Wikipedia talk:Multilingual statistics

NOTE: Our pre-2004 discussions are now archived.

Some percentages

19-12-2003

+ than 100,000 (en:): 184713 ( 46.06 % )
+ than 10,000: 178830 ( 44.60 % )
42284+22133+21867+18373+18282+17334+14435+13893+10229
+ than 1000: 32615 ( 8.13 % )
4914+4910+3495+3486+2948+2461+2372+2315+1174+1165+1159+1152+1064
others: 4828 ( 1.20 % )
973+756+714+713+644+546+482

TOTAL: 400986

---

04-01-2004

+ than 100,000: 189273 ( 45.40 % )
+ than 10,000: 186636 ( 44.77 % )
43883+24305+22669+19026+19009+17928+14733+14616+10467
+ than 1000: 36512 ( 8.76 % )
5349+4950+3665+3515+3123+3052+2959+2511+1451+1333+1239+1199+1106+1060
others: 4461 ( 1.07 % )
907+794+765+723+660+612

TOTAL: 416882

---

So other Wikipedia languages grow faster than the English one. Yann 14:46, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I just thought I should mention that despite Latin apparently having over 1600 articles, most of them are either extremely small stubs, or things that seem somehow out of place in Latin (like ISO codes...I guess they are technically fine, but what is the point of that, really?). Another problem is that there very few people there seem to actually know Latin. I barely know any, and I'm a sysop there. I don't know if you'd want to take it out of the count, and it's only 1600 or so anyway...but now you know, just in case. There's a lot we could do with a Latin wikipedia, but unfortunately nothing productive is going on there right now. Adam Bishop 00:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, latin is not the only language Wikipedia that has a lot of stubs or rather infrastructural articles, like calendar days, years, decades and so on. It would be hard to count them - Erik Zachte tried it before with much more detailed statistics, but, pitily, they weren't updated sind September 2003. So far, this is the best I could do. --denny vrandečić 14:46, Feb 4, 2004 (UTC)

There were updated! A week ago stats for Jan 20, 2004 were available. Since the most recent server switch old stats reappeared. When all new servers are set up the stats will be refreshed again, weekly or so. Right now I don't want to bother Brion Vibber (the site admin), he has enough to do right now. Erik Zachte 17:56, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

It would be really great if this stats could be sent to intlwiki-l list (let say once per week).

---

The [Irish wiki] is finally alive, with a couple of articles behind it, and I'm waiting on the LanguageGa.php to be uploaded. Could it be added to the statistics please? --Kwekubo 19:01, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'll add it to the rankings on March 1, and in the normal statistics on Feb 22 - that's my plan :) If you like to have it earlier, just go ahead and do it! --denny vrandečić 14:58, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

---

Do you like the idea of colorcoding the tables? If not, put it back again, or discuss it here. I though it would be nice, but after seeing it, I am not really sure... --denny vrandečić 18:09, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea. It makes it visually very clear which ones have moved up or down the list. Angela. 12:21, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)~

---

The "Fastest Growing Wikipedias" section contains the comment : "This measure is somewhat biased towards recently founded wikipedias, where an initially small number of articles can yield a staggering percentage increase without adding too many new articles numerically." I agree with this comment, and I have an idea on what to do about it. Just throwing an idea up for discussion: Perhaps we could have two such lists - the present list (ranking the wikipedias by percentage growth), and a second list ranking the wikipedias in order of the absolute number of new articles. As you can see, a row has been added to the other tables showing the number of new articles in each wikipedia for the first quarter of 2004; perhaps we could use those figures as the bases for the second list. Tell you what - I'll do it myself in the next few days if I can find time; if anybody wants to beat me to it, I'd be more that happy-:). In addition, perhaps we could restrict the present list of fastest growing wikipedias to those wikipedias which already had more than 1000 articles on 19 December (or whatever other date we choose; I submit that 1 January 2004 would be a good starting date). Davidcannon 01:06, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a list of the top 10. It was mostly the same as the top 10 Wikipedias for total articles, with a few exceptions. Jeff8765 22:46, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

The Turkmen page hasn't actually been started yet; the front page, and the only other article, are in Turkish and seem to have been placed as a stopgap. It shouldn't be listed on the stats.

