Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

@

I am making a start but I welcome any other users chipping in as well, as I'm a bit short on time this week. Hug^syrup 10:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@

I'll do some, but y'all British people feel free to assist my American ignorance - -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I should have ample time tomorrow to complete what I can of the report. My school district has cancelled all classes this week after today, so I'm free a while with nothing else to do. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 04:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll do what I can tonight, but if it's not finished by 6 am GMT then I probably won't be able to. Thanksgiving is tomorrow and there's people coming over, sorry if I can't finish. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I've a lot happening this week, I can't do the list. Heads up that Frozen II was renamed and duplicated. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 03:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, did it myself. And might have been inspired by @Serendipodous: in what I wrote for Frozen... igordebraga ≠ 23:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, now you've put it back in my head again! :-) Serendi^podous 23:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@

Sorry, I've been busier IRL than usual, and have reduced my Wikipedian activities. Won't be able to help with weekly Top 25 or the annual report for the foreseeable future. Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 07:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I have made a start but I encourage any other contributors to fill in individual boxes, as my availability is fairly sporadic this week and I'm doing it in between other bits of work! Hug^syrup 10:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

When the editor/s who write up a Top 25 Report are finished with that particular report, is it ever supposed to be edited afterwards? I've come across a situation where an editor has been editing a Report from 2017 in various ways over the past few months. I had always thought the Top 25 were to be treated like a Talk page Archive and a Report should be left alone when it's done. But maybe I'm wrong - would welcome your thoughts. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Unless the editor is the creator of the page, I feel such editing is incorrect. The Top 25 Report is a work of journalism and is the creative work of the editor who drafted it. Only that editor has the right to change it. Serendi^podous 10:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Serendipodous - that's kind of what I thought too. I don't quite know what to do about this issue, would welcome other editors' thoughts on it. The image changes were reverted by a bot the first time but they've made some other edits recently. If the creators of that particular Report are ok with the changes then that's ok I guess?... The editing of what is basically an archive page bothers me that's all. I'll check in with the creator-editors. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If anyone wants to take a look at what I'm talking about, there's the editing history of that Report [1]. Thx, Shearonink (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If it is to change\add pictures like the guy is doing, I see no problem. I myself do that to old reports, given red links or blank spaces are not as pleasant as an image. igordebraga ≠ 19:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It's that time of year again ... User:West.andrew.g/2019_Popular_pages

This is just a first cut covering JAN-1 through DEC-08 as I get my processing in order. I recognize there is still some cleanup/header/other work needed. More importantly, does the basic data sanity check? Updates will be approximately weekly until the final days of the year (dates to DEC-15 are being processed in now). I'll ping back here to make folks aware of updates.

Now up to date through DEC-15. The "scrubbed" version is also available via footnote 1/a. West.andrew.g (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Now up to date through DEC-22. West.andrew.g (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Now up to date through DEC-29. West.andrew.g (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Now contains data for full year 2019. West.andrew.g (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I know we've also done "most popular article for each day of the year" in the past, and it was beautifully formatted last year. I'll make a preliminary version of that available on PasteBin as soon as I am able, as well.

I've uploaded the top 5 articles by day, already filtering by (>10% and <90%) mobile percentages. West.andrew.g (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It's erased... can you reupload whenever possible, @West.andrew.g:? igordebraga ≠ 00:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it's always been there, I just mis-formatted the external link. Now fixed. West.andrew.g (talk) 12:06, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you please update this daily list (and of course the yearly one, which has two days missing) when you can, @West.andrew.g:? igordebraga ≠ 14:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Now contains data for full year 2019. West.andrew.g (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Let's use this space to organize the data, editorial efforts, and promotion of these reports! We fell a bit flat last year on the promotional front, I think, after some stellar showings in prior years (Slashdot et al.). Our work deserves to be seen! West.andrew.g (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have compiled the current Top 50 into a list
  here, so feel free to claim whichever entries you wish to take (the Top 40 should be reasonably fixed). Be at absolute liberty to remove any comments I have scribbled down, and, though it pains me, to replace Aaron Burr with a photograph relevant to the subject at hand. Stormy clouds (talk
  ) 23:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've claimed 5. I may claim more depending on how many others show up. Serendi^podous 11:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Anyone wanna explain why Kayden Boche is in there? We should also do a Top 100 obituary thing - you know, the 100 most viewed pages of people who died in 2019? Well, just the names to save some time. ミラP 18:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

igordebraga Seems #24 is in the wrong place? Beauty not Love (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No, just the numbers. Would be nice if you can redo the graph, @Eliasdabbas:. (and I'll also post messages to whoever helped do reports this year) igordebraga ≠ 18:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

