wikimedia goodies!"

How about updating this to "The Great Backlog Drive is underway – help clear Wikipedia's backlogs for the chance to win Wikimedia goodies!" It's been up for a while so the timing is out of date. Or perhaps remove it as old news? Bencherlite^Talk 14:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It's been up for a full month, so I've removed it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

File mover

Perhaps we should add a notice to inform that the userright file mover is now available. Suggested wording: "The file mover userright is now available for users experienced in working with files." Cenarium (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You should probably pipe Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover into the words "now available", like so:

The '''[[WP:File mover|file mover]]''' userright is [[Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover|now available]] for users experienced in working with files.

bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

 Added for two weeks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New Pages

The Community Department and I are currently working on Wikipedia:Wiki Guides/New pages; could we have a watchlist notice to advertise it along the lines of "The article incubation trial for encouraging new users and improving new articles is currently underway. Sign up and get involved!". Ironholds (talk) 20:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Bumping this, it would be really helpful (say for 1 or 2 weeks)? Jalexander--WMF 18:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Credo accounts

I'd like to add this notice: "400 free Credo Reference accounts available for Wikipedians; sign up at Wikipedia:Credo".

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggest changing "sign up" -> "apply" as to not imply there is a guarantee. Jujutacular ^talk 03:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

How about the following wording? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Editors are invited to apply for one of 400 free Credo Reference accounts.

Y Added Martin's version. His wording sounded less like an inadvertent ad, IMHO, but feel of course free to tweak. Amalthea 09:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding it, Amalthea. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

A second notice to help reference BLPs

I would like to propose readding the message: • You are invited to <span class="plainlinks">'''[http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Unreferenced_BLPs&subcats=1&d=2 reference a random biography]'''</span> and help with the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons|ongoing drive]] to eliminate unsourced biographies of living people. J04n(talk page) 12:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be rather soon after the previous notice. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What time period do you think is reasonable? The first was so effective would like another swing. J04n(talk page) 19:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been 2½ months. I'll stick it up for a fortnight? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be quite helpful. If I could , might I suggest a slight reword both for variety and to take note of the fact that we've broken 10,000, e.g., we really are, or would like to be, e.g., :

• You are invited to <span class="plainlinks">'''[http://toolserver.org/~erwin85/randomarticle.php?lang=en&family=wikipedia&categories=Unreferenced_BLPs&subcats=1&d=2 reference a random biography]'''</span> and help with the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons|ongoing drive]] to eliminate unsourced biographies of living people. With 50,000 articles done, and fewer than 10,000 left, we're closing in on the kill.

Honestly, I don't like that wording precisely, but I like the idea of trying to convey that we're running the last mile or two of this marathon in some manner. Suggestions/improvements welcome! --joe decker^{talk to me} 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I think "closing in for the kill" is a little too informal and may generate some complaints! How about just saying the task is n% complete? And I can make it change dynamically so you can see the percentage coming down. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me... the best "first number" I have at hand is 52,760 on 4 January 2010. Depending on which counter you use, we're in the 8900-9000 range now. --joe decker^{talk to me} 07:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Added for three weeks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --joe decker^{talk to me} 19:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)