I don't think Yoruba exists either; the 27 articles are a placeholder page in English and the 26 letters of the (English) alphabet with equivalents in other languages. Some may consider that to count, but I would suggest that there has to be at least some text in Yoruba before you can say the Yoruba Wikipedia's been started...

---

http://csb.wikipedia.org/ is missing. 217.98.142.167 17:33, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

• Well, it's up and running now - 130 articles today. David Cannon 22:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

---

japan internet growth???

Someone wrote: The high growth rate in Japan is due in part to the explosion of internet access in that country. AFAIK Japan has long since been near the top of internet penetration rankings. Do you mean explosion in broadband access (i.e. >= 512kbit/s unmetered home connections)? When? Could you give a URL please?

Or do you mean China (PRC) - that would make much more sense to me? If PRC is the subject, then really we should expect zh.wikipedia to eventually get close to the en. version. Hindi/urdu is one of the world's biggest languages too, but i still haven't installed indix (or whatever it's called, i even forgot that, but i did download it...) so i can't read devanagari properly... :( Boud 22:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

• I could have been mistaken. What I meant was that almost every household in Japan is now "wired." David Cannon 22:56, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Sprints are a fake

Sprints like in the Ukrainian Wikipedia (before in the basque Wikipedia) are caused by hundreds or thousands of pages which contain nothing more than dates and template-like entries of years, but no actual text. You can easily see that by repeatedly clicking "Randompage" in these Wikipedias. That works even if you do not understand the slightest bit of the language. They should not be mentioned here in such a positive way. Erdal Ronahi 20:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. In the case of the Ukrainian Wikipedia, however, I actually tried out an article by the one user responsible for the uploading (in a single day) of about a thousand articles. The article I tried out turned out to be a LONG biography. Unable to read Ukrainian, I have no idea who the biography spoke of, but it was clear from the formatting (birth and death dates, etc) that it was indeed a biography. The other uploads of that user appear to have been biographies also. I have not been able to verify this, but I think that user made use of a bot to upload en mass biographies from some other source.

As for the bulgarian sprint, they were the work of a bot named "Robo5" - which appears very similar to our own Rambot. The several thousand articles uploaded were about towns in Bulgaria - packed with facts and figures. Human editors now have some solid raw material to work on.

With all due respect to your "dates and template-like entries of years," such articles are valuable infrastructe. You may not be able to live inside a road, but you'll have trouble getting to your home without it. Such infrastructure creates a framework for the kind of articles that you (and I) would prefer to see. David Cannon 12:39, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spelling

Is it possible to change "Belarussian" to "Belarusian"? I couldn't change it there, because it was not a part of the page source. Thanks! --rydel 00:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. That's the page Wikipedia:Multilingual ranking September 2004. You may want to change the spelling in the older stats as well, feel free to do so. --denny vrandečić 12:57, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. --rydel 17:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Frisian?

What about frisian wiki - dissapeared from rankings however counts 1132 artls??? I post this question to Davidcannon, but with no answer. BTW I'm nor frisian :-), but Polish, and when I created polish mutation of october ranking I finded that Frisian wiki is absent. Ency 15:24, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

I apologize. I only received your message yesterday, and have had little time to get back to you. I believe several languages have been overlooked. I know how to edit the table, but I would rather leave it to Denny, because adding new languages would upset all of his calculations. I don't have the time to recalculate everything myself, and feel it would be vandalism make changes that would render the current calculations incorrect. It might be best to ask Denny if he has time to check and add whatever languages are missing, or else just wait until the November update. David Cannon 21:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've just realized that the two top tables (on which I'm presently the main volunteer) are the ones from which Frisian was missing (from what you wrote on my talk page, I thought it was Denny's table - I'll have to check that one also). I've corrected the top two, anyway. The correction will show up in about 24 hours when the cache clears. David Cannon 23:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

David, all is OK., thanks on befalf of the Frisians :-)) Ency 12:50, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)

