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.
Hooray! I love it. I do not like rap but Chance the Rapper is indeed an "er, rapper" in that i do not know exactly what he is [1][2][3] but there's a lot of straight old school R&B influence in it.--Milowent • hasspoken16:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. The trick is to specify the image size as just "100px" which only constrains the width, not "100x100px" which limits the width and height. Also, don't use align="right" which is deprecated legacy HTML, but rather style="text-align:right;". I also fixed the stats for #6 which were the same as #5.
All, I'd like to present a couple of barnstars -- please feel free to copy these to user space. I was somewhat dismayed to learn that Serendipodous and Milowent are looking to scale back their contributions to the Signpost's Traffic Report; it has been a valuable feature under their stewardship. It strikes a unique balance between informative and entertaining, and enriches the publication as a whole -- in spite of rather frequent grumblings about personal opinions. It's important that our features preserve something of the individual voice -- after all, in the very first edition, founder Michael Snow identified the publication's distinguishing feature as "signed" "posts," something that isn't typically done on Wikipedia outside of talk spaces. It's a pleasure to see the team expanding; since I appreciate both the recruitment and the volunteering sides of that equation, I present to you both sides of the "half barnstar." I'll leave it to you all to quarter it. :) -Pete Forsyth (Editor in Chief, The Signpost) (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar
ToSerendipodous and Milowent, thank you for your longtime contribution of the Signpost's Traffic Report. It's an enjoyable and informative mainstay of the publication. Your efforts to recruit new contributors have paid off; the continuity of the feature is important, and I feel that we are in good hands all around. Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
The Half Barnstar
ToMaplestrip and JFG, thank you for stepping in to contribute to the Signpost's Traffic Report. I appreciate new voices in this unique feature. It's a painstaking task to assemble data on a regular basis, and to distill patterns and observations of it. I've enjoyed your analysis, and look forward to seeing your future contributions. Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about us trying to move on, but we have both been doing this for a long time and, at least for me, other commitments, specifically my new Youtube channel, have come to dominate my time. At the very minimum, doing the Top 25 Report means taking a whole day out of your week, and I can't reliably schedule that anymore. I hope, as I gradually disengage, that the Report has gained enough momentum to carry on. I'm really happy that it has been so popular. Serendipodous20:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
No call for an apology, we all have other things going on! No expectation that you'd keep up any volunteer role forever. Now I'm curious about your YouTube channel, though. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
JFG, i think i may have misunderstood your comment above -- did you intend to do the report (for Feb 19-25). If not I can try to get it out today. Thanks!--Milowent • hasspoken13:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Socks to me for thinking other people could do this job. I have to wonder, is it time to close this thing up? If no one wants to do it, then it can't be that popular, can it? Serendipodous08:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Mea culpa, I volunteered and then screwed up my timing royally… Stuck with a half-done draft for last week's news, which is getting rotten and forgotten by the day. I cannot volunteer for this week but I will make sure to finish the previous week's report so that it can be included in the Signpost later and we have continuity in the archives. Apologies to all fellow editors! — JFGtalk13:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
I am willing to do next week (March 12), but can't do this week's either. It's alright, JFG, these things happen. I hope you'll be able to finish last week's soon, though ^_^; Is anyone willing to volunteer for the current week?