igordebraga Sorry I was traveling! And thanks for doing both! Beauty not Love (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll be doing some of mine offline, then pasting them in on the 30th. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 07:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: And I can compile a top 100 deaths list. It'll be in my sandbox for now -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 07:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd like to change one, if that's OK. I can't really understand why I picked the jogging case. I know next to nothing about it. Serendi^podous 18:34, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. (in fact, one of the "almost there" articles you claimed entered the list, @A lad insane:) And too bad OZOO and Hugsyrup are MIA and can't help. igordebraga ≠ 17:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Alright then, fucking hell. Apparently I won't have any device but my ancient phone till the 2nd after 1pm today. I'll do my best to upload the writeups, but if mine aren't done by the 31st feel free to jump in on mine. Sorry for the awfully late notice. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 19:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: no problem, this isn't 2017, where we were so far ahead that everything managed to get finished in January 1st... or last year, where we missed the date due to one person. This time, the lack of people contributing will inevitably delay to "when it's done" (still, @Pythoncoder: you need to write your part) igordebraga ≠ 21:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Released by WMF?

NBC News said that the year's top25 had been "released by WMF". Is this a misunderstanding? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Year's_top_articles_"released". Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This Wikipedia 25 Report is the coolest thing on the Internet that no one talks about. I think that's partially because there's no easy way to reference it. What if we all decided to make an official hashtag, like #WPTOP25 or #WP25 to chat it up on something like

The first is a good choice, after all

WP:TOP25 is the official shortcut already. (the site with the bird, the tool by @Eliasdabbas: gives a choice to put the flowchart it generates there) igordebraga ≠

01:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

A hashtag isn't going to get any traction unless a ton of people start using it, which ... seems unlikely, if I'm honest. :-)

[majestic titan]

02:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Glad you liked it, as we do:) I'm usually tweeting the chart with a link to the page. I have a bit.ly link https:// bit.ly / wikitop25 which links to this page. There is also an automated tweet, which makes hashtags of the top topics, which looks like this:

We can add a hashtag for the article and all tweet/retweet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasdabbas (talk • contribs) 08:10, January 7, 2020 (UTC)

Preliminary draft is ready: Wikipedia:Top 2019 deaths/sandbox. The list is top 25 since there wasn't enough in Andrew's dump for fifty, and if y'all don't mind proofreading - I got a bit creative with synonyms, so if that's not respectful enough feel free to adjust as needed. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 07:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

We can go deeper, if you want. West.andrew.g (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If you want to then sure. I don't mind either way -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 00:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Miraclepine: If you want to help out there's at least half a score ready in the sandbox. -- a lad insane (Channel 2) 21:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@igordebraga The last entry (You (TV series)) seems to be in the wrong place. Is it just the number or the whole entry?

@Eliasdabbas: the numbers were wrong, fixed them if you want to do the graph. igordebraga ≠ 16:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Finishing off

Sorry I'm late. Just finished India. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 03:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I've taken up the week of 5–11 January. Can someone possibly do the preliminary formatting for me? Then I'll fill up the texts after I write them offline. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 07:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Did that, @JFG:, put your write-ups whenever you can (and feel free to change the images). @Pythoncoder: thanks, and can you take another one, maybe the Indian election since you already mentioned it a bit? igordebraga ≠ 00:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

User_talk:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages#Statistical_reporting_has_reached_EoL. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

We're already late because JFG didn't show up, and now this? The first month of 2020 hasn't even ended and things aren't well. igordebraga ≠ 05:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@User_talk:Igordebraga :( sorry to hear this... In the last one, it seems #22 is in the wrong place? Not sure if just the number or the whole entry? Also, some numbers are separated by commas and some by periods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasdabbas (talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Eliasdabbas: I put one number wrong, and changed all to periods, if the differing punctuation prevents the tool from working. You can make the graph if you want! igordebraga ≠ 17:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Just letting you guys know that the Top 25 report was recently shouted out in this video by Cary Huang. (Sadly, it appears that Cary has

That's awesome! And unbelievable that I'm credited, even if it's because I wrote most reports of the year. igordebraga ≠ 17:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: it might be just me but that description looks a little... unfinished ;) Ionmars10 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That's what I get for hurrying in trying to get the already way belated report. Still, I'll keep it up on the main page for a few days before I post the Oscar one (have much to say on movies, so next week I'll try to get others to write!) igordebraga ≠ 02:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm interested if you need anyone to proofread or gather photos for the Top 25 Report.

