Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Cleopatra round 2

Remembering a discussion a few weeks ago about Cleopatra's non-appearance, it's come up with a lot of views again. And I can't find a logical reason, again. Does it look like it's the next Bible? Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Do we have access to mobile views? Serendi^podous 17:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

In the full tool. [1] - looks to be almost 100% mobile web Kingsif (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Then it's false. Serendi^podous 18:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

who writes this nonsense and why?

For Elon Musk it reads This week, Bill Gates shed a single tear after being reminded that it’s been a very long time since he was the wealthiest man on the planet. After being bumped out of his spot by another straight white man, that straight white man who took the first straight white man’s spot has now been displaced by yet another straight white man. It's like a game of Sorry! where all of the pieces are pasty, aging capitalists.

Do you have something against straight white men? And I doubt Bill Gates shed a tear or even noticed. He gave away billions of his money already, so he doesn't care if he's the richest or not. Dream Focus 19:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

See also: Sense of humor

Broken Link? Or am I just missing the joke?

Section 13 (Jen Psaki) of this week's report references a Cecily Strong quote used last week, but the link to last week's report instead sends to a report from march of last year. Gex4pls (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• Good catch. I just fixed the link. Mcrsftdog (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you :) Gex4pls (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth II vs The Crown (TV series)

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

The commentary on the Elizabeth II entry says

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sigh. Because she wouldn't be on the list if it wasn't for The Crown. Serendi^podous 12:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please don't sigh as if you are the one patiently explaining in detail and I am the one giving discourteously dismissive single sentence responses which completely miss the point. That "she wouldn't be on the list if it wasn't for The Crown" is not in dispute and is not relevant. The piece asserts that "we" (readers of Wikipedia) therefore "prefer" the fiction to the real thing. That is a non-sequiter, it does not follow, it is not logical, and the figures suggest the contrary; that it unlikely in the extreme to be the case.

It being a humorous piece does not give licence for logical error and incorrect assertions as fact. Equally I may be wrong and have missed some essential element that shows the Wikipedia reading masses do genuinely prefer the drama series to the monarch. If so I apologise, and would appreciate the reasoning. If there is anything you do not understand in this post please refer to the previous two, everything is laid out in in a level of tedious detail which would not have been necessary had you given as much attention to the issue as you did to formatting your most recent post. Captainllama (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't sighing at your argument. I was sighing at the fact that you undid an automated archive because you felt your exceptionally insignificant quibble was worth any more server space. It isn't. Serendi^podous 18:52, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Your laudable concern for Wikipedia server space is trumped by the requirement that Wikipedia be accurate. Kindly, at this late stage, address my argument or rectify your error. Captainllama (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

And what will you do if I do not do that? Serendi^podous 11:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

game theory joke

Ok, admittedly, this is the lamest grievance ever raised on this page, but usually when the compilers make references they link to the article on the thing they're referencing or something similar, but the game theory joke isn't linked to MatPat. casualdejekyll (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Image

Why are you using File:Killed a poorman.jpg image that has nothing to do with the article you are talking about? There is nothing in the image description that explains whether this person is alive or dead, who they are or where the photo was taken. Using it seems gratuitous. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted an image that translated "body found in a water tank"! The problem with those true crime show subjects with non-free images is that they force such detours (such as when I put a bloody needle for the Yorkshire Ripper). igordebraga ≠ 02:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Minor error

In the Death of Elisa Lam writeup for this week:

"a month later, she was found dead in the hotel's water tank."

It was actually less than three weeks later. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I changed it to "less than a month later". GoingBatty (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Soo... HostBot doesn’t seem to be updating?

User:HostBot/Top 1000 report are the top 25 writers getting the stats now? - Scarpy (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Something went wrong, I asked the responsible about it, but now it resumed working. igordebraga ≠ 21:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Question :)

If I wanted to prepare a list, how would I know what the most popular articles were? xdude (talk) 13:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

User:HostBot/Top 1000 report compiles weekly from this service, which also provides daily and monthly numbers. igordebraga ≠ 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments suggestion for Royal Family upcoming week

I don't doubt that, with the passing of the Duke of Edinburgh, much of the Royal Family will enter the list again. I haven't been able to put much time into the top 25 recently, but I do have a suggestion for a blurb for Philip (or collectively the members that do appear). Feel free to edit, ignore, etc.

