Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Olympic views

New report up

midnight; tired, ill, look like absolute crap. Going to bed. Serendipodous 22:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

On #4? Wrong pageview total? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm interested about what prompted the tirade against Reddit, since the entries on the Top25 fueled by Reddit this week don't look particularly offensive. _dk (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Mainly just what I've been reading in the news media. I wanted to do another piece on how Reddit has moved traffic to the site and how great it was at spreading our content, but I felt I couldn't sing its praises without feeling like a hypocrite. Serendipodous 08:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
How often does Harambe pop up on Reddit, I wonder. ~Mable (chat) 12:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: There's some discussion of your Reddit comments over on Facebook. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
To keep the archives happy: I have also left a comment about the (non-) significance of Reddit as traffic driver on the talk page of the Signpost version. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I am an occasional redditor but I don't tread into the crazy areas. It is so large, however, that bad communities can grew strong without any oversight. I've incorped the new report into the next Traffic Report btw.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

New report: Lull (Aug 28 - Sept 3, 2016)

next one up. SIX REDDIT threads this time!--Milowent • hasspoken 02:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the � characters

See User_talk:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages#Regarding_the_.EF.BF.BD_characters. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Topviews no longer supports custom date ranges (such as one week)

As previously discussed, Topviews now only allows you to view the most viewed pages for a given month or day. I understand WP:5000 has been fixed and is again your go-to for the Top 25, but I thought I'd keep you informed. Regards — MusikAnimal talk 17:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Egads, good thing I got my Special Report on the Olympics done first! Thanks for letting us know!--Milowent • hasspoken 02:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
    @Milowent: That is an excellent use-case. There a month view wouldn't have sufficed, since you needed data only during which the Olympics took place. I still have the old code, maybe I'll make a separate legacy app, /topviews/legacy or something. The thing I was worried about was for instance when a notable person died, and climbs up to the top 10 where beforehand they weren't in the top 1,000. That happens a lot... and if the start date is put before the day they died, you're going to be seeing inaccurate data. The Olympics however probably all were consistently in the 1,000 for the full date range, so the data you got there was probably right. — MusikAnimal talk 17:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

New report up

have at it. Serendipodous 22:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

new report: Anniversaries sept 11-17, 2016

now up.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

New report up

have at it. Serendipodous 23:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Great job as always. I had no recollection that JonBenet's mom was dead; I found that whole "news story" horribly exploitative and tawdry at the time and am ashamed to see its return.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

new report: Debatable (Sept 25 - Oct 1, 2016)

A slew of reddit threads, perhaps someone can locate #15 Krishna's Butterball and #23 Salsa Tequila which probably are due to Reddit as well.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

#15 is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/54q5qf/til_of_krishnas_butterball_a_giant_250_ton/ , #23 is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/557851/til_a_norwegian_comedian_wanted_to_prove_that/ _dk (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's why José Fernández got so many page views. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't have time to chase it down right now, but Aerosmith's "Toys in the Attic" referencing is incorrect. I remember a recent Reddit TIL thread that mentioned the band initially wanted the album cover to have a single teddy bear who was "disemboweling" his own stuffing. That is much more specific than the explanation provided at current. West.andrew.g (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Should mention

New Report up. Serendipodous 12:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Miley caused pansexual?

Wouldn't have guessed that!--Milowent • hasspoken 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Not uncommon among non-binary people ^_^; But I don't really follow the dating lives of celebrities. New report looks good as always~ ~Mable (chat) 17:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Found the last Reddit thread. So what do I get? :-) Serendipodous 21:57, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

New report up

Beware the Trunyip! Serendipodous 09:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

New report up

Have at it. Serendipodous 06:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes and his night

Interesting that neither Guy Fawkes nor Guy Fawkes Night charted this year, and they're about 100-150k down on last year. Maybe the Guy Fawkes mask boost Anonymous gave him is dying off? Smurrayinchester 12:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Shame. I always wanted to fix my entry on that. Oh well. Serendipodous 12:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

A Question/Request

Has anyone ever thought of making a mass messaging list that people could subscribe to to get this directly at their talk page, or maybe of the first 5 or 10 of them? If not, would anyone be interested in implementing that? Gluons12 ☢|☕ 01:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC).

