Wikipedia talk:Press releases/March 2005

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Press releases/March 2005

How to distribute this release

I have a heavy directory of US newspapers here, and we can loot the press logs from the September release. Also required: mailing lists, newsgroups, cool websites. sj

SOMEONE VANDALIZATION PAGE, IMPROVE IMMEDIATELY

It was fixed 2.5 hours before the line above was added. I will be happy to delete the above line and this reply. David Brooks 22:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Press releases/March 2005

Comments about content

Is it too late to restructure this press release? Standard press releases put "news" in the first sentence. It has a long exposition, with terms that general readers will not understand, such as the subject-area portal. Press releases should not be confusing or confusing. Fuzheado | Talk 06:53, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"put 'confound' back to 'press release'"... No, not late at all. We still have a few days to complete. It will mainly be released in English, in any case. sj 11:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Press releases, like the new story itself, often shaped like inverted pyramids. Anyhow, my question about this press release, so what? I do not agree that Wikipedia is cool, but what's the point of reaching 500,000 articles other than the fact that it's a big round number? For example, is this a thousand times larger than the other Encyclopedias? I'm not sure I have an answer other than a large sum, but if others do, they should highlight it! --Reagle 23:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the 500,000 is sufficient and the length of the relay press is the right size. We can put some Encarta or Britannica in comparison, but I will warn him.. Fuzheado | Talk 00:33, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Specify article # 500.000

Does the developer have some way of determining which article is # 500,000? I tried loading "Statistics" and "New Page" times at the same time, and found that there were 500,193 articles, and that the most recently created article 194 was the Battle of Bean's Station. May there be a more scientific way to do this?

Anyway, it looks like it's copyvio, so I've deleted it for now, and I contacted the user who posted it.

Thank you, - Creidieki 22:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• It turned out that it came from a US government website, and the public domain. I have done a Google search, and have found other sites that mistakenly claim copyright without attribution. Well, I'm happy with that. (Also, I deliberately edited the Battle of Collierville instead.). - Creidieki 23:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • It is difficult to say for sure, but thanks to a group of active-count observers on IRC, deletion logs, and snapshots of alterego and JRM, it is a fair guess that the 500k article was an unintentional settlement in the Soviet Union. Congratulations to MikkalaiÃ, :) sj 08:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

5,000 editors in the past month?

5,000 editors in the last month? Where is it from? 119 07:24, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Projection of December statistics - & gt; maybe 7,000 editors "more than 10 of our edits this month". Since neither the projection nor the "active" definition is unclear, I chose a simpler number and left it "above". sj 08:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Recent changes

I see some significant changes to the text over the last few hours, all by 119... they add a lot of bulk to the body of the press release, and it does not seem to explain the thrust very much. I canceled many of those changes for now; especially since other people who saw the release and were happy to do so after seeing the previous version is quite stable. Maybe we can talk about how much of this information to put into the body of a press release in the future, before. sj 10:21, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with SJ - 119 doing a lot of rewrites, and I do not think that's a fix. -> Raul654 10:22, March 18, 2005 (UTC)

Bulk is not a good thing. We discussed this with a press release of millions of articles as well; everyone wants to get certain things including what they consider important, but in reality, to be effective you need to cut 90% of the items you want to stick there. The information in the press release should be representative, incomplete, and you are only able to achieve some key points. The revised version as it is now is pretty good. --Michael Snow 17:22, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Then trim... The introductory paragraph is now more specific like cheerleader and can be used on the popularity of Wikipedia (# 4 Alexa "Reference", 50 million hits) has been replaced with millions of unbelievably obscure visitors. "" English Article "? Does Wikipedia publish 500,000 articles on English, or 500,000 articles in its English edition? That some websites have added songs, 1GB images, and sub-portals almost does not look amazing - even a blogger will cover it , let alone a large regional newspaper? Furthermore, Wikipedia's previous growth is certainly important contextual information, especially for two sentences.1919 19:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Publish articles in-house

Is it appropriate to post notice on Peer reviews, Village Pumps, and/or mailing lists that say involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union will become very well known, and may be of benefit to us if it is more complete? I'm not sure where such a post would fit, or whether some people might object to "inflating" the article. The main news source may not understand the difference between the definition of "article" software and Encyclopaedia Britannica. - Creidieki 12:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, really. Some people may object, but the results seem to have more pros than the counter. - Kizor 16:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) Come to think of it, it seems that the article will get a lot of attention due to the press release alone, especially since the main page links to the release. - Kizor 16:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rumbling nyuk

The press release seems to have a definite pro-Wikipedia bias for me. We have to work to make it more NPOV. - Kizor 16:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Why does not something in the main article space be in line with the NPOV policy? - Matt Crypto 16:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, because that's fun to say. 'Nyuk nyuk nyuk' is a reference to Three Stooges comedy group.-- Kizor 16:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

How to determine 500,000 articles?

