440:
regular page links, whereas MediaWiki completely ignores category links when counting articles. The "alternate" count is similar, but adds an additional requirement that the page length be at least 200 characters (or 50 characters for certain non-Latin scripts). Neither matches any of the article-counting criteria used in the MediaWiki software. In addition, the
Wikistats counts are recalculated every month on the basis of the then-current edit histories of each wiki, meaning that deleted articles "disappear" from all previous monthly counts going back to when those articles were created. To be more specific, if Wikistats reports that a given wiki contains 1000 articles in February 2015, the next month's report might list that wiki as having had only 990 articles in February 2015, if 10 articles that existed in that month were deleted before the next month's report was compiled.
517:. In addition, among all 679 recounted wikis the most extreme changes were seen in the English Wikisource, which decreased by 281,199 (a 27% drop), and the English Knowledge (XXG), which increased by 97,285 (a 2% rise). The largest relative increase was seen in the Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikiquote, which rose by 40% (479 pages). One Knowledge (XXG) and 14 Wikiquotes lost all of their articles, all of which had 7 or fewer before the change. The mean absolute change was 1340 articles (up or down); the median absolute change was 39 articles. The total article count for all recounted wikis decreased by 551,440, a 0.9% decrease. A full accounting of the observed changes (including changes to total pages and page edits, for comparison) is
787:
count. For me, this is the most important aspect of your article, but it's mostly ignored. Regardless of how we define an article, editor retention rates may impact article count milestones at a greater scale. As editor retention rates go down, article counts might decrease. With automation increasing, experts are currently predicting that in the U.S. alone within the next two decades, "47% of the workforce have a high probability of being displaced by technology and another 19% had a medium probability of displacement". In the longer term, jobs that require "critical thinking, innovative thinking and high emotional and social intelligence capabilities" will be safer from automation, but probably not for long.
489:
The total article count of
Wiktionary, summed across all language editions, decreased by 220,590 entries (a 1.6% decrease). As for Wikisource, the most extreme changes were seen in the French Wikisource, which increased by 819,297 text units (a 291% increase), and the Thai Wikisource, which decreased by 8,548 text units (a 63% decrease). Including French, 10 Wikisources more than doubled their text units: in fact, the total article count for Wikisource, summed across all language editions, almost exactly doubled, increasing by 1,599,639 text units.
411:, working out to just over 1 edit per second. At peak periods of editing, the number of edits per second can be far higher. Any of these edits can potentially change the article count (though most do not); even a single edit to a template can change the "article status" of several pages at the same time. Add to this the fact that many servers are simultaneously rendering, caching, and changing page content, and the very existence of a "true" article count becomes debatable. Even if one assumes that at any instant in time there
848:
can't, is delight. Good articles are all very well, and a great help to high school and college students faced with an assignment, but what I really hope happens from time-to-time is someone finding something on a topic that matters to them, even if it is not notable to the world at large. Finding out a little about a vessel one of one's ancestors sailed on, or an obscure provincial town they came from, and the like, is where
Knowledge (XXG) really performs a unique service.
