This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi, to whoever first proposed it, this is an interesting initiative. Anyway, would I be eligible for any Million Awards for helping to bring Airbus A330 and Neil Armstrong to GA status? Could somebody check? Cheers -- Sp33dyphil © ^hat _ontributions 23:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Done and done. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda is a good article now. The article is in WP:5000 (ranked 2369). User:Nvvchar and I have worked here. -- Tito☸ Dutta 11:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Done and done. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just got this article through GA (it has passed but the bot is slow on doing the remaining paperwork), which according to its traffic stats had 289,072 views in the last 90 days and is ranked just outside the top 5K at 5,221. Could an independent person confirm it's eligible for a million award? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

On it. Congrats! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 16:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Just discovered this award and checked on a couple of my higher-visibility pages. By my reading of the stats, this page qualifies for a Half-Million Award? Or do FLs not qualify, only FAs? Staxringold _talk ^contribs 16:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think an FL is equally deserving. Bling coming in a moment... -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The iPad (4th generation) article has received 63649 in the past 30 days, or a readership 763,788 annually, qualifying it for the Half Million Award. Zach Vega ( talk to me) 21:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Awarded--thanks for pointing this one out. Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I never knew about this award! I got both Adventure Time and The X-Files up to GA status awhile back. They are number 1091 and 3446 on the WP:5000. I'm not sure which award either of those would qualify for, but I'd like to throw them in for consideration!-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

They both massively qualify--thanks for pointing them out. I'm about to sign off for the night but will add you to the Hall of Fame first thing tomorrow! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this award on another users page and investigated. I have only used one months data from Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Popular pages but suspect Somerset and Bath, Somerset might be eligible for the quarter million. I would feel very uncomfortable "self awarding", but would anyone be kind enough to take a look?— Rod ^talk 10:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had a look, and calculated that Bath, Somerset has about 451,000 annual readers, and Somerset has 301,000. As you were directly responsible for getting both to FA status, you can definitely have Quarter Million Awards. However, I'd quite like a third opinion on Bath, as that figure is not too far off the Half Million Award. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the awards - I don't think it is worth time & effort investigating 50,000 odd page views.— Rod ^talk 11:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Fuck (film)

Fuck (film) just got promoted to WP:FA; I think it gets at least over 500,000 or so.

I'm going to be traveling out of town for a bit with limited Internet access, but maybe someone could do me a favor and go over other GAs and FAs quality improvement projects I've been a part of, and see if any others qualify?

I've listed them for perusal at User:Cirt/Contributions.

Thank you for your time,

— Cirt ( talk) 23:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

lol. No disrespect to that film, but that's suspiciously high traffic for a documentary--my bet is that it's getting a lot of traffic from people typing "fuck films" into Google. Doesn't make your accomplishment any less awesome, though! Thanks for pointing that out; I'll formally award that, and take a glance at some of your other articles later tonight. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 23:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. I didn't check all of your submissions but I awarded a few obviously high-traffic ones; feel free to claim any I may have missed here, or feel free to self-award. Thanks as always for your huge contributions. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much, can you update them on the table thingy for the main page of this award WP:Million Award? You seem more familiar with that updating process than I, — Cirt ( talk) 01:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The table is just for the top-level Million Award, so none of these quite qualify, unfortunately. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 01:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll have to mull over some quality improvement projects related to freedom of speech and/or word taboo that might qualify. — Cirt ( talk) 03:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

James Madison, Voltaire, Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, or human rights look like they would all do it. John Quincy Adams might qualify for the project for his fight against the gag rule. Can't think of anyone others offhand, but you might check the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Human_rights/Popular_pages or ask something similar to be set up for the Speech project. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 03:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I was going to ask to add WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech, but -- Unfortunately it says currently the popular pages program is too popular, ironically, and therefore they aren't accepting any new requests! :( — Cirt ( talk) 04:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe that I have 22 articles that should be listed at WP:MILLION that are not ( Anthony Davis (basketball), Barry Bonds, Campbell's Soup Cans, Carly Foulkes, Cloud Gate, Denard Robinson, Evan Turner, First inauguration of Barack Obama, IJustine, Jabari Parker, Jack Kemp, Jake Long, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Jessica Gomes, Jon Corzine, Juwan Howard, Kinky Boots (musical), Royce White, Tim Hardaway, Jr., Tory Burch, Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago), Victoria's Secret Fashion Show). I have already calculated yearly totals at User:TonyTheTiger/QAviews#250.2C000.2B_yearly_views so you don't have to troll through the data for all of these. User:Khazar2 and I have an interaction ban. Someone else will need to evaluate my nominees.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Four down, plenty to go, I'll get to them soon. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 21:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Finished. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 16:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't follow this page that much. Why were Carly Foulkes, Denard Robinson, Evan Turner, and First inauguration of Barack Obama ruled out?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. I missed an edit.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Just passed a GA, would be elligible. Soham 11:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think it is, as it doesn't have a full year to check for statistics yet. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 Article was created on 28 May 2011. Soham 17:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It's been moved several times, and has a lot of redirects. To get an accurate count, you'd have to look up the monthly totals for each redirect, which would be a lot of work. It has clearly had over a million pageviews in the last year, however. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, we'd need some decent numbers first before awarding it, I think. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 23:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Just Once Upon Ay Time In Mumbai Dobaara! alone, without redirects, got 960,127 views in 2013. One of the redirects, Once Upon a Time In Mumbaai Dobara, got 278,855 all on its own. That's well over a million, and I've only checked one of the eighteen redirects. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 02:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and awarded it. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 02:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Somerset Levels would qualify for the half million having 187835 views in the last 90 days (which would give an annual figure around 750,000); however I suspect this may be a temporary effect due to media interest in the severe flooding on the Levels in the last few months, which will (hopefully) subside. Therefore I'm not sure if I should claim it - what do others think?— Rod ^talk 09:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly temporary, as the current 90 day view shows. Look at last May's figures. I doubt it hits 6 figures over a typical year, though if global warming continues to have an effect that might change. I don't think it should be claimed. Johnbod ( talk) 13:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. If its still getting high numbers of hits in a years time I'll think again.— Rod ^talk 14:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