The British Royal Family appearing on this list and it's nothing to do with The Crown or Meghan? Pigs DO fly! In a moment hesitantly expected for the last 5 or so years, the Grand Old Duke of Edinburgh passed away on April 9. Born in Greece, in line to a few non-British royal families, Philip was the definition of duty for over 70 years; he put aside his naval career to become what one could unkindly term the world's most professional house-husband. He worked to make his wife's job as fruitful as possible while standing, literally, in her shadow for longer than most people are alive. Besides standing loyal to the crown, he was a keen pilot, equestrian, and patron of around 800 charities. He founded an award to encourage young people's personal development, completed by millions world-round, and perhaps represented one of the last truly British institutions. After stepping back in his old age, Philip spent his retirement at the family's Sandringham country estate but, to cut down on travel during pandemic lockdowns, returned to Windsor last year to keep the Queen company: consummate in his role to the end, this is where he died on Friday morning, at the Grand Old age of 99. We'd usually make some joke about gaining sympathy for the royals after that interview, but feel we should extend sympathy to all the people of the Commonwealth, all two-and-a-half billion of them touched by Philip's endeavours to prevent the monarchy from becoming a practice in obsolescence by among other endeavours, embarking on countless (no, wait, over 22 thousand) official visits over the years.

Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure enough, I put it into the in-progress draft - looks like either Philip or DMX will top the list, maybe both having over 5 million views. You're welcome to help, @Kingsif:, as well as @Rebestalic:, @Mcrsftdog:, @Benmite:, @Serendipodous: and whoever feels like editing. igordebraga ≠ 23:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Igordebraga My dear Igordebraga, you're yet to confirm if Brazilians speak Spanish ;) Rebestalic^{[leave a message....]} 04:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Eliasdabbas

Benmite, FunksBrother,igordebraga: Thanks for your work on week mar28, apr 3. It seems Invincible #12 is in the wrong order, or maybe has the wrong number of pageviews? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasdabbas (talk • contribs) 10:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Bot request

A heads up that I've made a bot request to add {{Top 25 report}} to pages that feature in the top 25 report (mostly to deal with pages that haven't gotten this template in the past). The request can be found at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_for_Top_25_report.
SSSB (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, adding the template doesn't always add pages to the category, do we know if this is definitely an issue from the template merge a few months back or has it been a longer issue? (And does anyone know how to resolve) Kingsif (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Retroactive reports

Hi all, out of my own data interests, I went through lots of historic pageviews stats and have started retroactive annual top 50 reports for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015. There's varying levels of detail based on what data was available each year - and at 2007 it's very much an estimate of mixed pageviews and most-edited data, month-on-month, so I'll probably not go back any further. I thought you all might be interested, and if you want to contribute to the commentary... can we remember what it was like in each of these years? The most interesting thing seems to be how much Wikipedia - like the rest of the internet - was used for reference and anime back then! Kingsif (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair use images CANNOT be used in the report

So please don't add them Kingsif (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Uhh folks....

I think you should look at this. Please consider this when putting these kind of articles here. --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 01:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean, we don't list obvious spam, none of the K-pop have made a dent in the big numbers anyway, and we can't stop Twitter fanpages from trying, can we... Kingsif (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's something to be worried about. Looking at the page views in this example, there is no significant change in views from before and after that tweet. If we see something suspicious in pageview trends, just ignore that entry.
SSSB (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not even sure if we should not list them either way. I mean, if they can actually manage to get a page to top 25, that's impressive. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m recalling times when K-pop fans were actually successful in getting their bands (Exo and BTS come to mind) into the top 25. The main reason was because Wikipedia pageviews are a component of the Billboard Social 50 chart. Standard procedure was to exclude these entries as artificial views. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:12, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Pythoncoder: Interesting. What's the definition of artificial views? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 03:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"Artificial" mostly means not done by humans, as the tools that indicate the mobile\desktop percentage of views noted that when either side is humongous, it's probably automated views, done by bots programmed to visit a page incessantly or such. Although the specially coordinated iniciatives like that of K-pop fans - mostly in 2018, when we even excluded those two bands from the yearly report - is artificial in an "unnatural inflation" way, basically Astroturfing without getting paid for it. igordebraga ≠ 15:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Squid game image

