Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

September lists

Anyone up to it? (sidenote: 1\5 are articles under the umbrella of the ever-productive WP:TROP) igordebraga ≠ 04:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I had to do it myself. And fair warning: The one for last week will still be full of Pennywise! igordebraga ≠ 00:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Andrew.g hasn't shown up in 5 days, and the Top 5000 report in 11. Let's just check 15 who have the potential to enter the list: igordebraga ≠ 17:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  1. It (2017 film) C 2.912.637
  2. It (novel) Start 1.389.332
  3. Mother! Start 1.189.078
  4. Bill Skarsgård Start 1.013.990
  5. Hurricane Irma B 1.006.711
  6. Blue Whale (game) C 807.414
  7. Deaths in 2017 List 708.542
  8. It (character) Start 665.531
  9. It (miniseries) C 626.419
  10. Cali Cartel C 589.028
  11. Harry Dean Stanton Start 512.574
  12. Rohingya people C 457.242
  13. American Horror Story: Cult C 388.182
  14. 2017 Atlantic hurricane season 373.935
  15. Stephen King B 364.786
I lost connectivity with the machine last weekend, but was slow to notice due to some travel. Just today I have made contact with a colleague who should be able to restart the server. Once this is done, it will take a couple of hours to catch up on the missing data. Assuming we are able to get a restart today, everything should be in order to generate the next report on schedule (as well as back process the missing one). Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Machine is alive. My office doesn't allow the SSH connectivity required to get in and restart the needed processes, but I'll be home in the next couple hours. West.andrew.g (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@igordebraga, there's one you forgot. List of Major League Baseball longest winning streaks List had 486.310 views last week. It was largely due to the Cleveland Indians going on a 22-game winning streak. FunksBrother (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
@FunksBrother: Well, that makes us correctly guessing more than 60% of the final list. You (or someone else, like @OZOO: or @Soulbust:) willing to write about it? igordebraga ≠ 03:28, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Just writing to let everyone know the Sept. 10-16 has successfully generated. The next should come tonight. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 13:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ayn Ghazal and Al-Bassa

As experts in figuring out why some articles become insanely popular out of the blue, you might be interested in helping to solve this mystery. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

September 10 to 16

New report up. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 03:56, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Changed it a bit, if you don't mind... igordebraga ≠ 00:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

September 24 to 30

Posted. OZOO (t) (c) 19:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Raw stats delaying this week's 5k

The last pageview aggregate was published OCT-06. I've posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Pagecounts-ez_hasn.27t_generated_since_OCT-06 and if the issue magically resolved itself we would see up to date files here. Everything on my side is fine, we just need those files.

As an aside, a humble request from your data scientist to whomever authors this weeks report. I assume the death of Tom Petty will feature prominently. I'll spare you the details, but Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers were my "thing". The report should never be a place of sanctity, but go easy on the guy for me, would ya? West.andrew.g (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

 Done ... and as you probably all saw, the issue is fixed and the reports have generated. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I think the eulogy will be respectful. Decided to compile the 25. igordebraga ≠ 15:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. Tom Petty C 5,495,706
  2. Catalonia B 1,706,490 - see #19
  3. 2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting C 1,357,265
  4. Blade Runner 2049 C 1,042,272
  5. Blade Runner FA 1,015,004
  6. Deaths in 2017 List 782,920
  7. Reichstag dome Start 691,994 - Reddit (timely, posted on the German Reunification - Oct 3)
  8. 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification C 604,643
  9. It (2017 film) C 595,828
  10. Hugh Hefner C 579,935
  11. Puerto Rico C 553,158
  12. Deborah Servitto Stub 533,335 -Reddit
  13. Harvey Weinstein C 505,185 - fired amidst accusations of sexual harrassment
  14. Gerald's Game Start 458,143 - inspired Netflix movie
  15. Ralphie May Start 457,297 - died
  16. Traveling Wilburys C 450,372 - Tom Petty was part of it
  17. Kazuo Ishiguro C 448,603 - Nobel Prize
  18. Lyle and Erik Menendez Start 440,303
  19. Catalan independence referendum, 2017 B 399,260
  20. Judwaa 2 Start 393,993
  21. 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) Start 389,547
  22. Star Trek: Discovery C 366,702
  23. Bump fire Start 360,933 - employed in the Las Vegas shooting
  24. Mahatma Gandhi Symbol support vote.svg 352,762 - anniversary
  25. Wounded Knee Massacre Symbol b class.svg 344,071 - in spite of Vegas, still the deadliest shooting in US history

