Wikipedia talk:2021 Top 50 Report

Spider-Man plot summary

I'd like to suggest a less verbose summary of the Spider-Man film please. -- 109.78.199.36 (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Freddie

@Igordebraga: A Super Bowl Doritos commercial used Freddie Mercury's "I Want to Break Free", any other spikes? Kingsif (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The link was right there, but here it is again. I had found this Super Bowl commercial and the anniversary of Innuendo, and yet it doesn't seem enough. Google, Twitter, Reddit, nothing helps on those spikes outside September (his birthday) and November (his death, with 27 having a BBC documentary). igordebraga ≠ 06:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It is hard to click to see dates on the spikes on mobile, but I'll manage. I had thought the spikes looked too spread to be ddos, and the increase was never even a whole factor above the daily average, so not outrageous. I mean, this probably had something to do with it, though: a video series about Queen every week all year since March. Checking some of the other big spikes: end of March, a seal called Freddie Mercury died; late April seems to be news picking up on one of the videos, the making of Bohemian Rhapsody; October was Queen's 50th anniversary, with a TV special. Kingsif (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Well, maybe it's not that suspicious - Queen and the other members even rise along with him, it's just that it wasn't anything too public like every other page and it's better when you know why so many views (although Google not prioritizing English might not be helping my research). If you want to put him in, your call. igordebraga ≠ 17:43, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: yeah I don't really like editing after the publishing and it isn't a significant difference. Just thought I would help out with the Superbowl Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, specially after last year, where it was supposedly published, but in come articles I hadn't accounted for. I just don't want to do it myself - at least at the moment, not when this week's page is still unfinished. I do much of the work, but it's still a collaborative thing. But I digress. igordebraga ≠ 18:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Bezos image

Is it intentional that image in Bezos entry is Shatner's? Hemantha (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha: yes, because he sent Shatner to space. SSSB (talk) 12:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Commentary on Elon Musk is one big WP:BLP violation

Need I say more? Annette Maon (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

TheJoebro64 Please try telling admins like Writ Keeper and Barkeep49 that the section you restored was humorous. I will defer to their judgment. I tried to keep some humor in my version as well and I did leave a citation to the original (which was indeed funny). I also copied it to my hard drive for personal reference in case the WP:BLP police decide to eliminate all records that the earlier version ever existed. Annette Maon (talk) 14:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to stop changing the list (which has been relatively stable since its publication) and discuss this. You're not explaining how the Musk section is a BLP violation, and I advise you read WP:HUMOR. This isn't mainspace, this is a group of editors' humorous commentary on the subjects in question. I also advise that you don't drag random uninvolved administrators into this. JOEBRO64 15:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've trimmed out some of the more egregious WP:BLP violations, and I'd like to remind TheJoebro64 that yes, BLP does apply everywhere on Wikipedia, not just in the article namespace. Humour is fine, but it does not come before BLP. To Annette Maon's point, I don't personally think this is egregious to warrant revision deletion, but I wouldn't argue if another admin came to a different conclusion. stwalkerster (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

What stwalkerster said. And I agree it's not rev-del worthy, but this shouldn't be anywhere. Please rewrite that, completely. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Benmite: since you were responsible for the Musk commentary: would you be willing to do some cleanup? I can try if you don't want to (as you stated in your writing.) JOEBRO64 21:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I added the Humor template to the top of the page to make it more consistent with the weekly reports. I probably would never have started this if the humor template had been there. It might not hurt to preempt situations like this by having stronger disclaimer templates at the top (something along the lines of "Humorous essay" except this is not an essay) but I'll leave that up to others to decide. For me the humor template would have been good enough to leave this alone and move on.

TheJoebro64 Sorry about dragging administrators into this. I do not want to bore you with my personal history but those two admins are not random. They are the ones who took the time to convince me that they were right to rapidly delete a humorous essay from my User space that had several unmistakably strong humor and satire templates at the top. They explained that Wikipedia takes WP:BLP quite seriously and I got the impression that any mixing of humor and BLP is against Wikipedia policy "not just in the article namespace". As a WP:NEWCOMER I make bold edits that sometimes turn out in retrospect to be mistakes that I can learn from. This was probably another example of that.

I can not think of a better exception to the rule than the text that TheJoebro64 restored. We have multiple secondary WP:RS reporting that Musk was literally begging for it. I understand and respect TheJoebro64 wish to keep the list stable once it has been published and I regret being the trigger for the administrative intervention that destroyed that stability. Annette Maon (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Annette Maon: Sorry, but your saying that those two admins are not random. They are the ones who took the time to convince me that they were right to rapidly delete a humorous essay is pretty unmistakable WP:CANVASSing of people you believed would support your edits - choosing specific users, who you know share a view and share your view specifically, to call to something that doesn't involve them, to back up your editing? Next time, just suggest asking admins in general, or, you know, don't defer to admins when in a matter like this (i.e. that hasn't escalated to need admin intervention) they are editors like anyone else and enough people watch this page to get responses without having to ask for anyone at all. Hard to believe you actually wanted to address the issue (rather than simply stop others editing) when your first move was to canvass admins to agree with you sans explanation. Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Feeling intimidated

As a WP:NEWCOMER I feel intimidated by the response above.