This article, which I promoted to Featured List in January of 2014, in the last 90 days, has been viewed 785,167 times, for an estimated annual readership of about 3 million. Since it's a list, does it still count?-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I just went and added myself to the list since no one said anything (and it looks like I'm allowed to).-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 21:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Titanfall is now a good article.

Titanfall has been viewed 528277 times in the last 90 days. This article ranked 143 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org. [1]

czar  ♔ 00:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I checked the labs tool, and it claims 2.1 million hits in the last year, so this is now on the list. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: The early comments of this thread were copied from WT:GAN as a topic unrelated to GA but appropriate for this page.

I have been saying that 250K is too easy. I have made a chart at User:TonyTheTiger/QAviews. It uses full years. Obviously, it is easier to make these thresholds when you can choose the highpoint of the year and multiply the last 90 days by 4. The list would be a lot longer including articles meeting the threshhold using that technique. It could be more selective if you chopped out the 250K.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I am not saying that these were not great articles that I am pleased with/proud of or whatever. I am saying that none of these have extensive edit warring, WP:FANCRUFT, or other high volume article issues except for Michelle Obama and to some extent Barry Bonds. They were not hard to get promoted and harder to maintain than lower volume articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony, I thought I covered this above when I said that we'd just have to agree to disagree. Given your recent obsessive postings about me all over Wikipedia, I'm simply going to write this off as more of the same and ask you to desist. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest that Tony's understanding of an average is skewed, considering he works in what are generally rather popular areas (basketball? Popular American novels)? A lot of the third-world topics or non-Anglosphere ones are lucky to even get 1000 hits a month. Probably a quarter of my GAs get less than 10 hits a day. I think 250k is fine. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would agree with Crisco, here. I just took a look through the GAs that I have written, and out of several dozen articles, I doubt there are more than half a dozen that could even hope reach the 250 k mark. And those are the high value ones that I think Khazar is wanting to promote writing anyway - articles on major animals and plants, countries, etc. Nothing wrong with a scheme that may help promote content creation at any level... Dana boomer ( talk) 11:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Likewise. I posted above that I am at 4 out of about 80. And one of those (" In Flanders Fields") could fail on a three-month average depending on when one looked because it gets huge bumps for Remembrance Day and ANZAC Day every year. That being said, Tony, just give it up already. There is no need for you to politicize this barnstar as well. It is meant to be informal, just let it do its thing. Reso lute 13:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• You may note that the latest addition to my personal table is a bit controversial. 2012 totals for Jesse Jackson, Jr. are below 250,000, but his totals including 239,427 for Jesse Jackson, Jr., 5,910 for Jesse Jackson Jr. 12,388 for Jesse Jackson, Jr and 19,397 for Jesse Jackson Jr make the threshold. Similarly, in 2008 his totals were 195,607 for Jesse Jackson, Jr., 43,799 for Jesse Jackson Jr. 1,894 for Jesse Jackson, Jr and 19,098 for Jesse Jackson Jr, which make the threshold.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting about the redirects. I would be tempted to count them, but then that might get too spread out (particularly with articles with like 8 different redirects) —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Isn't counting a redirect effectively counting double--one view for the redirect, one view for the main article that then opens? I don't know how the tool handles that. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• In this instance, Tony is right. stats.grok.se counts hits by URL, so redirects will split the numbers. (see: [2]). As an aside, should we perhaps move this discussion thread to the award's talk page since this is hardly relevant to GAN itself? Reso lute 13:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Noticing the well-deserved half-million award given to User:MONGO for Elk made me go look for other eligible editors (as well as other eligible FAs by MONGO, there must be lots!). And I thought I ought to look at readership over the whole last 12 months. Some articles clearly get more readers in term time, when the subject's studied in school, some more in vacation time when the subject is visited by tourists (compare for instance Great Fire of London with Buckingham Palace). Perhaps I'm taking this award too seriously… indeed, when used the article stats tool to check readership for the whole 12 months for a couple of articles, I felt I was taking it too seriously, because it was more work than I like to spend on such a soulless task. What I'd like to ask is, might there be some tool that'll simply give readership over the past 12 months at a click? Or a secret way of using the recommended article stats tool so that it will do this? Or would somebody like to create one? It sort of feels like that wouldn't be too hard, considering the stats that already exist. Bishonen | talk 13:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC).

