Wikipedia talk:Milestone statistics/Archive

See also the special archive of posts predicting future milestones.

Colors

The table colors make my eyes hurt. AidepikiW 18:40, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. They're gone now. -- Merphant 09:14, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I could be mistaken, but I believe the consensus decision last time to have been to mute the colours, not remove them. The colours clearly separate the different milestones. If a clear consensus emerges to remove the colours, I will go with the majority, but in the meantime, please let's discuss the matter first. For the time being, I have reverted the change pending consensus.David Cannon 11:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that AidepikiW made that comment before I toned down the neon glow coming from this page. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:26, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My eyes still ache looking at this table. The lines in the table clearly separate the different milestones, and whitespace could be added, too (e.g. increase cellpadding). Having said that: I don't really check in on this table very often, so it doesn't really bother me. If the consensus is that the colors should stay, so be it, but I still think using colors like this makes it harder to read, not easier. Merphant 15:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New table colors

Below is my attempt at a more appealing color scheme. I didn't just change the page since the table is used on various other pages, not just here. (dcljr)

Milestone	Languages (dates milestones reached, in order of reaching them)
500,000
400,000	English (20 November 2004)
200,000
100,000	German (13 June 2004)
50,000	Japanese (25 May 2004); French (29 August 2004); Swedish (17 November 2004); Polish (31 December 2004)
20,000	Dutch (7 February 2004); Spanish (16 March 2004); Italian (22 July 2004); Danish (5 August 2004); Portuguese (18 September 2004); Esperanto (22 January 2005)
10,000	Chinese (14 May 2004); Hebrew (9 September 2004); Bulgarian (3 October 2004); Norwegian (12 October 2004); Finnish (14 October 2004); Catalan (16 November 2004); Ukrainian (16 November 2004); Romanian (12 December 2004); Russian (30 December 2004)
5,000	Slovenian (14 July 2004); Estonian (15 July 2004); Serbian (14 September 2004); Korean (18 November 2004); Indonesian (6 December 2004); Hungarian (2 January 2005); Croatian (13 January 2005); Czech (21 January 2005)
2,000	(some 'pedias below would need to be moved here)
1,000	Interlingua (31 July 2003); Latin (7 December 2003); Afrikaans (9 January 2004); Walloon (23 January 2004); Malay (8 February 2004); Basque (5 March 2004); Galician (12 March 2004); Simple English (7 April 2004); Welsh (9 April 2004); Greek (24 May 2004); Frisian (6 June 2004); Turkish (15 July 2004); Icelandic (26 August 2004); Arabic (31 August 2004); Asturian (2 September 2004); Slovak (8 September 2004); Kurdish (13 September 2004); Luxembourgish (17 September 2004); Bosnian (30 September 2004); Sanskrit (10 October 2004); Lithuanian (14 October 2004); Nynorsk (27 October 2004); Tatar (5 November 2004); Ido (12 November 2004); Farsi (22 December 2004); Scottish Gaelic (14 January 2005); Hindi (24 January 2005)

The color choices are not random, but depend on the "milestone" number in the following way.

• The basic colors are chosen according to the first digit:

  1 = #xxFFFF (aqua)

  2 = #xxFFxx (green)

  5 = #FFFFxx (yellow)

  all others = personally, I would keep it to these 3, but you can see I used, uh, pink/salmon? for the current level of en:

• The amount of saturation of each color depends on the number of digits (i.e., the power of ten). In particular, the values for x are:

  1,000s = E

  10,000s = D

  100,000s = C

  1,000,000s = B (then A,9,8,... but by then surely this system will have been supplanted by something else)

Note, BTW, that the 3 main colors (aqua, green and yellow) were chosen because no matter how dark they get, it still looks acceptable (to me, anyway). d Comments? Questions? If no one objects, I'll change the page along these lines someday, or someone else can do it. - dcljr 09:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with your proposal - except for one point: could you consider putting a borderline around the table so that the lighter colours don't just merge with the page? Otherwise, it's perfect. David Cannon 12:44, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I also like it. I think we should omit the 400.000 bar for consistency tho. --Conti|✉ 13:31, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

This proposal is great! I hope it will be taken into use. The 400k bar should be removed when the 500k bar is reached. Also there should be "1", "2" and "5" bars for every power of 10. — JIP | Talk 10:54, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Watching the 'pedias

Speaking of changing the table, where would one get the information contained therein? I know there's Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics and the pages it links to for monthly stats, but how can you tell what day a certain 'pedia reached a milestone? - dcljr 19:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Simply put, there's no quick and easy way. I wish somebody would rig up a bot to do it for us! The only way is to physically access each and every Wikipedia (which I do once a month), and read their counter. There is a counter on the main page of each Wikipedia, which takes ages to load, so I've sped things up by putting a counter on my user pages as well (these load much more quickly, because I've got next to nothing on them). I've made this page with links to my user pages in all of the different language wikis. You're welcome to use it. It cuts the time down to about 90-120 minutes to find and record the latest statistic for each wiki.

