Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report/Archive 9

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

Weekly WP:5000 delayed due to missing raw data

The raw data source hasn't been updated in April. I've taken this to WP:VPT before, but they suggested I use the Analytics mailing list, where I've now posted about the issue. If anyone notices that things have updated, ping me, and I'll get us processing towards the report ASAP. West.andrew.g (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Bad to hear it. In the meantime, I fiddled with the WMF tool and found a provisional top 25 for whoever wants to get started. igordebraga ≠ 01:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
With no progress on the mailing list, I've posted to VPT: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Analytics_"pagecounts-ez"_not_generating. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Following the Phabricator task linked in the VPT thread above, I think the WMF team is close to resolving our issue. West.andrew.g (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 Done -- Data has returned, and my ingestion/parsing is ongoing. Expect to see WP:5000 reports tonight. West.andrew.g (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @West.andrew.g:. Now that the first April report has the official numbers, hope the data for last week follows soon. igordebraga ≠ 14:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: The most recent report should appear in the next couple of hours. I can't check things from the office (firewall), but everything was proceeding smoothly when I left this morning. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk)
 Done -- As most have probably seen, our data/reports are now up to date. No issues are anticipated in the immediate future, and if anything, the WMF maintenance/shifting/re-engineering that caused the problem in the first place might lead to some longer term stability. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 04:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: Willing to create a title for our provisional list? Hope Andrew.g gets his things done to confirm our numbers. In the meantime, I'm forced to look for what can enter the next list. igordebraga ≠ 00:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: - thanks. I was somewhat stumped, but went with a title that covers the three of the first four entries (couldn't weave propaganda in). Feel free to change it, given that you did the vast majority of the work on this one. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Good enough, I was considering something referencing The Sounds of Silence (not only the list opens with A Quiet Place but we don't hear anything on the data dump as well). Maybe I'll make the next provisional list soon to ensure it doesn't get done so late again. igordebraga ≠ 16:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(the provisional 25 were exactly the same as the 5000, only the order was different) Anyone wants to do it? igordebraga ≠ 16:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Long time reader, first time caller. Since no one has stepped up, and it's been almost a week, I tried my hand at filling in the first few. Not sure if I'll have the time to do the rest. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Ahecht: Great first effort, finished it for you and posted on the mainspace before the week's over (you can rewrite my entries if you like). igordebraga ≠ 04:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
@Soulbust: You should've put up on the main page as soon as you finished, the report only came out on Saturday again. But I understand finals week is a nightmare. Hope the next one comes sooner! igordebraga ≠ 17:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Definitely. Thanks for understanding about finals week! Should definitely get this next week's list up much quicker. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Soulbust: Sorry for jumping on you, but we've been taking too long with the latest reports, and you haven't appeared since leaving the message above. But feel free to claim next week! igordebraga ≠ 04:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It's totally okay. My Internet went out this week, so I was hoping somebody would fill it up. It came back in the past half hour, so I was gonna start it up right now if it wasn't completed already. Soulbust (talk) 04:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds:, @OZOO:, @Soulbust: I did it again (at least it's not as Marvel-heavy... specially as Deadpool 2, which probably take #1 next week, ended up as #26), but hope others will show up eventually. igordebraga ≠ 02:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: - Thanks. I am in state exams for the next five weeks, so I am temporarily out of commission, but after that I hope to make a triumphant return. Stormy clouds (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

About the seriousness and neutrality of the article

I would like to suggest some problems with the neutrality and seriousness that corresponds to this encyclopedia in some sections. I do not like that the explicit statement at the beginning wich refers to the lack of seriousness of the article. I think if the article is not serious it doesnt have to exist in first place. Even though the article seems very interesting to me personally, it needs drastic changes in the writing of the explanations of the chosen articles respecting, above all, the neutral point of view, I consider it's one of the most common and controversial violations. Thanks Pcamellon (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

We put up that our intent is humorous exactly because people would complain about being biased. Normal articles aren't supposed to have a narrator, but here we outright sign who is making the week's report. What's wrong with having some fun along with being informative? igordebraga ≠ 17:18, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I read it and actually did find it humorous, so in my view it's not misplaced. JLJ001 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Why is xhamster showing up on top of the automatic report?