Might I suggest a better image for Squid Game? It has nothing to do with Squids. Perhaps File:Korean Play Ojingo (trimmed).svg, which is an image showing how the Squid game is played, or lead character File:Lee Jeong-jae (cropped).jpg. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm doing that for this week (using both, given Lee is in). But remember that this is a wiki, you could've changed the image yourself. igordebraga ≠ 17:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Getting involved

I've been an enjoyer of these reports for a while and I'd kinda like to help with one, but it seems like there's a pretty streamlined - but not exactly obvious - process for how these are created - is there a way I can help while avoiding on stepping on peoples' toes? Elli (talk | contribs) 14:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: just go to the report for the next week and add stuff, it’s really not that managed. Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, will do. Thanks! Elli (talk | contribs) 14:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Entry #21 seems to be missing in November 7 to 13, 2021

InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion igordebraga Mcrsftdog TheJoebro64 SSSB

Can you please check? Thanks.

You are correct. I'll fix it. Didn't have too much time to contribute to the report last week so I didn't notice. Nice catch. JOEBRO64 19:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion, Igordebraga, Mcrsftdog, and SSSB: looks like the order for the most recent report is a little messed up? Here is the bot's report for last week, and it looks like a few pages are in the wrong spots, which may explain why #21 is missing. I don't have time to fix it right now (I have some college essays due on Monday and I'd like to get them done) so I thought I'd ping y'all in case I don't get to fixing it up soon. JOEBRO64 19:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this! I've noticed the issue on my end too, I hope someone else is able to fix this (I am also pretty busy as of late which is why I've not been contributing all that much). That being said, good luck with your college essays! --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Eliasdabbas:: Put the missing one yesterday, you can do the graph now. And hope that in spite of all your finals the other writers can help this week! igordebraga ≠ 15:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Calling out

Along with seeing if anyone else helps finish the week's report: @Kingsif:, @SSSB:, @Benmite:, @InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion:, @TheJoebro64: (and maybe @Serendipodous: and @Milowent: as "emeritus") as contributors for the Top 25 Report this year, you're all invited to check the draft and pick what you want, change the placeholders, and even change the color of your claims if you like. igordebraga ≠ 21:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I will be sure to help out as much as possible for the Top 50! --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

About section is out of date

I was curious about how the report is compiled, since I wanted to find a list of hot Ukrainian topics, and realized that Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/About seems pretty out of date. It links to User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages, which appears to have been unused for over a year. I didn't dig much deeper, but it would be nice if the page reflected what is actually happening :) I would do it, but I have no idea what actually does happen... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: From the Top 1000 report linked in the header? GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Well done

Kind regards to the team who worked out the prose for 1-6 of current top 25. Hat tip for damming water to Crimea mention. 138.207.198.74 (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Alignment of views column

Hi, I really appreciate this list. But I have minor nitpick. Can you guys please use right alignment for page views? That way it's more natural. To have hundreds, thousands, etc positions align together, instead of the 6 of 6M & 7 of 700k aligning together. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(^he/_him) (^{let's talk}|_contribs) 16:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom:  Done! The page is not protected, so you can edit it too. GoingBatty (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Cleopatra

We have been excluding Cleopatra for a while based on unexplained views. There is now an explanation: https://www.inputmag.com/culture/why-cleopatra-trending-wikipedia

It is one of Google Assistant's set-up activities: "Show Cleopatra on Wikipedia"

Kingsif (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

A few discussions

1. The Anna Sorokin entry for the March 6 to 12, 2022 Report has wrong commas. I think I'll edit it if I can.
2. I viewed the report under construction (March 13 to 19, 2022). Is this fine? I think so, because of the license. Caehlla2357 (talk) 06:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
3. For the Week (July 10 to 16, 2022) it was asked why Andrew Tate was on the list. It was because he was on a very popular Twitch stream with Adin Ross which caused a lot of Drama on Reddit /r/livestreamfails! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinnIckler (talk • contribs) 18:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate

Hey, got some insight into this one. His page got hit huge because an editor made some changes that removed some questionable sources that softened some controversial content from the subject, and the subject apparently sent his followers after the page. It was vandalized several times, had an ANI, got semi-protected, and then eventually fully protected, twice, within 8 days, for edit warring. There were dozens of spam EPRs to the talk page(including some claiming to be asking on behalf of the subject himself) to the point where even the talk got semi-protected. The vandalism continued, and while the article seems to have finally settled down, it's now semi-protected for a year. It's actually an interesting case study in how someone with significant online following can cause a coordinated disruption to Wikipedia if they want. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@FrederalBacon: Thanks! I did see that it had been full-protected, but I thought it was just an editing dispute between some Wikipedians and so it didn't seem relevant. It's now been added to the page. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Top 1000 not updating