As for your other question (how we know when a wiki reaches a milestone), once again, there's no easy way. However, most of the major language projects have enthusiasts who are only too eager to report to us as soon as they reach another milestone - and that's how we know most of the major ones (and some of the minor ones). As for the others, I personally "watch" wikis that I think are likely to reach a milestone. Having been following them for over a year, I'm fairly familiar with each wiki's average rate of growth, and at the beginning of the month (when I update the Wikipedia:Multilingual statistics tables) I make a note of those that look likely to pass a milestone during the month, and keep an eye on them. Once in a blue moon I blow it (the Bulgarian and Ukrainian wikis have experienced several sudden bot-driven sprints, the Portuguese and Italian wikis had a couple of such sprints last year also), so I have, on occasion, missed a milestone date, and suddenly find that they've gone from 17k to 26k or whatever. On such (rare) occasions, I hit the Special:Special pages link in the left margin, then Special:New articles - and count down until I find the day on which the milestone was reached.

I hope this answers your questions sufficiently. If not, please feel free to ask me again. David Cannon 09:47, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Color change when en: hits 500,000

Fair warning: I plan to change the colors on the article page to the above scheme shortly after the English Wikipedia hits 500,000 articles (that way I can "safely" remove the "400,000" row). - dcljr 01:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I like the principle, but would it be possible to make each step one graduation more saturated? The 1,000 - 5,000 stages are extremely pale on many screens. Warofdreams 12:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I think the redesign is a great idea, but where will we find the dates that the various Wikipedias crossed the 2,000 article mark? Jeff8765 04:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • See the discussion in the previous section of this page. - dcljr 18:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• So when will the change actually occur? It's been over a full day since English Wikipedia reached half a million, yet the old colours are still there. The old colours suxx0rzz, the new colours r0xx0rzz. I wish the colours to be changed! — JIP | Talk 18:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I see the colours have been updated. Great work, dcljr! Propsit sulle, mään! — JIP | Talk 18:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I just did it. I used my original colors, since it now has a proper border. If anyone else wants to darken the colors, they can. I also left out the 2,000-count row, since it takes a lot of work to update the info. I might work on that later today or tomorrow. Then again, I might not.... - dcljr 18:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dates needed for 2,000-4,999 range

I've just promoted the Wikipedias that used to have 1,000+ articles but now have 2,000+ articles into the 2,000 section, but I haven't added the dates that they reached that milestone. Also, I haven't checked the rest of the smaller 'pedias for any additional 1,000-article milestones, nor have I checked for any other milestones. Obviously, this needs a lot more work, but I figured I'd put it out there so others could help with adding/updating the info. I'd recommend contributors make many small edits in case more than one person is working on it at any one time. - dcljr 19:25, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) first sentence reworded 19:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Progress on updating table

FYI, I've been going through David Cannon's Interwiki page today and haven't yet come across any new 1,000+ 'pedias nor any that need to be promoted in the table. I'm up to L, although I couldn't check Gujarati, Hindi and Kannada because I don't have the right fonts on this computer. - dcljr 22:00, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'm finished going through the 'pedias listed at User:Davidcannon/Interwiki. No changes needed to be made to the table. I'm going to add a note at the top of this page so people can indicate when the last thorough check was made. - dcljr 17:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Changes to this talk page

You might have noticed I've moved all the "watch" warnings into the second section at the top of this page, followed by the older dicsussion. I did it this way so the latest updating info will always be in the same place on the page. Let me know if this bothers anyone's sensibilities. - dcljr 22:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed "dates unknown" message

I just removed the "Exact dates unknown for some of the following" message in the 2,000 section; Walloon is about to be promoted to the 5,000-article section and the other two 'pedias with month-only dates are still like that only because it's (apparently) no longer possible to find out the exact day they reached 2,000. - dcljr (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Note about Ossetian reaching 1,000

