(Pinged by ResidentMario on my talk page)

Nice news on the 10⁶-th article on fr.wp! Some funny story: fr:Louis Babel is the Chosen One according to the devs, who have access to the real numbers. Because the special pages and the counters are always a bit lagging, the milestone was expected to be hit on September 23rd. During the evening, hundreds of articles were created in a few hours :D. The event was livetweeted by WM-Fr. It is only after that editors learnt that the milestone was hit two days before :D.

Not sure this is worth a mention in the Signpost, but just in case ;-) Jean-Fred (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this discussion, it wasn't due to a lag, but to a difference in what constitutes an article. The "NUMBEROFARTICLES" magic word uses the definition here, which requires a page to contain at least one internal link (and not being a redirect) to count as an article. The developers apparently counted all non-redirect pages, even those without internal links. There must have been similar discussions when the English and German WP reached their million.

Some other candidates for the millionth article are named here. Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would not trust Bistro talks that much ;-). From what I heard on IRC, special pages and numbers lag because of cache. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for posting here, I thought I saw the talk page used for pre-publishing comments. Will use the newsroom next time.

Right, but IRC isn't always gospel either ;)

In any case, the above counting issue (all non-redirect pages vs. only those containing a wikilink) was also mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-03-06/Millionth article and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-03-21/Half-million articles, so this sort of milestone confusion appears to be kind of traditional.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Came out longer then I thought it would. Lot of bolstering by other editors. Maybe we should post a template for the controversial study story...? ResMar 20:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats to French Wikipedia! Good for them! It's so encouraging and inspiring to see the other Wikimedia projects prosper. May the Polish and Italian Wikipedias reach their milestones in record time! -- œ^™ 00:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be so cool to have one of those "millionth-customer" type awards - can we not have a special tag for "millionth article", "100 millionth comment", "1 billionth silly witticism" and so on? Plus of course an appropriate paypal cash award. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe.. Not sure how well that paypal idea would go over with the foundation.. We do have the Template:Main Page banner though where we usually advertise such milestones, such as the 2 million and 3 million article mark ;) -- œ^™ 17:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how much they paid consultants to tell them "you need more black penises"? Gigs (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're writing an encyclopedia, not a porn site. Please use more sophisticated language. ResMar 00:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm more curious about how they could be certain that all of those penises belonged to Caucasians. Stare at enough examples of any one thing in a short period of time, & they all start to look alike. -- llywrch (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The may have missed The Black Cock.jpg. Rich Farmbrough, 18:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I love you. --King Öomie 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the article feedback cumulative or rolling. I think rolling would be better. Not sure if it should be based on time (feedback in the last 6 months), edits (feedback in the time of the last 500 edits), size (feedback in the time period that the article has been within 25% of its current size).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part Three will contain a "rough catalogue" of existing sexual images on Commons.

Awesome! How do I go about ordering this catalogue? Is there a print version, or is it online-only? Gurch (talk) 16:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...ResMar 20:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard there were actually more than 1200 penises counted. I guess they come in a range of sizes and shapes (but apparently not colours, as pointed out). Tony (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine how many people they went through before they found a team willing to count the penises. Must have found them in the depths of Chat Roulette. --King Öomie 14:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Wikipedia is racist against blacks, apparently. No surprising at all; nowadays, even the slightest difference is racism. Sometimes the world is so nonsensical... ResMar 20:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only with respect to penises. More research is needed to determine whether, for example, this imbalance is equally applicable to breasts. ... I am willing to take on this important research task if necessary. Gurch (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The videos are a great idea. They're well-made and the Wikipedians involved did great. What I really don't like is that they look very similar to the promos of Apple Inc. products. I would've hoped for a rather unique style. Excellent job otherwise. -- Orionist ★ talk 20:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed =) ResMar 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And women should be a high priority, IMO. Tony (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]