@Gluons12: The top 10 is also included in the Wikipedia Signpost - you can subscribe to have that delivered to your page every two weeks. Smurrayinchester 15:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Gluons12 ☢|☕ 18:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC).
  • Gluons12, the signpost option is good, though it typically lags behind the new Top 25 reports. Having a mass talk page notification option would be awesome, if anyone would volunteer to take it on. It would need to be as automated as possible.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Report: President Trump (Nov 6-12, 2016)

I absolutely love both of today's reports. Looking through the past year-and-a-half of American politics was quite a joy. Quick question: any specific reason as for why Clinton and Sanders were referred to by their first name? Not that I mind; they are arguably better known under those names. ~Mable (chat) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Maplestrip! As to the naming, it wasn't very intentional, I think I followed what I saw most often in the press, though I did make sure I had the HRC column listed as "Clinton" and not "Hillary."--Milowent • hasspoken 18:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's fairly, well, endearing - I've heard this use of first names a lot during Clinton's and Sanders' campaign. It's downright cute. It apparently didn't help Clinton enough to get her to win, though. Thanks for the explanation ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 18:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Super Old Data

In doing the Presidential election comparison to 2008 and 2012, and being asked if there was any data for 2004, I eventually stumbled across very old pageview data. I've started to create some archive pages, Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/December 2002 as I run across this material.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Meet the new Report

It's the same as the old Report... Serendipodous 20:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Languages

Melania's listing says "Though her English is not perfect, she does speak six languages, which is very uncommon for Americans." Just curious, but is it common for any group to speak 6 languages? Mr Ernie (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Blatant Bias

This report has a blatant liberal, anti-Trump bias that is simply unacceptable by Wikipedia standards.Beep Boop 04:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leon1122334455 (talk • contribs)

Sure does. Thankfully it's not in Wikipedia; it's outside the mainspace, where opinions can be freely expressed. Serendipodous 08:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. Ignoring issues of fair and balanced, I wonder if this is foreshadows that the article about Trump will replace the one on Bush at the top of the list of most edited articles on Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Blatant leftist POV