633:
121:
111:
760:
and together (hopefully) we can improve things. That's the wiki way. That being said: yes, it would be nice if more people could work on fact-checking and adding/improving references. That's hard work, though, so only a minority of editors will want to put in the required effort (especially since none of us are getting paid to edit — a fact that makes your "money" and "unemployment" remarks seem quite irrelevant). -
361:
advantage of mainly by
Wikisources, which routinely count "Author", "Page", and "Index" namespaces along with the main one as their "content namespaces". In May 2011 a variable switch was added that enabled any one of three different article-counting criteria. Two were essentially reimplementations of the link- and comma-based counting criteria already in use, while the third introduced the option of counting
534:
37:
131:
91:
141:
806:
at other points in time. These types of figures, for example, partially motivated the WMF's attempt to increase participation from less developed countries. (Arguably too great a leap was made from the figures to action without developing and testing an explanatory model, but that does not invalidate the usefulness of the figures.) All the best:
101:
918:
creased by 281,199" (I accidentally switched increase and decrease when I typed it up); this change occurred between 12:00 UTC on 2015-03-27 and 12:00 UTC on 2015-03-31. The differences in numbers are purely due to the different times at which the data were collected. This wouldn't have been an issue
847:
I too don't care too much about the number of articles. The number is growing, and so is the quality of the stock of articles with editors adding some info here or there, or just tidying up typos (I make more than my share), improving grammar and style, etc. What we don't measure, probably because we
167:
at the time, sixty-five wikis fell below milestones tracked at the
Wikimedia News Meta page, and three increased to new milestones. Among these wikis, the largest absolute changes were a decrease of 281,624 articles in the English Wikisource (a 27% drop) and an increase of 4421 entries in the Persian
559:
As things currently stand, the article-counting script is set to run on the 21st of each month. This should keep the on-wiki article counts reasonably correct from now on. However, there are some remaining issues that should probably be considered by the wider
Wikimedia community. In each case, this
175:
was the running of a maintenance script that recounts articles from scratch. For several reasons the article counts reported by most
Wikimedia wikis have long been inaccurate—many negligibly so, but some by ridiculously large amounts. The maintenance script corrected these inaccuracies on almost all
805:
Article count (and article length, reference count, article assessment and many others) is a way of measuring a number of things. "Success" is too vague a term. Primarily these metrics are only useful for comparing projects against other projects (ideally of the same family) or against themselves
759:
need to be said? Not everyone has to work on
Wikimedia sites in the same way. I am always seeing people telling other people how they should be spending their time to improve the sites. Bottom line is this: you work on what you find important, and other people will work on what they find important,
567:
Should MediaWiki's link-based article criterion treat category links the same as regular page links? What about interlanguage links? Should regular page links only count when they are to another page in the main namespace? Should support for the comma-based criterion be dropped since it is slow and
497:
occur if these wikis had their articles recounted. Not surprisingly, it was found that changes of a similar magnitude to those already observed would be seen in the rest of the projects. In particular, 3 Wikipedias, 2 Wikibooks, and 1 Wikiversity would have risen to new milestone levels, whereas 26
242:
and contained at least one comma. This worked fine for articles in
English, since it ruled out exceptionally short pages that were not to be considered useful articles, but proved a poor solution for projects in other languages—especially those that represent or use commas differently, or lack them
790:
With such a large pool of unemployed people to draw from, Knowledge (XXG) is a unique position to welcome these people into its fold and continue to increase article counts and more importantly, article quality. Far from being "irrelevant", this is the most important occurrence in modern history.
574:
Can the two wikis using the comma-based criterion be recounted another way? Can the rest of the
Wikibooks project be recounted without those two wikis? Should the English and Portuguese Wikibooks communities consider switching to the "all pages in all content namespaces" criterion instead? Can the
488:
at the time, this caused 8 Wiktionaries to rise to higher milestone levels, and 24 to fall to lower levels; also, 15 Wikisources rose to higher levels and 13 fell to lower levels. 14 Wiktionaries lost all of their entries (a 100% decrease), but all of them had 5 or fewer entries before the change.