Seems to be a perrenial entry there, but none of the other articles on the topic pop up. Is this a bot-driven traffic? Nergaal (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Nergaal: - almost certainly. It is excluded due to the abnormal percentage of mobile views, but it is highly likely that its lofty position each week (if included it would rarely leave the top 3, and likely top the annual report) originates from bot traffic, rather than genuine interest in the page. Stormy clouds (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair-use image removed

I had to remove the "Thriller" cover from the report as it is a non-free image. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Aww, didn't notice, sorry. Using a bloody shot of the Moon instead. — JFG talk 12:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Minor error

Hello, I wanted to point out a minor error in the report for February 25 to March 3, 2018. The report states that Sridevi Kapoor is unrelated to Shashi Kapoor and that the two Kapoor families ain't related, but they are indeed related, even though distantly. Prithviraj Kapoor is the cousin of Surinder Kapoor; Shashi Kapoor is the son of Prithviraj Kapoor and Sridevi is the daughter-in-law of Surinder Kapoor. (Sorry if that gave you a headache, heh). 2.51.23.90 (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

This dispute seems like Bollywood movie material. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

BTS

Is the reason BTS continues to artificially generate views that the Billboard Social 50 is based on the raw view stats and not the Top 25 Report? — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 11:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, a quick search on Twitter shows K-pop fans (BTS and EXO) giving reminders to do the things that boost the Social 50 score, including Wikipedia visits. And all the screen grabs regarding views here are taken from the WMF rankings, so they don't seem to care about the Top 25 (which is derived from a slightly different source). Still, if we ignore bot enhancements, why give humans gaming the system a pass? igordebraga ≠ 03:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the logo of the Report is a spoof of that of the Drudge Report. Does anyone mind if I put it in italics and add a dropshadow? People do tend to feel strongly about these things so I thought I'd ask. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 00:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Milowent: Did you take any inspiration to make the logo? (if that term applies, it's just really big and bold text) igordebraga ≠ 03:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Hey all! The idea to have a header at all came from the fact that The Signpost had one. I didn't intend to spoof Drudge or anything else in creating it, and without any skill in such things, I made it simpler. It is almost 3 years old, so a refresh might be nice!--Milowent • hasspoken 12:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
No shadows or italics, please, that would be distracting. Keep as is. — JFG talk 10:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Weekly WP:5000 pending WMF data

Not my fault this time! Waiting on the data to publish to: [1]. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, we'll be waiting (your link is only missing Saturday, it seems). In the meantime, there's a draft made from the other tool where I and Stormy clouds are working. igordebraga ≠ 23:58, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Might be helpful to ping someone on the WMF side who generates those data files. West.andrew.g (talk) 03:14, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- I'm presuming folks saw that the statistics posted, but if not, let this serve as your notification. West.andrew.g (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

maybe useful

https://trendingtopics.live/ 205.175.107.198 (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

This week's list

Alright, the next one has the ranking here, even counting redirect views as there quite a lot this week. Wonder if anyone cares to write a lot about the Windsors, even if we'll never be royals (Royals!), it don't run in our blood... igordebraga ≠ 22:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for last week, OZOO. The royal family is dominating again, and once more I felt the need to combine some redirect views (if anyone picks it up, feel free to change the images as well). igordebraga ≠ 22:02, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure the redirect views should be combined - last week for Meghan and Harry the articles had been moved midweek so it made sense to combine the views, but here surely almost all the hits for the redirect are also going to be credited as to the actual article? OZOO (t) (c) 20:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: - Meghan and Harry had their articles moved back during the week, so their numbers may be off again. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@West.andrew.g: He does have a point, are the redirect hits already included on the destination ones? (specially given there are four alternate names in the top 100) igordebraga ≠ 23:50, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not sure exactly. The data set I uses compresses from [2], so a careful reading of that page or perhaps a talk page posting will clear it up. West.andrew.g (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"It will only compute 1 pageview, there will be no duplicates." Think I will remove the extra views for Kate and Lady Di, then (and @Stormy clouds: the caveat you pointed out happened after the week was finished - Harry on the 27th, Meghan one day later - so maybe there's no need to combine; sorry for making you update your graph yet again, @Eliasdabbas:). igordebraga ≠ 03:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: No problems. The current published data seems to be consistent with the current graph, unless I'm missing something. Let me know what needs to be updated, and I'd be happy to make changes.
The numbers hadn't changed the last I had seen (Meghan and Will still had millions more views, but now it's fixed). But it's fixed now.