Is the HostBot down? Are we manually comparing views again? Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. YttriumShrew (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Automating the Top 25 Report

I recently created a bot under the username Top25ReportBot to automate the top 25 report, assembling the list for the week and removing obvious outliers (i.e. Microsoft Office and the main page). I'm going to deploy the bot this Saturday at 5:00 P.M. UTC and I'm writing this section on the talk page to give everyone a heads up. The bot will run on my servers until I get Toolforge access. If anyone has any objections, please list them. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:04, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahpepe: not an objection, but a suggestion. Can you have the bot list the top 30 article of the week, so we can manually delete any outliers that may be missed? SSSB (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I'll publish the top 50 pages on the bot's talk page ahead of Sunday. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: Many thanks for this, and many thanks for writing so much this week. Glad to see you like it here! A bit of feedback:

Skathi (moon) is an anomalous entry we've been excluding for a while, so you may want to remove it.

The data seems to all be slightly undercounted. I think this is because the bot is assembling data out of Topviews, which doesn't include views obtained via a redirect. It also doesn't seem to be including the views from days the article didn't make it into Topviews; e.g. the viewcount for Mikhail Gorbachev doesn't include the views from the 28th and 29th. You may want to use Pageviews instead as it lets you include redirects.

Hopefully this is practical for you and you can make it work. I imagine it would take time, so I've fixed the problems manually for this week. YttriumShrew (talk) 04:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The bot works by taking in the raw data from the Wikimedia Pageview API, which includes every page. However, you are right, any page that doesn't have an entry in the top 1000 most visited pages (any page with more than roughly 10,000 views should be in the list) won't have those views counted in the total. Wikimedia does track each page though, so I should be able to take the total of each page on the list from their page information and then reorder the list accordingly. It should also be pretty easy to get redirects and include them in the list as well, although this would slow down the bot significantly as each page for the top 50 pages would need to have the page views original page and redirects pointing to the original page added up. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah. That makes sense. Redirects don't tend to make up too big a portion of a page's views, so you can probably get away with, say, collecting all the pages with more than 100,000 views and then have the bot add in the redirects afterwards. YttriumShrew (talk) 06:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

After some difficulty dealing with how Wikimedia handles redirects to pages (since many of the visits to Charles III were made before he became king), the bot works. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@ElijahPepe: Appreciate all your effort. But make the bot run on Sunday so it can deliver a full week - after all, who knows what Saturday views might lead to changes (and even bypass human error, like YttriumShrew missing Elvis in his update...) igordebraga ≠ 14:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The bot technically does run on Sundays, just Sundays at 1:00 UTC. Wikimedia updates their top 1000 pages at 1:00 UTC, so the bot tries to get them as early as it can. The numbers are completely accurate, even if there still may be 6 hours left in the day. Once Saturday's numbers have been slotted in, they're set in stone. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Grateful for the clarification that happening on Saturday was only the first. Can't wait to see if next week it runs alright. igordebraga ≠ 16:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this may just be some timezone confusion. Thanks for adding in Elvis! YttriumShrew (talk) 02:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Preliminary numbers while I wait for the bot. And not to make those who dislike the primary topic uneasy, but it's guaranteed to return. igordebraga ≠ 06:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

1. Elizabeth II FA 6.224.597
2. Charles III B 4.139.056
3. George VI FA 2.670.912
4. Diana, Princess of Wales B 2.584.814
5. Brahmāstra: Part One – Shiva C 2.502.254
6. Anne, Princess Royal B 2.151.398
7. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh B 1.811.670
8. William, Prince of Wales B 1.800.986
9. Edward VIII FA 1.774.375
10. Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon B 1.766.856
11. Camilla, Queen Consort B 1.641.462
12. Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar B 1.606.113
13. Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother FA 1.549.603
14. George V FA 1.485.751
15. Prince Andrew, Duke of York C 1.465.375
16. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex B 1.425.205
17. Queen Victoria FA 1.285.484
18. House of the Dragon Start 1.238.129
19. Catherine, Princess of Wales B 1.074.153
20. PnB Rock Start 1.105.616
21. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex GA 1.013.298
22. 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine B 998.353
23. Edward VII FA 981.813
24. Deaths in 2022 List 911.098
25. The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power B 864.383

