![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
As discussed extensively above, there is significant appetite for the compilation of an annual report, comprising the 50 most view articles of the year on the encyclopedia. It has been decided that this effort will be collaborative, and that the tone will be neutral and informative. I feel that, given the work involved and the consensus decision to split the burden of that self-same work, we should conduct a straw poll to see who wants to contribute. Thus, here we go. Drop your name here via the addition of three tildes (~) if you wish to work on the annual report. Pinging the usual suspects, and past authors, to set the ball rolling. Stormy clouds ( talk) 18:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Annual Report contributors:
Discussion and Planning @ Serendipodous: - good question. Depends on how elaborate we want to go. We could leave it out altogether, or just get someone to write it. Or, it we want to really go for it, we could adopt a "round table" model, where all the contributors discuss the year in the context of the report, and elaborate on things which intrigued them. The latter is harder to pull off, but could be effective. Stormy clouds ( talk) 19:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit miffed at the tone will be neutral and informative
. Here's hoping we can still get some banter into the text… Would be out of character to suddenly turn 100% serious just because this is a yearly compilation. —
JFG
talk
23:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is a communal sandbox to work in on this project. Stormy clouds ( talk) 13:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Completed commentary for my parts. @ OZOO:, I have given you a colour on the template - simply pick which one you wish to do, and alter the background to match your colour. Thanks. Stormy clouds ( talk) 22:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I think someone must have changed the colours around while I was editing. Either that or I'm blind. Anyway, do you want me to delete the inappropriate ones? Serendi pod ous 23:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I'll post what I wrote in my sandbox in case Soulbust or anyone else wants to use it for research. Serendi pod ous 00:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
When completed, we have already expressed an interest in sending the list to media outlets. What about placing it on the main page for Dec. 31/Jan. 1. It may be unorthodox, but the list will be of interest to many. Maybe an unorthodox listing in DYK (we don't normally link to WP-space there, but exceptions can be made) could be made, along the lines of:
"Did you know that in 2017, the
most read Wikipedia article was
Deaths in 2017?"
Stormy clouds (
talk)
08:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
"Maybe an unorthodox listing in DYK"is a great idea. I'd support that. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I just added the peak dates to all entries, with brief explanations of the triggering event, when I could find one. Some entries have a steady view stream and there is no obvious event related to the peak. Please help in places where I missed something. Note that the Millennials entry appears to be a fake peak, [1] [2] which was ignored in the corresponding weekly report. If we exclude that week, the article probably won't make the year's Top 50; that's a shame because the writeup by Stormy clouds was quite funny! — JFG talk 14:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The report is shaping up nicely, though there is still a bit to do. Just asking if we have plans vis-á-vis a round table discussion, as mooted above, when the list is complete. Alternately, if anyone wants to comment on the commentary, here would be a good spot to do so. Stormy clouds ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Soulbust: Sorry if I took Logan from you (after all, Stormy clouds said that I kinda have a priority due to all the data I've gathered...). Plenty of funny write-ups already, Stormy and Serendipodous are bringing their A game (I might not agree with the assessment on Dunkirk, but by God, that Ed Sheeran entry just got better with each line) igordebraga ≠ 01:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I would've liked to see Chris Cornell get enough views to get #50 instead of Fate of the Furious. But in the meantime, Star Wars is on the rise - either @ OZOO: or @ Serendipodous:, who have less reports (5 - well, Soulbust has the same amount, but he already wrote about The Last Jedi), can take i. And I won't blame if you go with Stormy clouds' idea ("You know what this is and why it is here, so here is an entry for Chris Cornell, who it replaced. Gotta restore balance by subsuming him into the Force.") igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there a different way to differentiate between who wrote what commentary? I'm fine with how it is now for the purpose of editing, but with this many people it might be difficult to make the finished product accessible for people with color-blindness. I have normal color vision, but if this is likely to be covered in the media, it might attract criticism if it's hard to read. A lad insane talk 18:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that individual authors should be identified by their initials at the end of each entry, or even by their usual signature. Two suggestions about colors to make things more readable and informative:
Regarding my contributions, I'll be working on them offline and will publish them a couple days after Christmas. — JFG talk 07:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Just a general inquiry; when should we have the annual report finished by, and where will it go when completed? Stormy clouds ( talk) 00:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
"The report will include a link to the raw data, the basis for the report we are working on, but that's not nearly as much fun."Did I lie? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The best would be all write-ups ready by Dec. 30 or 31 (specially as Andrew's data comes up on Jan. 1 to ultimately finish the page), and maybe a short intro if we want to get all fancy. Come on, let's do it while there's still one week left of the year. igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I have produced data for the MOST POPULAR ARTICLE ON EACH DAY, which is a manual culling from the TOP-5 MOST POPULAR ARTICLES ON EACH DAY per our typical exclusion rules. To start, the broader query doesn't even return articles whose mobile totals are <10%. Some articles with suspiciously high mobile totals did appear (e.g., XHamster) and I removed them in the manual effort. I'm up for suggestions on what we do with it. A lot of Google Doodle's and Reddit TIL's percolate to the top in this view.