Worst thing about Petty dying? His version of Free Fallin still has fewer Youtube views than John Meyer's. Serendipodous 17:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

October reports

I did the first one (even if it took a while for me to post it on the main page), but anyone's free to do the second - a week in which I got older; there are even relevant articles about that on #22 and #23... - where a sex crazed Hollywood mogul got the viewcounts usually reserved for people who died. Also, the images can be changed, of course! Specially the one in #21, that I added as a joke, given Halloween is nearly upon us. igordebraga ≠ 02:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

October 8 to 14 now up. OZOO (t) (c) 21:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Declared independence?

The current report for October 8 to 14, 2017 states that "Carles Puigdemont, President of the Generalitat of Catalonia, declared Catalan independence on October 10" - something that simply is not true. I'm amazed it has been like this for so long... AusLondonder (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Spanish government has rejected a statement of independence signed by Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont... Mr Puigdemont signed a declaration of independence on Tuesday... "We call on international states and organisations to recognise the Catalan republic as an independent and sovereign state," he said. ... He and other Catalan leaders then signed the declaration of independence. - BBC article, as cited for the relevant statement in the Catalonia article. I stand by the description of his actions as "declaring independence" OZOO (t) (c) 15:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
This seems to me as a slight misreading of the source. The key part says "Mr Puigdemont signed a declaration of independence on Tuesday, but halted implementation to allow negotiations." Just after that sentence the article confirms Puigdemont, contrary to "speculation", did not declare independence: "There had been speculation that the Catalan president might declare independence and put the move into effect" AusLondonder (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Adjusted to "signed a declaration of Catalan independence" OZOO (t) (c) 17:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

November 12 to 18, 2017

@Stormy clouds: Nice work on your first report. I made copy edits, but if I messed up any deliberate humor by "fixing" something, feel free to add it back. I linked the "/s" because I don't think that's generally known. I also wondered if including that was a good idea, because indicating sarcasm there implies that other sarcasm is not there (see Exception that proves the rule). I thought that was your call though. I was also unsure of "misdemeanours" regarding Roy Moore since that has a legal meaning, but I couldn't come up with an improvement. Keep up the good work and welcome to the team.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  18:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit, @SchreiberBike:. You preserved the meaning anyway. Regarding the use of "misdemeanours", I felt that stating alleged beforehand would cover any legal implications. I think that I will remove the /s tag, and hope that readers observe the sarcastic tone before skewering me for sexism. Thanks again. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: Darth Vader should not be there, for a while it has gotten the exclusion criteria on " articles that have almost no mobile views (5–6% or less)" (last week it was 2.62%) - my mistake for leaving it behind... But I was already fixing your images, so I'll do that for ya. For posterity, your write-up: "Reddit had a field day when it emerged that it would take 40 hours to unlock Darth Vader. In a Star Wars game. I am not joking. The result was the most disliked thread in the website's history." igordebraga ≠ 23:57, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Report prep

Oct 14-21 2017 Serendipodous 12:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC) --> Posted it. igordebraga ≠ 20:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone wants to do last week's? igordebraga ≠ 13:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


