Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages

Popular pages

I find it kinda fail and nasty that most of the popular pages are sexually related. Renaissancee (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the most viewed pages in all of Wikipedia, it's not that surprising. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finding it sobering that a high percentage on the list are related to neurological conditions. McortNGHH (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People hold their nervous systems in high regard I guess. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly statistics

We should keep track of 1) how many page views the top-500 articles get a month 2) how many of them are below B-class and 3) how many are FA and GA class. Biosthmors (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be excellent. Also making sure that all article align with WP:MED is important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Book

It would be nice if we could see which articles overlapped with Book:Health care. Biosthmors (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how to do that. This page is created automatically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here on a related note for the Anatomy project, FWIW. Biosthmors (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have found a programmer willing to help Mr. Z Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Email Mr.Z to let him know? I haven't heard a reply at User talk:Mr.Z-man and I just posted here to inquire on the status. Biosthmors (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page views

May not be accurate per [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y-axis on the Graph

Hi James, Just some questions/suggestions about the graph you have uploaded.

Iam not sure whether the Y-axis on the graph actually show percentages even-though it is labelled as percentages. Should 0.4 on the Y-axis be 40% OR is it just 0.4%.
When you are looking at %of internet users, how were you able to limit the data to to just health sites? What percentage of users are searching for health information to start with?
It would also be great if we knew the source of the data and the time from which the figure was made.

Manu Mathew (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So 0.4% of internet users, use Wikipedia's health care content each day. About 1% are looking up health care info. The other 99% are looking up other stuff. As it says on the bottom the data is from Aug 2012. Click on the figures and it gives you the math and the source of the numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Filter by category

I'm looking for a way to get this list but only for the Urology related articles. Does anyone know of an easy way to do this? mcs (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are all the urology articles already tagged at this point? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Template:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages/Total

This page publishes a table through the template {{WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages/Total}}.

At first glance it appears that data is missing from 2017 because some columns are empty. Actually what is happening here is a change in counting methodology.

The change is that previous to 2017 the pageview count omitted redirects. For example, it would not count anyone reading the Wikipedia article for "heart attack", because that term actually redirects to myocardial infarction. The omission happened because of technical challenges in counting the traffic to redirects. Since 2017 the counting method is fixed and now we count redirect traffic. This means that prior to 2017, all the counts are too low for the omission. After 2017 this omission is gone and the counts are more correct. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in counting methods

Previously I have tried to document changes in how pageview counts work at Traffic reporting. I just posted some additional notes at Talk:Traffic reporting. The overview that I have is that from 2009-2016 there was less standardization of pageview counts. From early 2016 the process standardized and I predict that it will be consistent from this point forward. I lack insight about whether anyone can, has, or will retroactively publish pageview counts for medicine or any other aspect of Wikimedia projects going before 2016. So far as I know there is no user-friendly online tool which does this, although there is data available for anyone with the technical skill set to access it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]