By my calculations, Ossetian actually reached 1,000 articles on May 20th, not May 23rd. Since Ossetian's {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} counter is broken, the article count on the Main Page is updated manually and appears to be incorrect. I counted the articles at the Ossetian Allpages (just hit Go without specifiying a starting point to start at the beginning of the list) and got 1,125, whereas the Main Page currently says 1,050. According to their Newpages, the article created 125 articles ago was dated May 20th. - dcljr (talk) 08:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

600,000 for English

I don't see why this was removed... 600,000 is the next logical milestone. —Sean κ. + 05:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not. 1,000,000 is the next milestone. Just because English reaches a new multiple of 100,000 doesn't mean we should abandon the 1-2-5 scheme of this table. There are plenty of other places to celebrate the 600,000 milestone. For example, m:Wikimedia News, m:Milestones, and Wikipedia:Announcements. - dcljr (talk) 05:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added an empty placeholder row for one million. That might help discourage people from breaking the pattern. -- Cyrius|✎ 10:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is, "Oh jeez. Come on." —Sean κ. + 03:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The logic behind the 1-2-5 scheme is that it's roughly exponential (2.15^x). -- Cyrius|✎ 10:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there that much of a problem with adding 600k for EN, leaving 500k there but empty ... the example above didn't stagger off and die for having a 400k line. When is a milestone not a milestone? --Tagishsimon (talk)

It's just that the scheme has to be consistent. If we have milestones at 1000, 2000, and 5000, it logically follows that we should do the same at 10k, 20k, and 50k, then at 100k, 200k, and 500k. The next milestone will be 1m. David Cannon 21:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Besides, if we include 600K for English then shouldn't we include 300K and 400K for German and Japanese when those milestones occur? I say no. (And about the above example, it didn't have a 2K row either. That was before the table was completely standardized.) - dcljr (talk) 17:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Italian 50k milestone

It probably depends on what time zone you're in. David Cannon 5 July 2005 23:32 (UTC)

What times are displayed on Newpages if you're not logged in? I thought they were always UTC, but I've checked a couple of 'pedias and they seem to be different. Anyway, that's what I always go by. - dcljr (talk) 7 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)

I don't know. I always thought that if you're not logged in, the time displayed is your own browser time, but I could be wrong. David Cannon 7 July 2005 09:39 (UTC)

Static vs. live

The comment below is in response to my description of the List of Wikipedias at Meta as a "static" list in the Date of last complete update section at the top of this page. - dcljr (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, Dcljr, the article counts on the list are updated practically every day. It's not static. --Node 14:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Are they not updated by humans? That's what I meant. They are not current in the same way {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} is current. For example, Swedish (sv:) is now at 95,492 according to their article counter, but the list at Meta says 95,296. - dcljr (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed Sanskrit

I've removed the Sanskrit entry in the 1,000+ section (it reached 1,000 articles on 10 October 2004) because it has dropped below 1,000 now. - dcljr (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Dutch Wikipedia

I listed the 1000th article for the Pennsylvania Dutch Wikipedia, even though it is technically not at pdc.wikipedia.org yet, it has been accepted to be moved to wikipedia.org and is just waiting for a developer since october. Stettlerj 18:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone removed the mention of the 1000th article in the Pennsylvania Dutch wiki, so for the record it occurred on january 6, 2006 :). Stettlerj 02:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

English

Started the English wikipedia with 1 million articles or is there another reason why the English one then is first noted? --Edroeh 13:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The languages are listed by the last article-count milestone reached, in decreasing numerical order (then by date within each section). As the largest Wikipedia, the English one is listed first in the table for that reason. It didn't start at 1 million articles, but it's the only one so far that has reached that milestone. - dcljr (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately...

Such milestones don't tell us much about the Wikipedia.

The Javanese Wikipedia, for example, is full of articles entirely in Indonesian with a template at the top that says "This article needs translation" (to their credit, there are a few articles entirely in Javanese, and perhaps a couple hundred articles with at least a couple of paragraphs in Javanese).