A little less fun for me, seeing these results begs two one no questions (both now resolved per below) of the underlying data:
Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 14:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates. I've updated the MOST POPULAR ARTICLE ON EACH DAY and TOP-5 MOST POPULAR ARTICLES ON EACH DAY lists from above with the OCT-31 data. Anyone want to take a stab at Wiki-fying this? Are there any other reports that folks would be interested in? My yearly processing is on track and I will output a preliminary report later today. Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Finished the list here:
Wikipedia:Top 50 Report/2017 daily. Any help to add more text or some reformatting is welcome, and maybe @
SchreiberBike: can do a r/TIL topic to tell those guys (something "TIL that in 2017, the most viewed Wikipedia article of the day was 64 times something posted in r/TodayILearned")
igordebraga
≠
19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Stormy clouds:@ Serendipodous:@ Igordebraga:@ JFG:@ Soulbust:@ A lad insane:@ OZOO: A preliminary version of the 2017 top-5000 has been published HERE, while still awaiting a few more day's data. A quick check against igordebraga's initial numbers show subtle re-orderings (gonna mess up those internal numbering references), but nothing dramatic, and probably a few articles in need of deeper investigation of how they got high in the list without alarming mobile view percentages. West.andrew.g ( talk) 00:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@ West.andrew.g: I've seen you already discarded the fake peak for Millennials in that daily top 5, but does this preliminary yearly list also does so? (and which day does your data end? only asking because I know things will change a bit given Bitcoin, the Royal Family and Star Wars are getting lots of views) igordebraga ≠ 02:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Serendipodous: @ OZOO: if either one of you would like Margaret, go ahead. I'm American and don't really know enough about the royal family to do it justice. A lad insane talk 04:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
User:West.andrew.g/2017_Popular_pages -- Still 8 days missing from this. I will finalize a couple hours after the UTC new year and also revise the "most viewed article each day" aggregates. This will be the definitive thread for those updates. From there we can finalize the top-25 report and get the promotion machine running. West.andrew.g ( talk) 23:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Igordebraga: Thanks for your fix here. That was my fault. I updated the figures without knowing some of the background. I'm glad it only moved it down the list and not off. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Been attempting to do the daily list here, splitting per subject - specially to highlight Reddit boosts. ANyone willing to help? igordebraga ≠ 01:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the article into WP space - here it is. I have also nominated it for inclusion at DYK.