Not always. Sometimes we improvise to get pictures for a few topics, or downright leave the space blank. And of course, regarding proofreading, it's usually weeks\months later that the images end up deleted from Commons... if you can help, it's always welcome. igordebraga ≠ 14:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Soulbust and me have done the table. @Serendipodous:, @A lad insane:, @Miraclepine: (Stormy clouds and JFG are MIA, OZOO never answers anymore), can anyone help? igordebraga ≠ 14:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there's a running theme this week. I could definitely lend a hand. Serendi^podous 14:40, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

I've put together a daily report that calculates the cumulative weekly pageviews for all articles that appeared among the top 1000 most-viewed articles on any day within the past week. It is intended as a replacement for the Top 5000 report, which is down as of April 1 2020. It will update daily at around 15:00 UTC. This report makes a few assumptions that vastly simplify the process of calculating weekly views. As a result, it may miss a few articles that never quite made it into a daily top 1000 list, but nevertheless had a consistently high volume of views over a 7 day period. However, this limitation will only impact the 'tail' of the report; you can trust the ranking and the total weekly counts for the top 25 pages listed in the report. Let me know if you have questions! Cheers, J-Mo 23:57, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I can probably at least help on the reports coming up. I had school that was keeping me busy, but that's shut down now so I've got time to burn. (Incidentally - I've got to say, the top eight all on the same subject! I don't think I've seen that before!) -- a lad insane (channel two) 09:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to get involved with the making of the Top 25 Report. What can I do to help out? Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 10:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you be interested in writing a page for a week? Everyone enjoys time off. Though fair warning; it's a lot harder to write this list than it looks. Serendi^podous 10:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd certainly be willing to contribute. How can I get involved? Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 09:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Just put your name up on the calendar, then read the rules (I think they need their own page) and try a draft. :) Serendi^podous 10:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

And to see what articles will be covered, check on Sunday this provisional list which updates daily (only don't know at what time for you; in my timezone, it's on noon) with the most viewed pages of the previous seven days. And remember to discard entries that doesn't seem to have a reason for viewer interest - currently there's Art and Bible. igordebraga ≠ 00:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you – will do! Thatoneweirdwikier | Say hi 05:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

See the Analytics mailing list.

I notice that Waco siege should be ranked 6th in views, but is instead ranked 11th.--2602:306:C531:7310:3CAA:D161:F63E:28D3 (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

That's me not checking every number before submitting. If I knew how to change the graph tool to operate with last week's data instead of this one I'd correct the image too. igordebraga ≠ 16:21, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

igordebraga Rebestalic Can you please check which is the correct one? I'm not sure if it's the numbers or the items themselves. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasdabbas (talk • contribs) 23:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Igordebraga Kingsif Entry 21 "Qanon" seems to be in the wrong position in the July 12 to 18, 2020 table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasdabbas (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You guys are getting good at this! :) Serendi^podous 08:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

This incident far surpasses the destruction that occurred on September 11 attacks in the United States. I question if "Big boom bid bye-bye big buildings" would have been tolerated by Wikipedia editors that were living in New York City or the United States. I also question if the residents of Beirut or Lebanon would tolerate this statement.

In my judgement, that statement is not humor. It is absolute disrespect. Mitchumch (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Black humor - you're free to edit it, and it went through another user checking it before being copied to the Top25 page, so that's at least two who think it's fine enough. (ETA: And the editor who left a different 'complaint' above, so make that three, not that I'm trying to diminish your opinion) Kingsif (talk

) 06:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I thought the same thing as Mitchumch. I don't see how you can justify this as appropriate if you value the lives of Lebanese people. CowHouse (talk) 08:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