Another one to do. And wonder if inviting @Stormy clouds: to write is cruel, given there are three entries related to the Champions League becoming a boring tournament won by the same team thrice in a row. (but the NBA is worse, the finals are the same two teams for the fourth time!) igordebraga ≠ 03:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

A death-heavy list, wonder if anyone other than me will write the report. igordebraga ≠ 21:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

One more time, even if it might go down to me again to talk about the World Cup opening. igordebraga ≠ 21:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Done this week's list. FOOTBALL. OZOO (t) (c) 22:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Football's coming home... maybe. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Wish "the country of football" could inspire more confidence. (and the World Cup won't top next week's report, given someone famous murdered at just 20 is a biggie) igordebraga ≠ 04:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/June 24 to 30, 2018 - Article states Lionel Messi is 33, he is not, he is 31. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappHazzard (talk • contribs) 11:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

With help from Stormy clouds, the latest one is out. I shouldn't bail out from writing about the World Cup just because Tite is an idiot! igordebraga ≠ 22:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Really, it's Tiite's fault? The UK press were all blaming Neymar. Serendipodous 08:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
I blame BRA71L. Nergaal (talk) 08:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Neymar is being blamed for the same reason in gridiron they blame the quarterback, most visible target. Tite is the one who insisted on a striker who doesn't score, a reminder of the 7-1 who even scored an own goal, and two guys who were visibly lost in the defeat. But at least the French won today and all the dissing on the Belgians I wrote didn't backfire! igordebraga ≠ 00:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm just glad that, in the event that England reaches the final, the Eurosceptic tabloid press won't plaster our towns with "ENGLAND VS BRUSSELS!" headlines. Serendipodous 07:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)


During a Twitter search, I found some shady developments by EXO fans, and their current desktop views are too high. Maybe we need to exclude the K-pop band next week! igordebraga ≠ 14:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me :-) Serendipodous 19:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I even did the report, calling out the EXO-Ls for this (seems like Wikipedia views count for the Billboard Social 50). Anyway, better leave the next ones for other people. igordebraga ≠ 03:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, move them to the perma-list of exclusions. — JFG talk 21:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
To the point Stormy clouds called out those fans taking the Billboard Social 50 too seriously a bit more. And good to see one already complained! igordebraga ≠ 02:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
One more list, and a pretty varied one in that. Don't know if it's the one to bring some absentees (@JFG:, @A lad insane:), but I know it's not when I will bring EXO back. (even if it had a steep drop and the EXO-Ls seem more focused on complaining about edits against their group) igordebraga ≠ 17:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd be tempted to work on this one, but I'm too far removed from U.S. entertainment to write anything useful there. Lunar eclipse and Sergio Marchionne are up my alley. — JFG talk 01:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 Duh, I took the bait. Enjoy! — JFG talk 02:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, even added an extension up to Trump given he's clearly the inspiration... igordebraga ≠ 15:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Data Visualization

I have added some color coding and arrows to show the changes of each entry compared to the previous week. Any feedback appreciated if there is anything that's not clear / needs improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasdabbas (talk • contribs) 03:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks! — JFG talk 17:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


This week

I've finished everything but #23, but I need to go offline for a day or two and can't finish it in time. If someone else wants to fill that in and put it on the main page, it would be much appreciated :) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Edit: I finished 23, but can't remember the process to update the main page. I will still be offline. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@West.andrew.g: Are the tools having problems again? Had to make a provisional list out of the WMF counter. igordebraga ≠ 13:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: As per WT:STiki, the machine that does this work had an issue over the weekend. I expect a resolution when I can login and more carefully investigate, later this evening. West.andrew.g (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done -- @Igordebraga: Fixed the issue and all caught up with the back-processing. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it's up now - were not for the IPs who decided to write some entries, maybe I would've only collaborated with the title. igordebraga ≠ 20:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

chart

I don't know how to do the chart, sorry. I think everything else is done :) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 21:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Eliasdabbas does it himself with his tool... hope you don't mind my additions while correcting the leftover images you didn't change. igordebraga ≠ 01:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind, thanks! Rick Astley was intentional, but it probably didn't work with the article. I just couldn't find an image. Yours works though :) -A lad insane (Channel 2) 02:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