Now how do we proceed? Stormy clouds ( talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
2016's, done by me and A lad insane (aside from last year, the Signpost used to write about the previous year's top pages too). And I don't know why, all the reasons the DYK people gave for rejecting our page seem oddly hilarious. igordebraga ≠ 17:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The Hollywood Reporter, Complex, Uproxx, Hypebeast have picked up too. And better finish the most popular article of each day to have something to post at r/TIL. igordebraga ≠ 01:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Also a lot of really high mobile counts this week. Serendi pod ous 11:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Stormy clouds: I haven't read this entire page, but I recommend amending your piece on Donald Trump, specifically, and any others you may have like it. BLP applies to all living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I like the informal way things are written here (though I agree that the Trump bit was treading on thin ice) but I do wonder how you get away with it! It might be for the best if you place a template atop the page, something along the lines of {{ essay}}, or maybe create your own template like this if one doesn't already exist:
![]() | This page is a commentary. It contains the opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It may not be written from a
neutral point of view and it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. As such it does not represent the official views of Wikipedia. |
I'm not trying to pander to the over-sensitive, I just don't want to see this go down the pan because of WP:COMMENTARY or whatever. nagual design 07:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Serendi pod ous 11:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Man, you should go back into writing full reports, these short comments are hilarious. I had already done something based on the WMF tool (only missed Sanchez). And had to do the week's report using what you had written! igordebraga ≠ 15:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It redirects to the one from this week. Form the 21st January. -- 84.112.151.27 ( talk) 20:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to undo the redirect, it's in the right page now. igordebraga ≠ 22:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The server where I calculate the statistics unexpectedly went down this afternoon (the machine lives in Philadelphia, and had this happened last night, I might have suspected some kind of Super Bowl conspiracy theory). A colleague was onsite and did a hard reboot of the machine. The box did not come back online. This implies: (1) Some type of network problem not corresponding to planned maintenance, and not affecting other machines in the lab, has persisted for more than hour, or (2) Something really bad has happened on the machine itself, unrelated to network issues (e.g., hard drive or other hardware failure). I am going to try to troubleshoot with folks on-site, but I don't have a great feeling about this, and if #2 reveals itself to be the cause, we have some serious problems. West.andrew.g ( talk) 21:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The delay with the report isn't my fault this week. Raw data comes from: [5] which only has data through FEB-08. I'm super busy at the moment, but if anyone cares, posting this to WP:VPT is likely to get the fastest help. Assuming that gets fixed, ping me and I can expedite the processing. Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 23:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The list is here for the first, anyone wants to pick it up? igordebraga ≠ 15:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Soulbust wants the Super Bowl report, so maybe I'll just do this one myself. igordebraga ≠ 13:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Soulbust: Even if the 5000 is delayed as stated in later posts, are you gonna finish that soon? (sidenote: great that people are preferring to look for the biggest release of this week instead of last one's) igordebraga ≠ 16:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have created a generalised template for the weekly reports here. It has the table already established, with only values to be added where necessary. Any author who wants to be in the room where it happens can feel free to use it. Stormy clouds ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
So I'm backing out of doing this week's report. The school shooting this past week wasn't in my direct community, but it was close enough to it to make me feel a little differently about it, which I think must mean something considering the desensitization-type feeling myself and many that grew up with this type of occurrence carry. I also am loaded with lots of work at school and I don't think I'd be able to write about the statistics or something like that about this shooting. I felt this way while filling out the chart with the near-finalized page view counts (just waiting for WP:5000). Sorry for backing out. Like I said, I did fill out the chart and it's over at my draft page. Best wishes, Soulbust ( talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Except:
The first and third I didn't know... don't know if Stormy clouds did before putting up Dua Lipa's description in
our work-in-progress.
igordebraga
≠
01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Decided to start looking for the next report... and it seems like one of those Indian weeks, led by a Bollywood actress who died and a holiday. Anyone wants to do the list? igordebraga ≠ 02:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, Soulbust claimed the Oscar report, so did the list myself. Am looking forward to your comments on the ceremony ultimately won by Abe Sapien Gets Lucky! igordebraga ≠ 04:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up for whoever writes this week: Stephen Hawking got in one day more views than Sridevi the whole week of her death. He'll probably shoot up pretty high on All-time Top 25, deservingly so. igordebraga ≠ 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
List is here, to whoever wants to write on Hawking repeating and quite some random entries. igordebraga ≠ 06:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
While some people might not believe anything posted today, here's last week's list. And lol patriotism, decided to borrow from a Brazilian song - and man, the English lyrics for Waters of March are not as easy to parody. igordebraga ≠ 14:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
So the Tomb Raider (film) article was not included on the list, and I was wondering if we should change that? That page got 220,618 page views for the March 11-17 week, but combined with the 257,145 page views that Tomb Raider (2018 film) (now a redirect to Tomb Raider (film)), that gives it 477,763 page views for the week, enough for placement on this list. That number also makes logical sense for the film considering its lead Alicia Vikander got 489K views. I was just wondering if we should combine the page views in this specific instance since (2018 film) article was moved to the current destination in the middle of the week. This is different than adding the page views for pre-existing redirects to an article, because the current destination was created in the middle of the week. This would be similar to what we did for the Stoneman Douglas shooting article a few weeks ago. Soulbust ( talk) 10:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense (it would be about the third time, the Charlottesville incident last year had 3 different names the week it happened). @ OZOO: I extended the Alicia Vikander write-up for two rows given it's the entry right below, but feel free to write something about the movie if you feel like it. igordebraga ≠ 14:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