How do I even respond to such a ridiculous accusation? "Oh, you must disregard life itself because you wrote a tabloid headline". That's what your comment is, you do see how you just jumped off a slippery slope? Say you think it's inappropriate, that's fair - but call someone a sociopath? No, I care - I contribute at current events and recent deaths and my record of sympathetic editing stands for itself - but, in a non-serious space, a brief witty statement is a fantastic 'coping mechanism'. For example, my hometown gets lots of landslides, some have been devastating, and I don't know how anyone here could laugh if we hadn't learned how to make light humor about those first, while still being respectful and obviously morose on anniversaries; I generally expect the same to be true of most people. I almost expect you've never witnessed personal tragedy. As said, I respect your opinions, and you're free to edit it away, I'd even encourage starting a conversation about improving the notes on the page - but these comments here haven't been about that, you're just here to call me names. Why? In what way is that helpful to anyone? So don't. Kingsif (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Let me re-phrase my earlier comment so I am not misinterpreted again: I hope you are someone who considers Lebanese lives equal to everyone else's. If you do, this kind of statement sends the opposite message. I would suggest that you consider how people impacted by such a recent tragedy would perceive such a statement. You may have intended it as a coping mechanism but you should consider whether the actual result is kicking someone when they are down, if not trivialising their lives. I'd be surprised if you could find a tabloid headline that was similar. I also don't see the humour in the statement (is it meant to be considered "witty" just because there is alliteration?). Nobody has called you any names and it is not helpful to anyone to write an insensitive comment such as "I almost expect you've never witnessed personal tragedy" – a frankly bizarre and baseless non sequitur. Your analogy with recurring landslides is flawed since the people making the jokes were personally impacted and the scale of destruction is not comparable. CowHouse (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Well thanks for clarifying (really - I know it sounds sarcastic but it isn't), but let's be clear: you came here not to leave a comment on the page content but for nothing more than to be rude about the user who added it (however justified you felt it was). Elaborating doesn't negate that clear intention, nor does it actually work towards gaining anything. You could have suggested alternative notes for the page (or just changed the page), but you didn't. While you say my analogy is flawed, you evidently understood the meaning and thus where I'm coming from. So, yeah, feel free to make productive edits here or at the page, I'm not one to stop that. And, honestly, if you felt the use of the phrase was that bad, I would have welcomed a well-intentioned message maybe on my talk page; the tone of yours and certainly the other user's comments here doesn't seem to be trying to make sure I get the message, but to publicly shame me or something. Which is not okay. (ETA: You haven't yet edited the page to remove the phrase you find so offensive, so what is your intended outcome? Because it seems like you do just want to rain down on me instead of fixing the thing you find wrong) Kingsif (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Confession: I thought if I should change any of the write-ups, but decided on just doing that to the pictures and adding links. But this reaction makes it clear that when I transplant this Report to the Signpost that one of those deserves better than just "big bada boom".... igordebraga ≠ 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the offensive text. Humor is one thing, but laughing at recent deaths is over the line, especially when this page is linked from the talk pages of hundreds of prominent articles. Smyth (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

this is not humor in this page this is political unjoke 5.75.1.215 (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Top_25_Report&diff=prev&oldid=972223959

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Top_25_Report&diff=prev&oldid=970544750

soibangla (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I genuinely do not see what is wrong with either of those examples, at least I understand why someone could be upset with the one below. So, go on, try explain yourself. Kingsif (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Specially as the one above has something to do with this Report's whole purpose, that is to show a weekly summary of most seen articles - and the sale of stock certainly helped her get extra attention.igordebraga ≠ 21:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

the sale of stock certainly helped her get extra attention in right-wing media fishing for another fake scandal, but most people were interested in her because she was on Biden's short-list. soibangla (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, this edit is preposterous and I encourage you to self-revert it. soibangla (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not - you're seeing things that aren't there. Genuinely, I cannot see what you think is political innuendo. I even used more words and less humor, but apparently reporting that Rice got more media attention because she sold Netflix shares is not allowed? We're not giving an opinion either way, so you wanting to keep the facts off WP is a whole kind of censorship for no reason I can think of. Seriously, why? Please, explain what your issue with it is. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Please explain to me how you conclude she had to explain to the rumor mill that selling some Netflix shares was not a political move, something that really shouldn't have been in doubt. I had already explained in an edit summary removing the original innuendo that people with more wealth than income commonly sell some of the former to raise the latter, to pay their expenses. It's how such people routinely live their lives. In 2019, Mark Zuckerberg made $1 in salary, $0 as a bonus, $0 in stock options, $0 was awarded as stock — but made $23,415,972 from "other." How do you suppose he did that? I also explained she sold only some of her shares, she remains on the board getting 125 options/month. Even if it had any relationship to her possible selection, what significance does that have? Is it somehow suspicious? Of course it isn't. Maybe she was drawing cash to shore up her finances in anticipation of having to quit her job and have no income for months. It's yet another fake scandal. It just never stops. soibangla (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Neither I nor the text on the page are disputing any of that, not that it bears any relevance. As for how I conclude she had to explain to the rumor mill that selling some Netflix shares was not a political move, something that really shouldn't have been in doubt, well, let's pick the first article I find when I google "Susan Rice Netflix": Fortune. Which says: Susan Rice, a Netflix director, sold some of her shares [...] A spokeswoman for Rice said the sale was unrelated to politics - this page is almost paraphrasing the news. I do not see where you see a political comment or scandal or whatever: Rice's article got a jump in views after the Netflix news came out. This is a page to tell users why certain WP articles get more views. Can you see why mentioning the Netflix news is a little bit relevant? Kingsif (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You load it by googling "Susan Rice Netflix." How about if you simply googled "Susan Rice"? I'm done here. soibangla (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That's because when I just search for Susan Rice, the first few pages are all various profiles. This also happened like two weeks ago, if you don't remember how quickly algorithms reset; I just wanted to quickly find a relevant news source for the matter at hand. But the veracity of the news doesn't seem to be what concerns you, more some implication that you're the only one seeing, because your argument seems to be "simply saying that people were more interested after she did something not-suspicious makes her sound suspicious and WP should not include it" - 1. it doesn't, 2. that's censorship. Remind me to remove everything that conspiracy theorists could possibly argue has questionable morality from every article I see. Kingsif (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

But the veracity of the news doesn't seem to be what concerns you is utter nonsense. Everything you have asserted here is speculative. There is no evidence to indicate that her stock sale contributed to any increase in traffic to her page, and any insistence that it must have is purely unsubstantiated POV. Traffic to her page was down on the day the story broke and the two subsequent days. The spike came on the day Biden picked Harris. The edit insinuating political motives is POV trash. soibangla (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I removed it as inappropriate use of Wikipedia's voice and a BLP violation. If someone can make a clear case for inclusion supported by high-quality references, then it's worth discussing.