If no one is available to do it; I'm willing to try and step in. I enjoy reading the Report every week, and I think it would be a shame if it were to stop. OZOO17:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Please, give it a try. It's not easy but my tip list is still in the archives, if you need help. Thank you very much. :-) Serendipodous18:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
An Evening at the Pictures is now written. Not sure what to do with the link to the previous week - should it be pointed to the last written week or at where last week should be? OZOO22:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Great job! Don't worry about the link. If worst comes to worst we'll just do a copy paste from the raw list. Not as good, but it works. Serendipodous22:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
"Also, Donald Trump continues." LOL. Thanks so much for doing, hope you enjoyed it. I put a placeholder page for the prior week to keep the running links intact.--Milowent • hasspoken15:26, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
New report is up. Feel free to look it through. I'm too tired to properly check everything. I hope you all enjoy my writing. I'm particularly proud of some of my commentary, though other parts are less interesting. I'm sure it's informative. I hope I made the correct decision with xXx... ~Mable (chat) 17:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Great job! xXx is a thorn in our side, and I defer to your discretion. Lots of nuggets in this report -- Can't believe I never heard of Tommy Page, as I'm old enough to probably know every song that hit #1 in the U.S. by then, but I guess not. I love how you noted all the categories on #25, it is always fun to learn more about the breadth and depth of Wikipedia via the Report.--Milowent • hasspoken17:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I will leave next week to either of you then, as I can profanity probably use all the time I can find to work on school stuffs. ~Mable (chat) 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on a report for all of 2016 here. Should I move this into project space (and out of userspace) when it is finished, and would it be helpful to make versions for other years as well? (And is there already a version of this? I didn't find one...-A ladinsane(Channel 2)00:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
;) I would do the weekly reports, but I'm in middle school and thus don't have access to a computer for the chunks of time that would be necessary to get a weekly report in a timely manner, so I'm doing this. -A ladinsane(Channel 2)03:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Lad, thanks for taking this on. Yes, Andrew creates that page annually for an annual report. And Ed Erhart wrote this [5] wrapup for the Wikimedia blog, but though I hoped to do a 2016 summary (Seren has done past years, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-13/Traffic report for 2015), I never got to it. I am intrigued to see how a younger editor views this information.--Milowent • hasspoken13:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Though 887K views is low for a #1 slot, I was surprised by the number of tweets I was seeing about Wrestlemania the other night from non-Wrestling people!--Milowent • hasspoken12:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
The only place where I ever read about wrestling is the top 25 report. Nowhere else do I know anyone with even the slightest bit of interest in it. It helps that I don't have a Facebook or Twitter, probably :p ~Mable (chat) 17:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Discrepancy in pageviews
On the top 25 report for the week of January 10-16, 2016, the pageviews for the article David Bowie are given at 11,772,266, but on the pageviews tool linked to on WP:5000, it is given at 12,006,245. This is filtering out botviews and the like. Is there a reason for this? Thanks! -A ladinsane(Channel 2)16:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Could be. Unable to see their code, I can't comment on any differences in processing (redirects come to mind). That said, I've opened up my code time and time again to try to investigate discrepancies, and my numbers always accurately reflect the underlying data [6]. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@A lad insane: I assume you were referring to [7], and indeed I see 12,006,245. That tool does not take into account redirects though, and operates on UTC. The total comes directly from the Wikimedia REST API, see the exact endpoint at [8]. If you do the math manually you'll see it also adds up 12,006,245. The parameters being queried for are as follows:
Granularity: "daily" (so should include all 24 hours)
Dates: 2016-01-10 to 2016-01-16 (inclusive)
Access: "all-access" (desktop, mobile web, mobile app)
Agent: "user" (no bots or web crawlers)
West.andrew.g does this align with what you're computing? It is entirely possible there is a discrepancy between the dumps and API, in which case we should report this. Looking at the most recent week of 2017-04-02 to 2017-04-08, I see that the Main Page gets 144,547,119 on Pageviews Analysis (API), and 144,502,213 on WP:5000 (dumps) — MusikAnimaltalk04:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
@Igordebraga: did the report that was skipped over two months ago. Thanks for doing the missing report, igordebraga - I think I speak for all of us when I say that we appreciate it! I learned some new stuff, and your writing is very nice :) A note for future reference, however, xHamster is one of those articles of which the view count is always blown up by bots. ~Mable (chat) 07:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed it now (after all, I passed on Darth Vader because the mobile view is under 10%, but didn't think much on xHamster having nearly 94%, specially once I found relevant news regarding them that week...). Well, will erase it, while keeping the entry here for posterity (and the laughs, of course).
