Wikipedia talk:Time Between Edits

Count Anomaly

Does this include edits of Discussion pages? Or do edits of the discussion pages count in some other counter?? Kadewe (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this counter includes edits in all namespaces (discussion, template, etc.). The only thing I don't get is why it's only at 239 million, while Special:Statistics says 251 million. What accounts for the difference? GregorB (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits before January 26, 2002, I guess... --A r m y 1 9 8 7 ! ! ! 11:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

...which have random (high) ids, though...[1] [2] [3] [4] --Nemo bis (talk) 19:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• There seems to be a difference of over a hundred million between {{REVISIONID}} and {{NUMBEROFEDITS}}. I wonder if anyone knows why. Pinging @Rich Farmbrough: ϢereSpielChequers 23:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Which direction is the difference? Deleted edits, perhaps? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC).
    
    • Hmm it's the other way. Perhaps null edits have something to do with it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC).
      
      • I thought it might be page creations, but no they have revisionIDs as well. The difference of over a hundred million is far too big for it to be down to blocks, deletions and other logged admin actions, unless it is something really crazy like each deletion logging something for each revision of a page just deleted. Perhaps it is something altogether different such as edit conflicts. That would be at the upper end of the figure I'd have guessed for them. ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
        • I've been told that {{NUMBEROFEDITS}} should be assumed to be cached and not necessarily current or correct. RevisionIDs by contrast miss out the first year, but that is likely to be less than a million edits - the first million revision Ids take us from Jan 2002 to June 2003. ϢereSpielChequers 18:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Inverse table

Recently, Wnt created an inverse table of my data for comparison. Here is the link: File:Wikipedia edit rate (x1000 per day).png κaτaʟaveno^T_C 00:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Conversion from days to weeks

Thanks for creating this page, which is interesting and shows a slow decline in the edit rate. I have a minor criticism, and that is that the conversion from days to weeks is inconsistent. For example, on the 430,000,000 line 60 days is given as 8 weeks, but on the 500,000,000 line 60 days is given as 9 weeks. I would fix this myself, but I am not sure if the idea is to round the numbers up or down. JonH (talk) 11:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps some updaters round it exact, i.e. less than 59 days, 12 hours and 0 minutes apart is 8 weeks, and some just subtract one date from another and round that? If so, a note should be added so people don't mess it up. The first method is better actually, but more work. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to moving this to days? I'm not convinced that a few hours makes a difference but a day or two does. ϢereSpielChequers 17:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

February to April 2013 "speedup"

From 58 days to just 48 days - very likely due to migration of interwiki links to Wikidata, a bot-driven process that might have generated more than 2 million edits. GregorB (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Graph

Is there any chance of updating the graph? Nothing spectacular is missing, but still it's four years... GregorB (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Six years now to the day... :-) GregorB (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

7 years now! Sorry, GregorB! :( Updated, now. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 21:48, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Update of Time Between Edits Graph Jul05-Present.png

Hi all & especially User:Katalaveno (the creator of the above file), who may still be on "a very long sabbatical". Said file was last updated to 2011 (in 2012). The data seems to have flatlined since then, but the picture would tell a better story than me ;) and I don't have the progs to draw it. Help! DadaNeem (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I'm now noticing the long standing request for the same-looks like someone will have to step up to satisfy these yearnings... DadaNeem (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, better late than never. I updated the graph to reflect data from July 2005 to January 2018. My very sincere apologies for taking so very long. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 21:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Katalaveno, my very sincere–but very belated–thanks for updating it! And also to WSC for the more recent updates. Just seeing this page for the first time today, very interesting! – Levivich 18:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

A pleasure. Sometimes I like my data raw. OK we can't be sure exactly how many edits we have lost to edit filters, and the move of interwiki links and some infoboxes to wikidata. But in my experience raw data has an integrity that things constructed from it can lack. ϢereSpielChequers 15:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

False prediction

Today is November 28, 2018. And now we can clearly see that the prediction about {{NUMBEROFEDITS}} reaching a billion is false. In fact, I actually predict that we will not reach a revision ID of a billion until January 2021, around Wikipedia's 20th birthday. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Over optimistic rather than false. I'd agree that the first half of 2021 is the likely time - but as of now it looks more like Feb to May, depending on whether editing levels hold or slip slightly. ϢereSpielChequers 18:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers Wait! It happened in January 13! MarioJump83! 02:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

GeoffreyT2000, you're right. LOL. MarioJump83! 02:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Back in October 2019 February to May was the likely point for the billionth edit. But we weren't to know in 2019 that 2020 would see a pandemic, lockdowns and the resulting increase in editing that brought forward the billionth edit. ϢereSpielChequers 08:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)