The Fortune ref indicates the decision to sell was made three months ago: A spokeswoman for Rice said the sale was unrelated to politics and was made under a stock trading plan she filed more than three months ago under Securities and Exchange Commission rules. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: How is it a BLP violation? It's not saying that Rice did or didn't do anything, it's saying that on the day after certain related news broke (per the time in UTC at least), her article got more views - her spike last week (the current top 25) came when Harris was picked. Two different weeks. As said to Soibangla, this is not a page about the news, it's about why articles get more views, whether the reasons are good or bad or about false claims or not. So the fact she decided to sell stocks 3 months ago is completely irrelevant, and nobody here is pushing any narrative about what the sale means. It happened, she rightfully explained that it wasn't political, the article got more views. The news appears in sources, I don't see what more you'd expect? Kingsif (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any additional references being offered, so why do you expect me to comment? The burden is on those seeking inclusion. The quote I identified should be enough to show there's a serious problem. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I was hoping you could explain either the BLP violation or now serious problem you claim exist. I've outlined why there is neither, as has another user, so please justify your removal. Kingsif (talk) 20:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've outlined why there is neither We disagree. Again, the burden is on those seeking inclusion. Offer references or

WP:DTS. --Hipal/Ronz (talk

) 20:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to reassess the purpose of this page, because you've definitely got the wrong idea. In any case, I'll wait either for you to realize that or for someone who can better explain it to you to come along. Apologies for being inadequate at communicating the situation to you, though I still have no idea where your view is coming from since you refuse to explain it, even when I've gone to the trouble of reiterating the facts. As you said, no use trying to explain when it's clearly not going in. Kingsif (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm trying to figure out the purpose of this page. Is there a detailed explanation somewhere, beyond what's at Wikipedia:Top_25_Report/About. Regardless, BLP applies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's more than the About page, but obviously there's the humor tag and if you scroll back through the archives you can get a feel for it? I see it as a page that isn't for the average reader - it's more for WP editors and for readers looking into internet trends and the like - to document what's getting traffic and why. For connecting WP with the world and internet (reminding us it's reader-oriented), while being loaded with humor so WP doesn't get too self-important. And look, I know BLP applies - something I'd always be mindful of anyway, what with working on contentious politics, current pages and RDs etc. - but I just don't see how reporting a factual statement goes against that in this instance, as we've said. Taking the text, "Susan Rice's WP article got more views after she sold some Netflix shares" doesn't violate anything, and it doesn't make any insinuations, either. The only issue would be if you could dispute both 1. Rice's page saw an increase in views and 2. She sold some Netflix shares that week. As for ONUS, yes it is for those seeking inclusion - but only if there's been an actual reason made for removal, not just tagging BLP without explanation. Kingsif (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation.

So you feel there's been no actual reason made for removal?! See

WP:IDHT. I joined this discussion late. It should have ended when it was clear no further references were forthcoming. --Hipal/Ronz (talk

) 21:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

IDHT? I say I don't know why the first editor thinks it should be removed, and they say something about 'but the sale wasn't political', which ... yes? Doesn't affect pageviews. Then you say BLP violation, and I ask for you to explain how you came to that conclusion. And you refuse to, then ask for references? Refs for what? That Rice sold Netflix shares? I've been willing to hear, but nobody has said anything. Kingsif (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, Rice's page saw an increase in views is false, so you are not reporting a factual statement, rather you are promulgating conjecture and speculation about a highly visible individual who was a top contender to be a vice presidential candidate in a highly contentious election, and she happens to be someone who is regularly depicted as surrounded by scandal, so many like to pounce on any suggestion of scandal about her to make it go viral, and your edit contributed to that by making those insinuations in Wikivoice. soibangla (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Or as I pointed out in my first comment here, references need to be provided to support the information. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It appears that some see this article as a "fun page" where the normal rules don't apply. soibangla (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Soibangla: As I explained earlier: Two. Different. Weeks. Can you not interpret data?! And, there was no insinuation, unless you're looking for it yourself - that's on you. @Hipal: Refs for... WP page stats? I genuinely am at a loss here, and would appreciate a little more guidance on what you're seeking, since you seem to mean well. Kingsif (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Please drop it. This is disruptive. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