@Igordebraga: I think the entry should stay in the report. You may add a note that this is a perennially bot-promoted account and therefore we usually discount them. — JFGtalk09:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
The legitimacy of the traffic to XHamster is still being discussed, see phab:T158071. With access to the private data myself, I personally am not convinced it is organic, but others are... So for now, it really is up to you. The one thing I can say is the user agents, geographic distribution, etc., all seem normal on the surface and do not align with your typical "false positive" caused by undisclosed bots. This all began on January 8, 2016, by the way, and the traffic has been slowly tapering off ever since [10]— MusikAnimaltalk14:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Argh, I never know what is and isn't > ~ < I should have just gone ahead and removed her, I was so close to doing that... Thanks, anyway :p ~Mable (chat) 07:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The Excludables
This is a list of those articles we have deemed excludable, even though they don't fit the standard exclusion parameters. When you exclude them, please make a note of it at the bottom of the page:
The reason these articles have been named as excludable is that they have appeared far to frequently over far too long a time for their presence to be explained by human views alone.
XHamster, Darth Vader and Earthdo fit the current exclusion criteria, but occasionally fall outside them.
Amazingly, Donald Trump has left the charts, for the first time in almost two years! Be sure to make a note of it; interesting to read the comments on his first listing… and when we incredulously predicted his victory in the March 6–12, 2016 report, which starts with "Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States: Based on this chart, you could think this headline will be true someday." According to the tally on Talk:Donald Trump, he scored #1 in no less than 12 Top 25 reports since December 2015. — JFGtalk04:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Anyone working on Apr 16-22 right now? Am able to do two in a row, but don't want to take it over from someone working on it and I do think there should be some variety in writers. OZOO14:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
You're allowed to start a new section, you know? :p Either way, new list looks good. I'm looking forward to Sunday so I can start on mine. I hope Cassini probe will be in there :3 ~Mable (chat) 10:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
If the last entry prompted you to start singing "Stayin' Alive", this would probably be the most appropriate time to stop. ← THIS. DAMN! — JFGtalk10:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
For me, it was the picture for Fast and the Furious. Kinda sums up my feelings about that series. :-)
I am a bit lost here. The images which I inserted into this article have been struck out on the grounds that they are not free. I have no complaint about this, as it is to the discretion of the author to do so. What I do not understand, however, is how the twoimages can be used elsewhere, and appear to be part of the Wikimedia Commons Library, but are still considered to be not free. Could someone kindly explain this to me? Stormy clouds (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
They are not part of Wikimedia Commons, and are instead hosted on Wikipedia itself. This file, for example, is used in only one article, and reading the "Summary" and "Licensing" sections should make clear why that is. ~Mable (chat) 17:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
April 23-29, 2017
This'll be the first time I didn't publish the report on Sunday. I'm so ashamed, I got lazy :p But don't worry, it's coming soon this week, probably Monday evening GMT. ~Mable (chat) 20:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
April 23 to 29: Just Another Week of Death, Politics, and Entertainment
I wasn't able to think of a better title, so this'll have to do. I'm sure I've made some typos again, so be sure to read it through. I hope my commentary is good. I'm not quite as happy with it as I usually am ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 20:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Soulbust here! I'm not quite sure where to volunteer to write up a report or proofread one, but I've been lurking on the report for a while now, probably a year and a half or so. I'd pretty interested in helping out with this project, so just let me know where to start and I'll be happy to help. Soulbust (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Glad to hear you're interested. :) If you want to draft a report, just give at least a week's notice and let er rip. We've never been all that formal round here. Serendipodous15:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
We don't even know yet who will do this week. The new automatic report came out earlier today. ~Mable (chat) 10:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Just want to update everybody on my draft for the May 7–13 Top 25 report. Thanks for being so open to letting me help out :) Soulbust (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
All the noise of the country articles as well... They are so similar in number I have to imagine this is the work of a buggy but non-malicious script, but they really dilute the readability of the raw output. West.andrew.g (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I had previously committed to finishing the Top 25 this week, however, it is almost the end of the school year and I need to finish a few reports before Monday, undoubtedly precluding my ability to finish the Top 25 report for this week. My draft is in my main sandbox, if anyone wants to finish it feel free. I will still be working on it a bit.-A ladinsane(Channel 2)14:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