August 19 to 25

Stormy clouds Sure:) Seems we have 26 items on the list? Number 21 is duplicated.
@Eliasdabbas: - good catch. Grande and Davidson had been combined, but Aussie politics divided the duo, and we forgot to account for Morrison's additional space. Blame it on the Aussies. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

And given you already claimed next week, so far seems like John McCain will top it. igordebraga ≠ 17:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

1 -  Done. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

One more death-heavy list, anyone up to write the report? igordebraga ≠ 18:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a factoid while we keep on silently making the report: the second week of October marks the 300th edition. igordebraga ≠ 00:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The latest one, led by the judge accused of sexual harrassment, is up for grabs. igordebraga ≠ 03:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: -  Done Up now. Stormy clouds (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: - Thanks! And I must confess that I expected the YouTube link in the Musk entry to be this. igordebraga ≠ 16:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: - thanks. Changed it to that, as it is much better. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Tips for finding out why something is getting a lot of traffic?

I've come across this entry which seems to have gotten a huge 250k spike yesterday, and I'm wondering how to find out what caused it? I've checked reddit for TIL articles, tried searching google with "oil lamp site:reddit.com", and tried searching news sites. Are there any tools which might help me find out about these sorts of trends? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daliumosah (talk • contribs) 05:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Daliumosah: It's a pretty manual process for the team. I'll note that this particular "Oil Lamp" example looks suspicious. When viral Internet activity (Google Doodles, Reddit TILs) does occur, the traffic tends to have a "tail" over the coming days. The fact there is virtually no article traffic the day before, or the day after, is highly suggestive of automated activity. Yes, the pageviews tool does have a "bot" flag, but that only applies to agents who independently identify themselves as such. It would only take me a couple lines of code to write a script that just hits the "Oil Lamp" article all day, and achieve a view count similar to 250k. Automated views aren't always malicious, either, it could be a script with a bug of some kind. West.andrew.g (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
@West.andrew.g: Ahh, okay, I didn't know that the traffic data was just the raw page hits. Looking at the data today, I definitely see what you mean about it being suspicious (..., 400, 400, 250k, 400). Another strange one is Toyota_Industries (pageview data). It seems strange because Google Trends doesn't show much movement, nor does reddit, and the Toyota article's traffic hasn't budged at all. It hasn't dropped down as suddenly as the oil lamp one though. I see this sort of sudden, "unexplainable" traffic quite often with a tool I'm building: Alcoa_Theatre, Tunnel, Captain_Carrot - I could go on and on. It would be great if the data were a little more curated (even just a cap on the number of views an IP can cause per hour or whatever), so that the data would be a bit easier to work with. Daliumosah (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Daliumosah: The WMF would need to do that type of scrubbing, as they are never going to let researchers see IP addresses for privacy reasons. West.andrew.g (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
@Daliumosah:: A good hint is the Top Views tab, turn on the mobile views and anything with obscenely low (or suspiciously high) counts might be a bot-propelled entry. igordebraga ≠ 16:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: Ah, brilliant! Checking the mobile data against the desktop data is a great little trick. Thanks! Daliumosah (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Year's end approaching

Will there be a full-year report again this year? It's December, so probably time to begin drafting if so. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 20:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Obviously we need the data first, but I'd be willing to give another crack at it. Serendipodous 21:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
A number of candidate articles are sure to be included: Deaths in 2019, Freddie Mercury, Black Panther (film) as well as the unsinkable Elizabeth II and Donald Trump. @Igordebraga: you seemed to be maintaining a list of articles with traffic peaks or sustained high traffic throughout the year. Correct? — JFG talk 00:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I've been tallying them in my sandbox for a while. Maybe I'll already create a page so we can prepare our write-ups. @West.andrew.g: will the yearly 5000 find a way to combine the views for Harry & Meghan, given the fact that the rename to add the Duke\Duchess of Sussex title creates a noticeable split so far in the WMF tool? igordebraga ≠ 00:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
It's easy enough to manually add the figures for both versions of the title. No need for Andrew to code for a special case. — JFG talk 09:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Used the sandbox created by @Stormy clouds: for last year and pasted what I gathered so far. igordebraga ≠ 05:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Wonderful job. Once again I'll pick the politics and science entries. Have fun with the movies and royal gossip! — JFG talk 09:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds, Serendipodous, Igordebraga, Soulbust, A lad insane, and OZOO: Feel free to take your early picks from the draft list by marking them with your personal colour. Other volunteers welcome, of course. — JFG talk 10:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As the token Brit, I have taken the Royals. And I am a Youtuber, so... Serendipodous 13:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey if you want I can trade some royals with you. Serendipodous 14:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Sure, do you mind if I take Queen Victoria? You can have whichever of mine you like, I've got a bit of a morbid selection as it is. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC) On second thought, never mind. Thanks though! -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Minor formatting suggestion. Could the author list/color legend be made horizontal, so more of the list is initially visible? West.andrew.g (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Soulbust: must be busy with school, and just because having an Indian always available would be a plus, Rogerknots has never resurfaced again. @Ahecht:, @Pythoncoder: are you willing to contribute? (and just made some updates yesterday; Aretha Franklin is out, Nick Jonas is in :( while Stallone enters, mostly because some people on the internet tried to kill him) igordebraga ≠ 17:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I grabbed a couple. When are we aiming to have the entries written by? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
^ my comment is the same as ahecht's — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 18:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