What's disruptive is demanding refs, not explaining what for, then getting annoyed when I ask. Don't get involved if you have literally nothing to add. Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with the disruptive nature, Kingsif, as an outsider to this conversation. Not great to make a thought-terminating cliché when trying to address some form of resolution. People have different viewpoints and we shouldn't come to making assumptions. – The Grid (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@The Grid: The conversation continued in a much better manner on my talk page, don't worry dude. Kingsif (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Part of the current process involves cut and pasting the text from the week page to the main report - and then doing it back when it gets replaced the week after. I wonder if perhaps we could use simple transclusion instead, negating the need to edit the main Top25 report, and keeping all updates to the text in one page? It would probably mean no redirects from individual weeks to the report, too. Kingsif (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but remember that even if we made transclusions, there would need to be edits to the main page to update the date of the latest report. igordebraga ≠ 21:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Similar to what I did roughly three and a half years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Top_25_Report&diff=prev&oldid=732099350
for the ranking of Donald Trump Jr. (1,073,547 views) on the following page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Top_25_Report/July_17_to_23,_2016
("This article actually received 581,231 views, but the redirect

I am now combining the Pageview numbers of the top 6 most-viewed pages that redirected to

527,764:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2020-01-19&end=2020-01-25&pages=2019%E2%80%9320_outbreak_of_novel_coronavirus_(2019-nCoV)
71,225:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2020-01-19&end=2020-01-25&pages=2019%E2%80%9320_outbreak_of_novel_coronavirus_2019-nCoV
31,678:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2020-01-19&end=2020-01-25&pages=2019%E2%80%9320_China_pneumonia_outbreak
16,685:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2020-01-19&end=2020-01-25&pages=2019-20_outbreak_of_novel_coronavirus_(2019-nCoV)
9,440:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2020-01-19&end=2020-01-25&pages=2019-20_China_pneumonia_outbreak
3,213:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2020-01-19&end=2020-01-25&pages=2019-20_Wuhan_coronavirus_outbreak

So if I've calculated correctly:
587,680 (page views of

In this week's report, the table jumps from #15 to #17, meaning that position #16 is missing. What happened to it? – numbermaniac 07:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

It was accidentally deleted when numbers got shifted at the subpage. I'll see if I can fix it with the updated page. Kingsif (talk) 08:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Should be done. Kingsif (talk) 08:45, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you for fixing that so quickly! :) – numbermaniac 12:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Was just looking at the list and #8 seems to have fewer views than #9-12 on the table. Also #16 and #19's view counts don't seem to match their positions - they both have more views than some of the entries above them. – numbermaniac 07:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Numbermaniac: Strange - different editors use different tools for the figures, and some count redirect views and some don't. What numbers were you looking for? I've been busy and not checked the last few weeks' numbers. Kingsif (talk) 12:57, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm looking at the currently displayed week's numbers: that is, September 20 to 26. I'm just curious whether it's the ordering or the view count that is wrong. – numbermaniac 13:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The numbers were wrong, sometimes I end up doing that checking our source. Fixed them. igordebraga ≠ 16:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for posting these every week! I enjoy reading them, and your sense of humor and levity is refreshing. Behindmyspotlight (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel like when these are officially published, there's always one author listed, which to me implies that there's some kind user who does a rundown every week. This one has been a bit on the later side, and I feel commentary I write could possibly be informative. Is that cool with the author(s)? 73.241.189.0 (talk) 02:20, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, edit away Kingsif (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not a big deal, but ACB part misspells the word "government". Someone should fix that. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, you're allowed to do it yourself. Ionmars10 (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ionmars10, um how? I clicked edit and I could not do it. EDIT: Oh nvm, I found out how. Sorry. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you switched the photos of Joe Biden & Donald Trump. It's just strange and looks like vandalism. If it is a joke, I don't get it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

This appears to be vandalism of a BLP to me... I don't know how to fix it, but that is totally unacceptable. Footlessmouse (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have fixed this. Looks like an honest mistake by Mcrsftdog, no evidence of deliberate vandalism or deliberate BLP violation. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant it as a bad joke, sorry if it offended. Mcrsftdog (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Great job to the person or team that writes the comments for each entry. I enjoyed the personality and humor that was sprinkled in. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I noticed an error in the Top 25 Report for November 8 to 14, 2020: Entry 21 says that Neilia Hunter is "#2's late first wife", when it should be #3 (#2 is Kamala Harris and #3 is Joe Biden). I assume the mistake was made because Biden was #2 the week before. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes it was, I made the error and fixed it. igordebraga ≠ 20:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@