For some reason Welsh wiki is showing as only 1129 articles in the bottom table, and a more accurate 2648 in the main table! -- Arwel 23:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We'll have to ask Denny about that one. I know the larger figure is accurate. Unfortunately, the counter of a given Wikipedia is not up to date if one is not logged in. I don't know whether Denny was able to log in or not. In the past, I wasn't either - it was only for the last edit (1 October) that I created accounts in each language and logged in. It could be, of course, that the Welsh data got swapped with some other language. We'll have to check. David Cannon 23:55, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Corrected it (I hope) :) --denny vrandečić 14:14, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

November 1st stats

I downloaded the stats for 1 November yesterday, and I have been formatting them off-line. They will be uploaded when I get home from work tonight - so please don't worry:-) David Cannon 00:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done (24 hours ago, actually, but forgot to announce it here). David Cannon 12:46, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why can't we have a bot do this job now? It seems like a much less complex job than the one that Rambot did with the US towns and cities… – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 05:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wrong naming

Every language is listed here with their English name (plus the code inside parantheses) expect Persian. For the Persian language is the local name "Farsi" used instead of its English name: Persian. For example German is listed under German not Deutsch, and Finnish is listed under Finnish and not Suomi. Please correct this anomaly. Thanks. --Mani1 16:51, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have usually heard the language referred to as Farsi when people are speaking English.Jeff8765 04:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

updates?

It's the end of January 2005, and the language ranking reflect the situation as of end of November 2004. What happenned? Are you planning to update this table? --rydel 20:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um, I look after the first two tables on the page (the tables giving the monthly statistics and the number of new articles). Denny looks after the table giving the language ranking. As Denny's table is much more detailed than mine, it may take him longer to organize it. You could always get in touch with him. David Cannon 22:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will update the tables as soon as I have the time to do that, but these days it is really stuffed - reviews, project meetings, lectures, writing -- I hope to have the time soon, but I can't promised. I only can promise, it is not forgotten :) --denny vrandečić (hp) (talk) 12:16, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. :) --rydel 23:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Milestone" divisions irregular

What is going on with these divisions?

• 1k 5k 10k 20k 50k 100k 200k 300k 400k 500k

The pattern is irregular and doesnt make logical sense. We should switch it to a roughly logarithmic scale (with decimal adjustment) to

• 1k 2k 5k 10k 20k 50k 100k 200k 500k

It would make more logical sense and I suspect we would see a more fair distribution (Ie english wiki wouldnt be three steps ahead of german). 15:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, and besides that, I think the past milestones should be kept. For instance, we would still be able to see when English reached the 100k milestone Gaspa 12:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the system we now have. Keeping past milestones would make the table extremely long - if you are interested in past milestones, they are listed on meta. Warofdreams talk 13:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Japanese at 100,000

The Japanese Wikipedia reached the 100,000st Article on 11 Feb, 2005.

Statistics page needs to be updated

The section "Rankings" has to be updated. The status here is still end of 2004. Also if you click on the field of January 2005, all you get is a short version with top ten. The full table should be kept as in the previous months.

Additionally I would also propose a ranking order in the "Number of Milestone Articles" such as: 1k,2k,5k,10k,20k,50k,100k,200k,500k etc.

Ossetic

I wonder, why the Ossetic is not in the list of languages? The http://os.wikipedia.org appeared on the last day of February...

• I have to update the list - when I have time. I'll get around to it ASAP. David Cannon 00:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Friulian in the ranking section

Please add Friulian wiki (fur) to the ranking section; thanks--Klenje 23:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Please update the Rankings section

The lowest section of this page names "Rankings" has not been updated since February. Please update this section of the page for the months march and april as soon as possible.

The easiest would certainly be to update this section of the page frequently whenever the other sections are updated since all other sections are up to date.

My calculations

I've compiled a table ranking all the Wikipedia editions for July 2005; see m:User:Mxn/Wikipedia statistics. I haven't had the time to make it conform to the style that Denny Vrandečić has been using, but it works at least. Also, please note that I took tokipona: out of the rankings once its database was locked. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 7 July 2005 20:48 (UTC)

Rankings

Since the rankings page was not updated since February 2005, i replicated Denny's great work and I now have a script that almost works as well as his. I used it to fill the missing pages from February to July. A few things like ranking diffs and total stats are still missing, but I plan to add them soon. Alfio 9 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

Wikipedia statistics pages

Does anyone know why the wiki's statistics pages have not been updated since 16th of May? It was a very useful tool, showing a much more true compare of national wiki's and giving a substantial info about the project. Is that possible to gather these data from databases and put them there?