• I waited 17 hours after creating this section before making a bold edit to remove a blatant BLP violation.
• TheJoebro64 reverted my edit in good faith within 6 minutes commenting that "The Top 25/Top 50 Report is meant to be humorous - the commentary isn't meant to be taken seriously".
• At the time, the report did not have the "Humor" template which I added later.
• I restored my edit. Then I realized that I misclicked the confirmation before adding a comment. I posted my explanation on this talk page.
• I thought that notifying two "Editors known for expertise in the field" was WP:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification.
• From the fact that they did not respond here themselves, I am wondering if this was a WP:NEWCOMER mistake and what I could have done instead "to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors" to this discussion.
• While I consider my personal POV to be irrelevant, saying that I left "a citation to the original (which was indeed funny)" might shed some light on what it is.
• I was concerned that Benmite's original might be rev-deleted (although I did not know the term at the time), I am glad to see that it was not.
• Admins other than the ones I mentioned eventually stepped in and cleared things up. As a WP:NEWCOMER I obviously defer to them as well.
• I explained that if the humor template had been there, I would have left this alone and moved on.
• I said that "I regret being the trigger for the administrative intervention that destroyed" the stability that TheJoebro64 is trying to maintain.
• In spite of all of the above, I am being accused of: "unmistakable WP:CANVASSing of people you believed would support your edits - choosing specific users, who you know share a view and share your view".
• I am wondering how seriously I should take the "suggestions" made by several people who make such accusations.
• I am also wondering if it is true that "enough people watch this page to get responses without having to ask for anyone at all".
• For now, the only response I got to my constructive suggestions below was from someone who seems to be watching me more than the actual contents or editing history of this page.

If nobody responds in the next few days, I might take a crack at Drmies request to "rewrite that, completely" by myself, but that would not be my first choice. I am a WP:NEWCOMER to this project and would prefer to defer to TheJoebro64 and Benmite's experience if/when they decide to respond. Annette Maon (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions going forward

Having said that, and in light of Drmies request to "rewrite that, completely", I would like to elaborate on some of the finer points I tried to make in my version. I hope some of them could be incorporated into the final stable version.

• "According to the Pageviews tool quoted at the top of this Page, Musk actually had more pageviews than Elizabeth II". Adding this somewhere gives extra depth to the Elizabeth/Oprah humor.
• "A previous version of this page which stayed online for more than a month". Echos the Self referential humor in Musk's tweets. Also a perfect way to drop in a citation/link to User:Benmite's original version which is "not rev-del worthy" so we can still link to it.
• 'explains why Musk "railed on this website for not being "curated" enough'. More self reference: Both about being curated and the quote is taken from User:Benmite's original. I know, I know "Wikipedia is not a reliable source" especially an old revision. But we now have the Humor template at the top. Besides how often do we get such a good excuse to do it?
• "The jury is still out about whether the person who wrote it really hated Musk or is one of his 37.9 million twitter followers". Obviously it could be both but there is not need to state that explicitly. Not all of our readers realize this all the time. Reminding them keeps it humorous instead of a of a BLP attack.
• "twitter follower who complied with Musk's request to "trash" him on Wikipedia". Not all of our readers know that Musk asked for it. Keep it clearly humorous while shifting the blame for a possible BLP attack to Musk himself.
• Secondary source to support self reference I know this isn't mainspace, it is humorous commentary on the subjects. But it still got mentioned in the press (might not be WP:RS but still press). Not only that we have the title "Elon Musk responds to being 3rd most popular wiki page". I am still wondering why they say "3rd" when he is actually 2nd. Could they have been looking at an early version of this page? I am a WP:NEWCOMER, I am not sure how to use the "Press" template here or how to designate which revision of this page Musk and/or Techstory were most likely referring to.

Annette Maon (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancy with the Pageviews tool.

The first sentence on the project page says that it is "Based on data from the Pageviews tool". However ... According to the pageviews tool Elon Musk got more views than Elizabeth II. I am rather new to this, can someone please explain where the discrepancy came from? Annette Maon (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Annette Maon: Did you make it to the bottom of the page, where it explains where discrepancies come from. Kingsif (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Yes, I made it to the bottom of the page. Did you actually read it? Where exactly did you think you saw an explanation? Annette Maon (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: I apologize for my tone above. When I realized that you mostly likely read (maybe even wrote) an earlier version of it, I went back and re-read it several times. It would have been easier to understand on the first reading if:

• It said anywhere that "This version includes redirect views, which is an issue considering ..."
• It mentioned redirects to #2 Elizabeth II as well as #48 Ted Lasso.
• There was some indication about which redirects get included and how they are chosen/found.

Here is my attempt to count some redirects, they still do not add up to the numbers in the report. It would be nice (for transparency, maintenance and dare I say curation) if there was a link that could reproduce the counts using the Pageviews tool.

I am already in enough hot water as it is, so I will leave it to the veterans on this project to decide if they want to do anything about these suggestions. Annette Maon (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

A possible explanation, assuming that the article was prepared and sorted before Dec 24 2021 and used data for the previous year (at that time). Annette Maon (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to make it clear that the data isn't wrong. igordebraga ≠ 18:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)