• I think you're overthinking it. I've just been doing views for the past 3 months * 4. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Bishonen, thanks for taking the time to look for more award winners! I've spent most of my week doing the 90 x 4 calculation Crisco describes, and I agree that the seasonal variability complicates things. Classic literature, for example, seems to be much more highly viewed during the US school year than the 90 days I'm looking at now, which cover the US summer break; I'm sure there are other subjects for which this would be true. An even more complicated case is something like the US Declaration of Independence or In Flanders Fields or Yom Kippur that gets massive numbers of hits on certain annual anniversaries/holidays. If there was an easy way to get a year of stats with a click, it'd be handy.

At the same time, I'm reluctant to ask anyone to redesign one of the tools for what's effectively a barnstar. I've just been working with what's there now and accepting that the numbers will be imperfect, occasionally badly imperfect. It definitely irritates the perfectionist in me. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I periodically OCD over numbers like this... used to maintain a list of all my FA/FL/GA articles by views over the course of a year - counting each month individually - until I just had too many to maintain. If the 90*4 format leads to results that we think are close to a threshold but arent sure, just list them here. One of us perfectionists can do a quick check of the full year. Otherwise, as you say, it's a barnstar. And if an article gets 240k views this year, it might get 260k next year. Good enough for me! Reso lute 14:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Once upon a time, there was a way to get yearly totals of monthly data in addition to the current monthly totals of daily data. No one at WP:VPP had responded to my inquiry into substitutes for this former data. I am also being ignored on augmenting the current tool in my subsequent VPP inquiry at here.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I feel that this page would benefit from a "request" section for editors who feel that they are eligible for this award. A place to enter details about what article they got to GA, and their calculation of the annual readership. Uninvolved editors could then decide whether to award this easily to people who covet it.

As a completely unbiased and shameless example, I recently got aphthous stomatitis up to GA status, and the annual readership calculation I worked out is 114213 * 4 = 463705, which qualifies for a quarter million at least?

I would like to see this integrated into the GA criteria page, as an optional note that reviewers may wish to award one of these million awards if they passed a GA review of high enough readership. Lesion ( talk) 21:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a good idea--and you're right that you deserve one of these, so thanks for mentioning that here. So far my search for qualifying articles has been very haphazard and incomplete. (Don't ever be shy about self-awarding either, though I know it makes it more fun and officialish to get it from another project participant.) I'll probably make a note on the project page that editors can post requests on this page; that way there's no queue to maintain.

As for adding it to the GA criteria, I like the idea in the long-term, but it's probably best to wait till this award proves itself as stable for a while. It's only a few weeks old and mostly just being awarded by me so far; it might be presumptuous to add it until it's more of a fixture (or at least for me to do so).

Anyway, thanks for the suggestions--I'm glad you're interested! If you happen to know anybody else who needs one of these, don't hesitate to pass on the love-- Khazar2 ( talk) 22:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. You suggest that this can be self awarded, yet the wording of the template would look a bit strange if some was to do this and post it on their user/talk page to themselves.

		The Quarter Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Aphthous stomatitis (estimated annual readership: 463705) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Lesion ( talk) 11:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggest that if it can be self awarded, to reword to something more like the user box version, which does not particularly stress that someone else is awarding it. Might also be good to make this clear on the project page. See for example the wording on the WP:service awards project page:

"Unlike other awards given from one editor to another in a show of appreciation, this is one award that is intended to be given to yourself, although it can also be given by a second party."

Understand your current hesitance to place a note about this on the GA criteria page. In the long term agree this would take all the work away from one person, as most of it would be done by the GA reviewers at the same time as promoting the article to GA status.

Final suggestion is about the images for the quarter, half and full million templates. Maybe it would be interesting to give each a different picture. Like the half million award could be a half cube of the million, etc. Or maybe the 1/2 and 1/4 awards could be successively smaller? Or perhaps most simple replace the "1" in the image with a fraction? Lesion ( talk) 11:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point--I pictured most self-awards taking the userbox, but you're right that some userpages are set up where they might prefer the "barnstar" version. I added a note to clarify.

