en:wp article 1,000,000 was four months ago. en: is already over 1,300,000. Two million will happen by April at latest, probably earlier.
:-O
This may be a useful number to mention when asked about Jimbo's comments on quality rather than quantity!
What's the new stuff been? Is there any broad characterisation we can apply? I've been doing a lot of article work recently and may be responsible for ten or twenty of them ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
- d.
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
What's the new stuff been? Is there any broad characterisation we can apply? I've been doing a lot of article work recently and may be responsible for ten or twenty of them ;-)
Good to hear from you, was wondering where you'd gotten to :)
Steve
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Good to hear from you, was wondering where you'd gotten to :)
Hiding. Doing Foundation press. Avoiding en: politics and writing some of those "article" things that those "readers" who keep hitting our servers complain about in the press. Foolish humans. Not reading the list. I've just switched list mail on for this address, so INCOMING!!!!!
- d.
On Aug 7, 2006, at 4:46 AM, David Gerard wrote:
en:wp article 1,000,000 was four months ago. en: is already over 1,300,000. Two million will happen by April at latest, probably earlier.
:-O
This may be a useful number to mention when asked about Jimbo's comments on quality rather than quantity!
What's the new stuff been? Is there any broad characterisation we can apply? I've been doing a lot of article work recently and may be responsible for ten or twenty of them ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics
I did [[Chalk Bluffs]]. I was interested in it because I had lived for years within a few miles of this interesting feature but had never heard of it or gone out there. I think it is notable enough, but I think it is a typical new article. The old days are gone, when you could start a new article, like [[Colorado]].
Fred
On 8/7/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I did [[Chalk Bluffs]]. I was interested in it because I had lived for years within a few miles of this interesting feature but had never heard of it or gone out there. I think it is notable enough, but I think it is a typical new article. The old days are gone, when you could start a new article, like [[Colorado]].
Heh, we should have competitions for "most notable article started after July 2006" or something.
Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?
Steve
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?
[[User:Interiot]] has a script that does this (though I think it includes redirects), and accepts requests on his talk page. I'm not sure if it uses the toolserver data or not (which of course is two months old).
Nathaniel
On 07/08/06, Nathaniel Sheetz spangineer@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?
[[User:Interiot]] has a script that does this (though I think it includes redirects), and accepts requests on his talk page. I'm not sure if it uses the toolserver data or not (which of course is two months old).
It includes redirects, but they're marked as such. You have to manually weed out the disambiguation pages, though, if you want a real "article count"
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/reports/output/articles_created_enwiki_S... is a sample report - note that the entries are sorted by type, so:
article space talk pages userpages user talk pages wikipedia pages wikipedia talk pages image pages template pages template talk pages and *then* redirects in article-space, etc.
(700 redirect pages. Eeep)
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?
I'd really like "without redirects" because when I say "ten or twenty" above, I mean actual articles - most of what I create is redirects, typically when I've typed "wp something" into Firefox or Seamonkey to look up something, not found what I expected then had to either redirect it to the article or write the article.
(I create tons of redirects to enhance our usefulness - a forest of sensible redirects helps people find what they're looking for when they type something into the search box. Article-space redirects should almost never be removed unless they're actually misleading or derogatory or something.)
- d.
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I'd really like "without redirects" because when I say "ten or twenty" above, I mean actual articles - most of what I create is redirects, typically when I've typed "wp something" into Firefox or Seamonkey to look up something, not found what I expected then had to either redirect it to the article or write the article.
Also, do you count stubs in that? I've gotten into a weird habit of creating stubs about things I don't know anything about, because sometimes it just seems wrong to "fix" a wrong link by making it a redlink...
(I create tons of redirects to enhance our usefulness - a forest of sensible redirects helps people find what they're looking for when they type something into the search box. Article-space redirects should almost never be removed unless they're actually misleading or derogatory or something.)
I do this too, scores of them. RfD is an interesting place sometimes, mostly they seem to hate cross-namespace redirects.
(note that *that* problem would probably go away if we had a convenient way of searching the Wikipedia project, as opposed to its encyclopaedic content)
Steve
On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:35 AM, David Gerard wrote:
(I create tons of redirects to enhance our usefulness - a forest of sensible redirects helps people find what they're looking for when they type something into the search box. Article-space redirects should almost never be removed unless they're actually misleading or derogatory or something.)
Inclusionist bastard.
Best, Phil Sandifer sandifer@english.ufl.edu
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
On 07/08/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 7, 2006, at 10:35 AM, David Gerard wrote:
(I create tons of redirects to enhance our usefulness - a forest of sensible redirects helps people find what they're looking for when they type something into the search box. Article-space redirects should almost never be removed unless they're actually misleading or derogatory or something.)
Inclusionist bastard.
"Inclusionist"? How dare you!
(I have in fact official government-issued paperwork certifying that I was actually born out of wedlock. I must frame a copy of it to put above my desk at work. Them: "YOU BASTARD!" Me: *points at frame*)
- d.