456:
For many years articles which were deleted were widely seen as just bad content, which shouldn't have been there in the first place. My own assessment of what Wikistats page counts meant evolved... into 'the total of number of articles which survived scrutiny/cleaning up', 'the number that should
379:
changes in response to different actions on the wiki itself. The article count may (or may not) increase if a new page is created or imported into the wiki, or if a previously deleted page is "undeleted"; decrease if a page is deleted or if its edit history is merged with that of another page; and
197:
What follows is a brief explanation of why the article counts became wrong over time, a description of what changes in article counts were actually observed when the counts were fixed, and some suggestions of what issues related to article counting the wider Wikimedia community may wish to discuss
868:
going away), the counts should be as correct as possible. To the extent that they are not correct, people should understand why, and some thought should be given as to whether the situation can be improved. That's it. What people use the counts for, how they get interpreted, how people feel about
786:
of articles reviewed for accuracy, reliability, and prose quality, which is, IMO, a far greater metric for success. Erik Zachte touches briefly on "presenting article counts in a meaningful way" that indicates the importance of editors vetting for article quality reflected in one measure of the
781:
Your article covers the technical reasons for why article counts on Wikimedia wikis are erroneous. You did a great job covering this topic. But it isn't clear to me why this is an important issue. Why do we need to measure the number of articles? The unstated assumption is that article count
505:
On 29 March 2015, the articles were recounted on all of the languages of Knowledge (XXG), Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wikiversity, and Wikivoyage. Wikibooks was left out because, as previously mentioned, the English and Portuguese Wikibooks use the "comma" criterion to determine
740:
How many times does this need to be said? Forget about article counts. What matters is article quality. If you can demonstrate the will to train editors and teach them better research and writing skills, you can plan a future of sorts for Knowledge (XXG). Of course, I'm alone crying in the
439:
Wikistats presents two different types of article counts, a so-called "official" count and an "alternate" count. The "official" count uses a link-based criterion that parallels MediaWiki's link-based one, but treats category links (links that place pages into categories) as being equivalent to
1055:
Any reasons why Commons and Wikispecies aren't recounted? I would imagine that Commons is tricky because it's more about files and media than pages. But Wikispecies seems straightforward. I do seem a potential recounting issue in Wikispecies. A lot of taxon authority pages only contain their
909:
Sharp eyes! The first and last statements you have quoted are based on stats collected by a Perl script that I (try to) run manually each day. The "decrease of 281,624 articles" occurred between 02:56:35 UTC on 2015-03-29 and 01:47:31 UTC on 2015-03-30. The second statement is based on stats
360:
was added to allow wikis to optionally retain that counting criterion. Additional variables were added over the next few years to allow more flexibility in article counting. In June 2006 a variable was added to allow articles to be in namespaces other than the main one; this change was taken
1056:
nationality, area of classification (e.g. botany) and their birth date and death date (or year). These authority pages will have mainspace articles pointing into them but if they don't have a comma, category, image, or interwiki link, these authority pages will be excluded from the count.
392:
were completely recalculated, each potential article was simply checked to see if it contained any text at all (i.e. a page length greater than zero). The May 2011 changes to the code were supposed to fix such inconsistencies, but it is not clear whether this was fully accomplished.
388:; if articles were recounted using the maintenance script, a certain database table was checked to see if each page really linked to another page on the same wiki (thus counting only links of the first type listed above, but including links provided by templates); if the wiki's
30:
The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts: The article counts of many Wikimedia wikis suddenly changed on 29 March 2015: as the Signpost reported at the time, sixty-five wikis fell below milestones tracked at the Wikimedia News Meta page, and three increased to new
365:
content namespace page as an article. Currently the English Wikibooks and Portuguese Wikibooks use the "comma" criterion; the Czech Wikinews, Chinese Wikinews, and Gujarati Wikisource use the "any" criterion; and all other Wikimedia wikis use the "link" based criterion.
176:
of Wikimedia's content wikis (except Wikibooks), but because not all of the root causes of the incorrect counts have been fixed, the script will be run once per month to ensure that the article counts can no longer get too far off of their correct values for too long.
374:
The article count of a MediaWiki-based wiki is set to an initial value by a script when the wiki is first created. Afterwards, it can be recounted from scratch using either of two maintenance scripts, but otherwise all operations on the article count are
383:
It had been known at least since 2007 that different elements of MediaWiki code used different criteria for determining whether a page counted as an article. For example, every time a page in the main namespace was saved, it was checked for the string
741:
wilderness on this. I'm sure all the money is going to figuring out how to automate article writing and replace editors with AI. Hail Silicon Valley. How's that planned 45% unemployment going to work out for y'all? See you on the barricades...
