Image:Articles per day 20030418.png
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No higher resolution available.
Articles_per_day_20030418.png (621 × 537 pixels, file size: 9 KB, MIME type: image/png)
| This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below.
|
Transwiki approved by: w:en:User:Dmcdevit
This image was copied from wikipedia:en. The original description was:
The growth rate graph below was generated as follows: first, the erroneous article counts due to the software glitch were removed and replaced with a straight line. A daily estimated article count was produced by linear interpolation between nearest neighbour data points. This data was then smoothed using a 1-month rolling average. Forward differences were then taken to obtain the data plotted on the graph. For a graph which is scaled so that Rambot's edits do not dominate, see w:en::Image:Articles per day 20030418 scale 200.png.
 |
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. Subject to disclaimers. Asturianu | Български | Català | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Gaeilge | Italiano | 한국어 | 日本語 | Polski | Português | Română | Türkçe | +/- |
[edit] File history
| date/time | username | resolution | size | edit summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 01:12, 21 April 2003 | w:en:User:Tim Starling | 621×537 | 9 KB | Articles per day graph up to 31 March |
[[:Image:[[:Image:]]]]=== Image description page history ===
File history
Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.
| Date/Time | Dimensions | User | Comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| current | 14:34, 13 September 2007 | 621×537 (9 KB) | BetacommandBot | (Transwiki approved by: w:en:User:Dmcdevit This image was copied from wikipedia:en. The original description was: The growth rate graph below was generated as follows: first, the erroneous article counts due to the software glitch were removed and re) |