While I appreciate some of the snide, tongue-in-cheek commentary on the various films in the list, to say that War Machine has better reviews than the other films on the list when Wonder Woman and Baahubali: The Conclusion are on the same list is patently false and somewhat misleading. It has better reviews than exactly half of the other films on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormy clouds (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I've got the new report up. I'm really tired though and don't really want to proofread more than I already have, so feel free to fix any mistakes you see. -A ladinsane(Channel 2)04:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Good job! For the record, four is a lot for Reddit threads, but it's not uncommon. Don't think I've ever seen more than four though. Serendipodous18:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
In answer to your question, no, the death views aren't affected by highly noted deaths. See when Robin Williams died, when David Bowie died. They are affected by longterm increases in celebrity death, as can be seen when Prince died. Also, over the course of 2016, the annus mortalis, the average viewcount for the death article increased from ~500,000 to ~700,000. Serendipodous09:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to ask someone with better English than mine to change description for Israel in the list. Now, it's wrongfully assumes that the views spike was caused by the Western Wall policy change. However, it was most certainly because of the visit by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Israel. It was the first ever visit to Israel by any Indian PM and was covered heavily in the media. India is a huge country with English is one of it's main languages, which explains large number of people viewing Israel article in English Wikipedia last week. You can see in Pageviews Analysis that views for Israel spiked on July 4–6, exactly during the visit, while views for the Western Wall remained stable lately. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Third party perspective; I think the credit is due and it is interesting to see the density of prior work when one volunteers again. For example, if one takes on a report late in the current week, no one else having done so, after doing the last several weeks -- I'm more inclined to go thank them for their work. The workforce is a bit thin at times, and visualization of that fact might encourage others to participate. West.andrew.g (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Sorry but I had to take my name off of the report schedule volunteer list for this week. Something came up in the "real world" and I'm just not gonna be able to edit for a bit. I have the table prepared with accurate rankings and page views over at this page, so hopefully that'll help out those that take on doing the report. Best wishes Soulbust (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Something to do with another individual "revealing" that he is his "father" (in Wrestle Universe, not in real life). I don't get it. Serendipodous14:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
No? The page works, but the underlying data sets are still not updating. Weekly report on hold until this is resolved. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
It might be helpful if other concerned users added their +1 at the VPT thread. We don't want to get into a bad stretch, here. West.andrew.g (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
While the bot doesn't work again, decided to check some numbers manually through the page... 15 that possibly will qualify. (with a risk of Christopher Nolan, with 406.607 views, also ranking among the 25) igordebraga≠01:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Dunkirk (film) 1.860.023
Chester Bennington B 1.310.978
Battle of Dunkirk 1.310.083
Game of Thrones (season 7) C 1.089.023
Anthony Scaramucci 1.022.773
Deaths in 2017 808.237
Game of Thrones GA 794.366
Linkin Park GA 727.235
Spider-Man: Homecoming C 535.905
The Emoji Movie Start 528.789
Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets Start 515.899
Silent Parade Start 467.689
John F. Kelly Start 435.706
Chris Cornell B 425.757
War for the Planet of the Apes Start 417.088
Jeffrey Dahmer B got 489.226. Trailer got released for a movie based on him. Ozark (TV series) Start got 625.696 as a new Netflix series is attracting attention. FunksBrother (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Also Dunkirk Evacuation GA got 643.900 with Dunkirk film being out and Jeff Bezos C got 625.311 as he was briefly the World's Richest Person last week. With Nolan, you have 20. FunksBrother (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Another article, Inder Kumar Start got 436.091 with his sudden passing of the Indian actor on July 28. A recent sporting event UFC 214 Stub got 416.233 So that's 22. FunksBrother (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
John Heard (actor) Start got 466.964. He's similar to Chester Bennington as he got a lot of views for their passing last week. So that's 23. FunksBrother (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Another sporting event, WWE's Battleground (2017) Future got 507.091. It was a wrestling event that took place on July 23. This makes 25, but Christopher Nolan might be one endangered if there is an article that got more views than him. FunksBrother (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