As for varying the graphics, I can see advantages and disadvantages either way; you're right that it could be fun to have those userboxes more immediately identifiable by level of award, but on the other hand it may be visually easier to keep the logo for the project consistent and let the text specify the level. I'm no good with graphic design myself (the current design was generously done by another user) but you're welcome to play around with this if you like. Thanks again for the suggestions! Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 11:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, this award can be given to yourself. Judging by requests on the talk page, I think it would be good to have a more formal requests section on the project page? Maybe a box for people to enter the name of the article, and a link to the estimated annual readership? See the section Wikipedia:Million_Award#Qualifying_articles for the instructions. As a worked example, in the case of Airbus A330:

• go to this link [3]
• and type in "Airbus A330" and hit enter
• in the top right above the generated graph, click "latest 90 days"
• at the top of the page we are told "Airbus A330 has been viewed 239533 times in the last 90 days"
• multiply 239533 by 4 = 958132
• so in this case, the half million award would be valid if these stats hold true for when it is promoted to GA status. Lesion ( talk) 11:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Right, though I round it. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh I thought the user was asking if they would be awarded once the the articles were brought to GA status, but I see they have already passed GA. Lesion ( talk) 12:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Nope, they're all GA (Sp33dyphil's have been GA for years) —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that JennKR and I merit a Million Award for Lauryn Hill, which we took to GA a while ago in sort of a two-stage process. It has had around 1,330,000 views over the last 12 months, and despite a few news spikes here and there has had consistently high viewership.

And looking at the Hall of Fame Million list, I found that some music articles are missing that I know are FA or GA. For example, The Beatles, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr are all FA and all get over 100,000 views a month (in the first two cases, a lot more) so all merit entry (FA John Lennon is already there). And Britney Spears is GA and would qualify for a Three- or Four-Million Award if there were one. It would be tedious but you could go over the lists of music articles that have reached these levels and probably find some more obvious candidates for checking.

Thanks ... Wasted Time R ( talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks--our history is definitely still incomplete. I'll the add the ones you mention and take a glance at WikiProject Music most popular pages later (which is sortable by article assessment level) to see if there's any other obvious ones I can add. And congrats on having gotten Lauryn Hill to GA, too! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 12:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We probably also want to comb through the major solar system objects. There are a ton of FAs (all the planets, for example), and Saturn, which isn't listed, has ~1.7M annual viewers (Earth, Moon, and Jupiter are currently listed). A few others-- Mercury (planet) at 1.4M, Venus at 2.4M, Ceres (dwarf planet) at 600K (though this would just be an award to somebody and not the HoF). Chris857 ( talk) 17:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I did a few of those initially, but I was sorry to see that most of the major contributors to them had left, so I switched to searching other areas. It'd be great if you or anyone else would be interested in awarding the remaining ones, though. I know there's still plenty out there that we've missed. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 19:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia editing is a collaborative process, how do you single out one editor who is "responsible" for an article getting one million views? Clearly, these views are accumulative over a long period of time and many editors contribute to an article's development. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I see what you're saying. I don't see anything wrong with giving the award to a bunch of people for the same article. Four people received the award for the Shakespeare article, for example. Trouble is, where do we put the cut off mark? As an interesting test case, what should we do about copyeditors? Editors often post a request on WP:GOCE/REQ when they are preparing to nominate an article for GA or FA. Copyedits are relatively minor changes, I realize, but some GOCE members are so thorough and talented that their contributions to an article genuinely help an article's chances. After all, prose/readibility is one of the criteria for both GA and FA nominations. Bobnorwal ( talk) 17:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a rough guess, to be honest. It's not all that official. I usually give the award to the nominator, unless the nominator really did quite little, but it's also nice to give to others who had a lot to do with the article's progress. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 22:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me if the Abby Wambach article meets the criteria for this award? Thank you. Hmlarson ( talk) 19:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the page views over the last 90 days were 49,456, which multiplied by 4.06 is 200,791. That's about 50,000 views shy of a Quarter Million Award. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 18:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I (with tongue firmly in cheek) get a "Near miss award" for Abbey Road reaching GA status yesterday? I cannot prove through stats.grok.se that the annual readership is any higher than about 994,000, and I suspect a good proportion of those are people looking for the studio or the road, instead of the album. However, the wfmlabs tool above reports 248,608 views in the last 90 days, which multiplying by (365/90) gives an estimated annual readership of about 1,008,000. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 07:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

		The 994k Award
		For your contributions to bring Abbey Road (estimated annual readership: not quite one million) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the 994k Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, but next time, try not to write about such an obscure topic probably nobody has ever heard of. -- Reso lute 21:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Will this do?  ;) Reso lute 21:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it might have been a few readers over 994,000 actually, but it'll do I guess :-D Interestingly, today stats.grok.se gave me a 90 day readership of 247051, which multiplying by (365/90) comes to 1,001,929. And I don't believe that includes any figures for today's DYK, which would definitely game it. I'll put myself down for the million award, but won't complain if anyone reverts. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