The Northern Sami Wikipedia has only stub articles with a handful of possible exceptions, see se:Special:Longpages. The same is true for the Frappucino® Wikipedia (really Francoprovençal) frp:Special:Longpages,

Others, such as the Uzbek Wikipedia, are filled to the brim with apparent copyvios (one wonders if the admins there understand the GFDL policies of WP), uz:Special:Longpages

On the other hand, we have such wikipedias as the Taiwanese Wikipedia, which has a relatively small number of articles (not 2000 yet), but most of them are of superior quality, for example zh-min-nan:Chhùi-khí ê hoat-io̍k, an article about tooth development. The Faroese Wikipedia is alright, although most of its articles are a little stubby, they're not as bad as the Northern Sami or Francoprovençal Wikipedias, and they aren't all copyvios. (fo:Special:Random).

I think that we should have some way to come up with a general "rating" of Wikipedias, based on not only their number of articles, but on their average number of bytes per article (obviously accounting for different byte lengths for translations of the same text between languages, perhaps this could be based on the text of UDHR or, if that's not available, the Our Father).

An obvious statistic would be Bytes of text in a Wikipedia, but then, would you not agree that a Wikipedia with 50000 bytes divided over 10 articles is better than one with 50000 bytes divided over 100, given that 500 byte articles are going to be next to useless, no matter how many of them you have? If a Wikipedia has a stub for every country in the world saying "(country) is a country in (continent)", is that as valuable as a Wikipedia that has well-developed articles on just 10 countries, but is entirely missing articles on the others? --Node 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Note - the taiwanese tooth development article you cite appears to be a verbatim translation from the en featured article on the same. Raul654 09:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't mean it isn't a quality article. Are verbatim translations illegal? If you checked all the good, long articles in smaller wikis, you'd find a good portion of them are translated. What's wrong with that? --Node 05:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing, actually. I think the people who do translations do good work. I mentioned hte fact because I thought it relavant to the discussion Raul654 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

...ps, I created this page to rank Wikipedias using the "alternate" article count. It seems to do a great job, and it's interesting to compare. Not many differences at the very top, but as you go down further in categories, some Wikipedias get pushed down one or two, and some disappear off the list completely. --Node 05:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Newar date discrepancy

This table lists the Newar / Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia as having reached 1,000 articles on October 21st instead of the 11th. As new:Special:Newpages currently stands, it looks like it did actually happen on the 21st. But m:Wikimedia News lists the date as October 11th. Someone once explained to me how the "Newpages" output can't be trusted since it lists all new pages in the main namespace, not just those that would count toward the "official" article count; OTOH, it doesn't list any "new" articles that have since been deleted. So, I guess I'm asking, should we keep the October 21st date or go with the one listed at Meta? (See also m:Talk:Wikimedia News#Clarification about Nepal Bhasa Wikipedia.) - dcljr (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

I would prefer that the numbers appear with zeroes (eg as 100,000), rather than with a suffix of M or K (eg as 100 K). I think there will be many readers of Wikipedia for whom the suffix doesn't make immediate sense, and at least a few who will be unsure whether the letter refers to powers of ten e.g. Mega (which it does) or powers of two, e.g. mebi.-gadfium 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The 0s weren't hurting anything. I'm going to put them back. - dcljr (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons

I see that Wikimedia Commons is not far away from reaching 2 million media files. Would it be worth adding it in here? Commons reached their 1 millionth file on 30 November 2006.

Also, I notice that the Māori Wikipedia reached 5,000 articles about a week ago. How do I determine the exact date that figure was reached to use in updating the table?-gadfium 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Commons stat: no. Place that information at m:Wikimedia News. That's also the place to find the date a particular wiki passed a milestone, assuming someone else has noticed and posted it there. If you're the only one who's noticed a milestone, you can check the Special:Statistics and Special:Newpages pages for the particular wiki (those page names will work on any language's wiki). By comparing the current article count with the list of most recently created pages, you should be able to approximate the date that the wiki passed a certain milestone (assuming you can read / figure out the information presented on those pages — in certain languages, that can be a real challenge!). Only problem with this approach is, the article count at Special:Statistics doesn't include all pages that get created: they have to fit certain criteria to count toward the official article count. Plus, if any pages have been deleted since the milestone was reached, that will also skew the results. Another way that sometimes works is to check updates to m:List of Wikipedias, which is updated periodically by various users and will give snapshots of article counts for any particular wiki you're interested in. Problem there is, it's not always updated every day. - dcljr (talk) 05:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Demotion of Lombard