Seriously? Blatantly calling Steve Bannon a "racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic" person? Saying that America should be "normal" (whatever that even means)? Where is your objectivity? This is not an objective "news" column. It sounds more like a left-wing blog or "news" source. Please, Serendipodous, remove these lines. They have no place on Wikipedia, regardless of whether this is an encyclopedic article or a "news column". All you're doing is revealing your bias and lowering your credibility. I don't care what you think of Bannon or Trump, but don't call them these things regardless of what you call this page. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll do agree that this column should try to be more neutral and not with a blatant POV. But, I don't make the page, and it's outside the mainspace, so I can't really do anything except leave this up as a suggestion. JudgeRM (talk to me) 04:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes. "Leftist". The cry of someone without a point to make. Truth be told, at this point in my life there about a hundred things I'd rather be doing than this report. So if I'm not allowed to tailor it to my own desires, then I have no reason to do it. Would you like to try it? I'm willing to bet the answer will be "no". How about, if I win that bet, you leave me alone? Serendipodous 12:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's one person's opinion, but there's no intention of trying to be objective... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This is indeed an opinion column on which the editors give their thoughts on why certain subjects gained a lot of interest in any given week. It's a weekly personal essay. I do appreciate the one change made, though: to call the website rather than Bannon himself racist and misogynistic. ~Mable (chat) 13:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI that came out of a discussion on Jimbo's Talk page. [1] --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing - that gives some more context to the situation :) ~Mable (chat) 20:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. The discussion continued there when Jimbo came in, made a suggestion, I modified it, and here's a link to the Talk section [2]. Not sure how either of the suggestions could be worked into the page here without the short description awkwardly bulging. Maybe just leave it as is since the page style is somewhat informal. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If this is the opinion of one editor, that is fine, but only as long as there is a statement or something at the top of the article that states that this article is not mainspace and not intended to be objective. Numerous viewers, including myself at first, thought that this was Wikipedia's voice endorsing a certain position. By not adding a template on top, it could seriously damage Wikipedia's reputation. Either the POV goes or we clarify why the POV exists. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that just before the report is a somewhat byline, "As prepared by Serendipodous ...", for example for the current report. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The byline could be moved to a more prominent position like this [3]. (BTW, pardon me, I thought I was at the sandbox.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
That could work. Maybe we should add a line to the effect of "these views are the opinions of the writer, not of Wikipedia". We have to make this clear. The fact that it wasn't is the reason why I brought this whole thing up in the first place. --1990'sguy (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
But we should make it clear that this is opinion, or else we will get another batch of talk page discussions. I didn't know that this is intended to be the opinion of one or two editors. This POV should either be taken away or a note should be added making it clear that this is opinion and not the editorial stance of Wikipedia. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Alanscottwalker, I noticed you had the last word there with, "The only suggestion I would make, for clarity is 'prepared with commentary by' in the header."[4]
Here's what it could look like [5]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
That is a great proposal. My only suggestion at this point is making the wording look more aesthetically pleasing, regardless of how specifically to do that. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't have any ideas for that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I made the edit [6]. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Great! What do you think of the template I made? Template:NPOVexception. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I would definitely oppose adding that template here. This is in the Wikipedia: namespace; opinion is 100% allowed. See the Signpost or any other number of pages in the same namespace—do you assume that they too are the "Wikipedia point of view"? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, opinion is allowed. However, many viewers don't know this. I didn't at first. Also, the POV on this page is exceptionally strong and, honestly, offensive. The opinion can stay, but if it is not removed, it could seriously damage Wikipedia's reputation, as many viewers would think that Wikipedia itself is taking an editorial stance. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The impression I get from the template is that the information on page is questionable opinion like a tabloid and not worth very much. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
@Bob K31416: How can the template be improved to address your concern? --1990'sguy (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a template would be an improvement here, and I'll speculate that the consensus would be against it. I think that the editors here are acting in good faith and that you have raised questions that they will keep in mind when writing commentary for future issues of this page. So I think your comments have been useful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Update re the byline edit. The byline was moved back by Ed to the original position and size but kept the added part "with commentary" [7]. I think it should be placed right after the heading since there is material before its present position that was by the author. Keeping the smaller font seems OK, but maybe we could compromise with a size in between the two? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Update: I moved the byline up without changing to the large font that was the reason given for reverting before. [8] --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The "About" section makes clear that the commentary is opinion; as indeed any commentary about article popularity is going to opinion to some extent. There's no reason to upend things because Bannon appeared on the list this week. We've been at this for four years and he won't be the last controversial person on the list. As for him, Seren could have simply written "a number of news sources have reported that Bannon is a 'racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic' person" or similar. Personally I don't think Bannon is anti-semitic; as for racism he plays it loose by admitting he's a "nationalist." Ultimately Bannon correctly predicted that exploiting anti-semites and racists for their votes was a key to Trump's winning the rust belt swing states.--Milowent • hasspoken 00:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's clear there is no consensus for adding a banner, I expect the editors in charge of this article will display prudence and restraint when writing commentary in the future, and hopefully the phrase at the top will clearly explain this page for viewers so another discussion like this can be avoided. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What exactly do I need to be prudent about? Are you making a threat? Serendipodous 08:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I didn't see any threat made. Seems like the editor is just ending his part of the discussion by conceding to consensus and it may be best to just leave it at that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Serendipodous 13:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Bob K31416 is correct. I am recognizing that consensus is against adding a banner, but I still kindly encourage you to be more mindful of what you write for the future for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings or discussions like this. That's all. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

New Report: A Holiday Week, and Some Oldies (Nov 20-26, 2016)

New report is up.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Debito Arudou

The thread that got the Debito Arudou article so high was this one - it got quite a lot of attention because Debito himself started arguing with people in the comments of the Reddit posts. Smurrayinchester 16:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

New report is up

Could things be getting boring again? Serendipodous 23:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

New report: India Rising (Dec 4-10, 2016)

Finally up. Sorry for the delay folks.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

New report: Two leaders and one war (Dec 11-17, 2016)

New report up. Happy holidays to all.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Deaths in current year

In the report covering election week, it said that this was the first time the article of the deaths for the given year (in this case 2016) had been absent from the Top 25. However, I noticed that the report for December 20 to 26, 2015 had no mention of the Deaths in 2015 article. Was this a typo or inaccurate information? Aladdin Stardust (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