Congratulations and thank you for streamlining this process. (I'd also like to thank the editors who have slogged for so long doing this manually.) So much better that editors can focus their time and efforts more on the content instead of the structure or style. Thanks all. -- 109.79.167.221 (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Just as a heads up, I disabled the cron job this week while I figure out how to calculate the numbers better. Some pages can't be included in the total count, but Pageviews doesn't count them anyway. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Annual report

@Benmite:, @ElijahPepe:, @TheJoebro64:, @Kingsif:, @Mcrsftdog:, @SSSB:, @YttriumShrew: Even if the final numbers are still shifting because of Qatar, I already put up 2022's most viewed, you can claim and start write-ups (I only didn't preemptively picked #6 for the fifth time - or #1 for the second - because who knows if you have more to say on the awful thing that doesn't end), provide any help necessary... and of course, opine if I have reasoning for a major change or if I'm just an oversensitive snowflake complaining about the popularity of a topic he hates (I was seriously considering, just like those people boycotting the World Cup because of the host country, not working on the annual report because of that waste of a top slot) igordebraga ≠ 18:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone has already started one at Wikipedia:2022 Top 50 Report SSSB (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing the best approach is some kind of merge. I'd do it now, but I got to run. SSSB (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

That was a sock, it seems. I had the redlink on my watchlist already so I contributed some stuff, but if there's nothing from it you want to keep, just usurp. Kingsif (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I've started to make my claims. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 21:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The original sock, InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion has already written for us, even this year, but I'll only use what he has already done in the intro (unless people end up not having anything to say in the entries themselves). In-between, let's use the one already in the Wikipedia namespace (already salvaged your write-ups, Kingsif). igordebraga ≠ 01:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Who is #6? Cleopatra? Maxaxa (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

@Maxaxax: When I posted it, #6 was Putin (hence my oblique negative mention to the war on Ukraine), now it's Musk. But check the annual reports - the ones from 2017 on, which were collective works started even before the year ended - 2019 was the only one I didn't pick #6 until the latest. (and both times, I didn't pick that number but I had the top one! BTW, just read your work in Wikipedia:Popular pages, that was a fun and informative one) igordebraga ≠ 03:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Index

FYI, for several days now, five articles which include the word Index have been amongst the most read, including Index (statistics) and Index, Washington. It's not all such titles as Index, West Virginia and Index (retailer) are still flat. See stats. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Seems like the trend is continuing to hold. Anyone with any thoughts on this one? Ktin (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Checking in on this one. Any one know what’s happening with Index? Ktin (talk) 03:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Just like many articles starting with XXX get loads of automated views, the Index ones must be a target of this. igordebraga ≠ 05:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate headers

Hi there! Could someone please remove the duplicate header and stray <onlyinclude> from Wikipedia:Top 25 Report (or its subpages)? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. SSSB (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Bot help

Is there a chance that a bot could add the Top 25 template to all articles talk pages of articles that have appeared on this list? It’s nice for people to be able to see these milestones in my opinion, and as off today the template needs to be added to the talk page manually. BabbaQ (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Sounds good - I suggest you ask at WP:BOTREQ. GoingBatty (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

:@GoingBatty - I have made the request now.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Why isn't this report written in a more serious tone?

Can someone help me understand why? Wikipedia is about the hard facts, no sarcasm, irony or bias. Why doesn't this page reflect this? Oneequalsequalsone (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

You could just look at the numbers. You don't have to read the commentary. Serendi^podous 23:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Because it is not a Wikipedia article. It is not part of the encylopedia. It is just a little bit of fun. SSSB (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Group number of views with commas

Hi there! When creating each week's report, please express the number of views with commas (not periods/full points) per MOS:DIGITS (e.g. 1,575,194 and not 1.575.194). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said in the Signpost, my fault here, given sometimes Toolforge puts them that way given my country uses periods rather than commas (if only there was still a bot to aggregate views without this issue...). igordebraga ≠ 16:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

CapsuleBot

Hi, I've wrote a bot that will automate tagging talk pages for pages on here with Template:Top 25 Report per a request on WP:BOTREQ. If it is approved for trial, please take this in note. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In the News

FYI, there's a proposal to link to TOP25 in the In the News (ITN) section of the main page. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Funny haha or peculiar?

