If there is a point to the traffic reports, it is to either a) see which topics are of interest to the English=speaking world or b) see which articles are highly trafficked and yet little-improved. You may not like what people want to know, but it's what people want to know, and that that is of journalistic, historical and Wikipedian value. Serendi pod ous 13:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is this still a draft article? Surely all the 2022 data is complete by now. WWGB ( talk) 21:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Given that the various entries are all listed as being composed by individual authors, should both the authors and the readers have the right to expect that the writing is in fact by those authors? Serendi pod ous 11:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Serendipodous: There are five countries in the list. You wrote on four. Any chance you can complete the set with India? igordebraga ≠ 06:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to say as an anti-"the top section", I completely agree with keeping Dahmer in the collapsible box. It's not altering the record, it's not hiding anything, it's simply saying that that should not be the top entry in a light-hearted, humorous list. Keeping the top at the Russian invasion reflects one of the main stories of 2022; a cannibal who died in disgrace does not. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
13 years on Wikipedia and I just discovered the top 50 of the year report. I was vaguely aware of the top 25 of the week report. I suspect when future historians look at the Wikipedia era, this page will become one of the most important of the encyclopedia. It's an indicator of what people are really interested in -- not what they say they are interested in. (As a toiler in the obscure, I take an adverse pride in not having contributed to any of the top 50 pages on the list -- and not even having heard of many of the subjects that made the list.) So, that is by way of saying: continue the good work! Smallchief ( talk) 10:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
If there is a point to the traffic reports, it is to either a) see which topics are of interest to the English=speaking world or b) see which articles are highly trafficked and yet little-improved. You may not like what people want to know, but it's what people want to know, and that that is of journalistic, historical and Wikipedian value. Serendi pod ous 13:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Why is this still a draft article? Surely all the 2022 data is complete by now. WWGB ( talk) 21:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Given that the various entries are all listed as being composed by individual authors, should both the authors and the readers have the right to expect that the writing is in fact by those authors? Serendi pod ous 11:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Serendipodous: There are five countries in the list. You wrote on four. Any chance you can complete the set with India? igordebraga ≠ 06:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Just to say as an anti-"the top section", I completely agree with keeping Dahmer in the collapsible box. It's not altering the record, it's not hiding anything, it's simply saying that that should not be the top entry in a light-hearted, humorous list. Keeping the top at the Russian invasion reflects one of the main stories of 2022; a cannibal who died in disgrace does not. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 22:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
13 years on Wikipedia and I just discovered the top 50 of the year report. I was vaguely aware of the top 25 of the week report. I suspect when future historians look at the Wikipedia era, this page will become one of the most important of the encyclopedia. It's an indicator of what people are really interested in -- not what they say they are interested in. (As a toiler in the obscure, I take an adverse pride in not having contributed to any of the top 50 pages on the list -- and not even having heard of many of the subjects that made the list.) So, that is by way of saying: continue the good work! Smallchief ( talk) 10:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)