K-pop

While this is my "fault", as I discovered both one weird day of views and afterwards how K-pop fans visit articles often just for social rankings, felt the need to share: excluding EXO and BTS from the yearly report earned this, and in turn some passionate responses from the Ls and the Army - hope you don't disapprove that I laughed at how increasingly salty those people got! igordebraga ≠ 02:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Igordebraga: - we are apparently at war now, having singlehandedly lead to the bankruptcy of Wikipedia by doing insane, racist things like preserving the quality of data. Article is surprisingly competent, and the Twitter replies have only reinfornced why the bands are excluded for me. Stormy clouds (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


On a brighter note, fans of English pop stars who went to TV but never entered the Top 25 have questioned the WMF numbers, and even accepted ours (though don't know if who created these bots is just "dedication", even if it was a quite steady performance). igordebraga ≠ 18:47, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I am more surprised that they are looking at stuff like the percentage of views on mobile. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'be been watching from afar, igordebraga, and kudos on the K-pop work! People are trying to game the system because it is now accepted that Wikipedia views are a legitimate measure of popularity. Everyone who has worked on the Top 25 Report for the past 6+ years deserves credit for that. Everyone may chuckle at this now, but when social science researchers in the far future want to know what was popular in our era, they will be reading our work.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Did we miss a week? September 30th through October 6th?

Not sure what schedule these come out on, but was curious to see what the trends were. Would maybe volunteer to write one if that's an option. - Scarpy (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That's the next one that needs to be written. They just come out whenever we have the stats for the week via WP:5000 / when someone gets around to writing it. No one has claimed Sep 30 to Oct 6 yet, so you can write it if you want.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 16:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
And it's up. scratch that.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 11:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful if folks signed their name to the schedule when they begin work on the report (rather than when its complete), in the interest of avoiding any duplicate work like could have happened here. Of course, it would really great if we had a schedule in advance :-). West.andrew.g (talk) 16:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Scarpy: @Pythoncoder: As soon as the WP:5000 come out (or sooner, if we start fiddling with the WMF tools counter) on Sunday morning, there's a big chance someone such as me or Stormy clouds will have picked up the Top 25 non anomalous entries and put it on the next article (hint: the link on the schedule up there becomes blue). I had done so waiting for someone to pick up, but when it was clear it wouldn't happen, by Wednesday I decided to finish it myself. Anyway, you're free to do next week's (which as a sidenote, is the 300th report). igordebraga ≠ 00:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: (along with @OZOO:, @Milowent:, @Maplestrip:, and whoever already written for us): willing to write the week's report? igordebraga ≠ 01:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pythoncoder: hope you finish it soon. Even if you ignored what I put in the latest report, that the UFC event had deplorable scenes after the fight was over... igordebraga ≠ 01:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: Putting on the finishing touches now.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 01:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: (or others) not sure how you do things around here but I'm ready to publish so feel free to do whatever stuff needs to be done to publish my report.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
It's simple, copy-paste last week's report onto its own page (which for a week, it's a redirect to WP:TOP25), and then copy the week's report onto the Top 25 Report page (while making its page a redirect). Did that as a favor to you. And nice to see someone else writing death-related lyrics in lieu of finding something to say about that never-leaving list. igordebraga ≠ 03:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I was thinking, "I can't believe he hasn't done this song yet", and then that made me think of More Cowbell.  pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 11:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Next week is up for grabs, and seems like Halloween came early given all the scary movie\TV show stuff. igordebraga ≠ 18:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

