I agree that there is value in continuity, but remember that Wikipedia articles change over time, so unless someone is using a specific rev for measuring every time that they make a change to how the page renders, then there is likely to be at least some unreliability in the measurement. Technical factors like bandwidth and geolocation may also be involved in skewing the validity of comparisons.
For most citations, there appears to be a manually updated list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_with_the_most_references I wasn't able to find a list of articles with the most templates, although there are a few articles where the template expansion depth limit is exceeded. Perhaps we should take the discussion of how best to measure page rendering performance to Wikitech. Would that be ok with you? Pine On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Jeremy Baron <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 12, 2015 12:41, "Pine W" <[email protected]> wrote: > > In terms of byte size, that article isn't even in the top 250. See > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LongPages&redirect=no > > And by template count? Or cite template count? > > Also there's some value to continuity. We've been using the Obama example > for years. > > -Jeremy > > _______________________________________________ > Social-media mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media > >
_______________________________________________ Social-media mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/social-media