Here's last week's (sidenote: the unedited Top 5000 has Millie Bobby Brown at the most adequate position, Eleven) igordebraga ≠ 14:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Doing 5-11 in my Sandbox and, does anyone have any idea why Christopher Paul Neil got so many hits on 5 Nov? There is one reddit link for that day, but only 2 comments on it, so that won't be it. Could have been a TIL that got deleted, I suppose. OZOO (t) (c) 20:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@OZOO:: Indeed. igordebraga ≠ 15:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I would really like to know how you found that. Serendipodous 17:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
5 to 11 done, with thanks to Igor for the Reddit link. OZOO (t) (c) 22:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Serendipodous: We know the Reddit search engine is flawed, but I didn't expect the "most popular" page to have problems too. So off to Google searching the name and specific phrases inside "site:reddit.com/r/todayilearned", and "swirl face" worked. As a sidenote, while we wait for the WP:5000, here are 10 that certainly will enter (the "Rock 'n' Roll Train" is still strong, half a million for Malcolm Young in one day! ). igordebraga ≠ 04:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Hm. No TILs this week that I can see. Too many deaths I guess. Serendipodous 07:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I found 3 - one of whom should be a popular figure on the ever-excluded xHamster. igordebraga ≠ 15:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


Last week is up for grabs - plenty of holdovers from last week, and many entries inspired by deaths in the Manson and Partridge family (on the former, Charles is someone with a death to say "good riddance!", and there are even two unassessed pages he brought in...). igordebraga ≠ 01:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did it myself, drawing a title from "Bitter Sweet Symphony" and not mourning Charles Manson. Let's see if I close the year with just 13. igordebraga ≠ 17:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@OZOO:, @Stormy clouds: If you have some snark to spare for the Royal Family, this week's report is a good place to do so! igordebraga ≠ 14:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: hope that I have supplied sufficient snark for your tastes. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

November 26 to December 2

@Stormy clouds: Great work, but I wasn't quite sure what you meant by "The two have a well documented spat ever since Lauer allegedly cost Curry her job out of jealousy as the audience gravitated towards her." And it doesn't seem to be supported by their articles, which might it a BLP problem. Keep it up.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Addressed the BLP issue. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Why not just say that Prince Harry was on the list. The Report is prepared with commentary, and it is not the responsibility of the commentary to be entirely bipartisan and consequently neutered. It is not bias, it is criticism, and it is entitled to be there in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I understand it's with commentary, that's why I check this every week because I like tha, I was just surprised this week to see such thinly veiled contempt. I stay far away from politics so it doesn't bother me much, I was just asking a question/making an observation - so thanks for the reply! SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Impressive, only in the last month someone is calling us biased in an year with an entire Trump-esque report, OZOO sharing his thoughts on British politics, myself openly saying there were Nazis in Charlottesville, and frequent complaints against Trump's actions... igordebraga ≠ 02:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. I didn't come here to have an argument, just to ask a question and make my complaint heard. I figured my feedback might be helpful in some way. I've seen all the posts you linked, I've been following WP:25 for a while now. The ones in the past I actually found the humor in, perhaps I'm just a little tired of the unsubstantiated insectual Trump jokes. I know I'm a minority in this viewpoint, and judging from the amount of sleuthing that's been done to refute my very simple complaint this will be my last comment on this matter. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Semmendinger: Please feel free to disagree with what is written, but people will feel free to disagree with what you write too. Communication is a two-way street. You can also sign up above to write a report and do it the way you like it. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@Semmendinger: It's OK, the report will never be fully neutral (i.e. there's always an opinion on movies or sports), if only to be funny along with informational. I'm just noting how it took all the way to December for someone to complain about bias. igordebraga ≠ 15:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Does the Top 25 report have to be insulting?