As we wait for the final list tomorrow, from the looks of it, whoever picks up the list might have to write up about how my country is just as bad for electing a president as the U.S. igordebraga ≠ 19:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I picked up the report for this week. Should barely include Trump as well, if we care to ignore Exo. @Igordebraga: Are you still preparing rough cuts of the Top 25 report from the Top 5000, with just commentary to fill in, or should I do this myself? — JFG talk 22:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: Stormy clouds did the full table here, feel free to add in your stuff. And @Rogerknots: pasted and formatted the things you already wrote. (amusing that someone joins Wikipedia just to write for this... but not that you managed to miss that overtly high mobile\desktop views such as Louis Tomlinson and xHamster earn automatic exclusions) igordebraga ≠ 23:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. For the record, I haven't written anything yet; Rogerknots had started on his own off-wiki. Tomlinson, XHamster and Exo indeed must be kept out. I'll get to the remaining contents tomorrow. — JFG talk 22:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: sorry for jumping on you, saying "tomorrow" but still not having done anything by Friday made me want to just complete it. Anyway, you can do next week's! igordebraga ≠ 05:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: I'm sorry, I got carried away with other work that took all my wikitime. Feel free to take over. — JFG talk 05:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Dates haven't been changed in the title, FYI. West.andrew.g (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: The (election-heavy) latest list is up if you want it. igordebraga ≠ 16:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, this should be fun :) — JFG talk 12:43, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Almost done… — JFG talk 11:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@JFG: It's Friday again, are you finishing it? Otherwise, someone could fill in (not necessarily me - @OZOO:, @Stormy clouds:?) igordebraga ≠ 17:06, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, been offline for a while. Uploading in a couple hours. — JFG talk 11:49, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 Done. Enjoy! — JFG talk 17:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Don't know if he'll be the top of the year (Stephen Hawking had 7 million in one day, Stan the Man "just" 4.6 million in two days), but certainly will enter that table, as he deserves. Here's waiting for your report! igordebraga ≠ 03:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Last week is here, anyone up to it? Maybe @OZOO: or someone who knows Narcos (man, I'm still only on Season 1 and they already moved out of Colombia). And poor Stan Lee must be the first death to break 5 million views and then fall off the list. igordebraga ≠ 01:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, people don't step up for the opportunity and I wrote it again. Hope someone steps up for the week that might be headed by SpongeBob's dead creator. igordebraga ≠ 05:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: You cracked me up with the cartoon for Deaths in 2018, great job for this week! — JFG talk 21:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hope someone is interested in writing this week's report (and sorry for the awful pun in the temporary title, don't know why I felt the need to submit it). igordebraga ≠ 13:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

After another week I had to go through, just a heads-up: seems like next report will be topped by how an underwhelming video got showered by thumbs down. igordebraga ≠ 00:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

If the Yearly Report is already a bit late (can't blame it, specially during the holidays), expecting someone to take up the weekly list might be wishful thinking as well... igordebraga ≠ 23:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a Christmas miracle! — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 02:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Can someone, even @Stormy clouds: take over just for an author change? igordebraga ≠ 20:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The latter, yes. The former, it was just me forgetting to paste the right numbers. Thanks for the heads-up, @Eliasdabbas:, you can post your graph if nobody else does so. igordebraga ≠ 21:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The former had the wrong numbers. Anyway, fixed it, thanks for the heads up (you can check the WP:5000 and fix these things yourself whenever this comes up again, just in case), put up the graph whenever possible. igordebraga ≠ 14:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If anyone wants to take the week - again topped by a serial killer, who even led to this weird audience reaction - feel free to do so. Or claim the Super Bowl report next week, if that's more your thing. igordebraga ≠ 14:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


@OZOO:, @Scarpy:, (@Soulbust:, @Stormy clouds:: the Super Bowl report is up for grabs. igordebraga ≠ 04:16, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can do this week and talk about Captain Marvel, plane crashes, shootings, and such? igordebraga ≠ 10:55, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Took until Wednesday\Thursday for people to show up, and it was chaotic, but at least last one was done. Wonder if the next will come out earlier. igordebraga ≠ 14:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Data delayed this week