igordebraga are you sure about Christopher Nolan? I calculated 353.784 for 23-29th of July. Diana, Princess of Wales B got 374.143 with that recent special airing on HBO on July 24th as the 20th anniversary of her death approaches and Chris Cornell B got 402.425 with Chester Bennington's recent suicide. Both articles got more views than Christopher Nolan. Chris Cornell would be the 25th most viewed. FunksBrother (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
There have been 235 Top 25 Reports since they were started at the beginning of 2013. Of those, 143 have been prepared by @Serendipodous, 70 by @Milowent, 12 by @OZOO, 5 by @Maplestrip, 4 by @Igordebraga, 3 by @Soulbust, 2 by @A lad insane, 1 by @JFG and 1 by @Rayukk (the numbers don't add up because some were group projects). My notes for this and a list of reports are at User:SchreiberBike/Top 25 history if anyone wants to check my work. If there's no objection, I will move this list to the top of the Report schedule above and update it each month. It will take the place of the list of people who have done reports recently. Let me know if you think there are any changes which should be made. My thanks to all who have done so much work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Ehh, I think the aggregate is fine if presented in some attractive horizontal fashion, i.e., consuming one or two lines atop the schedule, then linking to the full history. West.andrew.g (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I see I that I wrote unclearly. I only meant to put the number of reports and a list of the people who had produced them with their count, not the full list at now at Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/Report history (good idea Milowent). So, basically each month, I'd replace the completed reports with an updated version of:
Hi, I see I've been signed up for this week, although I do believe I signed up for the week prior (Jul 23-29). That whole technical error with the page views not generating, as well as being busy outside of Wikipedia caused me to miss out on that week. So, while I wont be writing up the blurbs for the Jul 30-Aug 5 report, I did want to at least provide a raw list for anyone who will be doing that. (Note: this could be missing out on some articles, as I calculated these numbers manually, so do check for errors.)
Hello all. Just passing through and seeing all the awesome work you have done recently. Note the above unsigned list for the next report is from Soulburst and comes from Pageviews. The WP:5000 is now updated and verifies this list generally (with normal variations which shifts around places a bit, and of course the normal baloney like Xhamster and Darth Vader are excluded).--Milowent • hasspoken13:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the report, Igordebraga. Can't see anything too problematic there (but then, I share your bias). One point that may be worth mentioning is the high mobile percentage for Identity Evropa - 98.1% according to WP:5000 - which may indicate people choosing to research certain topics away from prying eyes. Or, since the article is almost certainly there legitimately, it may be an error. (Frankly, I'm a tiny bit disappointed this hasn't led to a legitimate placing for xHamster.) OZOO(t)(c)19:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I even decided to check the viewcount - the ones we ignore because the numbers are clearly fishy have constant views, while Evropa and the #26 (continuing the theme of the week... the Confederates!) have a more natural spike after the alt-right's rally. Yeah, the mobile count is probably just people researching that topic in private. igordebraga≠19:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
G'day OZOO, any idea why the Game of Thrones article had such a large spike? I'm no expert, but are we sure this isn't automated? Else do we know where all the additional trafic came from? Per below — IVORKDiscuss22:58, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
If you look at the numbers, in particular the Mob%, between this week and last, there looks to have been ~million extra desktop views for the GoT article. But the article would certainly be in the list regardless, and we can't go around deciding "this counts, this doesn't count" (any more than we already do, at least); so we just have to accept it, I fear. My biggest worry on that front is the prospect that the producers of Dancing with the Stars will suddenly decide to give Lali Espósito a slot on a series, and then where will we be?
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
My first thought was something to do with Hurricane Harvey, but the dates don't quite match up. Can't find anything recentonReddit that would get people clicking. Is there some big story in the US about large cities that I can't find? Or is this forever doomed to be one of life's mysteries? OZOO(t)(c)21:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
They don't match up perfectly, but they certainly seem linked. My guess is that people started checking it in the early days, when all we knew was that Houston was the fourth biggest city in America, but then turned away once the real news started coming in. Serendipodous22:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
It would be possible for one to calculate it using available raw data, but I do not due to scalability and personal bandwidth concerns. West.andrew.g (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)