As discussed extensively above, there is significant appetite for the compilation of an annual report, comprising the 50 most view articles of the year on the encyclopedia. It has been decided that this effort will be collaborative, and that the tone will be neutral and informative. I feel that, given the work involved and the consensus decision to split the burden of that self-same work, we should conduct a straw poll to see who wants to contribute. Thus, here we go. Drop your name here via the addition of three tildes (~) if you wish to work on the annual report. Pinging the usual suspects, and past authors, to set the ball rolling. Stormy clouds ( talk) 18:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Annual Report contributors:
Discussion and Planning @ Serendipodous: - good question. Depends on how elaborate we want to go. We could leave it out altogether, or just get someone to write it. Or, it we want to really go for it, we could adopt a "round table" model, where all the contributors discuss the year in the context of the report, and elaborate on things which intrigued them. The latter is harder to pull off, but could be effective. Stormy clouds ( talk) 19:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm a bit miffed at the tone will be neutral and informative
. Here's hoping we can still get some banter into the text… Would be out of character to suddenly turn 100% serious just because this is a yearly compilation. —
JFG
talk
23:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is a communal sandbox to work in on this project. Stormy clouds ( talk) 13:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Completed commentary for my parts. @ OZOO:, I have given you a colour on the template - simply pick which one you wish to do, and alter the background to match your colour. Thanks. Stormy clouds ( talk) 22:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I think someone must have changed the colours around while I was editing. Either that or I'm blind. Anyway, do you want me to delete the inappropriate ones? Serendi pod ous 23:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I'll post what I wrote in my sandbox in case Soulbust or anyone else wants to use it for research. Serendi pod ous 00:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
When completed, we have already expressed an interest in sending the list to media outlets. What about placing it on the main page for Dec. 31/Jan. 1. It may be unorthodox, but the list will be of interest to many. Maybe an unorthodox listing in DYK (we don't normally link to WP-space there, but exceptions can be made) could be made, along the lines of:
"Did you know that in 2017, the
most read Wikipedia article was
Deaths in 2017?"
Stormy clouds (
talk)
08:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
"Maybe an unorthodox listing in DYK"is a great idea. I'd support that. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I just added the peak dates to all entries, with brief explanations of the triggering event, when I could find one. Some entries have a steady view stream and there is no obvious event related to the peak. Please help in places where I missed something. Note that the Millennials entry appears to be a fake peak, [1] [2] which was ignored in the corresponding weekly report. If we exclude that week, the article probably won't make the year's Top 50; that's a shame because the writeup by Stormy clouds was quite funny! — JFG talk 14:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
The report is shaping up nicely, though there is still a bit to do. Just asking if we have plans vis-á-vis a round table discussion, as mooted above, when the list is complete. Alternately, if anyone wants to comment on the commentary, here would be a good spot to do so. Stormy clouds ( talk) 19:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Soulbust: Sorry if I took Logan from you (after all, Stormy clouds said that I kinda have a priority due to all the data I've gathered...). Plenty of funny write-ups already, Stormy and Serendipodous are bringing their A game (I might not agree with the assessment on Dunkirk, but by God, that Ed Sheeran entry just got better with each line) igordebraga ≠ 01:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I would've liked to see Chris Cornell get enough views to get #50 instead of Fate of the Furious. But in the meantime, Star Wars is on the rise - either @ OZOO: or @ Serendipodous:, who have less reports (5 - well, Soulbust has the same amount, but he already wrote about The Last Jedi), can take i. And I won't blame if you go with Stormy clouds' idea ("You know what this is and why it is here, so here is an entry for Chris Cornell, who it replaced. Gotta restore balance by subsuming him into the Force.") igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Is there a different way to differentiate between who wrote what commentary? I'm fine with how it is now for the purpose of editing, but with this many people it might be difficult to make the finished product accessible for people with color-blindness. I have normal color vision, but if this is likely to be covered in the media, it might attract criticism if it's hard to read. A lad insane talk 18:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that individual authors should be identified by their initials at the end of each entry, or even by their usual signature. Two suggestions about colors to make things more readable and informative:
Regarding my contributions, I'll be working on them offline and will publish them a couple days after Christmas. — JFG talk 07:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Just a general inquiry; when should we have the annual report finished by, and where will it go when completed? Stormy clouds ( talk) 00:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
"The report will include a link to the raw data, the basis for the report we are working on, but that's not nearly as much fun."Did I lie? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 03:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
The best would be all write-ups ready by Dec. 30 or 31 (specially as Andrew's data comes up on Jan. 1 to ultimately finish the page), and maybe a short intro if we want to get all fancy. Come on, let's do it while there's still one week left of the year. igordebraga ≠ 17:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I have produced data for the MOST POPULAR ARTICLE ON EACH DAY, which is a manual culling from the TOP-5 MOST POPULAR ARTICLES ON EACH DAY per our typical exclusion rules. To start, the broader query doesn't even return articles whose mobile totals are <10%. Some articles with suspiciously high mobile totals did appear (e.g., XHamster) and I removed them in the manual effort. I'm up for suggestions on what we do with it. A lot of Google Doodle's and Reddit TIL's percolate to the top in this view.