WMF hasn't dropped off a nightly stats file since 3-25: [3]. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 10:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's a bummer. I made a provisional list fiddling with the WMF tool, wonder if that's all we'll have for a while. igordebraga ≠ 20:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: Half the time I don't even think they realize its not being published. I'm slammed with work, but one might be able to hasten the fix by pinging some of the analytics guys or a post on WP:VPT. West.andrew.g (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@West.andrew.g: Seems like they returned, update the 5000 whenever you can. igordebraga ≠ 15:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact the outage crossed a month threshold caused a bump in my logic... Now ingesting/processing full steam ahead and I imagine the report will appear in the next few hours. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 03:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 Done -- Now posted. West.andrew.g (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Template

I got a notification that the template we sometimes (used to at least) put on talk pages is up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2019_May_28#Template:Top25. It looks like we only used it on less than 150 talk pages, not that it is causing any harm. I created this in November 2015, the idea was to put a notification on an article talk page that an article had been among the most-viewed-articles of a week, and to get some more traffic to the Top 25 report. Then, if i recall correctly, a few non-project editors got cranky about it, so it never got used much. I don't feel strongly either way about this, since the Top 25 Report is now the firmly established record keeper and analyzer of Wikipedia article popularity!--Milowent • hasspoken 12:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

People discussing us

One day, we're questioned by K-pop fans. The other, they single us out as a way to discover research industry trends and current news. igordebraga ≠ 04:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • This is pretty cool. I guarantee you that there are times that someone's humorous comments on the Top 25 Report have affected how marketers look at something.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

BLP issues

I've had a chat with someone off-wiki at the London Wikipedia meetup about this. Here is what we agreed on:

1. BLP applies to all material on the site

2. Journalists on Wikipedia are not entitled to standard journalistic protections.

3. That said, while it is OK to remove potentially harmful uncited material from a BLP on this page, it is not OK to alter the text in any other way, unless you intend to be credited as a co-author.

My feelings about this remain the same. The Signpost and those pages that contribute to it, like the Top 25 Report, are works of journalism, and should be treated as such. We need an editor (an actual editor, not a Wikipedia editor) who can review pages before they are posted to ensure that they follow BLP rules. We should not have to expect random people to show up and alter our work willy-nilly to suit their own agendas. Serendipodous 09:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I cannot agree with #2. We have official media accreditation, so why are we denied the same protections? Why should some guy who's on the radio in Hobart with a thousand listeners be entitled and not us when we have the same media accreditation and hundreds of thousands of readers? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Was thinking about this when I saw the phrase "Tweedledum and Tweedledumber" linking to Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. Also not sure what's meant here by "standard journalistic protections." - Scarpy (talk) 19:02, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Basically, it means that the integrity of their work is not protected. Anyone can come along and edit the page themselves to change what they like. Though I did manage to get a concession that, should someone wish to do that, they would have to list themselves as co-author. And I fail to see how describing someone as "Tweeldedum and Tweedledumber" is a BLP violation, given that it's an opinion, not a statement of fact. Serendipodous 21:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh no. Ain't we had enough "making opinative jokes is disrespectful" (as if the page wasn't already tagged Wikipedia Humor) in the Signpost? igordebraga ≠ 05:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Random notes on this week's report

Why the hell does Mötley Crüe appear twice in the 5000, the correct one and the truncated one we've grown so accostumed to? Will make a compromise and make a sum. (@Eliasdabbas: once I change the numbers, can you update the graph?) igordebraga ≠ 13:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


Is it wishful thinking of mine to expect someone else to take over our first list without Freddie Mercury since early October? igordebraga ≠ 19:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


At the suggestion of the most prolific Report writer (who even showed up a few weeks ago): @OZOO:, @Stormy clouds:, @Soulbust:, @A lad insane:, @Scarpy:, @Pythoncoder: I put up a table, can someone please write the report and make for a different author? igordebraga ≠ 20:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I can try to do the April 7-14 list. But it might take me a few days. Is that alright? Soulbust (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
NVM, super swamped with school work. Sorry, Soulbust (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Soulbust: it's OK, but if find time to do next week, or the following one, you're more than welcome to do so! In the meantime, better make the report myself. igordebraga ≠ 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for showing up and taking some of the entries, pythoncoder. As a heads-up, the fire in Paris appears to be the next top spot, and even breaking the 6 million barrier. igordebraga ≠ 14:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
No problem. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