One issue raised in the ITN discussion was that Top25 contains elements of humour. As an example, the entry for Treat Williams contains a pun – "An American actor who was a "treat" to watch...". When other parts of Wikipedia are usually quite po-faced, it's not clear to me why Top25 has this tradition of making jokes about our popular articles. What's the reason for this? Andrew🐉(talk) 21:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's not in the mainspace, so the same rules don't apply. Plus, if we didn't include something diverting, it would just be a list. Serendi^podous 22:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain the facetious style. For example, I see that this is part of WikiProject Wikipedia. Another similar part of that project is Readership of Wikipedia which is written as an article but, for some reason, is in the userspace of Blueraspberry. My impression is that such internal coverage is haphazard and there's no uniform style.

As I understand it, the TOP25 reports are written by guest editors. Perhaps I should take a turn as I quite like wit and wordplay.

Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

We're always on the lookout for new writers. The burnout level on this project is astronomical. Serendi^podous 12:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Out of curiosity, why is that the case? Given some of the inflammatory critique I've seen in the archives for this talk page, I can imagine people think it's a thankless job, not to mention writing funny stuff well is hard to do for free -- but I'm curious to know either way. Cheers, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

You pretty much nailed it. Serendi^podous 13:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Plus, while there are many reports written by just one person, sometimes you just want to see some collaboration. (which lately is hard to come by, leading to all those lists that only get ready by Saturday - and your possible contributions are welcome, @Andrew Davidson:, including this week) igordebraga ≠ 14:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

CapsuleBot (part 2)

I have received a trial run for the bot that will be adding/changing Top 25 Report templates. Although I encountered many errors which I had to manually fix, I will do another run when the next report comes out. Please remember not to make edits to the featured articles' talk pages at this time, as it would result in the same date being included multiple times. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible for the next stage of bot deveopment to allow it to spot duplicate dates? Because a) people might add the template to pages because they haven't read this, and b) it will allow the bot to add/update the templates for articles that appeared in previous issues of the report. SSSB (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I added that as a feature. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. SSSB (talk) 19:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Formatting of first revision

Can we keep formatting consistent in the first revision? I think that we should make sure that all columns are tab-delimited. Two pages were separated from their ratings by a space instead of a tab or similar (e.g. a space + a tab), causing two talk pages to be created in error by my bot trial. I assume this was an accident, but please make sure that the columns are tab-delimited. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

What are we using as our data source now?

Been out of the loop. Was wondering where this week's report was. Serendi^podous 10:44, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am more out of the loop than you, but i see a draft in progress here Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/June 25 to July 1, 2023. I also don't know where the data comes from now!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• I dusted off my data pants and filled in a bunch of the blanks for this week. I am not sure how to publish at this point, however.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
• The source is still Toolforge, given all previous bots to automate the process seem to be abandoned after a while. (also, can someone update the 'incoming backlog' atop this talk page?) igordebraga ≠ 06:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Volunteers

Can volunteers directly start working on the reports or are there any restrictions? - Rajan51 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There are no restrictions to editing, all contributions are welcome. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 08:24, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay. Looking forward to it. - Rajan51 (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a draft for this week's report at: Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/August 13 to 19, 2023, if you want to contribute to that. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that already. Thanks. - Rajan51 (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Starting reports early

Why don't we start working on the reports early based on data from the first four five days? At least for some of the entries. After yesterday's data [2] it looks like some will definitely be making the list, like Chandrayaan-3 and Yevgeny Prigozhin. We can just prepare the commentary and arrange the list in the actual order once the full week's data comes out. This way we can get the reports done a bit earlier, maybe even by Sundays. Also, with the movie Jailer being moved to a new page on Tuesday, do we include data from both the new page and the old page or only the new page? - Rajan51 (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