Thanks a lot.
Aegis Maelstrom 08:25, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Aegis, wikistats were updated after every database dump, which was every week for a long time, then once a month. In May the database scheme changed again and this time more drastically than ever. Thus wikistats could not be run. Only recently dumps in the new xml format have become available, so I can work on upgrading the stats script yet again. Only this time I have some other things higher on my priority list, like two presentations for wikimania and EasyTimeline updates, which were long overdue. So you'll have to have some patience for yet another one or two months. Cheers, Erik Zachte 11:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not Aegis M, but I too was worried for a while, and had been meaning to ask this... but thank you for the effort and the answer. Almafeta 22:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Khmer Wikipedia

For the last four months, the Khmer Wikipedia (km:) has been listed as having no articles, but in fact it has hovered around 15 articles for some time now. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 08:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

See User talk:Mxn#Khmer Wikipedia.

Italian Wikipedia Article Count

Please check if the Italian Wikipedia really reached 100.000 the last days. Seems a bit a sudden jump by 30.000 from the beginning of September.

It's real. They employed a bot that generated 40,000 articles in 12 days. Some would say they cheated, but then we did too. I wasn't around when Rambot had his foot on the gas pedal, but people like Angela, André Engels, and Anthere will remember when he took Wikipedia by storm. David Cannon 22:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

German missing in official statistics

The official statisitics are currently NOT computed, (or were forgotten on display), for German (Deutsch). Where are they? Whomaintains the statistics script that generate the statisitics form?

I don't understand. I see German in every table on this page. - dcljr (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems impossible to update Milesstone on statistics page

The last dates I tried to update the milestones several times since Turkish, Arabian, Italian and Polish among others have taken new milestones. If I go to edit, all changes are already ready-made and just needed to be saved. When I save them, I get an updated milestone-table as individual page. However: whenever I enter the complete statistics page where milestones is only one section among many, I always get the old table without changes.

Which table or page are you trying to update? The first three tables on this page are updated only every month (or are supposed to be) and shouldn't need updating right now; the last table is already up to date. Maybe you just need to clear your browser's cached version of this page. Try hitting Reload while pressing Shift. That works on some browsers. - dcljr (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to update the last table. I also guess it might be my browser, but I get the updated versions of all the other tables more above. Just the last one seems not to change in my display even I know it is actually changed. So maybe it's only a problem of my PC and I hope it'll solve itself.

To meta

I think this is all meta material, since it shows the statistics concerning all WM projects. --Dungo (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Some of the other Wikipedia projects have their own version of these statistics. If Meta was used more often, I would not object to putting it there. But this page has been on Wiki for over 4 years now (since long before I had anything to do with it), and I think it really does belong here. David Cannon 13:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Waray-Waray Wikipedia stats

I've added the Waray-Waray wikipedia to the table since for some reason it's not there. (It was started on September 25, 2005) --69.228.46.21 21:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Afar stats

For reasons I don't exactly understand, the Statistics page of the Afar encyclopedia has claimed there are 6 articles for months now. But if you will look into it, you will see that the correct number should be "0" -- nor have there been any articles for months, either. Nor are there likely to be, any time soon, considering this is not a literary language, and those who do speak it are taking their herds to the watering holes right about now, not plugged into computers! The incorrect reading of 6 is skewing all the other statistics. I'm not sure why it always says 6 because "Numberofpages" correctly produces "0" on the front page; and it might be explained by someone tinkering with the Mediawiki message for the statistics page, but that doesn't seem to be the case either... What gives?? Codex Sinaiticus 21:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It's okay now. There really are 6 articles. The counter on the main page was broken; I've fixed it now. I was using a counter on my user page, which has always functioned; I never looked at the main page and didn't realize that it wasn't formatted. Thanks for letting me know. David Cannon 22:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Um... if there are 6 articles, where are they?? I'd really like to see them... All I can see from http://aa.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages is 3 listings: the Main page, and a couple empty pages... So that's what I mean by the counter is broken... Codex Sinaiticus 23:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Latvian is mislabeled as Taiwanese in Nov. 2005 stats

Just that!