The list is here, even though y'all don't jump at the opportunity. And BTS has an excuse for a legitimate entry with an SNL appearance, but should we make an exception? igordebraga ≠ 17:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a lot more than that; they topped the UK charts and made a song with Halsey. They should be included. Serendipodous 22:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
*Looks at schedule, sees next report has been claimed* Crap, I was going to take it. Also, keep BTS in. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 23:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


@Stormy clouds: I assumed that the number for Thanos is 1,386,585 and not the 600k figure. I think the 600k number should be the one to have a strike through? Beauty not Love (talk)

Eliasdabbas - thanks, that is correct. I didn't strike the halved number as that would merit a legitimate spoiler, rather than a fabricated one, but would object to it being swapped. Stormy clouds (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
And the worst part, whoever (maybe me) takes the next report needs to put Maisie Williams as "No One" again, given she appears with that name in the graph... Igordebraga
Didn't think of that. Sincerest apologies, that is a bit of a mess for a (pretty weak) GoT reference. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

A pretty table ready to be filled (though some of those pictures can be changed, of course). Wonder if anyone picks up, maybe @Pythoncoder:? igordebraga ≠ 06:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Next one, with even a title and some intro text. Whoever wants it, go for it. And if SC picks it up, think he might have some negative words about that HBO series... igordebraga ≠

One to put on India: the death list managed to get out! (Whoever wants it, go for it.) igordebraga ≠ 16:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Why did you claim just to not write it? Is it because I didn't make the table? If you want to take over the next, you're welcome anyway. igordebraga ≠ 20:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Igor, I started writing the report, then got distracted with other work. Sorry about that, and thank you very much for jumping in. This week I can't. Next time I pick one up, I'll write it before claiming it; that should do the trick! — JFG talk 03:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for last week's report, SC. And how come Liverpool's title is absent from the follow-up? (whoever wants to write, feel free to do so) igordebraga ≠ 03:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, the presidential race is going through some places. igordebraga ≠

@Stormy clouds: @Pythoncoder: @JFG: @OZOO: @Soulbust: Someone else writing the report for a change would be good! (and who'd have guessed a joke call to raid Area 51 would lead to the top entry?) igordebraga ≠ 04:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


It's one Indian week, for sure. Expecting someone to jump on it (@Stormy clouds: @Pythoncoder: @JFG: @OZOO: @Soulbust:, @A lad insane:, or even @FoxyGrampa75:, who helped a bit on this week) is not to be expected, but I ping you anyway. igordebraga ≠ 01:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hugsyrup, who volunteered when Serendipodous asked for help, is away. So maybe a little help withthe week's report (@Stormy clouds: @Pythoncoder: @JFG: @OZOO: @Soulbust:, @A lad insane:, @Ahecht:, @FoxyGrampa75:) would be welcome. igordebraga ≠ 15:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@A lad insane: @FoxyGrampa75: @Igordebraga: It seems last week's report redirects to this week? I need last week to produce the chart. Sorry, not sure how to fix this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by West.andrew.g (talk • contribs)

My bad. But I both fixed it and used your tool to make the chart. Hope Hugsyrup finishes soon so you can do that for the next. igordebraga ≠ 00:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: @Pythoncoder: @JFG: @OZOO: @Hugsyrup: - Anyone want to do the week's list? igordebraga ≠ 18:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Did we ever figure out why Brooklyn is in the raw list?

Its mobile count suggests a reddit thread but I can't find it there. Serendipodous 17:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

This is so strange. It's like we're back when we started; blindly feeling our way in the dark. Serendipodous 08:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm putting Brooklyn alongside some random topics that started getting huge views out of nowhere, like Coca-Cola, Kepler's Supernova and the Apple Network Server. Go figure those bots, hackers or whoever boosts views. igordebraga ≠ 18:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Petrodollar recycling

Why was that omitted from the current report? --Hanyangprofessor2 (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Because its mobile percentage was 0.02, which is a castiron sign it is artificial. Serendipodous 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The Filipinos have arrived

This week marks the first time a topic of purely Filipino interest has appeared in the Top 25. Filipinos are fifth in English-speaking population and it seems their digital penetration has finally crept up to India's. Serendipodous 18:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

You mean the Southeast Asian Games they're hosting? That explains it. At most the Filipinos show up when they elect a Miss Universe (latest one happened yesterday, yet another occasion for my country to remember an injustice back in '07). igordebraga ≠ 14:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Top_25_Report/Archive_9&oldid=931492952"