A little less fun for me, seeing these results begs two one no questions (both now resolved per below) of the underlying data:
Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 14:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates. I've updated the MOST POPULAR ARTICLE ON EACH DAY and TOP-5 MOST POPULAR ARTICLES ON EACH DAY lists from above with the OCT-31 data. Anyone want to take a stab at Wiki-fying this? Are there any other reports that folks would be interested in? My yearly processing is on track and I will output a preliminary report later today. Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 17:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Finished the list here:
Wikipedia:Top 50 Report/2017 daily. Any help to add more text or some reformatting is welcome, and maybe @
SchreiberBike: can do a r/TIL topic to tell those guys (something "TIL that in 2017, the most viewed Wikipedia article of the day was 64 times something posted in r/TodayILearned")
igordebraga
≠
19:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Stormy clouds:@ Serendipodous:@ Igordebraga:@ JFG:@ Soulbust:@ A lad insane:@ OZOO: A preliminary version of the 2017 top-5000 has been published HERE, while still awaiting a few more day's data. A quick check against igordebraga's initial numbers show subtle re-orderings (gonna mess up those internal numbering references), but nothing dramatic, and probably a few articles in need of deeper investigation of how they got high in the list without alarming mobile view percentages. West.andrew.g ( talk) 00:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@ West.andrew.g: I've seen you already discarded the fake peak for Millennials in that daily top 5, but does this preliminary yearly list also does so? (and which day does your data end? only asking because I know things will change a bit given Bitcoin, the Royal Family and Star Wars are getting lots of views) igordebraga ≠ 02:46, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Serendipodous: @ OZOO: if either one of you would like Margaret, go ahead. I'm American and don't really know enough about the royal family to do it justice. A lad insane talk 04:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
User:West.andrew.g/2017_Popular_pages -- Still 8 days missing from this. I will finalize a couple hours after the UTC new year and also revise the "most viewed article each day" aggregates. This will be the definitive thread for those updates. From there we can finalize the top-25 report and get the promotion machine running. West.andrew.g ( talk) 23:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Igordebraga: Thanks for your fix here. That was my fault. I updated the figures without knowing some of the background. I'm glad it only moved it down the list and not off. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Been attempting to do the daily list here, splitting per subject - specially to highlight Reddit boosts. ANyone willing to help? igordebraga ≠ 01:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the article into WP space - here it is. I have also nominated it for inclusion at DYK.