"I am not a massive fan of the kicky-punchy thingy, but apparently José Aldo lost emphatically at the recent meeting of the 'sport.' It is a tad too brutalist for my likings, and some of the most prominent stars are irritating." ... Seriously? - Scarpy (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It is commentary. I don't like UFC, I don't like what it is indicative of on a societal level, and I don't like McGregor. Would criticism of a movie illicit such vitriol? It is a popular sport, though I am entitled to criticize it. I personally do not consider the comment referenced to be particularly insulting, per se, just critical - that is what the commentary is specifically for. The report does not have to be insulting, but it does not necessitate that the author provides hero worship of everything which happens to make an appearance in the Top 25 either. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

As discussed above, all Top 25 report have some author opinion, mostly used to comedic effect. Wonder where you were as another editor criticized boxing... igordebraga ≠ 03:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Igordebraga:, @A lad insane:, @OZOO:, @SchreiberBike:, @Serendipodous:: A bit tangential, but I need a second opinion. I do intend to author many more reports in the future, but a recurrent theme of the three which I have done thus far is that readers are upset, either due to perceived biases or insults in the report. Thus, I must ask, is my authorial style workable in the long-term on the report, or should I tone down the commentary to prevent these issues? Stormy clouds (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: I'm probably worse than you. [1], [2], and [3] are mine, and this one is even worse, but it was never published like that (Igordebraga cleaned it up for his example one the next section up, I'm pretty sure I would have gotten complaints if it had gone up like that). Mine are mostly pertinent to the Trump administration (except for the one Igordebraga linked above) and that's even more polarizing than boxing, so I don't know a) why I haven't gotten complaints, and b) why you have so many. I think you're fine. A lad insane talk 19:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: It comes out under your name, so I think it's your call. I think if the report doesn't have a fair amount of humor and cleverness it is boring. Getting a few complaints doesn't bother me, but it's a fine line to walk. (I was quite uncomfortable with "-cum-" in the last one, but like I said, it was your call.) Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Stormy clouds: As I mentioned the last time, what impresses me is that we spent the whole year complaining about politics and\or showing our opinions regarding certain movies and sports, and yet only in December someone felt the need to call us out on it. And when checking how the Signpost used the Top 25, there is feedback such as "I'm thoroughly enjoying the whimsical writeups in this page. Good work!" Hopefully it will take a while for more negative responses. igordebraga ≠ 19:30, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I think that I will stick with the current course, though don't hesitate to tell me if I cross a line. Stormy clouds (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
If it helps, I had to go through this as well. In the end I came to the same conclusion you did. One remedy that I found is to cycle the writers so that no one person becomes a lightning rod for criticism. For some reason, people find it harder to attack a group than one person. Serendipodous 20:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be fun for the year-end report to mix entries by various contributors. That would split the work burden, and ensure diversity of styles and points of view. — JFG talk 09:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This week's Top 5000 slightly delayed

On account of machine maintenance, the top-5000 will be on the order of hours (not days) late this week. West.andrew.g (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done -- Complete as of about 12 hours ago. West.andrew.g (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

While it doesn't come out, decided to see what could enter (first, just by seeking entries from last week and Star Wars. Then, I went to the daily viewcount...). Here are 20 that broke half a million views and one that almost counts: igordebraga ≠ 21:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. Star Wars: The Last Jedi C 3.096.375
  2. Net neutrality C 2.733.620
  3. Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon B 1.773.282
  4. Elizabeth II FA 1.311.070
  5. Bitcoin C 1.274.470
  6. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh B 1.192.994
  7. Anushka Sharma GA 1.190.759
  8. Virat Kohli GA 1.126.978
  9. Star Wars B 907.532
  10. Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon C 856.411
  11. Max Born GA 811.661
  12. Deaths in 2017 List 790.546
  13. Roy Moore B 730.815
  14. Ajit Pai C 728.965
  15. Doug Jones (politician) C 682.827 - includes Doug Jones (attorney)
  16. Keith Chegwin C 659.561
  17. August Ames C 568.252
  18. The Crown (TV series) Start 514.839
  19. Tommy Wiseau C 502.373
  20. Robert Koch Start 501.792
  21. Hanukkah B 499.802

