Larry Sanger wrote:
I think we should implement the greatly-pared-down counting scheme we were discussing on the list earlier. We don't have 90K articles. We have about 50K articles and about 40K geographical entries automatically created from a database.
Why don't we just say "thousands and thousands of articles"?
Since we've agreed that there's no certain way to automatically detect which articles are "real", making milestones like 100K even more meaningless than usual, we shouldn't pretend than any one figure is correct. Anybody that's interested in a total count, using any of the various automatic definitions of "article", can look at [[Wikipedia:Statistics]] for that information. Anybody that believes a particular method of counting to be useful can announce milestones based on it on [[Wikipedia:Announcements]].
We can even link from [[Main Page]] to [[Wikipedia:Statistics]] directly from the phrase "thousands and thousands of articles", so even newcomers can get an easily accessible precise count -- deciding for themselves which precise count is most accurate.
-- Toby