By my calculations, the article about the latest Daft Punk album is eligible for the highest tier of this award. Trouble is, I don't know who should receive the award. I can't tell who the main contributor(s) is. Can someone help me out by either giving the award, explaining to me what I'm doing wrong, or both? Thanks. Bobnorwal ( talk) 19:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

For starters go to view history and click on contributors. That will show you who made the majority of the edits. From the history you can also tell who started the article and who was involved when it got promoted.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want any help, I'm willing to help with that. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 22:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I could sure use some help. Thank you. And by the way, Tony, I get the basic procedure – I'm just confused about the authorship of this particular article. Usually the History page is clear-cut: Give the award to the person who's made a pack of about 50 edits. But this article's history is more tangled. I initially thought to give the award to User:Sasuke Sarutobi, until I realized that s/he was actually the GA reviewer! Now I'm leaning toward User:Bobamnertiopsis but am still not sure who to give the award to. This situation highlights the general confusion hinted at in the section just above this one. Bobnorwal ( talk) 16:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Since jhsounds nominated it for GA status and made the required changes at that review, he/she is the obvious choice. But Bobamnertiopsis has done so much for the article that I think it would be appropriate to reward this editor as well. Though based on November's numbers, wouldn't the Half Million be more appropriate? I calculate 836,509 annual pageviews. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 21:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor correction -- NCFan12312 ( talk) was the one who nominated the article for GA, although that user never edited the article. jhsounds ( talk) 23:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Looking through the history, it appears November was not a characteristic month for Random Access Memories. It received 2,739,940 pageviews (so far) throughout 2013. I have given the Million Awards. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 16:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would certainly second the nomination of either jhsounds or Bobamnertiopsis for the award, as they jointly contributed the most to the article in place of the 'drive-by' nominator. I don't know what precedence there is for a joint award, but they would both certainly deserve it. — Sasuke Sarutobi ( talk) 21:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I recently worked to have the article Voting Rights Act of 1965 promoted to Good Article status. I believe that qualifies for a Half Million Award; according to [4] the page has received 146,734 views in the last 90 days, which multiplied by 4 is 586,936. If another editor could confirm/award, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!! – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 05:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded. — Cirt ( talk) 23:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think One World Trade Center, an article that I nominated at WP:GAN and recently got promoted to GA status, qualifies for WP:MILLION. ( Or maybe the WP:2000000 award? Do we have that?)
As an aside, some of these users worked really hard on the article as well, so... Epicgenius ( talk) 23:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded. — Cirt ( talk) 23:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I expanded California Chrome 5x and then took it to GA. It has had 273,000 hits in May alone, plus about another 10K prior to May. I anticipate yet more on or about June 7. Not sure if this qualifies me for the quarter-million award, but can someone verify and give me a yea or, um, er, a "neigh"? Montanabw ^(talk) 18:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Chrome is a GA and also as of yesterday is now over 500K hits. Can we give ourselves this award or do we need you to do the honors? Montanabw ^(talk) 04:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded. — Cirt ( talk) 23:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't it qualify here? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 09:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded, to Jeff Dahl, the FAC nominator. Please feel free to award to other major contributors to that article's quality improvement project. — Cirt ( talk) 23:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Do these qualify?

• Ganesha FA (November 5, 2007) [5] "This article ranked 7673 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org."
• Shiva GA (January 3, 2008) [6] "This article ranked 2760 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org."
• Kali GA (April 10, 2008) [7] "This article ranked 8376 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org."

-- Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just calculate the period for 90 days * 4. So 167769 * 4 = ~670k hits, 306629 * 4 = ~1.22 million hits, and 147755 * 4 = ~480k hits. So one million award, one half million, and one quarter million. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done. Thank you for your quality improvement work related to Hinduism, according to its Wikipedia article: "Hinduism has been called the 'oldest religion' in the world". Awarded to Redtigerxyz. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 00:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ritchie, can you check the readership Megadeth has? I've brought it to FA status and believe I deserve one of those cubes.-- Retrohead ( talk) 07:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded to Retrohead. — Cirt ( talk) 00:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that I am due WP:MILLION awards for both House of Cards (season 2) and Emily Ratajkowski, which both belong in the Hall of Fame.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I also deserve recognition for Misty Copeland.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Also, in 2013 Alyssa Miller did over 250,000.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• And Frank Underwood (House of Cards).-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. you can see stats on all of these articles at User:TonyTheTiger/QAviews#250.2C000.2B_yearly_views.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Met Gala just got promoted today and it has 262,000 page views year to date.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done, awarded to TonyTheTiger. Users may feel free to update the "Hall of Fame" sect on the WP:MILLION page, and indeed also if they wish award themselves, themselves. Congratulations on the impressive quality improvement work, — Cirt ( talk) 00:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I brought the Shah Rukh Khan article to GA on 3 August 2014. According to User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages, it is number 506, with over 100,000 views a week, so 5 million+ per year! BollyJeff | talk 00:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and Priyanka Chopra to FA last year, which has about half as many as the above. BollyJeff | talk 00:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded, to Bollyjeff. — Cirt ( talk) 00:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Are people here aware of the new and improved pageview tool run by German WP user Hedonil? It seems to have slightly higher pageview counts for almost all pages. It also includes some features that http://stats.grok.se does not. Given that it consistently produces higher pageview totals, I assume it counts some things that our older tool does not. I have been trying to contact Hedonil to see if he can get his tool to calculate pageviews for the entire historical database that we have going back to the end of 2007. I have been unable to get any responses to my communications. Does anyone know how to communicate with him. He apparently communicates in english, but does not seem to communicate with me.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S. my interest stems from articles that only had in the low to mid 200,000 pageviews with the old counter that would be awarded with a new one. I know a lot of other people have articles that have just missed out on the threshhold by the old counter. E.g., List of tallest buildings in Chicago topped out at 229,146 in 2011. I am guessing that if the new pageview counter backfilled to 2007 articles like this would hit 250,000. Other articles would cross the 500,000 and 1 million threshold with the new counter.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to say who the regs are for this page since this project is fairly new and there have been so few edits to the talk page, but aside from Khazar2 (who I am i-banned from), the people who I think should be interested in this are Quadell, Crisco 1492, Lesion and Cirt. Do any of you have contacts at German WP or are any of you able to communicate with Hedonil?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

No, sorry (my German is hopeless)... suggest google translate? Lesion ( talk) 18:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This does indeed sound like a really interesting initiative, thanks so much everyone above including TonyTheTiger for keeping it going! :) Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 19:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting, has more detailed information and hourly updates meaning you don't have to wait for the entire day to end to see the results. Soham 16:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have just realized that this is a rolling three month database. It does not provide info prior to the three most recent months. I had thought it had started in September 2013, but I just noticed that now it includes October - January full month totals and the most recent 30, 60 and 90 days.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yup thats right, previous databases cannot be accessed, can someone talk to Hedonil and ask him to provide the full db? Soham 05:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's... erm... a bit shortcoming for what we need the tool for. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• For those of you interested in following along see de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Wiki_ViewStats#Relocate_discussion and de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Wiki_ViewStats#Problem with '-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Summary of issues:
    1. Hedonil intends to make all of 2013 available.
    2. At the bottom of each ViewStats pageview graph note the 3 buttons (Qnumber, redirects and variants).
    3. There is an issue with the apostrophe because it causes the pageviews to be widely split among variants (See this example of variants)
    4. Viewstats has a current problem with identifying variants. It identifies some redirects as variants (See this example), making it unwise to aggregate all the variants as stats.groke.se does.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I took a look over this. Judging by that if we have a community consensus here at EN WP it will take 182 days and 10.65 TB space to get that data, size is not an issue here but time is. In the next one few characters, ’ in this case is leading to a difference of 27%, a big one. There is an up-side too, it sums up the redirects which stats.grok.se does not (a big deal-breaker for me and I am sure lots of us). But ViewStats is definitely an improvement and is the thing for future if the character problem is sorted out. Soham 09:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I think two articles which I recently helped promoting to Good Articles Dallas Buyers Club and The Fault in Our Stars (film), qualify for the Million Award. -- Captain Assassin! ^{« T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded to Captain Assassin!. — Cirt ( talk) 00:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Back in August, Samjohnzon and I brought Katy Perry up to FA. I don't know how to calculate the readership, but believe it is eligible for the Million Award. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 20:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Snuggums. Katy Perry has 993,998 views in the last three months, or 3,975,992 per year, which fulfills the criteria for this award. PS, you can check the readership by entering the article's history and then click on "Page view statistics".-- Retrohead ( talk) 22:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded to Samjohnzon and SNUGGUMS. — Cirt ( talk) 01:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Chef (film) qualifies for The Quarter Million Award, for two users, myself and 97198. -- Captain Assassin! ^{« T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded to both users. — Cirt ( talk) 01:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hitachi Magic Wand

Recently promoted to WP:GA quality after a successful Quality improvement project. :) I think this qualifies not for the million, but for one of the other ones. Could someone else check please?

Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 03:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

According to http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Hitachi%20Magic%20Wand the article gets about 336,756 page views per year. That should be good for the The Quarter Million Award, right? — Cirt ( talk) 16:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the recently-awarded-editors (such as: SNUGGUMS, Samjohnzon, 97198, Captain Assassin!, Bollyjeff, TonyTheTiger, Retrohead, Redtigerxyz, Jeff Dahl, Montanabw, Epicgenius, or Prototime) might like to do the honors on this one for Hitachi Magic Wand? :) — Cirt ( talk) 01:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done; good work Cirt! -- Diannaa ( talk) 14:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Diannaa, most appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 19:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent GA. It was viewed 116,804 times in the past 90 days, which means about 467,216 views a year. This is probably a circumstance for the Quarter-Million Award. – Epicgenius ( talk) 16:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done, awarded to Epicgenius. — Cirt ( talk) 19:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I setup archival to archive pages older than one (1) year. I also archived a few threads that were closed successfully (people requested awards and subsequently got them). — Cirt ( talk) 02:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've cleared all the backlogs of requests that were on this page.

I've given out awards to eleven (11) users including: SNUGGUMS, Samjohnzon, Captain Assassin!, Bollyjeff, TonyTheTiger, Retrohead, Redtigerxyz, Jeff Dahl, Montanabw, Epicgenius, and Prototime.

If they've also qualified for the actual full Million, then they may feel free to add themselves to the Million Award Hall of Fame at Wikipedia:Million_Award#Million_Award_Hall_of_Fame.

Thanks again to you all for your quality improvement efforts on Wikipedia.

I truly do mean it when I say I'm most happy to see fellow editors that engage in quality improvement efforts to bring pages to WP:GA or WP:FA quality! :)

— Cirt ( talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Cirt, should not I'd be given two awards separately for two different articles? -- Captain Assassin! ^{« T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Captain Assassin!:I was given one combined award in the past (by the founder of this award) for multiple articles, see DIFF. — Cirt ( talk) 01:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think if that's the way here, different awards should be given. I'll agree if TonyTheTiger tells me this. -- Captain Assassin! ^{« T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just doing it the way it was done by the founder of this award page, itself. I hope you can understand that, Captain Assassin! ? — Cirt ( talk) 01:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand, actually I just wanted to ask Tony once. Curious, what he'd say? -- Captain Assassin! ^{« T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the award founder set this all up to be no big deal really. I mean, you can even award it to yourself if you want. It's just nice to get it from someone else. ;) — Cirt ( talk) 01:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sure, it's not a big deal and problem, just encouragement. I was just like curious that why is one award being given for two article, but it's alright. Thanks, by the way. -- Captain Assassin! ^{« T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome! It was a pleasure. :) — Cirt ( talk) 02:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You can give your self individual userboxes for each article now. And thank you Cirt. BollyJeff | talk 03:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're most welcome, Bollyjeff, — Cirt ( talk) 03:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

• Cirt, In the past (as you can see at User:TonyTheTiger/Barnstars), each individual article was awarded with proper quarter, half or full Million awards. What is going on now with a single recognition for assorted efforts? By not making Hall of Fame recognitions and not giving individual award and asking users to give themselves individual awards, you are reducing the significance of this award, which may lead to its demise. I ask that you consider showing the proper respect to the awardees by recognizing them for each effort individually and making Hall of Fame recognitions.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@ TonyTheTiger:I was given one combined award in the past (by the founder of this award itself) for multiple articles, see DIFF. The founder of this award created it to not be such a big deal, you can even give yourself the award. As Bollyjeff pointed out, above, you can now add userboxes for the individual awards, each, if you want. Or you could even give yourself individual awards for each separate award. :) — Cirt ( talk) 08:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