On your second question, we typically combine the view count of the page before it has been moved and after. On starting the reports early, I am willing to help with that, would get them done a lot quicker. Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 09:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I will create the page for this week's list then. - Rajan51 (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed that after Jailer was moved, the original page had a redirect pointing to a disambiguation page (Jailer), which got a spike in views of about 49,000 over the last three days. I fixed it today and there would have been some more views from today before I fixed it, but would those views be counted in this case? - Rajan51 (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Views from the old page name and the new page name would be added together (because it is the same article, its title was changed). But we need to avoid counting views from a redirect page (that would essentially be double counting, because it would also count for a view on the destination page. SSSB (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I really need to learn to read. I'm not 100% sure I follow what the issue is, but I think the awnser here is no. As far as I can tell Jailer has only ever been a disambigation so they would not count as we can safely assume that anyone looking at the disambiguation would move on to the article of their choice). If we did count them we would essentially be double counting those who went 2023 Tamil film and incorrectly counting those who went to another jailer article. SSSB (talk) 23:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, got it. - Rajan51 (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Wager

I wager nine cheeseburgers. ButterCashier (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

oh dear, i forgot to say that you needed a time as well. ltbdl (talk) 03:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

At least another 15 weeks. 9 cheeseburgers, with fries and a drink. Oliisawesome (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I wager a million- no, three cheeseburgers on 4 weeks. And a pint of milk. Lettuce Spice (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Cargos de partidos políticos diseño 31.4.195.147 (talk) 12:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the English language encyclopedia, so please contribute in English, not Spanish. For those of you who don't speak Spanish, Google has translated this as "Political party offices design"? SSSB (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You guys OK?

The current edition has some gaping holes in it. Do you want me to fill them? Serendi^podous 22:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

go ahead! ltbdl (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

For those who missed it, Slate (and more specifically, Crunchydillpickle) mentioned us - only don't know if it enters the template atop this talk page, as it links to specific Reports rather than the main Top 25 page - even if like some videos the only person they credited was me (even for a Report I didn't do or TheJoebro64 talking about Inventing Anna) igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I have almost no recollection of writing that entry at all so I'm more amused some of my writing managed to make an RS than anything else, haha. Also, since I haven't been around here too much, I've gotten real life under control to a point where I can dedicate more time to Wikipedia so I'll probably start contributing here again with the next report. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 20:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Mobile Viewership

This might be the right time for this question, with the start of the 2024 Indian Premier League today. While I definitely agree that articles with primarily non-human views should be excluded from the list, it's a shame that many articles with actual human views are also excluded because of high mobile viewership. Last year, two articles - Indian Premier League and 2023 Indian Premier League - accumulated 32.4 million and 20.8 million views respectively, with 94-96% of the views from mobile phones. One look at Pageviews shows that most of the views for these articles came during the tournament. Considering that most Indians access the internet through their mobile phones, the reason for this high percentage of mobile views seems pretty clear. In fact, there are two more articles related to cricket that accumulated similar views on Wikipedia (2023 Cricket World Cup and Cricket World Cup), which suggests that the IPL's viewership numbers were legitimate. I'm sure there are some other articles that were excluded despite having actual views, but this was the example that I could think off the top of my head.

My point is that a hard blanket limit of 95% is not the best way to filter out articles with non-human views, as it results in the omission of articles with actual human views too, especially with the rise in mobile internet usage across the world since that rule was made 10 years ago. A better way would be to list the articles with over 95% mobile views and check if those views were random or if they are actually legitimate. - Rajan51 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I at least do my best to check, as suspicious spikes always appear, and sometimes don't even have the fishy mobile\desktop numbers to make it more obvious (or is it believable YouTube surpassing 100k daily now?). But the limit is that high for a reason, as the March 23 list shows aside from Indian Premier League-related articles, the others who surpass 95% are clearly automated (XXXTentacion, Pornhub, Porno y helado, XXX (film series), and a TV station) and the explained but still deserving of exclusion Cleopatra. Still, being more lenient towards Indian subjects (after all, the Cricket World Cup was in the Report during the whole duration, even when it finally broke 95%) should not be much of a dealbreaker, as long as those knowledgeable help write the entries. igordebraga ≠ 08:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the 95% limit is helpful in a lot of cases. My point is that we need to make sure that articles with actual human views do not get filtered out. And I'll help write the commentary for Indian articles as much as I can. ~ Rajan51 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Lack of Participation

Not enough participation in creating weekly reports; thus, I Propose creating a separate Wikiproject (or at least a Taskforce) would bring in more attention towards participating in weekly reports. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I second this idea - it'd be a great way to make sure the reports get completed faster. - Bucket of sulfuric acid (talk | contribs) 07:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)