Now how do we proceed? Stormy clouds ( talk) 18:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
2016's, done by me and A lad insane (aside from last year, the Signpost used to write about the previous year's top pages too). And I don't know why, all the reasons the DYK people gave for rejecting our page seem oddly hilarious. igordebraga ≠ 17:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The Hollywood Reporter, Complex, Uproxx, Hypebeast have picked up too. And better finish the most popular article of each day to have something to post at r/TIL. igordebraga ≠ 01:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Also a lot of really high mobile counts this week. Serendi pod ous 11:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Stormy clouds: I haven't read this entire page, but I recommend amending your piece on Donald Trump, specifically, and any others you may have like it. BLP applies to all living persons anywhere on Wikipedia. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 22:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I like the informal way things are written here (though I agree that the Trump bit was treading on thin ice) but I do wonder how you get away with it! It might be for the best if you place a template atop the page, something along the lines of {{ essay}}, or maybe create your own template like this if one doesn't already exist:
![]() | This page is a commentary. It contains the opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It may not be written from a
neutral point of view and it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. As such it does not represent the official views of Wikipedia. |
I'm not trying to pander to the over-sensitive, I just don't want to see this go down the pan because of WP:COMMENTARY or whatever. nagual design 07:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Serendi pod ous 11:28, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Man, you should go back into writing full reports, these short comments are hilarious. I had already done something based on the WMF tool (only missed Sanchez). And had to do the week's report using what you had written! igordebraga ≠ 15:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
It redirects to the one from this week. Form the 21st January. -- 84.112.151.27 ( talk) 20:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Forgot to undo the redirect, it's in the right page now. igordebraga ≠ 22:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The server where I calculate the statistics unexpectedly went down this afternoon (the machine lives in Philadelphia, and had this happened last night, I might have suspected some kind of Super Bowl conspiracy theory). A colleague was onsite and did a hard reboot of the machine. The box did not come back online. This implies: (1) Some type of network problem not corresponding to planned maintenance, and not affecting other machines in the lab, has persisted for more than hour, or (2) Something really bad has happened on the machine itself, unrelated to network issues (e.g., hard drive or other hardware failure). I am going to try to troubleshoot with folks on-site, but I don't have a great feeling about this, and if #2 reveals itself to be the cause, we have some serious problems. West.andrew.g ( talk) 21:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
The delay with the report isn't my fault this week. Raw data comes from: [5] which only has data through FEB-08. I'm super busy at the moment, but if anyone cares, posting this to WP:VPT is likely to get the fastest help. Assuming that gets fixed, ping me and I can expedite the processing. Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 23:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
The list is here for the first, anyone wants to pick it up? igordebraga ≠ 15:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
Soulbust wants the Super Bowl report, so maybe I'll just do this one myself. igordebraga ≠ 13:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@ Soulbust: Even if the 5000 is delayed as stated in later posts, are you gonna finish that soon? (sidenote: great that people are preferring to look for the biggest release of this week instead of last one's) igordebraga ≠ 16:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I have created a generalised template for the weekly reports here. It has the table already established, with only values to be added where necessary. Any author who wants to be in the room where it happens can feel free to use it. Stormy clouds ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
So I'm backing out of doing this week's report. The school shooting this past week wasn't in my direct community, but it was close enough to it to make me feel a little differently about it, which I think must mean something considering the desensitization-type feeling myself and many that grew up with this type of occurrence carry. I also am loaded with lots of work at school and I don't think I'd be able to write about the statistics or something like that about this shooting. I felt this way while filling out the chart with the near-finalized page view counts (just waiting for WP:5000). Sorry for backing out. Like I said, I did fill out the chart and it's over at my draft page. Best wishes, Soulbust ( talk) 06:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Except:
The first and third I didn't know... don't know if Stormy clouds did before putting up Dua Lipa's description in
our work-in-progress.
igordebraga
≠
01:33, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Decided to start looking for the next report... and it seems like one of those Indian weeks, led by a Bollywood actress who died and a holiday. Anyone wants to do the list? igordebraga ≠ 02:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, Soulbust claimed the Oscar report, so did the list myself. Am looking forward to your comments on the ceremony ultimately won by Abe Sapien Gets Lucky! igordebraga ≠ 04:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a heads up for whoever writes this week: Stephen Hawking got in one day more views than Sridevi the whole week of her death. He'll probably shoot up pretty high on All-time Top 25, deservingly so. igordebraga ≠ 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
List is here, to whoever wants to write on Hawking repeating and quite some random entries. igordebraga ≠ 06:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
While some people might not believe anything posted today, here's last week's list. And lol patriotism, decided to borrow from a Brazilian song - and man, the English lyrics for Waters of March are not as easy to parody. igordebraga ≠ 14:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
So the Tomb Raider (film) article was not included on the list, and I was wondering if we should change that? That page got 220,618 page views for the March 11-17 week, but combined with the 257,145 page views that Tomb Raider (2018 film) (now a redirect to Tomb Raider (film)), that gives it 477,763 page views for the week, enough for placement on this list. That number also makes logical sense for the film considering its lead Alicia Vikander got 489K views. I was just wondering if we should combine the page views in this specific instance since (2018 film) article was moved to the current destination in the middle of the week. This is different than adding the page views for pre-existing redirects to an article, because the current destination was created in the middle of the week. This would be similar to what we did for the Stoneman Douglas shooting article a few weeks ago. Soulbust ( talk) 10:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Makes sense (it would be about the third time, the Charlottesville incident last year had 3 different names the week it happened). @ OZOO: I extended the Alicia Vikander write-up for two rows given it's the entry right below, but feel free to write something about the movie if you feel like it. igordebraga ≠ 14:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)