Igordebraga I never knew that spots had to be earnt! Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 20:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

And, it's addressed to my own page...? 😂 And aww, if you reserved the COVID-19 pandemic page then thank you so much Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 20:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, "earnt" is just to continue a tradition started in 2017, where everyone who was a contributor got invited (though last year it didn't work so well, to the point it only got done halfway through January due to a lack of helping hands) And decided to reserve the pandemic for you because you said you wanted it last time we spoke. igordebraga ≠ 20:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been compiling a running list of the most-viewed pages for a little while on my own. I don't mind helping out with this in mid-to-late Dec. Right now, I'm just a little busy with school. Soulbust (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey folks,
Amazing to see the stats of these articles; thanks for compiling it all these years. Anyways, I believe #22 (George VI) is really the father of #5 instead of #4 right? Not much of a big deal though. [This is re: November 15-21] Tunestoons (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

It really made me more angry than it should to see Grogu referred to as Baby yoda rather than "His little Child" or something other than baby yoda. -GoatLordServant^{(Talk-Contribs)} 12:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, just tried to invoke Badass and Baby, Three Men and a Baby, anything contrasting the first entry with a baby. And need to stop being a cheapskate and sign up for Disney+ to watch the latest season. igordebraga ≠ 02:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hahaha well ok then I guess you better be watching out for spoilers from here on out -GoatLordServant^{(Talk-Contribs)} 12:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I am very disappointed in the Top 25 Report and was even more disappointed to see past versions of it. Each one is making a mockery of our President and whenever President-Elect Biden is featured, there is nothing bad to say about him, and he has as many problems as President Trump. I wish that you would at least equally make fun of them (if this is what you consider "funny") or cease to mock the President please. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Whatever, snowflake. Serendi^podous 22:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

And just to clear up any confusion, this is an opinion piece and the authors are perfectly free and willing to express thier opinions. If you take offense at the fact that said opinions differ from yours then start your own report. Serendi^podous 22:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: I take no offense at the fact that the author has negative, albeit misguided, views toward President Trump, I take offense at the fact that they feel so poorly of themselves that they take to Wikipedia of all places to disrespect the President week after week. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You're the one choosing to read this week after week. It clearly states it's an opinion piece and it's been nothing new for what seems to be a few years now. I don't see anything productive with this discussion so I would advise to

drop it. – The Grid (talk

) 15:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

First of all, it's your President, and unfortunadely the one in my country is following Trump's formula to a T, down to showing a complete disregard for human life and\or decency, a lack of knowledge and\or empathy whenever he opens his mouth, prioritizing the wrong areas to intervene, and dealing so badly with the pandemic that cases skyrocketed (second in the world, behind only the United States!). Committing all these flaws on the job is downright asking for a negative assessment week in, week out - and not just by me, but everyone who took a stab at the Top 25 Report since 2017 (many of whom weren't Americans as well). I know Biden has his flaws, but Trump is the one showing his so well that he always brings views to his Wikipedia page. I'm all for NPOV, specially since I majored in journalism, but we sign our names atop the page and put the Humor template exactly to show it has opinions and such. igordebraga ≠ 02:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Igordebraga, well, you not being from America would explain your twisted POV on the matter. However, if this is just some ill-humored defamation piece supposedly meant to be "funny," why would we include a link to the category of Top 25 Report at the bottom of the encyclopedic articles? Can anyone rant about their opinion and mock world leaders, call it "funny," and include a link at the bottom of popular pages for people to go to? This seems completely ridiculous, regardless of which opinion is being shoved down people's throats. The category should be removed. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 13:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@EDG 543: You could always start writing for the report and write something "funny" about Joe Biden / write something about Donald Trump that you don't deem to be inappropriate the next time they are on the list? And if you think the category is ridiculous and should be removed start an XfD with why it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Terasail^[✉] 16:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I will consider starting the discussion. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 17:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

To quote from another instance of someone else trying to claim I'm politically biased: "The Top 25 Report articles are *not* mainspace articles. They need to follow the same rules that apply to any project space text, which are approximately the same as apply to talk pages. Humor and opinion are definitely allowed. Content that purports to be factual should be strictly factual, not shaded one way or another. Opinions that are clearly seen as opinions need not follow WP:NPOV." You might not agree with what we're saying, but our work is not exactly breaking the rules. Even if people appear to complain since 2016, at least (and like I said one year later, after so many instances where someone could go after us only by the end of Trump's tenure someone questions what we're doing) igordebraga ≠ 21:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

After a discussion with another template builder, who suggested that the annual report talkpage template shouldn't be made into another line of the top 25 talkpage template, I took the easy route and built a talk message box for the annual report without lua.