Given the huge swings in article counts of the Lombard Wikipedia this year — from 10K in Feb to over 100K in Nov, and back to below 15K now — I've decided to demote that wiki in the table to the 10K section, using the Feb 27th date that the wiki first passed that milestone. Usually wikis that drop below a recently passed milestone only do so for a brief time, and then they pass the mark again; in such cases, the first date the wiki passed the milestone is retained in the table, but in the case of Lombard, the drop is so significant that, IMO, the 100K milestone should not stand. - dcljr (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. David Cannon (talk) 09:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, now Lombard is well below 5K, and has been for a couple of months now (currently stands at 2,756). I don't necessarily think it should be demoted again, but just thought I'd ask for others' opinions on the matter... - dcljr (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See also below. - dcljr (talk) 12:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wu 2K re-date

I have changed the date Wu (wuu:) reached 2,000 articles from Feb 17th to Sep 5th, since it dropped from over 3,400 articles to below 1,900 back in July (almost a 50% reduction), and then rose to 2,000 again. - dcljr (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Lombard demoted again

As noted above, the Lombard Wikipedia dropped below 5,000 about a year ago and has only now passed the 5,000 mark again. For this reason I have demoted Lombard in the table to the 5,000 position with the date 2 February 2009. - dcljr (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Dates for late-August activity

I've just added Western Panjabi (pnb:), Hakka (hak:), Lojban (jbo:), and Wolof (wo:) to the table, and promoted Burmese (my:). The dates I've used for these are based on what I see at Meta.[1] Unfortunately, in late August there were problems with the updating of article counts on that page, so the dates for Burmese, Hakka, and Lojban are only approximate — they passed their milestones anytime between the 21st and 26th, so I just used the 26th for all of them. - dcljr (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yoruba demoted

I have demoted Yoruba (yo:) to the 2,000 level with the date 19 May 2007, following information in the similar table at m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias, because Yoruba dropped way below 5,000 articles sometime between Oct 1 and Oct 18, and has not rebounded significantly (currently at 2,421). Presumably, this means that most of the 5,000+ articles were not legitimate ones. - dcljr (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Date for French to 1 million

Okay, I don't believe that the French Wikipedia hit one million articles on Sep 21st (UTC, anyway), despite the claims made on these pages — unless the statistics counter at http://fr.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sp%C3%A9cial:Statistiques&action=raw is broken. I checked the count given by that URL at the following times, UTC, and none of them showed French having reached 1 million (I don't have a record of what the counts actually were, however):

• Mon Sep 20 08:44:01
• Tue Sep 21 18:50:23
• Wed Sep 22 07:37:18

(Note that the updates to m:List of Wikipedias/Table are based on article counts collected daily, but shortly after midnight Sydney/Melbourne time (as far as I can tell!), and so are not synched to UTC.) I'm assuming, therefore, that the Sep 21st date was based on a "local" (non-UTC) time (I would have said France time, but even that would have been Sep 22nd by 7:37am UTC on the 22nd — unless I'm not thinking about this right), and so the date should really be reported as Sep 22 for consistency with other languages (I always try to report based on UTC, if possible). - dcljr (talk) 05:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

For one response about this same issue, see m:Talk:Wikimedia News#French Wikipedia 1-million date. So, I guess the 21st is correct after all. - dcljr (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Fijian removed

I have removed Fijian (fj:) from the 1K row since it's been below 200 for two months now following a clean-up, so the articles that pushed it over 1K were apparently not legitimate. - dcljr (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ripuarian all over the map

The Ripuarian Wikipedia (ksh:) article count has been all over the map the last couple of months. Up above 20K, down around 10K, now below 2K (actually, right now it's back above 2K, but I'm not reporting that because ksh:Special:NewPages doesn't show any article-creation activity since about 28 hours ago when it was still below 2K. Future reporters of Ripuarian article counts should check NewPages to see if it's plausible that the milestone was actually reached with "real" (nevermind "legitimate" or even "useful") articles. (The same could be said of any wiki, BTW. I try to always check NewPages to see when the milestone appeared to actually happen.) - dcljr (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Dutch Wikipedia

It appears that the Dutch Wikipedia reached 1 million articles on 17 December, becoming the fourth Wikipedia to reach 1 million articles. I failed to notice this when keeping track of the upcoming milestones because it was not in the top 10, but advanced faster than any that were there. JIP | Talk 07:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Date discrepancies

