Fundraising translation feedbackEdit
Hey Antonio1952, I have a bit of a request to ask from you. We pulled down our banners nearly a fortnight ago for what was a highly successful international fundraiser and brought the curtain down on last years fundraiser. This week however we will be changing payment processors and during the testing of the new system it would be useful to use the time productively on on testing banner text.
To help us out with this I wonder if you would be willing to help us improve our italian text using This Link
Simply follow the simple instructions on that page and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.
We are going to run the test on tuesday so if you dont see this message till 24 hours after it was sent you can ignore me :) Many Thanks though.
don't give up before tryingEdit
i have expanded the lists of List of Wikipedias by edits per article and Wikipedia article depth/Table but you removed those edits stating, It is too difficult to keep updated a long list... i would like to remind you a line from those pages itself stating, Data on this page is automatically updated every day....which means figures are updated automatically and humans only need to sort the rankings which is not so difficult task.....i request you to please have a trial run of this for minimum 3 months, if at all it is difficult task then you can shorten the list.....but please have a trial run before coming to any conclusion....don't give up before trying....Sushilmishra (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Sushilmishral, I know well that the variables are automatically updated (I have created the page "Wikipedia article depth/Table"!) but, in my opinion, even simply to sort the rankings is too tiring with a list of 128 items. In any case, it seems to me more meaningful an analysis of Wikipedias with over 100,000 pages!
- However, as You suggest, we can do a test unitil the end of the year. --Antonio1952 (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Trust me its not that tiresome, I am doing it for some time now and its very easy, it hardly takes 2 mins to sort(But I am facing Time Zone problem). And since you are talking about meaningfulness then why not analyse Wikipedias with over 1,000,000+ articles as this will be much more easy why only Wikipedias with over 100,000+ articles?....I suggest we try to expand it, not reduce it....
- And thanks for taking up the suggestion...and I hope we can improve it and expand it in future instead of reducing it....cheers---Sushilmishra (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I think that it is too early to say that wikipedia reached 41 M articles. You can verify it at the very bottom of this page (line NUMBEROFARTICLES). With deep respect, Jarash (talk) 07:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm… EmausBot has a different opinion. I don't know the cause of the disagreement. (From a user who just happens to be watching this page.) - dcljr (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Wait a minute! Yes, I do (know the cause). This edit you (Jarash) pointed to is over a month old! - dcljr (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)