On 8/7/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
"You have new mail," says the mailbox.
open mailbox
There is a piece of paper inside the mailbox.
take paper
You have a letter.
read paper
"Dear unblock-en-l sir, my account kroz@aol.com is blocked and unable to post to Wikipedia..."
On 8/7/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
You are standing in an open field west of a white house, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.
"You have new mail," says the mailbox.
open mailbox
There is a piece of paper inside the mailbox.
take paper
You have a letter.
read paper
"Dear unblock-en-l sir, my account kroz@aol.com is blocked and unable to post to Wikipedia..."
Oh my god, *I'VE* been getting the same mail too! You hacked into my account, didn't you? DIDN'T YOU?!?
(checks to see if you have the same framed certificate as DG)
Mail-hacking bastard
Steve Bennett wrote:
Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?
One simple thing I've wished for would just be for the "My contributions" page to include an N flag, the same way Special:Recentchanges does.
On 8/7/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/7/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I did [[Chalk Bluffs]]. I was interested in it because I had lived for years within a few miles of this interesting feature but had never heard of it or gone out there. I think it is notable enough, but I think it is a typical new article. The old days are gone, when you could start a new article, like [[Colorado]].
Heh, we should have competitions for "most notable article started after July 2006" or something.
Incidentally, anyone know a site/tool that will give you a list of all the articles (ideally, without redirects) that you've started?
Steve _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I submit my newly-created stub of "Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_is_a_cigar_called_Hamlet). Was quite surprised that one of the most famous British advertising campaigns of all time was not covered. In fact, neither is the brand itself!
Yep, there are certainly some highly-notable articles left to write. Or you can just go and write something a little odd like "Mail delivery by animalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_delivery_by_animal" or "Largest body part http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_body_part"!
~~~~ Violet/Riga
On 07/08/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I did [[Chalk Bluffs]]. I was interested in it because I had lived for years within a few miles of this interesting feature but had never heard of it or gone out there. I think it is notable enough, but I think it is a typical new article. The old days are gone, when you could start a new article, like [[Colorado]].
You forgot to categorise it ;-p
Since late April, I've created [[Marc J. Rochkind]], [[Kumler, Illinois]], [[PALcode]], [[CYGM filter]], [[RGBE filter]], [[MySociety]], [[Envoy (WordPerfect)]], [[Smart terminal]], [[Smart Display]] and [[Ctelnet]]. (And a zillion redirectes.)
Most of those are obscurities, the filter array articles should probably be merged to [[color filter array]], the ones of more than minor notability are [[MySociety]] and [[Marc J. Rochkind]] and [[MySociety]] is the only one of ongoing significance.
That said, even an article about something of only the smallest note can be done *well* and to the sort of quality Jimbo has started asking for. I'm quite proud of [[Smart Display]] in this regard, for example.
(I also got two more front page features on Uncyclopedia ;-D )
- d.
On 8/7/06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
That said, even an article about something of only the smallest note can be done *well* and to the sort of quality Jimbo has started asking for. I'm quite proud of [[Smart Display]] in this regard, for example.
Nice. I especially like your phrase "Analysts flagged..." as another worthy successor to "Critics claimed that...".
I also like the fact that after reading the article, you think "my god, what a stupid product", but the wording is perfectly NPOV, and there's nothing but the facts to tell you how misguided it was.
Steve
On 07/08/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Nice. I especially like your phrase "Analysts flagged..." as another worthy successor to "Critics claimed that...".
hah! Note the references. In this case it goes that early in the article because it was so obviously crap from the second it was announced.
I also like the fact that after reading the article, you think "my god, what a stupid product", but the wording is perfectly NPOV, and there's nothing but the facts to tell you how misguided it was.
It's really not a bad idea on the face of it. But their mistake was not just making a terminal server client for a PocketPC, which would do the same job better. If only their licensing department hadn't utterly crippled the idea. Remember: proprietary software is not just evil, it's *stupid*.
- d.
On 8/7/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
The old days are gone, when you could start a new article, like [[Colorado]].
I started Berufsverbot and, more recently, Holding the Fort. The former is a controversial German law barring political radicals from public sector employment, and the latter is an ITV situation comedy that ran for three seasons and starred two very famous actors.
I was very surprised on both occasions that we didn't have articles on the subjects. There are still yawning gaps.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
I started Berufsverbot and, more recently, Holding the Fort. The former is a controversial German law barring political radicals from public sector employment, and the latter is an ITV situation comedy that ran for three seasons and starred two very famous actors.
I was very surprised on both occasions that we didn't have articles on the subjects. There are still yawning gaps.
I've had a similar experience---while 1.3 million articles sounds like a lot, the sum of human knowledge is much larger. :-)
To have reasonable coverage of all major topics, I'd guess at least 5 million articles would be necessary, if not 10 million. In particular, we should bring coverage on en: of non-Anglosphere geography, history, and politics up to the level of coverage we have for the Anglosphere. For example, we have at least a basic article on every single town in the U.S. (thanks to the census database) and almost all in the U.K., but don't even have articles for every state or province of some countries, let alone all the cities and towns. There are people who have been president or prime minister of a sovereign country for whom we don't yet have a biography. Even in the Anglosphere, there's plenty of room for expansion: there are lots of major court precedents, moderately important historical figures (state/provincial governors, entrepreneurs, judges, etc.), state/provincial parks, geographical features (mountains, rivers, islands, etc.), and so on that are still either red links or wholly absent.