210:
Because articles are the main "public face" of a wiki—the mechanism by which content is presented to readers—Wikimedia wiki communities and the Wikimedia Foundation alike like to advertise article counts. The raw data is visible on each wiki's
404:(page edits) rather than the number of articles was not resolved until February 2015. It seems likely that unknown but significant lingering issues still remain, calling into question whether article counts can ever truly be accurate.
247:
was held on the Meta-Wiki in March 2003, where it was decided that the definition would be changed: a page would now be counted as an article if it were a non-redirect in the main namespace, as before, and contained at least one
435:
using custom Perl scripts written for that purpose. Unfortunately these statistics cannot be seen as "more accurate" versions of the MediaWiki article counts, because Wikistats counts articles in a completely different way.
919:
if I had saved a copy of the data my Perl script collected on 2015-03-29 and 2015-03-30, but I didn't think to do that before I ran the script too many times to still have access to the older information. (Oops.) -
492:
Since it was clear at the time that the articles of Wikimedia's other content projects would also eventually have to be recounted, additional tables were created by a user in May 2012 that showed the changes that
483:
On 10 May 2012, following a bug report, articles were recounted on all of the language editions of Wiktionary and Wikisource (the articles of which are often called "entries" and "text units", respectively). As
889:
In the second sentence, I read "a decrease of 281,624 articles in the English Wikisource (a 27% drop)", then later in the page, I read "in the English Wikisource, which increased by 281,199 (a 27% drop)".
692:
687:
415:
a true count, it may not be possible for a script to successfully determine it, since the counting process itself is far from instantaneous—edits made in the intervening time may impact the results.
677:
657:
168:
Wiktionary (an 8% rise). The most extreme relative changes were a 98% decrease in Sindhi Wikinews articles (from 749 to 13), and a 23% increase in Bengali Wiktionary entries (from 920 to 1134).
672:
667:
518:
510:
164:
77:
911:
718:
682:
650:
967:
499:
1028:
seems to be what the English Knowledge (XXG) considers an "article" specifically for the purposes of its own guidelines and policies. You say it's "easy" to do, but I'm not sure how
644:
619:
56:
45:
407:
For high-traffic wikis like the English Knowledge (XXG), it may never be possible to get a completely accurate article count. Over all of 2014, the English Knowledge (XXG)
260:
to count, the actual implementation of the decision in the MediaWiki software simply checked for the string "[[" anywhere in the source text of the page, thereby counting
513:, 3 wikis rose to higher milestones and 65 wikis fell to lower milestones. The previous report summarizes the major changes seen in those 68 wikis, but more details are
514:
903:
1130:
498:
Wikipedias, 29 Wikibooks, 30 Wikiquotes, 11 Wikinews, and 2 Wikiversities would have fallen to lower levels (Wikivoyage was not a Wikimedia project at this time).
943:
as making the edit, so every now and then, something weird will probably happen and an article will not get counted. Over time, this probably makes a difference.
21:
1106:
1101:
1096:
1075:
1001:
What it is not taken into account to exclude from the article count, like the redirects, are the thousands of disambiguation pages that by definition
469:. This wasn't by design, it just happened, but I came to see this (and still do) as one valid way of presenting article counts in a meaningful way.
1091:
788:
928:
585:
Wikimedia wiki get recounted at least once, if not periodically? Has anyone analyzed the additional server load caused by the recounting?
864:
My viewpoint on this issue is simple: if the MediaWiki software is going to report article counts (and let's face it, that feature is
1086:
632:
597:
Should the full site statistics of every Wikimedia wiki be recalculated at least once? Might this make some of the other statistics
50:
36:
17:
1025:
1002:
588:
Can article counting ever be improved to the point where script-based recounting is unnecessary to maintain correct "live" counts?
962:
People interested in the issue of how to measure Wikimedia projects growth consistently may want to take a look at our work on
431:
website has been collecting monthly article counts (and many other statistics) for most Wikimedia wikis, counted offline from
560:
will require working with the MediaWiki developers to determine which possible decisions could realistically be implemented.