There's actually several others. February 3 to 9, 2013, February 10 to 16, 2013, February 1 to 7, 2015 (which incidentally also incorrectly displayed as the first time it wasn't on the charts), and February 15 to 21, 2015 were the ones I found. That makes five times it was pushed off the charts before the election-week report. Aladdin Stardust (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and this is based on the raw data, so I'm not sure if the difference was factored in here, but it was also stated in the version for November 13-19 that the Deaths in (insert name here) article had been pushed to #34, the lowest it had ever been. While the first part of this is true, based on raw data, on the week of February 10 to 16, 2013 the Deaths in 2013 article was pushed all the way to #43 on the list, which seems to be 9 spots lower than #34 which was the stated low, for November 6-12. A lad insane 17:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
This thing is pushed out of the Top 25 for the first time ever quite often. ~Mable (chat) 08:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
ha. Well i shall have to include an apology for my hyperbole in the next report and post a correction. Thanks for that review, it is very helpful to us.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
The next report is up, but I don't see anything about this anywhere. I checked the bottom, the lead, and in the description box for Deaths in 2016. Did I miss it? A lad insane (Channel 2) 00:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I've posted a correction in the original report. The next time this issue arises it will appropriate to note my prior irrational exuberance in that report.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Found it. A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 full year traffic report

Up at User:West.andrew.g/2016_Popular_pages. Note the WP:Signpost intends to do something with this, so our report writers should probably coordinate with them. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

New report up

Have at it. Serendipodous 01:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Desperate need for an update

The last report was December 25 to 31. There hasn't been any reports on January 1 to January 7. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 00:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes it's delayed for a while, but I agree, this is a little long. Maybe something happened to delay their collaboration? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 05:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It is up now folks, the delay is all my fault. Partly this is due to the fact that one of my primary computers now uses a proxy that appears to be blocked most of the time, limiting my ability to secret time away from other activities to indulge my love of wikipedia views analysis. Also I've been rather busy. If anyone is interested in taking a swing at doing the report one week, let us know! (cc: Yoshiman6464 and -A lad insane).--Milowent • hasspoken 14:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Yay, it's here. It's somewhat funny seeing Bokito listed, as he is still somewhat of a celebrity in the Netherlands, though perhaps not at the level of Harambe in the US :p Doing the report actually sounds really compelling to me, though I would have no idea how to go about it. ~Mable (chat) 11:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I may wish to attempt one but am not sure if this week has already been scheduled... I will try if no one else is doing one for this week, perhaps. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 19:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC) EDIT: Never mind, there is absolutely NO chance that I will have enough time to do this this week. I shall return upon the conclusion of semester. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 01:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

New report is up

Have at it. Serendipodous 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I need an apprentice

Real world commitments are eating into my Wiki time, which means I need to take a step back from Wikipedia, which means the Top 25 report. If anyone else is interested in taking up the reins, let me know, and I can instruct them on what I've learned over the last four years.Serendipodous 03:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: First off, thanks Serendipodous for your work; your contributions do not go unrecognized. While I'd still love to see someone to step forward and volunteer for help with the report, whatever form your knowledge dump takes, I hope it can be posted publicly here to benefit all potential report authors, current and future. West.andrew.g (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
As I suggested above, after Milowent suggested that they may need someone to step in for them, I would love to take a swing at doing the report sometime. I wouldn't even know where to start, though. ~Mable (chat) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: I would like to thank you for your wonderful work, I've only been visiting the top 25 report for about a year, but I visit it weekly and greatly enjoy your work. Ralphw (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :) Serendipodous 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a rough draft; may be expanded as thoughts occur:

Rule 1: Check the mobile percentages. The mobile viewing percentages are without question the best tool in our box. You can divide this project into the time before we had them and the time after, since they completely revolutionised the process. As a general rule, if a page has 5% or fewer mobile views, or 95% or more mobile views, then it can be excluded summarily. Most "normal" pages have between 50 and 75% mobile views; if a page has between 17 and 30%, that's a good sign that it is a Reddit thread.

Rule 2: Check the news. Most sudden appearances of swarms of related topics can be traced to a single news event. Be prepared to do your research; you will have to know the story inside out to cover every entry.

Rule 3: Watch the viewing patterns. The pageviews page is your friend. Just remember to click "begin at zero". Different types of topic have different viewing patterns. Reddit threads and Google Doodles have one or two day spikes followed by rapid returns to normal. News stories have sustained rises and shallow falls centered around the Main Event. If a page has a strangely flat viewing pattern, with seemingly the exact number of viewers every day, it's probably fake.

Rule 4: the type of article can usually give away its origin. If it's an article on a strangely offbeat topic with seemingly no global relevance, like Hawaiian pizza or Bill Werbeniuk, then it's probably a Reddit thread. If it's an article on a personage of historical, academic or artistic import of whom you may or may not have heard, like Maria Mitchell or Carrie Derick, then it's probably a Google Doodle. If it's a current celebrity, then check the news.