-Mark
On 8/21/06, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
have a biography. Even in the Anglosphere, there's plenty of room for expansion: there are lots of major court precedents, moderately important historical figures (state/provincial governors, entrepreneurs, judges, etc.), state/provincial parks, geographical features (mountains, rivers, islands, etc.), and so on that are still either red links or wholly absent.
I can feel a new game coming on, akin to Googlewhacking. You somehow have to find the most important entity for which no article exists, for some objective measurement of "important". Any ideas?
Incidentally, I really appreciate the work of those people who methodically go through lists of people, places, things making sure they're all present.
Steve
D> For example, we have at least a basic article on every single town in D> the U.S. (thanks to the census database) and almost all in the U.K., but D> don't even have articles for every state or province of some countries, D> let alone all the cities and towns.
There are a lot of cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants for which we have no article...
Fun fact: there is a European city with 160,000 inh. having no article!
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcorc%C3%B3n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcorc%C3%B3n
D> There are people who have been D> president or prime minister of a sovereign country for whom we don't yet D> have a biography.
Of course there are loads of them. Not only PM/Prez, but also a lot of kings and other rulers.
I can guess that the number of missing incumbents is around a couple of thousands. Many of them ruled countries of which the average westerner never heard. :-)
On 8/22/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
D> For example, we have at least a basic article on every single town in D> the U.S. (thanks to the census database) and almost all in the U.K., but D> don't even have articles for every state or province of some countries, D> let alone all the cities and towns.
There are a lot of cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants for which we have no article...
I probably wouldn't be surprised if there were cities in China, India, Indonesia etc with more than 500,000 or even 1 million with no article.
Fun fact: there is a European city with 160,000 inh. having no article!
You're winning so far ;)
I can guess that the number of missing incumbents is around a couple of thousands. Many of them ruled countries of which the average westerner never heard. :-)
Yeah, it would be a shame if *notable* former rulers were missing...
Steve
I can guess that the number of missing incumbents is around a couple of thousands. Many of them ruled countries of which the average westerner never heard. :-)
SB> Yeah, it would be a shame if *notable* former rulers were missing...
Perhaphs a guy who ruled a 19th century Europan country (population: ~5 million) for about 10 years? :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_II_Ghica (Wallachia; 1834-1842 and 1856-1858)
On 8/23/06, Bogdan Giusca liste@dapyx.com wrote:
I can guess that the number of missing incumbents is around a couple of thousands. Many of them ruled countries of which the average westerner never heard. :-)
SB> Yeah, it would be a shame if *notable* former rulers were missing...
Perhaphs a guy who ruled a 19th century Europan country (population: ~5 million) for about 10 years? :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_II_Ghica (Wallachia; 1834-1842 and 1856-1858)
Heh, speaking of countries "of which the average westerner never heard"...
Actually let's look at this question from the other direction. For how many countries do we have at least a stub on every ruler?
* The US * Australia * UK * France ...?
Incidentally, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Chinese_monarchs is pretty impressive, but there are redlinks.
Steve
On 8/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually let's look at this question from the other direction. For how many countries do we have at least a stub on every ruler?
Going back to when?
On 8/23/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
Actually let's look at this question from the other direction. For how many countries do we have at least a stub on every ruler?
Going back to when?
Well, each of those three probably has a defined beginning - I know that both the UK and US do. That's if you are talking about the political entity, of course, not the geographical area.
-Matt
On 8/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
Well, each of those three probably has a defined beginning - I know that both the UK and US do. That's if you are talking about the political entity, of course, not the geographical area.
This is very true. However, how many *other* countries do? Take Germany. Do you go back to reunification in 1990, separation in 1945, the beginning of Bismarck's empire in 1871 or some point in the far off past? It is not obvious, and I expect many other countries will have similar difficulties.
I feel this may be slightly beside the point.
On 8/23/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I feel this may be slightly beside the point.
Probably - I was just exercising my inner pedant.
-Matt
On 8/23/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
I feel this may be slightly beside the point.
Probably - I was just exercising my inner pedant.
What other reason is there for editing Wikipedia?
On 8/23/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
This is very true. However, how many *other* countries do? Take Germany. Do you go back to reunification in 1990, separation in 1945, the beginning of Bismarck's empire in 1871 or some point in the far off past? It is not obvious, and I expect many other countries will have similar difficulties.
As far back as there is a single, known ruler for an area not less than half the size of the present day country.
(since I'm making the rules up as I go along anyway)
Steve
On 8/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
As far back as there is a single, known ruler for an area not less than half the size of the present day country.
(since I'm making the rules up as I go along anyway)
That causes problems with city states and France.
On 8/23/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
Going back to when?
The start of writen records.