@Igordebraga: good guesses, as all of them are on the report. Report is up now. I think that the most contentious comments will be Pai-related, especially as I blocked out one entry (allusions) and laid into him on another one. Also would like to note how often I have to use allegedly thanks to Trump and his amigos. Anyway, hope that you and the readers enjoy. Thanks for the prompt work, West.andrew.g Stormy clouds (talk) 19:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: Great work this week, especially with the color and blacked-out text.
Where it says "The Sith master is often excluded from the report due to the lack of views from mobile devices", would it make sense to add something like "which indicate bot activity rather than human views". I don't think most readers would understand the importance of lack of mobile views.
I wasn't sure if the Prince's "we" was a typo or not, so I linked it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Addressed the first issue by adding it in parentheses. Use of the royal "we" was intended, so thanks for adding the link. Stormy clouds (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: Nice one, liked the references to Leia's "I'm Mary Poppins, y'all!" and Wikipedia's blackout, even if I had to correct something about Virat Kohli. Now I understand the Reese's Pieces picture you had put in the draft - though in something I could've corrected but decided to leave unchanged, Pai's cup is a Reese's Peanut Butter Cups one. igordebraga ≠ 00:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Doug Jones calculation

Doug Jones came in at #20 this week, but his page was moved, and that only accounts for the hits at Doug Jones (attorney). Now it's at Doug Jones (politician) where it had 136,928 hits. With the the 546,307 page views that got him to #20, he should be at #15 with 683,235. Right? – Muboshgu (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Just make a note of that in the description. Serendipodous 07:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Dec 17 to 23 list

It's good to go, I think. Soulbust (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Put it on the main page for you (although putting #25 in regular color, the net neutrality one was black last week in reference to the blackout against SOPA\PIPA; and let me tell you, searching the shades of grey before realizing the regular table color is a shade of white so as to hide the spoilery text took a while) igordebraga ≠ 23:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Year-end 2017 reports

Just as a heads up, I've begun the process of compiling the 2017 year-end statistics. This is a non-trivial computational task given the hardware I use for my Wikipedia work. If all goes according to plan, I should have a preview of the year-end top-5000 within the next week, and code in place such that the totals can be finalized just a couple hours after the UTC new year. In addition to the standard "top 5000", I anticipate producing a "most popular article on each day of the year" list (assuming mobile% > 5% and excluding the main page).

I mention this because it could be advantageous to have the editorialized top-25 in place and ready to go on Jan. 1. We've had some luck in prior years of larger media outlets picking up on the report (after spamming their story/tip inboxes), which can drive massive traffic our direction. With such viewers in mind, we might also want to strike a more neutral and less personal tone in our authoring, perhaps via some collaborative effort. I'll report back here when the database returns its preliminary results. West.andrew.g (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@West.andrew.g: good work and thanks. Perhaps yourself and past compilers of the Top 25 Report should convene and work on it once the list is published in a communal sandbox space to iron out kinks. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Great idea, West.andrew.g. Specially as 2016 didn't have a Signpost article about the year's most viewed and A lad insane's attempt to do so went unfinished (though I decided to do it just as practice for the 2017 one). igordebraga ≠ 23:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: The Wikimedia Blog did one, though, and I'd like to do another for this year if possible. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Just my thoughts on what should maybe be in the Year-end article;

  • I think the year-end article should go down to top 50. Only the top 10 get full descriptions, with the 11-50 just getting a one-line description
  • I think we should not include the article quality icons.
  • One thing that I think could be interesting to include in the article would be the single day that the articles had their most views.

That's what I, personally, think should be in there. OZOO (t) (c) 17:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@OZOO: Concur with all, with one query: why only give a full description to 10 items working in unison, when we can individually manage 25 on a weekly basis? Or do you feel that a more indepth description is necessary? Stormy clouds (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, we can keep full descriptions for the top 50; any one-liners would leave empty space next to the pictures. Perhaps the top 10 items deserve a larger picture and a bit more text, though. — JFG talk 23:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to explain my logic on this: I think that going up to 50 fully written pieces would be too much for the readers. I probably got the idea from reading The Guardian's Top 50 films articles - they have 50-11 just in the list and only write full articles for 10-1. But if everyone else thinks we should do the write-ups for all the articles I will take you all to ARBCOM work with everyone on this. OZOO (t) (c) 23:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@OZOO: just as reference to your and JFG's words, decided to take your idea of another 25 and applied it here. igordebraga ≠ 13:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Igordebraga: Many thanks for the 2016 addendum! Shows us that a top 50 is very manageable, and hopefully enjoyable for our readers. I fixed a few view counts and added some final snark. — JFG talk 19:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@OZOO:, @JFG:: Changed again, to add the views peak OZOO had suggested. igordebraga ≠ 04:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks. I tweaked the layout a little bit. — JFG talk 01:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