I've finally compared all the dates in this table and the one at Meta and found the following discrepancies for languages that are still at the same level in both tables. I have to go through these and see if I can determine which dates are correct (I'm guessing probably the earlier date in each case, but I have to check edit histories of the tables and possibly other sources of info to make sure, to the extent possible). - dcljr (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

100,000

• he: 10 or 12 January 2010
• bg: 23 or 24 May 2010

50,000

• ht: 12 or 20 August 2008

20,000

• bpy: 16 or 19 August 2007
• io: 23 or 24 August 2010

10,000

• cv: 6 or 7 April 2009
• bat-smg: 7 or 8 April 2009

5,000

• yi: 5 or 8 May 2008
• hsb: 24 July or 23 August 2008
• nah: 5 or 7 September 2008
• li: 3 or 4 September 2008

2,000

• nov: 19 or 20 May 2007
• pi: 7 or 8 June 2007
• mt: 4 or 5 May 2008
• wuu: 17 February or 5 September 2008
• ps: 24 or 25 November 2010

1,000

• crh: 20 or 21 October 2009
• ace: 17 or 19 December 2009

Milestones for 2 000 000 and 3 000 000

Sould there not be included at the top, for the English wikipedia the dates of these two milestones?. I know it is the only one and will continue to be for long time, but nevertheless, it might be good as a reference. --Basquetteur (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The 2 million milestone has been there for five years. The 3 million milestone won't be created. All milestones must be 1, 2, or 5, multiplied by a power of ten. JIP | Talk 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias tracks more milestones than this table (i.e., 1.5, 2, 3, 4 million, etc.). See the archives of that page for the dates of past English Wikipedia milestones. (And also see m:Wikipedia milestones, although I can't vouch for the accuracy of that page, since I never check it.) - dcljr (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

What's up with the Cebuano Wikipedia?

What's up with the Cebuano Wikipedia? It has been growing at a monstrous rate recently. For seventeen months from July 2011 to December 2012, it gained about 130 articles, a proportional increase of about 0.3%. But in the two months after that, its size has more than quadrupled. JIP | Talk 08:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, As I think admin is not work. between yesterday and today, article increase 10,000. But user of ceb is 64. each user create or translate 150 articles. It's not ensure the quality. Would you notice to meta, this situation? I'm not good at english and don't know meta system. thank you --Darkbluesky (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

answered by korean language admin user:Sotiale, cebuano user lsj want to make all species on the cebuano wikipedia. So he make it by his bot Lsjbot's contribute. his wife use cebueno language. :) --Darkbluesky (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Demotions

I've taken the liberty of demoting a few wikis to sync this table up with the one at m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias (which I also help to maintain). The dates are when they originally reached the relevant (lower) milestones. These demotions are (mostly) explained on m:Talk:Wikimedia News. - dcljr (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And today I removed the Russian Buryat Wikipedia from the table because it dropped below 1K due to an admin cleanup effort (in this case, the deletion of over 400 articles/stubs about years). - dcljr (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

5 million

Maybe I'm watching too much in the future, but we could add the Milestone of 5 million. It's more than the double of 2 million, but the milestone 4 was already reached. --Tn4196 (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We can add it when it's reached, which won't be for a long while (probably more than 2 years). - dcljr (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

@Tn4196: @Dcljr: The milestone is near. emijrp (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. When it happens, it will be reported. - dcljr (talk) 03:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Date for na: to 1K

I just claimed, "date on na: was correct: '1000th' article on 12th was bogus article created by vandal to make wiki reach milestone; it has been marked for deletion; next legitimate article was created on 13th". Actually, the article that was vandalism (na:A) was the first one created on the 13th, not the last one on the 12th. Still, if you ignore that article (since it should have been immediately deleted), the "legitimate" 1000th article would have been the next one, also created on the 13th (a very short stub, but apparently legit). This is something I noticed back at the time, when I tagged the bogus article for deletion and then went back the next day to see if it had been deleted (it still hasn't been). That's why I didn't change either of the milestone reports provided (we can assume) by the vandal him/herself (same IP address). Even though the milestone wasn't legitimately reached because of the vandal's work, the date on both reports was nevertheless correct. - dcljr (talk) 00:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, actually, it looks like the 1000th article (not counting the bogus "A" article) in fact resulted from this edit which added wikilinks to a previously linkless article, 6 minutes before the creation of the "very short stub" I referred to above. In any case, the date would still be the 13th. - dcljr (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

---