963:
939:
You missed db hickups as a possible reason for article count mismatch. Updating the article count is not done in the same
471:
452:
869:
reaching milestones, etc., are all less important to me than the accuracy (or lack thereof) in the counts themselves. -
234:
The first definition of what constituted an article in the early years of Knowledge (XXG) was that it was a page in the
975:
899:
891:
357:
811:
396:
Bugs affecting article counting have continued to be a problem. One particularly tenacious bug that caused newly
264:
different types of legitimate links (1–5 below), as well as two types of "fake" links (6 and 7), and one type of
186:
The actual implementation of article counting in different parts of the MediaWiki software has been inconsistent.
606:
The issues raised above as well as many more technical details on the article-counting problem are presented at
1112:
408:
1066:
1045:
1018:
991:
952:
878:
857:
840:
800:
769:
750:
607:
220:
199:
172:
895:
1032:
pages can be checked in this way; it might be too slow to implement on the English WP, for example. (But
894:
says "a decrease of 281,624 articles in the English Wikisource (a 27% drop)". What's the right figures ?
1062:
831:
That is such a nice way way of putting it. I think you are exactly right. Thanks for doing this work. --
223:; article-count milestones (such as reaching 10,000 or 100,000 articles) are routinely announced on the
485:
940:
853:
836:
808:
544:
796:
746:
257:
356:
At the same time, the comma-based definition of an article was not entirely abandoned. Instead, a
244:
389:
212:
979:
506:
articles, and the maintenance script does not correctly implement that counting method. As the
94:
948:
714:
124:
1057:
987:
914:
for more details. In the case of the English Wikisource, the second quote should say "which
424:
104:
1041:
970:
we proposed to identify robust metrics. As to the issue of quality vs quantity, check out
924:
874:
849:
832:
765:
134:
971:
792:
742:
235:
224:
1124:
1005:. Since they are already treated differently by MediaWiki, it would be easy to do. --
253:
249:
239:
160:
The article counts of many Wikimedia wikis suddenly changed on 29 March 2015: as the
216:
944:
350:
114:
540:
575:
maintenance scripts be fixed to correctly implement comma-based article counting?
144:
1006:
983:
782:
milestones indicate a measure of success. But I am far more concerned with the
397:
1037:
920:
870:
826:
776:
761:
345:
Discovering this, some editors started gaming the system by routinely placing
154:
910:
collected by EmausBot and posted to the various "/Tables" pages at Meta; see
594:
Might other site statistics, such as total pages or images, need recounting?
380:
change in either direction if a page is edited or moved between namespaces.
252:
instead of a comma. While it is not clear whether the voters intended for
342:, which start with an initial colon, are regular page links of type 1.)
183:
The definition of what constitutes an "article" has varied in the past.
539:
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on
912:
m:Article counts revisited/2015-03-29 changes to all recounted wikis
578:
Should other content projects be included in the periodic recounts?
568:
still not fully implemented across all parts of the MediaWiki code?
179:
The three main reasons the article counts needed to be fixed are:
432:
457:
have been presented earlier'. In short, Wikistats is not about
428:
353:) on all of their pages, just to get them counted as articles!
55:
528:
449:
958:
Stateless, historically and globally consistent measurements
631:
35:
564:
Do we need to reconsider what should count as an article?
71:
1014:
730:
723:
703:
444:
400:
articles to increase the count by the total number of
193:
Wikimedia wikis at once to fix the resulting problems.
227:
page, and major milestones are often reported by the
581:
What about including Wikispecies or Commons? Should
198:
further. Further technical details are available at
189:
The article counts have never been recalculated for
728:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
571:
Can Wikibooks be included in the periodic recounts?