With preliminary copies of the "top 5000" and "most viewed article on each day" reports linked below, I think my work here is done until JAN-01? This page is staying abuzz with content-based discussions, and that is excellent, but please ping me here if I'm needed for anything further. I'm open to producing other cool views of the data if anyone has ideas and they aren't terribly difficult to produce. West.andrew.g (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

The Teamwork Barnstar
I just read the annual report, and I want to say thank you to everyone who has worked on these reports this year. It's amazing you guys do this all year round and then so particularly well at the end of the year to boot. The annual report is a particular example of proper teamwork. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the thanks. It was good teamwork and it was fun. It's exciting to see the attention it has been getting.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Dec 24 to 30 list

Hey. I don't think I'll be doing the list this week. But here's a rough order of the top 25; hopefully it helps.

Some takeaways:

# Article Est. views Change
1 Star Wars: The Last Jedi 1,354,406 0
2 Tiger Zinda Hai 1,116,220 18
3 Elizabeth II 1,098,515 3
4 Boxing Day 1,094,867
5 Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon 1,078,473 2
6 Bright (film) 1,064,578 5
7 Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh 840,915 0
8 Deaths in 2017 784,295 0
9 Bitcoin 721,663 5
10 Marlene Dietrich 716,112
11 Star Wars 709,138 6
12 Meghan Markle 676,356 7
13 Darth Vader 587,747 3
14 Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle 570,934
15 Queen Victoria 560,313
16 Ted Kaczynski 542,856 2
17 The Greatest Showman 540,564
18 P. T. Barnum 537,136
19 Charles, Prince of Wales 532,936 1
20 George VI 490,858
21 Edward VIII 489,438 1
22 List of Black Mirror episodes 485,495
23 Kwanzaa 467,609
24 Black Mirror 464,250
25 Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon 457,430 8
— Christmas 456,644

Soulbust (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Put up here hoping someone does the write-ups (if not, I'll do them myself tomorrow). igordebraga ≠ 02:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)  Done - Stormy clouds (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC). Thanks for constructing the table - cuts down on work to do when compiling greatly. Feel free to add credit for table construction if you want. Stormy clouds (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Edward VIII

Having looked at several of the T-25 commentaries on this subject, I would suggest the continued focus on the divorcee is misplaced, this is the more likely, if more sinister reason for views (see also, "The Crown", of course:)). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done - thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

First report of 2018

1/52. Countdown to the 2018 annual report is on. OZOO (t) (c) 20:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

2/52. Did the second week's. igordebraga ≠ 18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Was there a missing report? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Never mind., it was just the title apparently. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 18:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Wolff?

Curious how Michael Wolff (journalist), author of the world's highest selling book over the period 4-14 January, Fire and Fury, whose page view count is > 968,000, isn't among the top 25. Is there an explanation about the metrics for his article vs. others on the list with numbers clearly below Wolff's? --Zefr (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a weekly list. ~Wolff was on the Dec 31-Jan 6 one with 664,761, comprising most of what you listed. Maybe the biggest impact was right before and right after release. And decided to check, Wolff is on the 60's, right between the stars of I, Tonya (her character is #2) and The End of the F***ing World (the series itself is #4). igordebraga ≠ 21:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)He was #9 on last week's report. His views peaked on January 5, then went down each day since.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Understood, as I believe you're saying the page visit count is the article total for the month, rather than within a given week. In other words, the top 25 report is for new weekly counts, right? Thanks for the information. --Zefr (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Top_25_Report/Archive_7&oldid=1047331253"