I know it's already a task to add the top 25 message to talkpages, but we now have

It has a limitation because of its simplicity, and the format means that adding pageview values for multiple years can look awkward; I've recommended that pageviews not be included for multiple years, but if you want to add them I'm sure it's obvious how to do it. Kingsif (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Cleopatra is #25 this week because (at least in part) of the featured article Death of Cleopatra. That's just my hypothesis, though. --Rockin (Talk) 21:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

What makes you think that? I can see there was some vandalism a few days ago at that article, but what would drive millions of people away from their regular social media scrolling to read it or the article in focus? There's been no anniversary or anything like that. Kingsif (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

And here I was thinking it had something to do with Gal Gadot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. Wouldn't a TFA lead to the original article getting spiked, rather than an article associated with it? Serendi^podous 01:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It got 68,812 page views on 10 December - pretty good for a TFA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

But that begs the question, why is the Death of Cleopatra article not on the Top 25 Report? Is it because Cleopatra gets a steady viewing anyways, and the TFA bumped it up? I don't know, I'm lost but it's fun to hypothesize. --Rockin (Talk) 05:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Cleopatra always gets 60,000 to 100,000 page views per day. [2] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Well that doesn't seem like enough - the article on MP got 68k pageviews. Why would a related article get a boost of over 400k views... Kingsif (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Kingsif, It was on the front page of Wikipedia on December 10, that likely garnered the article at least some attention. --Rockin (Talk) 04:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see the conversation above, my bad. --Rockin (Talk) 05:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The Bible loggs a million views per week for several months but is never on the list. Why?--Maxaxax (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Because that's clearly not human views. Kingsif (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

However, it is Highly read, little edited just maybe not millions – 13M in 2019 which is about about a quarter million views per week. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. And to think, that discussion happened in February, several months before the pageviews jumped by about a million every week - such a jump really shows how falsely-generated those views are. It's interesting to consider why someone wants web servers to think millions of people are reading about the Bible. Maybe it's a modern art installation, since increased searches for the Koran often get flagged, someone might be making a point that it doesn't happen for other religious literature. I'll have to check the Torah's pageviews. Of course, something similar happens for (usually a short period) every year. ((edit conflict) Many of those 13M last year were fake, too) Kingsif (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Does anybody have any idea why

They're mostly coming from the redirect, so I can only assume some bot action plus people accidentally searching for "-" (not an uncommon event) and being redirected. Maybe there's a bad link on some popular page(s). Kingsif (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Happy new year all! I'm trying to comment on the 2020 Top 50 Report but the talk link comes here so...

The commentary on the Elizabeth II entry says

The real reason she's on this list is the same reason the rest of her family is: The Crown, Netflix's fawning, forelock-tugging hagiography of her interminable time in office. It's somewhat telling, I think, that we prefer a fictional version of her to the real thing.

Annual page views:
Elizabeth II - 26,481,926
The Crown - 711,491
I know the article is to be considered humourous but even so, this just doesn't stand up.

Captainllama (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If you look at her viewing patterns, "The Crown"'s debut is about ten times higher than anything else in her year. Serendi^podous 01:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What Serendipodous said: you're trying to say that since The Crown got less pageviews, Elizabeth II's views can't possibly be influenced by the show, which isn't logical at all. The data shows spikes in the pageviews for both articles peak on the release dates, and the fact that much more benign people who are featured as characters on the show follow the same pattern (and entered the top 50!) shows that the effect is real. There's a chance that, as the subject is the Queen, the article would have entered the top 50 anyway, but not so high. Like, Ronaldo was possibly going to be in the top 50 anyway (every year), but his peak in views came after scoring a 100th goal. Kingsif (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses; sorry I wasn't clear. I was initially upset at Kingsif's apparent strawman (I certainly was not trying to say that "Elizabeth II's views can't possibly be influenced by the show", which of course is not logical) but maybe your devices don't render bold well? I'm not a monarchist, don't have a telly, and overall enjoyed Serendipodous's commentary. My interest is that Wikipedia be accurate.

I have no problem whatsoever with the notion that The Crown show contributed to Elizabeth II's views, I'd assume that to be the case. The issue is the claim that "we prefer a fictional version of her to the real thing" when The Crown article received three-quarters of a million views versus twenty-six million for the Elizabeth II article. Of course mention the TV series and its effect on her article pageviews, but "The Crown" article figure is just 2.7% that of the monarch's. It's not tenable to claim we prefer the former to the latter when the latter figure is thirty-seven times, two orders of magnitude, that of the former. I appreciate the series boosted Liz's views, and that "The Crown"'s debut is ten times higher than anything else in her year, but even if every single one of Elizabeth II's views was inspired by watching "The Crown", the fact that they watched the fiction then came here to read about the real thing still does not support the idea that we "prefer" the fiction. Captainllama (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)