72:The awful truth about Wikimedia's article counts
409:averaged about 3 million page edits per month
8:
1074:Explore Knowledge (XXG) history by browsing
1033:
525:Wikis by Number of Articles Lost or Gained
1131:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2015-05
1013:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
731:
707:
215:page, available off-wiki through the
29:
7:
327:text containing the string "[[" →
57:
28:
713:These comments are automatically
219:, and presented at pages such as
976:m:Research:Measuring_value-added
532:
423:For much of Wikimedia's history
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
724:add the page to your watchlist
1:
221:meta:List of Wikipedias/Table
200:meta:Article counts revisited
601:correct (i.e., due to bugs)?
171:The proximate cause of the
1147:
1003:they are also not articles
486:reported at Wikimedia News
447:his approach in this way:
817:22:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC).
555:Where do we go from here?
502:is available for review.
479:What has recounting done?
459:total historical articles
329:wikilinks start with "[["
1067:00:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
1046:00:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
1019:07:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
992:19:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
953:03:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
929:22:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
904:23:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
885:Inconsistent information
879:23:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
858:19:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
841:01:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
801:21:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
770:17:57, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
755:And how many times does
751:04:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
608:Article counts revisited
206:What defines an article?
964:metrics standardization
433:periodic database dumps
1036:, so I don't know.) -
721:. To follow comments,
636:
358:configuration variable
334:(Note that links like
295:interlanguage links →
40:
980:m:Research:WikiCredit
635:
419:What about Wikistats?
370:How are they counted?
39:
997:Disambiguation pages
717:from this article's
500:The full information
317:deactivated links →
892:Signpost 2015-04-06
511:reported last month
461:, but rather about
289:image/file links →
245:discussion and vote
708:Discuss this story
693:Arbitration report
688:WikiProject report
637:
610:on the Meta-Wiki.
305:interwiki links →
243:entirely. A short
213:Special:Statistics
46:← Back to Contents
41:
818:
732:purging the cache
551:
550:
476:
475:
463:total historical
320:]</nowiki: -->
313:<!-- ] --: -->
283:category links →
250:internal wikilink
51:View Latest Issue
1138:
1115:
1035:
1011:
966:and some of the
896:Cantons-de-l'Est
830:
816:
780:
735:
733:
727:
706:
678:Featured content
655:
647:
640:
623:
536:
535:
529:
450:
387:
348:
347:<!--[[--: -->
341:
337:
330:
321:
314:
308:
302:
298:
292:
286:
279:
275:
157:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1109:
1104:
1099:
1094:
1089:
1082:
1071:
1070:
1054:
1026:That definition
1017:
1007:
999:
960:
937:
935:Database hicups
887:
824:
774:
737:
729:
722:
711:
710:
704:+ Add a comment
702:
698:
697:
696:
658:From the editor
648:
643:
641:
638:
627:
626:
621:
615:
591:(Probably not.)
557:
552:
533:
481:
421:
390:site statistics
385:
372:
346:
339:
335:
328:
319:<nowiki: -->
318:
312:
311:hidden links →
306:
300:
296:
290:
284:
277:
273:
258:interwiki links
238:that was not a
208:
158:
152:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1144:
1142:
1134:
1133:
1123:
1122:
1110:
1105:
1100:
1095:
1090:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1053:
1052:Other projects
1050:
1049:
1048:
998:
995:
959:
956:
936:
933:
932:
931:
886:
883:
882:
881:
862:
