Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits

Bot resting

@Legoktm: The bot seems to be asleep — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 21:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Database reports#Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates missed its weekly update. Legoktm (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of bots

The latest list (2023-01-02) suddenly includes MalnadachBot and Cydebot at the top of the list - KasparBot at 11, CmdrObot at 112, ProteinBoxBot at 299 - there appear to be more bots further down - Arjayay (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arjayay: There are several more, and I have already fixed tomorrows run. This is something that should be done at the same time that the bot flag is removed, if not before (as in the cases of BHGbot and FlagBot). --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

In a related note, Wikipedia:List of bots by number of edits/1–1000 hasn't been updated since Dec 30. GoingBatty (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI, this was  Fixed on 2 January. GoingBatty (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Table 1 and Table 2 are confusing, at best, and absurd, at worst.

I would tend to think, and I think most people would think that "

Registered editors by edit count (only successful contributors)

"

is a subset of "Registered editors by edit count (all registered accounts)". So I am, and I think many others would be, very puzzled to see that in many rows the subset seems to contain more members than the set.

For example, having exactly ten edits means one is among the "top 2,330,000 of all users", and also among the "top 2,804,000 of all contributors" in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively. This seems to be a mathematical impossibility.

Polar Apposite (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Because we have contributers who don't have accounts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Do we have registered editors who don't have accounts? Polar Apposite (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

We have IP addresses that have linked contributions. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

What would that mean in layman's terms? Polar Apposite (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Polar Apposite (nice user name), what do you think about Table 2 being moved to the Table 1 slot? Would that unconfuse the issue. I'd personally prefer that. It's like, you can sign up for a marathon but not run it. If you don't run it you can't go around saying "I competed in the All-State Marathon". Editors who have edited are Wikipedian editors, those who haven't are not yet Wikipedia editors. Maybe a commonsense viewpoint. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, I like your user name, too.

  Do you want to swap the positions of Table One and Table Two? Or delete Table One? Polar Apposite (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'd personally just switch the two. Table One has its uses per individuals who have taken the time to sign up as potential editors, although most have not edited. The present table 2 seems to have much more information relevant to this page, and gives a clearer picture of who edits the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

  I've no particular objection to their being swapped, but it seems like swapping deck chairs on the Titanic. The problem is the seeming contradictions between the tables, and the lack of clear meanings for terms like "editor" and "user" (I had thought the users were our readers).

  BTW what about merging the two tables into one, perhaps with some extra columns? Polar Apposite (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

A row for zero edits?

A row for zero edits would be useful, I think, because you'd get to see the big picture, i.e. the 46 million total (of "users" ?), and it would set everything else in context nicely, I think. For example, where it says,

"1 edit...top 30% of all users...top 14,000,000 of all users... ("That's more than") 70%",

the implication is that 14,000,000 is thirty percent of all users, which implies that there are 46,000.000 users total. And every other row has the same implication if you do the math. So I think, for the sake of completeness, the zero edit row should be added, and boxes marked "not applicable" wherever that is the case, perhaps with a footnote explaining why it is not applicable. Polar Apposite (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

New column

@Legoktm: @0xDeadbeef: Would it be possible to add a new column to the table with the editor's first year of edits, pulling data from either user creation or a user's first edit? Here is an example: Cards84664 16:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

1–1000

No.	User	Edit count	User groups	Joined
1	Ser Amantio di Nicolao	5,749,777	AP, Ad	2006
2	BrownHairedGirl	2,942,733	AP, ECo, EM, F, N, Rv, Ro, TE	2006
3	Jevansen	2,493,277	AP, ECo, EM, Rv, Ro	2006
4	BD2412	2,296,876	AP, IP, Ad	2005
5	Koavf	2,159,245	ECo	2005
6	Tom.Reding	2,015,689	ECo, EM, TE	2009
7	Materialscientist	1,969,031	EFM, AP, Ch, Ad	2008
8	Rich Farmbrough	1,714,130	EFM, AP, ECo, F, Rv, Ro, TE	2004
9	Lugnuts	1,509,055	ECo, Rv	2006
10	Bearcat	1,437,873	AP, Ad	2003