I've seen it too. Taiwanese is listed under "Minnan" instead. I corrected it by hand, but the bot or program that generates the page should be fixed, too. -- Mkill 22:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Pages found in most languages

(Excludes Simple English Wikipedia)

It would be interesting to see a list of the pages that exist in the most languages. Probably a list of the English pages with the most interwiki links would do, as it is hard to imagine that there are many pages that exist in most of the languages except for English. Has anyone put together such a list? --67.32.150.213 22:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen such a list, but there are a few articles that stand out in terms of the number of language versions:

• India: 233??? -- A bunch of Native American languages have articles on this topic, interestingly enough.
• Wikipedia: 145
• True Jesus Church: 142
• Germany: 136
• Europe: 134
• Spain: 133
• Holy Bible: 130
• Lithuania: 129
• United States of America: 128
• France: 128
• Kurów: 127 (here are statistics)
• Russia: 120
• Jesus Christ: 117
• English Language: 116
• Italy: 115
• Astronomy: 112
• Christianity: 111
• Mathematics: 110
• Poland: 110
• Asia: 109
• Chemistry: 106
• Japan: 100

Kurów isn't all that obvious, until you find out that a Kurów native went around individually asking speakers of 107 languages to translate the article for them. I got contacted that way about a Vietnamese translation.

But, of course, the one that exists in the most languages, by far, is Main Page. At the time of writing, it exists in 250 or so language editions.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 21:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

--Additions by ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC) --Note -- several other editors who have not listed themselves are keeping this list updated -- thanks to all...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The article on "India" claims to have 233 Interwiki links. --Jose77 05:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why no update?

Today is 17th May already. Why still don't have the statistics on 1st May? -- Kevinhksouth 03:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

sigh I think I'll start taking snapshots of m:List of Wikipedias at midnight on the 1^st and updating the ranking table (the third one down) with that, if I happen to be at the computer then. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately still no update and already June. Hope there will be updates soon for those two months and wish that we would be able to update more regular. Worked well the past months before 89.51.222.58 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)*

Hello, I have been generating the rankings table for the last year, using the data from the other tables. Since May and June data are still missing, I have switched the data source to meta:List_of_Wikipedias. Data for June is basically OK, while the May table needs to be interpolated and will not be accurate. Additionally, I noted that there are several languages missing from the current rankings table. Of course those will be included from now. Alfio 19:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Alfio, just to let you know, your work is being deeply appreciated by me. Great job! -Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alfio. I think the missing languages you're referring to are the ones that were recently added to Wikipedia. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

growth

Shouldn't it be a good idea to display the grouth percentages (especially for "grouwth (month)" with more digits behind the comma? Now it is difficult to compare the largestst wikipedias?
gitaarfreak from the Dutch wikipedia 213.224.145.22 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. At least when the growth is less than 10%, it would be good to add one digit after the decimal point; this wouldn't even be a space problem. Marcoscramer 08:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

New Wikipedias

The october update doesn't contain any of the 20 new Wikipedias that were created on September 30. These should be included. Novial, for example, already has 533 articles (though I don't know how many it had on the first of October). Marcoscramer 21:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this detail. I'll be getting around to it before the October statistics are published at the end of the month, and will backdate the previous months' entries. David Cannon 09:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Stats

Overall, thanks for compiling these stats, they are some of the most complete, up to date, and interesting for data on language editions. I did notice though that Telugu is reported incorrectly. That edition hit 15,000 articles in September and is over 20k now. Not sure how they did that, but I suspect some well done bots have been at work, given the nature of entries the random page function brings up. - Taxman ^Talk 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Word count

While article count is a good measure for the size of each language section, there are a couple of other statistics that would be interesting such as

• number of edits
• number of active editors (for some definition of active)
• word count and average word count

The most important though would be word count and average word count. Having 100 articles of 100 words is probably much better than having 1000 articles of 10 words.