@ TonyTheTiger:Again, I didn't make up the idea for this award, but I did base my awarding off the way this page was intended, from its founder, DIFF. See edit from all the way back on 10 September 2013: "noting self-awarding okay". Not my words, but those of this award's creator -- without whom, we wouldn't even have this award's existence, at all, so that's actually something to be grateful for! :P — Cirt ( talk) 08:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this quote in the Qualifying articles section should be kept in mind -- Like any user page bling, the Million Award exists only for editor encouragement and fun, and should never be subject to dispute over who "deserves" it." -- Shudde ^talk 09:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't take it to a tough situation now guys. But I'd say it's not what founder did in past, he created the idea (that was another thing) and now we should improve it, it's up to us now that how we use it. -- Captain Assassin! ^{« T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Shudde, above. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 12:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gravity (film) has 13,78,784 views in the last year. I'm hoping a Million Award :). -- Captain Assassin! ^{« T ♦ C ♦ G»} 10:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Captain Assassin!, sorry it took so long to take care of this request. It took so long that the spike of traffic the article received when it was newer has died a bit, putting the annual estimated readership at under a million. So I gave you the Half Million Award because "The Million Award should generally only be given for an article's current readership, not for past spikes." But that doesn't mean your work isn't any less appreciated. Congratulations, friend! Bobnorwal ( talk) 16:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a spike that actually crosses a million, excluding it, the annual readership is quarter million. -- AmritasyaPutra ^T 17:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking care of this request right now. Sorry it took so long... Bobnorwal ( talk) 14:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Lemur qualifies for the quarter-million, and Slow loris qualifies for the half-million. The former has pretty steady viewership, while the latter is sporadic since it's viewership is often based on viral videos on YouTube (current and residual). I'm pretty sure Strepsirrhini won't make the cut, even though it is a "vital article". Anyway, I re-wrote all three, taking them through GAN and FAC. –  Maky ^{«  talk »} 18:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone have a chance to verify these for me? Thanks. –  Maky ^{«  talk »} 19:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As soon as I get some extra time, I hope to be working on the self noms here. Bobnorwal is also active again - the more hands on deck, the shorter the backlog, obviously! Samsara 16:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I've (finally) taken care of it. Bobnorwal ( talk) 16:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The article Washington Monument, which I recently promoted to GA status, has been viewed 112559 times in the last 90 days. That equates to about 450,000 views a year. I think this is eligible for the Quarter-Million Award. Epic Genius ( talk) 14:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I fulfilled this request just now. I also gave the award to User:Joe Kress. Have a good day! :) Bobnorwal ( talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I had brought Delhi to GA status long ago when I was not aware of this award. I just noticed so wanted to ask. I checkd it and the views go over one million. It also went above one million in the year in which it became a GA; 2012. So, am I still eligible for the award? Cheers, —  Yash!  ^(Y) 13:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I just filled this request. Just a heads up to anyone interested in filling it. Bobnorwal ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I worked on the GA nomination back in 2013, after it was nominated in January 2013 by another editor. Now it had 215k viewers in the last 90 days. I don't know if this qualifies.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I have fulfilled this request. I also gave the Half Million Award to YawehSaves and Foxtrot5151 for their work on the article. My methods for deciding that they deserved the award — like always — were anything but scientific, but my cursory review of the article's revision history indicated to me that they both 1) added something to the article and 2) before it became a GA. Bobnorwal ( talk) 13:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Someone should create a substable template to make it easier to give out this award.

Then, I'd be happy to give it to people.

Hrm, maybe I'll look into this, but perhaps others could help as well.

— Cirt ( talk) 21:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI: Instead of creating a template, I just used WP:WIKILOVE with the Make your own parameter, and then added File:Million award logo.svg for the image parameter and modeled the rest after Wikipedia:Million_Award#Banner_awards. Still, it could be helpful to have Template:Million Award in the future, but this method wasn't so hard either. :) — Cirt ( talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Currently the intro gives one the impression this is about the former (which would be great) but if one looks closer the award is only about the latter... Palosirkka ( talk) 08:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where traffic is driven by the most important things in Western culture: entertainment media and consumerism! Yes, it would be nice if people primarily visited articles with academic value. But because everyone values things differently, distinguishing between important and not-so-important high-traffic articles ultimately becomes a matter of opinion. –  Maky ^{«  talk »} 09:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What's "important" to one Wikipedian isn't important to another. I don't really care about bitcoin or Justin Bieber, but lots of people do. Conversely, I think The Sun (United Kingdom) is a hugely important article (it's important to get a balanced neutral account of it out there - who else is going to do it?), but it only gets about 275,000 hits a year. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

What I have found by working on improving IQ classification is that an article on a moderately high-importance topic (a topic a lot of people try to look up for information) can become a much higher traffic article as it improves. As you dig into the sources, expand an article according to the sources, and thus use correct vocabulary related to the topic in article text, keyword searches for subtopics of the topic of the article become much more likely to land on the article. A typical high-traffic article on Wikipedia is found through one or another search with Google or another online search engine. Improving article content improves article visibility, for the important stuff, and improves the quality of search results for the people who are going to look for celebrity news anyway, so it is all good. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 13:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how this is handled, but Hillary Rodham Clinton, which previously had the Million Award for GA, is now an FA article. It continues to run over 100,000 views a month and so continues to qualify. Wasted Time R ( talk) 13:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, everyone,

I see that the new annual top 10,000 page views chart for 2014 has just been posted. That confirms that a good article I expanded and maintain, IQ classification, has enjoyed a million page views in the last year, so I'll self-nominate for the award. I'd like to thank the award program organizers for setting up a user award program that focuses attention on the most-viewed pages on Wikipedia. I first learned of this program after looking at the user page of an editor who had just made a very helpful edit to a page I watch, and then I discovered his self-disclosure of having gained the Million Award, and I decided after reading the project page here to follow his example. I hope in the next year to bring some other articles that are very high in page views up to good article status, and I hope after the appropriate time spent seeking review to bring some of those in turn up to featured article status. Thanks to all of you for the inspiration you provide to other Wikipedians. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 17:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably means Abbey Road, at only 920,000 on that list, should come out - IIRC it only just made a million, and not on all stats tools. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)