Many will wonder this, because it is not possible just by looking at the database. The only way to find out is to look at the data I have provided on my website. The way to tell is to browse this directory. They are sorted by the order of time the pages are presented from the wikipedia server. User: JRM/Sandbox contains NUMBEROFARTICLES, and we use that page because it loads very fast. There are two versions, one containing action = purge at the end of the URL. This is one of the last pages that we are especially interested in. Since my clocks are synchronized with atomic clocks at NIST on the road from my house, we can say that 500,000 articles happen at exactly 20:54:46 UTC, and this is the page that proves it (note 500,000). You will see at the end of the three-digit file name. This is the HOT-MINUTE that the page was presented to me. At the same time I also served New_Pages, and the page is here. As you can see, Milon's Secret Castle is the latest article, however, Cyrius has looked at the source code and found that the new article does not change counters unless it has links and commas. The first version of Milon's Secret Castle does not meet this requirement. Therefore, the next article in the list is an involuntary settlement in the Soviet Union. As you can see here, this article does indeed fulfill that status on creation. More information is available on my website. Please download and archive the directory. --Alterego 17:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I hate to get a chance to be stripped of the glory, but can you explain this "comma-tion" problem in more detail: why, when. etc., already decided? How does it work? (I'm sure there are lots of other new commercial articles on the way, how they are discarded (if), and why this unkempt Secret Palace should be thrown away by an eyeball search.) Mikkalai 18:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suspect the selection for which articles are counted primarily for historical reasons; see the announcement of Marts 7 2001. Thue | talk 19:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS WRONG! The requirement is not that it has both both links and commas. MediaWiki contains buttons that allow Wiki administrators to choose between "have links" and "have a comma" as a requirement. I asked the developer, and it is set to use "have a link". - Cyrius |? 19:40, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear to everyone: I am not making a decision to have an article as The One lolÃ, :) I am just trying to explain why why the decision to choose soviet articles is made. As I said initially on my website, it's hard to make that choice. I'm still not clear why it's used and under the impression we'll call it a tie. I apologize for incorrectly remembering that it could be a COMA OR link. --Alterego 22:19, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a comma or a link. It's just a link. There is a switch in the software to redirect it to a comma. - Cyrius |? 23:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

There is an independent reason to support non-coercive settlement in the Soviet Union, without the effect of this error. See Wikipedia talk: Half a million ponds. --Michael Snow 21:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Great, now Angela misquoted me on his blog. I'm not saying that Milon's Secret Castle is a 500,000 article. I say that Alterego's reason for eliminating it is wrong. Michael Snow has explained his independent reason for choosing an Involuntary settlement article (Wikipedia speaks: Half a million ponds), and I have no problem with it. My previous objection was based on my belief that the only basis for choosing a 500kb article was a false assumption.

To summarize:

1. Articles are created with angry levels, so it is not possible to easily determine which articles pass through the milestones.
2. About six articles are considered probable, Secret Palace of Milon is between them.
3. MediaWiki does not count all "articles" in the number of articles, only those with links.
4. Alterego misinterpreted something I said as means that MediaWiki requires links and commas to count articles.
5. Alterego uses the wrong interpretation to eliminate Milon's Secret Castle and goes on to state the involuntary resettlement in the Soviet Union's possible 500kb article.
   • That's not true. I went to bed last night thinking it was a tie and reasoned that my trip was just for fun. I woke up to a press release based on my data saying it was a soviet article. Want to support my foundation's decision to try to reproduce the reasons used. I make it very clear on my blog that I do not think we can make a solid choice before I go to bed! --Alterego 00:58, March 19, 2005 (UTC)
     • Revise that for "Alterego tried to guess that it was a settlement article, and a written press release considered it a solid fact." I got the wrong note on my statement. - Cyrius |? 4:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
6. Michael Snow used an independent method based only on clock time to independently estimate that involuntary settlement in the Soviet Union was a 500kb article.
7. I started to object to Alterego's flawed process without knowing that Michael Snow had found the same answer with a different mthod.
8. Nothing really matters, because according to the JeLuF developer, the counters are wrong.

We do not know exactly which 500,000 article. Milon's Secret Castle can own it, and involuntary settlement in the Soviet Union seems maybe . - Cyrius |? 23:01, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for misquote. I think when Brian discounts Milon Secret Castle into one, and you answer "this is wrong" that you said he was wrong for that discount, and therefore, that's what... Sorry. :) Angela. 00:14, March 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think you understand now. I'm just saying it can not be eliminated, that's not the right answer. Personally, I do not like both. Unintentional settlements... have sections of shelters, and Milon's Secret Castle is a terrible game. I could be behind Bionic Commando. - Cyrius |? 00:31, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please see the latest comments here. I propose that at this point it is impossible to say so. The reason for Michael Snow is incorrect and at this point I think the server timestamp is wrong (other than the countdown counter). Let's leave it as a soviet article? I like the sound so we can continue. --Alterego 01:07, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of ​​a tie, personally. Too late now, I guess. - Cyrius |? 4:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calculations for factoid "13 levels"

To the curious and cynical, here's the details of how I generate this factoid:

An average of 2,500 characters per article, this is 1.25 gigabite raw text, which if printed will form a stack of about 13 levels.