Rule 5: The hardest topics to locate aren't usually the most obscure ones. Those can usually be found with some precision Googling. (sidenote: this job requires at least a red belt in Google fu. Learn that virtual monstrosity's weak points and tame it before you start) The hardest ones to locate are those that hide in plain sight- celebrities for instance may be on the list for any number of reasons. If you're not sure, check the viewing patterns over the dates covered by the list (DON'T just click "last week" unless you're starting this as soon as the data come in), locate the point at which views were highest, then narrow your search to the days immediately before and after. Remember that views occur AFTER the event they're following, so pay very close attention to the days before the spike.

Rule 6: Reddit is not your friend. I can give you my Reddit gate, and the standard advice: to search for a Wikipedia entry on Reddit, type "url:" and then paste the article's web address after it without a space. That USUALLY works. On the occasions when it doesn't, follow rule 5, and if that doesn't work, flat out tell Google to search Reddit. Don't lose hope; if it looks and acts like a Reddit thread, it almost certainly is one, whatever Reddit thinks.

Rule 7: Like India? Hope so. Because you're going to have to get familiar with that culture in ways you never imagined when you went to buy incense and sitar music at your local new age store. You'll need to remember that different Indians speak different languages (Hindi, Tamil and Marathi are the most important) a rough understanding of modern Indian history and the importance of cricket, and a blagger's knowledge of all things Bollywood (such as the difference between an "Indian film" and a "Bollywood film", the meaning of the word "crore"; who is marrying whom; innumerable actors named "Khan"). Sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia and India is the world's second largest English-speaking population. Welcome to the new world.

Rule 8: boxofficemojo, metacritic and rottentomatoes are your best resources for the buzz surrounding films, TV and video games, which usually show up because they're newly released (occasionally not, so keep an eye out).

Rule 9: If the article is on a person, check his or her birth and death dates.If s/he's dead, and it's his or her birthday, then it's a Google Doodle. If the celeb is alive and it's his or her birthday, or if the celebrity died in the last week, then you have your answer.

And finally, Rule 10: Don't be afraid to admit defeat. Very occasionally you will not be able to locate the reason for an article being on the list. When that happens, just say so and move on.

Oh, and one more thing: it's not a rule, and you don't have to follow it, but try to inject as much of your own personality into the list as you can; this is, at its core, a fairly boring bit of info, and sparkling it up will engage readers' interest. You're not in the mainspace so opinions can be expressed.

Serendipodous 00:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Mable, I wholeheartedly endorse you giving it a shot next week! The new WP:5000 is usually sometime on Sunday UTC time for the prior week. Seren gives great substantive advice above. On a simple logistics level, I just cut and paste the most recent report into my sandbox, and start from there when I create a new report. Usually 5-10 entries are repeats in any given week, or if popular previously can be found by searching for "Top 25 Report" and "(article title)" under the Everything tab. I can help walk you thru any questions on your first try in terms of how to put it together. Also, speaking of apprentices, I can already predict Donald Trump will already be #1 once again.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Oh my, next week already? This is exciting. I'm glad that I have been following the report for a while now, so I have a decent grasp of the kinds of articles that pop up. My Google-fu is alright and I've just successfully used Reddit, so that's a good sign :p My knowledge of India is at least alright (though I'm sure I'll be doing a lot of research on Bollywood in the near future, because I know none of these people), and I'm more worried about my knowledge in crime history, as I wouldn't know one murderer from the other. I'm fairly young, by the way, being only 22 years old. I'm sure that just means we'll have a fresh perspective on things ^_^ I'll start playing around with a userspace draft right away, and I should have plenty of free time on Sunday and Monday. In what timeframe should a new report optimally be published? ~Mable (chat) 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Mable, optimally the new report gets put up on Monday (or Tuesday at the latest - my track record of late is not as good, as we do need help!). Don't worry about your age, topics come up all the time I've never heard of, and having a different perspective due to age will be great.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'll be sure to be on time! I've started a draft in my userspace to edit once the information is available. I'm quite excited, as I imagine next week is going to be fun. There has been plenty of news lately~ ~Mable (chat) 18:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Mable! I'm sure you will prove a far less cynical voice than mine. It's quite a task to undertake, so remember to pace yourself. All best wishes and hope all goes well! :-) Serendipodous 01:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm working hard on the draft and I expect to finish it today, but this is a lot more work than I initially expected. I quite respect you guys for doing this every week. I already see ways in which I can speed this up, but I have no idea if I would have time to do this every few weeks. We'll see how it turns out. I am really enjoying speaking my thoughts on everything :3 ~Mable (chat) 13:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool it now: new report up (Jan 22-28, 2017)

have at it.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to ask – Do you really want a picture of that former Iraqi Minister up instead of Sean Spicer? Or is that just an "alternative picture"? Debouch (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Image aside, nice job Milowent! ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 19:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • LOL, you guys are way too quick. He was the most popular article in April 2003 though. Well, if you think it too edgy, I'm not going to stop someone from changing it. A gif that morphs between the two would be fun - the comparison has been made in the press[9][10].--Milowent • hasspoken 20:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I find it rather unsettling that I don't want to remove it. Debouch (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Report in Another Language

Please how can I generate this report in another language than English Wikipedia --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Maplestrip's first report is up (2017-01-22)

It was a lot of work, but it is finally up. I can understand why you guys want to get an apprentice. I don't know if I can do this again, honestly, as doing it considerably faster than this would force me to cut corners. I am fairly happy with the results, though. What do you all think? ~Mable (chat) 15:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's OK if you don't want to keep going, Maple. I perfectly understand. I've been doing this for years and it never gets any easier. But I think you've made a pretty good first impression, so if you were to keep going, that would be fine. :-) Serendipodous 01:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Maplestrip: Nice work Mable! It's a very difficult job and difficult to do well. I've long admired @Serendipodous and @Milowent's work. As was stated earlier, it's basically boring information and adding personality and drama to it requires prodigious writing skill and just enough discretion. Keep up the good work all!  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad my first stab at it is well-received. I wouldn't mind doing it again sometime, but doing this regularly just doesn't seem like something I want to do. ~Mable (chat) 10:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Maple, you did a great job! And you got it up ON SUNDAY! The first one is no doubt the hardest one to do, it will be easier if you are able to do it again. Seren, I will plan to take the next report as this would have been my week.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Maplestrip, Milowent, and Serendipodous: I loved reading Maplestrip's first report too, but now I'm doubly frustrated not seeing the next report emerge, and it's Thursday already. Do you guys need a hand? — JFG talk 20:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The new report is now up. My schedule has been very difficult to coordinate with wikipedia lately. But for this report I probably would be a "semi-retired" or "retired" editor at the moment. I really like doing the report once I'm able to do it, but I know my lack of timeliness is really unhelpful.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks indeed! — JFG talk 18:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

That's the thing. This report's become something of an albatross for both of us. But if it is to become a regular feature of Wikipedia, obviously we two cannot do it for the rest of our lives. So I ask, is anyone else prepared to take up the torch and run? Serendipodous 18:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe advertising our need in a broader forum? West.andrew.g (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to try for this week. — JFG talk 10:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Though be prepared, there are some pretty heavy topics this week. :( Serendipodous 11:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This should be fun… Thankfully, it's just before the SuperBowl, a topic about which I would be totally incompetent, even to make fun of it! — JFG talk 17:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. Working on it. New Edition barely edged out Queen Elizabeth II for the 25th spot… — JFG talk 08:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I've added some blurbs to the current live version of the report. I've always wanted to contribute and I think my blurbs are witty, if a bit political here and there. Please consider using them. :)--Coin945 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
@Coin945 and 1233: Thanks for your contributions, however the general practice is to prepare the report in private and release it when it's finished. I will revert the public version to last week's report until my draft is ready; I volunteered for this week and wasn't aware that you wanted to do it too. I would suggest that you pick up the work for next week. — JFG talk 08:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah apologies. I saw a half finished live report and decided to help finish it. Little did I know the real report was still being worked on by you! I would never attempt a whole report, but I would contribute ideas blurb idea as. As I said above, I hope you can incorporate some of my blurbs into the finished product.--Coin945 (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

New report: Are you tired of winning yet?

Took me all day and I'm glad it's done. Enjoy! Thanks to Coin945 for his quip about death and taxes! — JFG talk 18:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Takes a lot out of you, doesn't it? :) And people wonder why I can't just stick to the facts. If I did that, I would have taken a drill to my eye years ago. Serendipodous 19:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It's good fun, though. Hope you like my brand of sarcasm… — JFG talk 20:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It was very nice. It felt very fresh. Some jokes felt a bit out there to me, but that's fine :p ~Mable (chat) 21:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I thoroughly enjoyed this report; it may get a little blowback because of the Trump jokes (which may get toned down for the Signpost version), but it was insightful and witty regarding many of the entries.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, glad you liked it! We'll see what the Signpost editors say… I don't think I was disrespectful to anybody; a year of editing in political topics has taught me the fine lines between WP:BLP and WP:NOTCENSORED, and I've done my best to apply light-hearted banter equally across the political spectrum, but let's see… — JFG talk 13:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
For comparison, my report ("Clothes of the First ladies") has seen a bit of criticism. As long as it isn't 'worse' than that, you should be fine ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 14:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, now that I read it again, Bobby Brown could complain! On the other hand, a {{BLP sources}} notice has been standing on his page since 2012, and nobody seems to care… — JFG talk 15:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Maplestrip. I'd be fine trying the 4-week rotation. — JFG talk 19:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Styling

In last week's report, "Are you tired of winning yet?" I had tweaked a few things in the markup and styling. I see that Maplestrip chose to use the unchanged style of previous reports. Can we discuss preferences? In particular, I made the pictures the same width, which I think gives a more steady and professional look to the page; what do my fellow editors think? — JFG talk 18:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry - I simply used the same empty draft as I used last time, not realizing changes to it had been made. Looking at the older version, I see nothing I dislike. ~Mable (chat) 18:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I took the liberty to apply the new look and markup corrections. Let me know if there are any objections. — JFG talk 21:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Aligning the picture width looks good -- this is simply something I never considered before (or even knew how to do), glad to have people with formatting skills around. Even when I made the banner for the top of the page, I have no idea how I did it, I just pillaged Signpost stuff until it worked.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

New report up: "Football and Politics Do Not Mix"

I suppose it only takes a few hours of continuous work. I really had trouble thinking up what to write for some of these. I'm not exactly interested much in the Super Bowl XD I hope you all like it. ~Mable (chat) 16:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You're a talented writer, thanks. (By the way maybe you mean 'citizen' instead of 'civilian'?) Gap9551 (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Pretty nice read, thanks! Careful with the stats: #5 and #6 have the same number of views, surely a typo? — JFG talk 18:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the catches; fixed both. You both flatter me ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 18:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that. Will add that information right away. ~Mable (chat) 14:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

So XXX is back, huh?

It chose a heck of a time to rear its head again. I don't know if Milowent and I ever really came to a conclusion as to whether it was fake or if we just removed it out of spite. My intuition says it is, even if I have no evidence for it. Serendipodous 18:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like the disambiguation page has ever had this amount of views before? [12] Was I wrong in assuming it gained popularity due to the film series? I thought it was odd, but didn't think much of it... ~Mable (chat) 18:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Wrong? No. It fits all the criteria for inclusion. It's one of those things that's really up to the editor's discretion. Serendipodous 19:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Looks fake to me: if you check the stats, you will see that it receives practically no visits from mobile apps. Its mobile traffic comes only from mobile browsers. Better exclude it next time. — JFG talk 20:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You don't want to look at mobile apps, mobile web is really where most mobile views come from, I have found, and that tracks a similar rise as the desktop views (though mobile is 80% chunk overall). The gradual rise in the last week is usually an indicator of legitimate traffic - but I am still skeptical. We can keep an eye on it, might as well leave it on the current report.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Compare with a legit article which saw a few spikes in views, such as Beyoncé: she has a lot more desktop views, her mobile app views spike in sync with the desktop views whereas XXX has almost none, and the mobile browser views are dominated by XXX while Beyoncé displays proportionally the same spikes as on other platforms. Yes, most views on mobiles come from browsers but an article with practically no views through mobile apps is an indicator of dubiousness. — JFG talk 16:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
FWIW I'm fine with keeping XXX on the current report; we should just exclude it again in the future. — JFG talk 16:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Who is up?

Not sure if we have a set rotation yet to know who would be up next? Looking at the new 5000[13] I would exclude XXX lest it be #1 [and XXXX too! (Raw #22)). Continue to exclude XHamster and Darth Vader and Earth as we've been doing. Would also exclude Alexander Hamilton (92.26% mobile) most of these views were all-mobile on Feb 16. --Milowent • hasspoken 13:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

For my part, I'm not available this week. — JFG talk 23:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I suppose it is my turn. But I'm not really in a position to keep doing this for much longer. Serendipodous 14:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Top_25_Report/Archive_5&oldid=1140107803"