If for some reason the wikipedia people decide agains it, it would be interesting to read why? Gabor Szabo 14:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The main problem with word count statistics is that they would be biased towards certain languages: Some languages tend to have many short words (like Englisch), others tend to put the same ideas into a smaller number of longer words (like Swahili). This paragraph contains 56 words in English, but would only have 45 in Swahili.

It's quite difficult to compare the amount of content written in different languages in a fair way. Maybe if one didn't count grammatical words (like "the", "is", "would" etc) and counted complex words depending on how many ideas they contain (i.e. count "sunset" as two words), then one would get a somewhat fair comparison. But that's already much harder to realise than just counting words. Marcoscramer 18:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the data will be interesting in itself, average word count changes within the same language. I am also sure once this statistics is in place some clever people will come up with a method to normalize the the numbers of the various languages. After all there is some work on word count already. Gabor Szabo 05:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Bytes per article still seems to give a good indicator of how well-developed the articles are at certain Wikipedias, though. Though characters in certain scripts (such as Chinese) take up multiple bytes, that's balanced out by the multiple letters needed to write the average word in a Latin-based alpahbet. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

why wikimedia stat site does not open

We are unable to open site wikimedi stat; this site was usefull to identify good contributors and apreciate their efforts. Any alternatives available? Mahitgar 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See [1] and m:Wikimedia site feedback#Where are the STATS?. At least for now, you can still get a cached copy by searching Google for that tool. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 19:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Table mismatches

There is an important mismatch between the counts of the two first tables (December 2006 Rankings and Article count, monthly totals). Looking at the former, one can calculate (Articles total subtracted by New articles in month) that in the beginning of November there were 3014 Lombard articles, while the latter table says only 341 (11 % of the former). Is this just a difference in the date of the database dump or something else?

Another problem is that the following languages have different names in the two tables, which makes alphabetical browsing in some of the cases a bit complicated: arc (Aramaic or Assyrian Neo-Aramaic), bar (Bavarian or Austro-Bavarian), bj (Bhojpuri or Bihari), kg (Congo or Kongo), dv (Divehi or Dhevi), fo (Faroese or Faeroese), vls (West Flemish or Flemish), glk (Gilaki or Gileki), ms (Malaysian or Malay), minnan (Minnan or Taiwanese), mus (Muskogee or Muscogee), rmy (Vlax Romani or Romany), sg (Sangro or Sango), ii (Yi or Sichuan Yi), zea (Zealandic or Zeelandic). In addition, rm is listed two times in the latter table under the names Raeto-Romance and Rumansh (the article counts of the former are the same as in the first table). Lastly, the following languages exist only in the first table, not in the latter: Akan, Klingon, Lak, Tokipona (the last one seems to contain no articles, not even a main page, even though the article count says 239). Malhonen 12:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I handle only 2 of the 3 tables. However, the numerical mismatch can be explained by timing: I may have updated "my" tables at one time of day, while the other table may have been updated earlier (or later) the same day. The Lombard wikipedia is a case in point: on a single day, thousands of articles were transferred to it from the incubator, so depending on what time of day the source was checked, the figures could be quite different. Your other query: sorry, i deal only with the monthly statistics and the new articles tables, so i cant help you with the other one. David Cannon 13:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

100,000,000 edit counts! Yeehah!

Have a Toast! Cheers! :)

Again another Wikipedian statistical phenomenon has arrived! However, vandalisms and inactive users aside. First off for mine third compliment and perhaps the forth for this Wikipedia itself, I truly praise, commend and greatly congratulate this English Wikipedia once again for surpassing yet anoher Wiki-record of the One Hundred Millionth (or in figures: 100,000,000) mark of the total Wikipedians' Edit Counts!!! Yet this whopping number of what both users and Wikipedians have made up of this big free encyclopedia ever since July 2002AD and yet they never stop growing (as stated and based on/in the Wikipedian User Statistics)! WOW, what else can I say to express here, man!!? Thus, Congratulations and Kudos to the English Wikipedia! Keep the numbers going and keep on editing and contributing for more! Yaaahooooo!!! --onWheeZierPLot 00:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)