First, [1] shows that the average of characters per article last 2,434 in December 2004 and shows a gradual upward trend. 2,500 seems right for now. 2,500 times 500,000 is 1.25 billion characters. According to [2], single-spaced manuscripts have about "2500-3500 characters per page". This means 1.25 billion/3000 = about 417,000 pages.

According to [3], a 20 pound paper is the weight of standard copy paper "most commonly used by the government". According to [4], 20 bond papers have a thickness of about 0.0038 inches. Multiply 417,000 pages by 0.0038, it's 1585 inches, or about 132 feet. Taking about 10 feet to the top of the story, we have 13 stories. Deco 18:48, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Have you forgotten to take into account that we write on both sides of the page? Thue | talking 18:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course - but we do not print on both sides of the page normally, unless we print the book (and you will have trouble tying up a large book). In any case it's 13 stories or 6.5 stories. What do you think is most appropriate? Deco 19:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and installed 6.5, specifying that the printing is two sides. I hope this looks fine. Deco 19:10, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the two sides are the best; the reason why this figure is interesting is that it is comparable to another, two-sided encyclopaedia. Thue | talking 19:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias are usually printed on paper that is thinner than a normal printed book. I would like to see an approximate number of characters for some of the most common conventional encyclopedias. I have a cd-rom edition a few years from Encyclopaedia Britannica that I never use because wikipedia is better, but maybe I can count characters somehow.

Britannica has about 55 million words. At 5 characters per word, this puts it on 250 million characters, or about 1/5 the size of us. A stack of Britannica about 6 meters. Multiply by 5 and you get 30 feet, or 2.5 stories. -> Raul654 08:16, March 19, 2005 (UTC)

I just realized I might underestimate this, because the "average characters per article" figure includes stubs, and the number of official articles is not. I need to get better data. Also, it excludes images, and 3000 characters per page may not include spaces, making forecasts worse. Deco 20:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

View database size stats [5] and project, this looks right after all. Hmm Deco 20:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

How compressive is the paper? Whether the sheets at the bottom of the pile will be squeezed to less than 0.0038 "? & Lt; ducks & gt; David Brooks 21:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sheets leading to the top of the pile will have little air between them, compensating for the compression effect to the bottom of the stack. - DV 12:51, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have also done this calculation recently, and compared to the LOC (here) --Alterego 22:44, March 18, 2005 (UTC)

But how many books in the LOC have the same topic, oh, say, "Our Wonderful Universe"? How many Jupiter print descriptions should you count? So, these are not gazillions; at most millions. David Brooks 23:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lucky it's not an article about Star Wars Extended Universe

It will be very shameful.

Forget Extended Universe, what about article or sexual fun?

Are you sure it is luck? A);)

Number of languages ​​with Wikipedia edition

Press release says there is an article "in more than 120 languages." However, according to [6], there are 159 languages ​​with at least one article other than the main page. Is there a reason why a lower number is used in a release? JamesMLane 03:34, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

If "more than 130", then it will include -pedias with 6 articles. And "more than 122" would be weird. Decisions, although arbitrary (although formally correct), have the benefit of avoiding accusations in overbragging. Mikkalai 04:17, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have turned it into 150 because it (a) is more accurate and (b) is nice, round number. -> Raul654 06:09, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Publishes 500,000 English Articles

"If printed two sides will form a pile of about 66 feet or more than 6 floors". Printed on what? - Jerryseinfeld 18:45, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

See calculations for the above factoid. Incidentally, press releases should give calculations in meters and feet. We are an international project and should promote this news to the international media. 66 feet slightly above 20 meters. Jonathunder 06:05, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)

spelling: high level

Perhaps an idea to change "more than 6 floors" to "more than 6 floors".

(Yes, I know the "story" is possible as plural of stratum, but it looks wrong and does not show like that on Wikipedia or Wiktionary.It is important for credibility not even look guilty due to basic spelling mistakes.)

194.203.153.1 11:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Harry

In US English, at least one floor is a story, and some floors are stories. Looks right to me like that. Bollar 13:43, March 21, 2005 (UTC)

Since both spellings appear to be acceptable in US English, and since Wikipedia/Wiktionary only gives "storied", what would be wrong to change it so it seems OK for both English ? 194.203.153.1 16:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Harry

Story is much more common than multilevel , and as far as I know, level is mainly used in English English. If you Google with four words, the story/story is used about 100 times more than the floor/floor. Then there's a style issue - the article should not mix language variants. Maybe someone should write a story entry! Bollar 17:11, March 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well yes, of course there will be more hits for the story/ies than storey/s, because the word meaning "fairy tale, history" will be a bit more general than meaning "floor, level". If there is a reliable googling way for just one word I want to hear, it will be very useful. (Just in case you do not know, "stratum" refers only to the floor, not the fairy tale.)

You seem to assume that other articles are in American English but I see no reason to think about them.

194.203.153.1 19:08, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) Harry

Interwiki

Is there any sysops to add interwiki links to this article? I have the link for Wiki China below: [[zh-cn: Wikipedia: ???/2005? 3? (?)]] [[zh-tw: Wikipedia: ???/2005? 3? (?]]] thanks ~~ Ã, :) Shinjiman 16:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia