Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Preliminary Work on Annual Report

As discussed extensively above, there is significant appetite for the compilation of an annual report, comprising the 50 most view articles of the year on the encyclopedia. It has been decided that this effort will be collaborative, and that the tone will be neutral and informative. I feel that, given the work involved and the consensus decision to split the burden of that self-same work, we should conduct a straw poll to see who wants to contribute. Thus, here we go. Drop your name here via the addition of three tildes (~) if you wish to work on the annual report. Pinging the usual suspects, and past authors, to set the ball rolling. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Annual Report contributors:

Discussion and Planning @Serendipodous: - good question. Depends on how elaborate we want to go. We could leave it out altogether, or just get someone to write it. Or, it we want to really go for it, we could adopt a "round table" model, where all the contributors discuss the year in the context of the report, and elaborate on things which intrigued them. The latter is harder to pull off, but could be effective. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm a bit miffed at the tone will be neutral and informative. Here's hoping we can still get some banter into the text… Would be out of character to suddenly turn 100% serious just because this is a yearly compilation. — JFG talk 23:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: - that idea was an adaptation of User:West.andrew.g's, which states that, as the annual report has the potential to be widely seen outside of en.wiki, it would be a good idea to strike a more neutral tone. I am not completely sold on this, though I feel that we should strike a net neutral tone. Every contributor will come at the idea from a different angle and incorporate different elements of humour and biases. I, for instance, will not suddenly decide to go easy on the Don. I also feel that, if we consider the round table model which I suggested in lieu of an introductory commentary, we would all be able to get in a word and, as you say, banter. I do not think that it will be necessary for any of us to tone down to a significant degree - collaboration will organically take care of it. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Agree, thx. Roundtable format sounds good too. — JFG talk 09:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is a communal sandbox to work in on this project. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have, via colour-coding, assigned everyone articles upon which to commentate in the aforementioned template. This number is not fixed however, and if anyone wishes to do less, that is not problematic. I, for one, would be willing to do as many as necessary, so if my random delegation is not suitable, say so and I will re-assign. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not up for any writing. Please take me out of the rotation. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Whoops. My bad. Will address. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry if I've messed anyone up, but I'm not what one would call an informed audience on films and mine seemed to be mostly films. I've switched those out for some I can make more coherent and/or educated commentary on. If anyone else is unhappy with this, feel free to switch it back or whatever. A lad insane talk 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Completed commentary for my parts. @OZOO:, I have given you a colour on the template - simply pick which one you wish to do, and alter the background to match your colour. Thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Did it for you, OZOO. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I think someone must have changed the colours around while I was editing. Either that or I'm blind. Anyway, do you want me to delete the inappropriate ones? Serendipodous 23:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I'll post what I wrote in my sandbox in case Soulbust or anyone else wants to use it for research. Serendipodous 00:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

When completed, we have already expressed an interest in sending the list to media outlets. What about placing it on the main page for Dec. 31/Jan. 1. It may be unorthodox, but the list will be of interest to many. Maybe an unorthodox listing in DYK (we don't normally link to WP-space there, but exceptions can be made) could be made, along the lines of:
"Did you know that in 2017, the most read Wikipedia article was Deaths in 2017?"
Stormy clouds (talk) 08:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Just out of curiosity, how is the preliminary list being produced? I am aware of the monthly aggregates, are those being joined in some way? West.andrew.g (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@West.andrew.g: Well, in the first tab of the Pageviews tool one of the timeframes is "this year". So I chose that, and put up to 10 pages at a time - first, the obvious stuff (i.e. the pages that either topped or stayed a long time in the report). Then, I went through the monthly aggregates to see what else had the potential for at least 9-10 million views. (and it's no surprise that the death list tops it - not only it will be the only page in all of the reports we'll make this year, but people seemingly had to see who was leaving our world in 2017 after a year where the deaths included David Bowie, Prince, Muhammad Ali and Carrie Fisher) igordebraga ≠ 20:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I think "Maybe an unorthodox listing in DYK" is a great idea. I'd support that.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Peak dates

I just added the peak dates to all entries, with brief explanations of the triggering event, when I could find one. Some entries have a steady view stream and there is no obvious event related to the peak. Please help in places where I missed something. Note that the Millennials entry appears to be a fake peak,[1][2] which was ignored in the corresponding weekly report. If we exclude that week, the article probably won't make the year's Top 50; that's a shame because the writeup by Stormy clouds was quite funny! — JFG talk 14:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @JFG: - no problem with the millenials though, as I took the data set from Igordebraga (thanks again), which excluded the fake peak and still had it making the list. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Where did you get the peak info from? I ask because I wan't to try and figure out why Youtube peaked when it did. Serendipodous 17:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: - Here. If I had to guess, it is due to the Adpocalypse, as the backlash seems to have taken off in full force around then.Stormy clouds (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


Progress Report

The report is shaping up nicely, though there is still a bit to do. Just asking if we have plans vis-á-vis a round table discussion, as mooted above, when the list is complete. Alternately, if anyone wants to comment on the commentary, here would be a good spot to do so. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Soulbust: Sorry if I took Logan from you (after all, Stormy clouds said that I kinda have a priority due to all the data I've gathered...). Plenty of funny write-ups already, Stormy and Serendipodous are bringing their A game (I might not agree with the assessment on Dunkirk, but by God, that Ed Sheeran entry just got better with each line) igordebraga ≠ 01:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

S'all good! I've been a lot busier on the first few days of my winter break from school anyway, so it's actually better that it worked out that way. Soulbust (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I would've liked to see Chris Cornell get enough views to get #50 instead of Fate of the Furious. But in the meantime, Star Wars is on the rise - either @OZOO: or @Serendipodous:, who have less reports (5 - well, Soulbust has the same amount, but he already wrote about The Last Jedi), can take i. And I won't blame if you go with Stormy clouds' idea ("You know what this is and why it is here, so here is an entry for Chris Cornell, who it replaced. Gotta restore balance by subsuming him into the Force.") igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

If adopting the idea, whether or not you want to then run with the existing entry is to the author's discretion. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I wrote it without noticing this. Switching to the idea about Chris Cornell, but in your color because it was your idea and you had Chris Cornell's entry. A lad insane talk 02:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Colors

Is there a different way to differentiate between who wrote what commentary? I'm fine with how it is now for the purpose of editing, but with this many people it might be difficult to make the finished product accessible for people with color-blindness. I have normal color vision, but if this is likely to be covered in the media, it might attract criticism if it's hard to read. A lad insane talk 18:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand the concerns, but am not aware of a silver bullet to address this problem. Colour-coding is somewhat uniform on Wikipedia, even in mainspace articles. We did not do the commentary in chronological order, so we cannot group under commentator without ruining the running order of the list. We could replace the class tab with a "commentator" tab, though I do not know how that would impact the general style of the list. Signing off every entry would be gaudy. Using a different key (i.e. asterisks, crosses, etc) would be so subtle as to be redundant. I don't know if anyone else has a more novel solution, but I am stumped. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost once used small letters to distinguish who wrote what. See them in action here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I think the small letters are a good look. I remember articles in the past for something being color coded by type of article (entertainment, politics, sport, etc. maybe). Anybody got a link to that, or past end-of-year lists?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I get that the colors are fairly widely used, but usually there's only two or three; here it's seven and it's more about finding enough easily differentiated shades that aren't issues with readability. A lad insane talk 04:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Or, could use a selection like #FF9DC4, #FF6B42, #FFEC00, #8EE300, #8EE3FF, #C79AFF, and #DEDEDE. They're a bit lighter than what we have now. A lad insane talk 05:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that individual authors should be identified by their initials at the end of each entry, or even by their usual signature. Two suggestions about colors to make things more readable and informative:

Regarding my contributions, I'll be working on them offline and will publish them a couple days after Christmas. — JFG talk 07:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The only problem with the initials is that, of our seven contributors, three begin with "S" - how will we differentiate them to a sufficient degree? Signature might therefore be more apt, given the circumstances. I like the second idea regarding the colours. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
How would people feel about full usernames at the end of each entry in the form (commentary by SchreiberBike) or something like that?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Could work. An alternative is two letters for the "S" users (SC, SB and either SD or SP). igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


Endgame Plans

Just a general inquiry; when should we have the annual report finished by, and where will it go when completed? Stormy clouds (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well the numbers won't be ready until a couple of hours after the "UTC New Year" on my side. I don't know how quick the WMF source that igordebraga has been using pulls in their data. In any case, the report won't be "final" until then. That said, there might be value in front-running these types of "year end" articles in the media by publishing early and just updating the numbers ex post facto. I'll leave this up for debate. I am rushing to get the full 5000 complete, and I think it would be nice to wait on its backing if possible -- but I'm having some minor difficulties at the moment.
As to where it should go? I would encourage us to fill the "tip/lead" inboxes of any media outlet that has one and post independently to social media: Wired, SlashDot, WashPo, NYTimes, Gizmodo, The Atlantic, Business Insider, Reddit, Digg, et al. We could write up a quick "hook" that we send along with the URLs. Some of these are long shots, but the process is super painless, and the payoff can be big. The full 5000 hit SlashDot last year, and while I submitted it, you can see their editorializing got some things wrong (XHamster spam) and gave my identity a bit more free press than I ever would have. We should also work things internally for both the Signpost or front-page placement. West.andrew.g (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I've sent an email to press@wikimedia.org, the contact address at the WMF press room letting them know what we are working on.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I just wrote elsewhere "The report will include a link to the raw data, the basis for the report we are working on, but that's not nearly as much fun." Did I lie?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
No. The completed list will incorporate the data compiled by West.andrew.g to supplement the list with commentary. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The best would be all write-ups ready by Dec. 30 or 31 (specially as Andrew's data comes up on Jan. 1 to ultimately finish the page), and maybe a short intro if we want to get all fancy. Come on, let's do it while there's still one week left of the year. igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, I've been off-wiki for a while but will send in my contributions within the next few hours. Thanks! — JFG talk 20:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Most Popular Article on Each Day

I have produced data for the MOST POPULAR ARTICLE ON EACH DAY, which is a manual culling from the TOP-5 MOST POPULAR ARTICLES ON EACH DAY per our typical exclusion rules. To start, the broader query doesn't even return articles whose mobile totals are <10%. Some articles with suspiciously high mobile totals did appear (e.g., XHamster) and I removed them in the manual effort. I'm up for suggestions on what we do with it. A lot of Google Doodle's and Reddit TIL's percolate to the top in this view.

A little less fun for me, seeing these results begs two one no questions (both now resolved per below) of the underlying data:

  1. What the heck happened on day 304 such that I don't have any data? This should have thrown errors like crazy when it occurred over a month ago. Did the WMF botch the file or did I screw things up on my side? Investigating.
  2. Why doesn't the "Main_page" article appear for every day? This happens first on day 261 and occurs about 20 times subsequently. Sometimes the "Main_page" article receives less than 10% mobile views. Makes sense, I suppose, but still a ratio that surprised me. Its interesting it goes below the 10% threshold for the first time on day 261, and then it happens 20 more days before year's end; certainly a strong indicator of the growing market share of mobile browsig.

Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 14:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Given the contribution that TIL played in creating the popularity for many of these entries, I would imagine that the subreddit would relish this list, and discuss/congratulate ad nauseum. Linking to it in the annual report would also be a good idea in my view, particularly if we move it to a tabular format for easier parsing. We could also take a note from the music industry and incorporate a column in the annual report along the lines of "Days spent at #1". Good work, User:West.andrew.g. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The missing data must be the season of the witch... after all, Day 304 is October 31st (and according to the WMF, the most searched article is not surprising, specially as the leadership carried over to the next day) igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the data for OCT-31 in the database. Seems that the WMF published the data nearly a day later than usual and my process just moved onto November and never looked back. This does mean the top 25/5k for that week used flawed numbers. I will re-generate that report for posterity should anyone want to update it. West.andrew.g (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Report regenerated. We have the repaired top-5k for week ending NOV-04-2017 and would compare it against the old top-5k for week ending NOV-04-2017. The top-25 report in question is here. West.andrew.g (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Dammit, had to make a few changes (most importantly, Kevin Spacey takes the lead from Stranger Things, and two new entries: yet another Stranger Things actor, and someone involved with Trump and Russia). Wonder if OZOO will revise the following week's list as well. But maybe I'll take a good look at those daily #1s too. igordebraga ≠ 00:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates. I've updated the MOST POPULAR ARTICLE ON EACH DAY and TOP-5 MOST POPULAR ARTICLES ON EACH DAY lists from above with the OCT-31 data. Anyone want to take a stab at Wiki-fying this? Are there any other reports that folks would be interested in? My yearly processing is on track and I will output a preliminary report later today. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I started something in my sandbox. Already split them into days\months, fixed the accents, but still need to wikify all articles. igordebraga ≠ 22:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Four months still need a table, but it's mostly done (and @West.andrew.g:, when does the data from 24-30 come in for the year's last report?) igordebraga ≠ 03:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
I am going to start a new thread below, but the final year updates should come a couple hours after the UTC new year. West.andrew.g (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)


Finished the list here: Wikipedia:Top 50 Report/2017 daily. Any help to add more text or some reformatting is welcome, and maybe @SchreiberBike: can do a r/TIL topic to tell those guys (something "TIL that in 2017, the most viewed Wikipedia article of the day was 64 times something posted in r/TodayILearned")igordebraga ≠ 19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It's beautiful, in a way only a data scientist could appreciate. West.andrew.g (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It can't be posted to TIL because the forum rules say that news must be at least two months old. (See Posting rules on the far right.) I've messaged the moderators asking if they think it would be ok anyway. I got little to no traction with the two tries I made for the Top 50 Report; one in r/wikipedia and the other in r/inthenews. Anybody else active on Reddit with another idea?  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Seeing no volunteers, and having gotten a rejection from a TIL mod, how about r/wikipedia with one of these headlines:
  • "Last year something linked from Reddit was the most viewed Wikipedia article of the day 64 times."
  • "Last year the most viewed article of the day on Wikipedia was linked from Reddit 64 times."
  • "Reddit rules Wikipedia! See how often the most viewed article of the day came from r/todayilearned."
  • "In 2017, the most viewed Wikipedia article of the day came from r/todayilearned 64 times."
I'm not feeling inspired, somebody do better.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Very informative content, beautifully presented. Thanks Igordebraga! We could make the hook a little more catchy with "Reddit rules Wikipedia (64 days a year)." — JFG talk 02:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

2017 top-5000 preview ready; lacking final couple days of data

@Stormy clouds:@Serendipodous:@Igordebraga:@JFG:@Soulbust:@A lad insane:@OZOO: A preliminary version of the 2017 top-5000 has been published HERE, while still awaiting a few more day's data. A quick check against igordebraga's initial numbers show subtle re-orderings (gonna mess up those internal numbering references), but nothing dramatic, and probably a few articles in need of deeper investigation of how they got high in the list without alarming mobile view percentages. West.andrew.g (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. Darth Vader's rise to #2 looks unrealistic; based on the usual fake stats that ran all year, I would exclude his entry entirely. Opinions? — JFG talk 00:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
From that data set, I feel that we can safely disregard Vader (no way that is legit), all of the usual exclusions, such as XHamster and XXX, and Earth. Further down, AMGTV reeks of suspicion given the obscurity of the subject matter and the periodic spikes, while Elon Musk and Princess Margaret have to come in. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Darwin is too suspicious to be let in in my view, while McGregor and Mayweather look like they may need to go as well. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Also, Queen Victoria and Elon Musk are missing from our pre-empted Top 50, but their traffic looks legit.[3] I'll volunteer to write a blurb for Rocket Man, and will let a royal commentator address Her Majesty with an appropriate level of etiquette. Depending on final counts, we might need to include Princess Margaret as well. — JFG talk 01:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
People, remember the last column is the mobile views written as 0.xx instead xx% - for instance, Deaths in 2016 is 36% (0.36). Darth Vader is a measly 3%, meaning it's some Dark Side stuff. Better ignore any entry that it's 0.0x or 0.9x. Out of curiosity, checked and AMGTV is as constant as Darth Vader and Darwin has a suspicious peak. And after checking out the preliminary list, Queen Victoria (after Gal Gadot), Elon Musk (after Get Out) and Princess Margaret (after Hitler) are in, while three drop due to somehow having more views on the WMF tool - Blue Whale (1 million), Conor MacGregor (2 million), and Floyd Maywheater (3 million!) - and Chris Cornell is still #51. Will update the preliminary draft. igordebraga ≠ 01:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
The Darwin peak of 8+ million views on June 21 alone sported a 99.78% mobile rate,[4] and was swiftly ignored in the relevant week's report. Sorry Charles, you were survived by the fittest. — JFG talk 01:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@West.andrew.g: I've seen you already discarded the fake peak for Millennials in that daily top 5, but does this preliminary yearly list also does so? (and which day does your data end? only asking because I know things will change a bit given Bitcoin, the Royal Family and Star Wars are getting lots of views) igordebraga ≠ 02:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: I've discarded nothing here. I think the last data included was Dec. 25. West.andrew.g (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@West.andrew.g: Then, see how many views Millennials has on your data for January 30 and 31. If it's a huge number with very low mobile views, we'll know they need to be subtracted from that preliminary ranking. igordebraga ≠ 04:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: Minor confusion here I think. I didn't exclude anything from the "daily top-5" in a manual way. If something is missing from that list, that the WMF is reporting a huge view count for, its because its mobile percentage was < 10% (this was a query constraint). Broadly, I'd venture our totals are similar to what the WMF reports. If you need an exact number, let me know. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, your numbers and WMF's for the week with the peak are about the same, so I'll remove the same amount as before. Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 17:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: @OZOO: if either one of you would like Margaret, go ahead. I'm American and don't really know enough about the royal family to do it justice. A lad insane talk 04:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about her either. Not a fan of the royals. But I gave it a shot. Serendipodous 10:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Towards finalized year-end totals

User:West.andrew.g/2017_Popular_pages -- Still 8 days missing from this. I will finalize a couple hours after the UTC new year and also revise the "most viewed article each day" aggregates. This will be the definitive thread for those updates. From there we can finalize the top-25 report and get the promotion machine running. West.andrew.g (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

How do we get the promotion machine running, and what exactly does that entail? Deferring to your expertise on this one, as I have not got a clue how to go about it. Will propose a DYK hook though once it is moved to WP space. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Have set aside WP:2017 and Wikipedia:Annual Top 50 Report for publishing and redirecting to report once completed. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
If anyone is on Reddit, feel free to put it up here, or in TIL, when it is published. Might gain some traction there. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Finalized versions at User:West.andrew.g/2017_Popular_pages and the most popular article each day. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, User:West.andrew.g/2017_Popular_pages_cleaned, is a version of the list with <10% and >90% mobile exclusions. West.andrew.g (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Thanks for your fix here. That was my fault. I updated the figures without knowing some of the background. I'm glad it only moved it down the list and not off.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Been attempting to do the daily list here, splitting per subject - specially to highlight Reddit boosts. ANyone willing to help? igordebraga ≠ 01:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Report is published

I have moved the article into WP space - here it is. I have also nominated it for inclusion at DYK.

Now how do we proceed? Stormy clouds (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I received an acknowledgement from a wikimedia.org email address about the report, but it was just thanking me for letting them know about it. I don't know what they'll do with it. I've posted it on Reddit under Wikipedia and InTheNews. Since it's new information, it can't go on TIL.
Since the title of the page is Wikipedia:Annual Top 50 Report, do we have links to past annual reports we could add? It could go at the bottom or before the discussion.
I've also done some things for copyright purposes (I don't know if it is adequate) and added some questions to the talk page.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

2016's, done by me and A lad insane (aside from last year, the Signpost used to write about the previous year's top pages too). And I don't know why, all the reasons the DYK people gave for rejecting our page seem oddly hilarious. igordebraga ≠ 17:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I've published a version of the list over on the Wikimedia Blog, like I have in the past. I linked to y'all several times. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ed, and thanks, Wikimedia! - Stormy clouds (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Had to make sure you all got credit. :-) Cheers! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
As did Mashable, and these guys who cited Mashable. - Stormy clouds (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, an email/submission blitz is exactly how it should be done, and I am happy to see we are getting results!! Care to mention here all the places you tried so we can fill in any gaps while not looking like we are spamming in the process? Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
More than 900 views yesterday to the annual report, per the pageviews tool. Great work. West.andrew.g (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Consider also we can pitch to a variety of outlets by telling them how the list might be of interest to their demographic. General internet publications might be interested in the list as a whole. British publications (BBC, Sun, Daily Mail) might like all the Crown connections and Meghan Markle. More liberal leaning publications might like to hear that Donald Trump's views fell 41M YoY. Conservative publications might like to hear that Donald Trump is still in second place. Publications that follow streaming media might like to hear... etc. etc. etc. West.andrew.g (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@West.andrew.g: - VentureBeat, Heavy, Financial Times, Wired, HuffPost, CNN, Techcrunch, thejournal.ie, Newstalk, Irish Independent, Irish Times, Slate, Daily Mail, TechRadar, IGN, Digg, Gimlet Media, Cracked, CNET, Guardian, ScienceDaily, The Atlantic, Gizmodo, Forbes, Washington Post, Mashable, New York Times, Variety, Signpost. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter, Complex, Uproxx, Hypebeast have picked up too. And better finish the most popular article of each day to have something to post at r/TIL. igordebraga ≠ 01:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

... and I think this counts as the Washington Post. West.andrew.g (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

There's a lot of spam this week, so I thought I'd post a tidier version

1 Dolores O'Riordan |start class | 2,536,032 Death
2 Martin Luther King Jr.| Good article| 1,130,743 the Day
3 Gianni Versace |c class| 1,051,793 American Crime Story
4 The Cranberries|b class| 1,018,955 see #1
5 Andrew Cunanan | b class| 869,460 see #3
6 Queen Victoria|Featured article | 782,363 carryover
7 Deaths in 2018 | List| 765,887 carryover
8 Elizabeth II| Featured article| 735,840 carryover
9 Schöningen Spears | | 641,099 Reddit
10 Case Keenum |c class|612,896 did something sporty
11 Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon | b class| 611,806 carryover
12 The End of the F***ing World |start class| 568,071 Netflix
13 Sears Catalog Home |b class| 531,214 Reddit
14 Facebook | b class.svg | 515,867 Could be about any number of things, but likely this
15 Tonya Harding | b class| 497,949 carryover
16 Black Mirror |c class| 496,237 carryover
17 Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh| b class.svg| 482,321 carryover
18 Winston Churchill | c class| 474,831 Movie- rare for UK to make it
19 Bitcoin | c class| 465,125 carryover
20 Katy Jurado|| c class| 455,392 Google Doodle
21 List of Black Mirror episodes| List| 454,287 carryover
22 The Greatest Showman | 444,627 Done surprisingly well, given the controversy
23 Donald Trump |b class| 438,297 Again, take your pick. No obvious spikes in the view count this week.
24 Murder of Travis Alexander |c class| 422,335 Documentary: Jodi Arias: An American Murder Mystery
25 Aziz Ansari | c class| 422,082 Latest trapped in Wienstein wave

Also a lot of really high mobile counts this week. Serendipodous 11:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

For the record Stormy, the Minnesota Vikings got their name because there are a lot of Scandinavians in Minnesota. Serendipodous 00:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I was vaguely aware, but amended the entry to direct to the state's demographics data. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

BLP

@Stormy clouds: I haven't read this entire page, but I recommend amending your piece on Donald Trump, specifically, and any others you may have like it. BLP applies to all living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Moe Epsilon: - As far as I can see, there is nothing contentious in the Trump entry that violates BLP (NPOV, maybe, but nothing slanderous). It can all be sourced from RS, and I have taken the temporary liberty of referencing it. This is not an action that I will be taking in the future, as it disrupts the flow of the Report, and adds unnecessary tedium to the task of compiling it. Commentary is permitted within the remit of the report provided that it is not slanderous or libelous - nothing here is. Refs are in the reverted version if you wish to restore them. Please explicitly detail any BLP issues you may have, as in penning commentary, I feel it is better to overshoot and amend than to hamstring oneself. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I feel like calling someone an imbecile constitutes violating BLP. If you don't feel there are any issues, then I guess I'll go gather second opinions and see if I am wrong. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I am politically against Trump, but also feel that it's a BLP violation. - Scarpy (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I have to agree with Scarpy. When it comes to BLP (anywhere on wikipedia, even commentary pages) it's always better to be safe than sorry, and I feel Stormy clouds went too far. Sro23 (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I started a discussion on WP:BLP/N for opinions from editors familiar with handling these situations there as well. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • The problem is, what viewers seek isn't always the news. More often than not, it's TV and movies - which, of course, gets a space on traditional media outlets, but the #3 there shows that on Wikipedia, it's becoming common to seek the subject instead of the show\movie. And then there are the holidays (such as #2, MLK), random anniversaries propelled by Google, and random stuff propelled by Reddit. But that's probably part of why both writing and reading the Top 25 is fun. (and as an aside, we got away with so much in 2017, only for in December for people to complain about bias, and with the new year others to claim we're downright violating the BLP policy) igordebraga ≠ 02:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Template

I like the informal way things are written here (though I agree that the Trump bit was treading on thin ice) but I do wonder how you get away with it! It might be for the best if you place a template atop the page, something along the lines of {{essay}}, or maybe create your own template like this if one doesn't already exist:

I'm not trying to pander to the over-sensitive, I just don't want to see this go down the pan because of WP:COMMENTARY or whatever. nagualdesign 07:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I have favoured using such a template in the past, but am torn on implementation and currently don't feel like being WP:BOLD - need more opinions here. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather use the standard {{humor}} template:
That would also avoid potential insinuations that commenters are taking themselves too seriously (if we do, we shouldn't be commenting). — JFG talk 11:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I am fine with this suggestion either, and agree that the authors of the Report should refrain from grandstanding. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I've added the {{humor}} template. nagualdesign 12:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

India, ya know I love ya but baby you crazy.

  1. Virginia Woolf Symbol b class.svg 1,497,132 (Google Doodle)
  2. Sergei Eisenstein Symbol b class.svg 1,169,678 (Google Doodle)
  3. USA Gymnastics sex abuse scandal Symbol start class.svg 1,074,940 (at this point, we should really consider stopping this whole Olympics thing)
  4. Tom Brady Symbol b class.svg 980,001 (Why don't they just have two quarterbacks on the field at the Superbowl? They're all anyone cares about)
  5. Padmaavat Symbol start class.svg 920,105 (India so crazy)
  6. Republic Day (India) Symbol c class.svg 832,560 (There. See? National holiday! Fun! Do that.)
  7. List of Super Bowl champions List 766,992 (self explanatory, really)
  8. Deaths in 2018 List 745,226 (needs no introduction)
  9. Rani Padmini Symbol c class.svg 730,645 (I dunno India. Maybe this'll help clear things up. Maybe?)
  10. 90th Academy Awards 711,802 (13 nominations to a woman having sex with a fish guy. Guillermo, jefe, te amo, pero eres un loco)
  11. Larry Nassar Symbol c class.svg 695,318 (25 years. 25 years before we caught him. 25 years.)
  12. Nick Foles Symbol start class.svg 683,397 (The one other guy who should be on the field)
  13. The Shape of Water (film) Symbol start class.svg 679,508 (Guillermo muy loco)
  14. Alauddin Khalji Symbol start class.svg 676,376 (Nothing helps like a little education. Sometimes. Other times it makes things worse)
  15. XFL Symbol start class.svg 675,535 (Vince wants to bring this back. Maybe he should just try Aussie rules)
  16. Caroline Wozniacki Symbol c class.svg 670,675 (Won the Australian Open and grand slammed)
  17. Siskiwit Lake (Isle Royale) Symbol stub class.svg 652,275 (Reddit, naturally)
  18. Queen Victoria Featured article star.svg 634,561 (carryover)
  19. Gianni Versace Symbol c class.svg 620,726 (carryover)
  20. Government shutdowns in the United States Symbol c class.svg 613,114 (might as well be the weather at this point)
  21. UFC 220 Symbol stub class.svg 590,545 (happened)
  22. Wilder Penfield Symbol c class.svg 566,461 (Google Doodle)
  23. Elizabeth II Featured article star.svg 563,984 (carryover)
  24. Alexis Sánchez Symbol c class.svg 558,091 (Man U debut)
  25. Roger Federer Symbol support vote.svg 540,013 (Apparently he hasn't won the Australian Open final yet)

Serendipodous 11:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Man, you should go back into writing full reports, these short comments are hilarious. I had already done something based on the WMF tool (only missed Sanchez). And had to do the week's report using what you had written! igordebraga ≠ 15:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Where is the Report from 14th January?

It redirects to the one from this week. Form the 21st January. --84.112.151.27 (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to undo the redirect, it's in the right page now. igordebraga ≠ 22:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible data issue moving forward

The server where I calculate the statistics unexpectedly went down this afternoon (the machine lives in Philadelphia, and had this happened last night, I might have suspected some kind of Super Bowl conspiracy theory). A colleague was onsite and did a hard reboot of the machine. The box did not come back online. This implies: (1) Some type of network problem not corresponding to planned maintenance, and not affecting other machines in the lab, has persisted for more than hour, or (2) Something really bad has happened on the machine itself, unrelated to network issues (e.g., hard drive or other hardware failure). I am going to try to troubleshoot with folks on-site, but I don't have a great feeling about this, and if #2 reveals itself to be the cause, we have some serious problems. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Not as dire as initially thought. I've got some things to fix, but business as usual as far as this operation is concerned. West.andrew.g (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hard luck. Computer failures are the stuff of nightmares for me, even given my illiterate and incompetent grasp on tech. Glad to hear that things are on the mend already, and best wishes in that pursuit. The data you compile is the most important component of the Top 25 Report, and you don't get enough plaudits for it. Keep on soldiering, and fly. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

WMF raw stats delaying this week's report

The delay with the report isn't my fault this week. Raw data comes from: [5] which only has data through FEB-08. I'm super busy at the moment, but if anyone cares, posting this to WP:VPT is likely to get the fastest help. Assuming that gets fixed, ping me and I can expedite the processing. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and posted it over at WP:VPT. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I've been told that the raw data will arrive at 4AM UTC tomorrow. I'll reprocess thereafter. West.andrew.g (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Just a note for next time that WP:VPT is not a good venue for raising such issues. Rather (as Primehunter pointed out there) the relevant WMF folks can be reached via the Analytics-l mailing list linked at wikitech:Analytics#Contact (or, if you're using IRC, the #wikimedia-analytics channel on Freenode). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 03:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

February reports

The list is here for the first, anyone wants to pick it up? igordebraga ≠ 15:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Soulbust wants the Super Bowl report, so maybe I'll just do this one myself. igordebraga ≠ 13:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I can give it a go. Serendipodous 14:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: Nice to hear, put in a table for you (feel free to change the pics). igordebraga ≠ 18:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga:Got an idea for a title? I've never been good at coming up with them. Serendipodous 08:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
When I was Padmaavat's Man? It's weak, but I don't have much else. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I struggle with it too, but your intro inspired me to borrow something from the Chili Peppers. igordebraga ≠ 13:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@Soulbust: Even if the 5000 is delayed as stated in later posts, are you gonna finish that soon? (sidenote: great that people are preferring to look for the biggest release of this week instead of last one's) igordebraga ≠ 16:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah sorry for not being active over the weekend. I visited some friends & family and my laptop kinda died so I've re-set up an old laptop. I'll be finishing it soon. Thanks for updating the rest of the chart. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: Done with the Feb 4–10 report. It's over at my draft page ready whenever. Soulbust (talk) 06:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Generalised template

I have created a generalised template for the weekly reports here. It has the table already established, with only values to be added where necessary. Any author who wants to be in the room where it happens can feel free to use it. Stormy clouds (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Backing out for Feb 11-17

So I'm backing out of doing this week's report. The school shooting this past week wasn't in my direct community, but it was close enough to it to make me feel a little differently about it, which I think must mean something considering the desensitization-type feeling myself and many that grew up with this type of occurrence carry. I also am loaded with lots of work at school and I don't think I'd be able to write about the statistics or something like that about this shooting. I felt this way while filling out the chart with the near-finalized page view counts (just waiting for WP:5000). Sorry for backing out. Like I said, I did fill out the chart and it's over at my draft page. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Soulbust: - I'll do it. I am stealing your drafted table though. Thanks, and sorry to hear about that. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
I will perform one more of the traditional bashes of my head against my desk which I perform at these times for you today. Serendipodous 12:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Put up the 5000 numbers in the draft (causing some changes compared to the WMF ones). And of course my placeholder title and Offspring lyric in one of the entries can be replaced. igordebraga ≠ 17:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @Igordebraga: - I liked your title, but went for a more concise alternative, and I amalgamated two entries to remove the need for the Offspring lyric. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Pretty self-explanatory this week

Except:


The first and third I didn't know... don't know if Stormy clouds did before putting up Dua Lipa's description in our work-in-progress. igordebraga ≠ 01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

March reports

Decided to start looking for the next report... and it seems like one of those Indian weeks, led by a Bollywood actress who died and a holiday. Anyone wants to do the list? igordebraga ≠ 02:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, Soulbust claimed the Oscar report, so did the list myself. Am looking forward to your comments on the ceremony ultimately won by Abe Sapien Gets Lucky! igordebraga ≠ 04:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

March 4-10 report is good to go, I think. Soulbust (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up for whoever writes this week: Stephen Hawking got in one day more views than Sridevi the whole week of her death. He'll probably shoot up pretty high on All-time Top 25, deservingly so. igordebraga ≠ 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

List is here, to whoever wants to write on Hawking repeating and quite some random entries. igordebraga ≠ 06:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

While some people might not believe anything posted today, here's last week's list. And lol patriotism, decided to borrow from a Brazilian song - and man, the English lyrics for Waters of March are not as easy to parody. igordebraga ≠ 14:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


Tomb Raider inclusion?

So the Tomb Raider (film) article was not included on the list, and I was wondering if we should change that? That page got 220,618 page views for the March 11-17 week, but combined with the 257,145 page views that Tomb Raider (2018 film) (now a redirect to Tomb Raider (film)), that gives it 477,763 page views for the week, enough for placement on this list. That number also makes logical sense for the film considering its lead Alicia Vikander got 489K views. I was just wondering if we should combine the page views in this specific instance since (2018 film) article was moved to the current destination in the middle of the week. This is different than adding the page views for pre-existing redirects to an article, because the current destination was created in the middle of the week. This would be similar to what we did for the Stoneman Douglas shooting article a few weeks ago. Soulbust (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Makes sense (it would be about the third time, the Charlottesville incident last year had 3 different names the week it happened). @OZOO: I extended the Alicia Vikander write-up for two rows given it's the entry right below, but feel free to write something about the movie if you feel like it. igordebraga ≠ 14:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to write up something tonight, I might not manage it as I am, ironically, going to see Tomb Raider. OZOO (t) (c) 14:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
We definitely should. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Top_25_Report/Archive_8&oldid=839710343"