861:
860:
845:
844:
843:
822:
821:
820:
819:
712:
709:
701:
700:
699:
695:
690:
685:
680:
675:
673:News and notes
670:
668:Traffic report
665:
660:
654:
642:
630:
629:
628:
618:
617:
616:
613:
605:
603:
602:
595:
592:
589:
586:
579:
576:
572:
569:
565:
556:
553:
549:
548:
537:
527:(2015, n=679)
523:
480:
477:
474:
473:
470:
454:
420:
417:
371:
368:
332:
331:
322:
315:
309:
303:
293:
287:
281:
236:main namespace
225:Wikimedia News
207:
204:
195:
194:
187:
184:
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1143:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1126:
1114:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1080:
1078:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1010:
1004:
996:
994:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
957:
955:
954:
950:
946:
942:
934:
930:
926:
922:
917:
913:
908:
907:
906:
905:
901:
897:
893:
884:
880:
876:
872:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
846:
842:
838:
834:
828:
823:
814:
813:
810:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
789:
785:
778:
773:
772:
771:
767:
763:
758:
754:
753:
752:
748:
744:
739:
738:
734:
725:
720:
716:
705:
694:
691:
689:
686:
684:
681:
679:
676:
674:
671:
669:
666:
664:
661:
659:
656:
652:
646:
639:In this issue
634:
625:
614:
611:
609:
600:
596:
593:
590:
587:
584:
580:
577:
573:
570:
566:
563:
562:
561:
554:
546:
545:MediaWiki.org
542:
538:
531:
530:
526:
522:
520:
516:
512:
509:
503:
501:
496:
490:
487:
478:
468:
466:
460:
455:
451:
448:
446:
441:
437:
434:
430:
426:
418:
416:
414:
410:
405:
403:
399:
394:
391:
381:
378:
369:
367:
364:
359:
354:
352:
343:
326:
323:
316:
310:
304:
294:
288:
282:
272:page links →
271:
270:
269:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
246:
241:
237:
232:
230:
226:
222:
218:
217:MediaWiki API
214:
205:
203:
201:
192:
188:
185:
182:
181:
180:
177:
174:
173:large changes
169:
166:
163:
156:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
1077:The Signpost
1076:
1063:
1058:
1029:
1008:
1000:
961:
938:
915:
888:
865:
807:
783:
756:
683:In the media
662:
651:all comments
612:
604:
598:
582:
558:
524:
507:
504:
494:
491:
482:
464:
462:
458:
443:Erik Zachte
442:
438:
422:
412:
406:
401:
395:
382:
376:
373:
362:
355:
351:HTML comment
344:
333:
324:
265:
261:
233:
228:
209:
196:
190:
178:
170:
161:
159:
1113:Suggestions
1059:OhanaUnited
974:'s work on
941:transaction
715:transcluded
645:20 May 2015
541:Phabricator
425:Erik Zachte
268:-link (8):
58:20 May 2015
31:milestones.
968:principles
850:Acad Ronin
833:Ori Livneh
812:Farmbrough
624:"In focus"
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2015-05-20
1107:Subscribe
972:EpochFail
793:Viriditas
743:Viriditas
719:talk page
519:available
515:available
429:Wikistats
402:revisions
256:links or
1125:Category
1102:Newsroom
1097:Archives
1079:archives
663:In focus
622:Previous
508:Signpost
467:articles
445:explains
398:imported
377:relative
254:category
240:redirect
229:Signpost
165:reported
162:Signpost
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
69:In focus
20: |
1030:quickly
945:Bawolff
543:and on
262:several
115:Twitter
1009:geraki
984:DarTar
784:number
465:vetted
280:, etc.
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
1092:About
1038:dcljr
1034:IANAD
1024:Hmm.
921:dcljr
871:dcljr
827:Dcljr
777:Dcljr
762:dcljr
583:every
495:would
155:Dcljr
16:<
1087:Home
1042:talk
988:talk
978:and
949:talk
925:talk
900:talk
875:talk
854:talk
837:talk
809:Rich
797:talk
766:talk
757:this
747:talk
599:less
386:"[["
349:(an
338:and
145:Digg
866:not
427:'s
363:any
325:any
299:or
266:non
191:all
153:By
80:—
1127::
1044:)
990:)
982:--
951:)
927:)
916:de
902:)
877:)
856:)
839:)
815:,
799:)
768:)
749:)
620:←
521:.
472:”
453:“
413:is
276:,
231:.
202:.
1081:.
1040:(
1015:L
986:(
947:(
923:(
898:(
873:(
852:(
835:(
829::
825:@
795:(
779::
775:@
764:(
745:(
736:.
726:.
653:)
649:(
547:.
340:]
336:]
307:]
301:]
297:]
291:]
285:]
278:]
274:]
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
