Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconWikipedia Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Report schedule[edit]

As of the October 29 to November 4, 2023 report, there have been 566 Top 25 Reports. Of those, 272 have been contributed to by Igordebraga, 148 by Serendipodous, 72 by Milowent, 68 by SSSB, 47 by Mcrsftdog, 41 by YttriumShrew, 33 by Stormy clouds, 31 by Benmite, 29 by OZOO, 29 by Kingsif, 28 by TheJoebro64, 21 by Rebestalic, 20 by Ollieisanerd, 12 by Max BuddyRoo, 11 by Soulbust, 10 by A lad insane, 8 by InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion, 8 by Rajan51, 8 by Ltbdl, 6 by Marinette2356, 6 by TheConflux, 6 by ElijahPepe, 5 by Maplestrip, 5 by Hugsyrup, 3 by Death Editor 2, 3 by JFG, 3 by Thatoneweirdwikier, 3 by Ab207, 3 by Spinixster, 2 by Pythoncoder, 2 by FunksBrother, 2 by FoxyGrampa75, 2 by Newtothisedit, 1 by Rayukk, 1 by Ahecht, 1 by Od Mishehu, 1 by Rogerknots, 1 by Miraclepine, 1 by Maka the Two Star Meister, 1 by Timbaaa, 1 by Sailawen, 1 by TuorEladar, 1 by Berrely, 1 by Wizzito, 1 by Ktin, 1 by TenorTwelve, 1 by Canadian Paul, 1 by CT55555, 1 by The Optimistic One, 1 by Capsulecap, 1 by JSFarman, 1 by Karnataka, 1 by CAWylie, 1 by GeorgeBailey


If you'd like to claim a week's report, just put your three tildes (~~~) after a week and the dash.

Useful links regarding "random" spikes:

You guys OK?[edit]

The current edition has some gaping holes in it. Do you want me to fill them? Serendipodous 22:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

go ahead! ltbdl (talk) 05:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those who missed it, Slate (and more specifically, Crunchydillpickle) mentioned us - only don't know if it enters the template atop this talk page, as it links to specific Reports rather than the main Top 25 page - even if like some videos the only person they credited was me (even for a Report I didn't do or TheJoebro64 talking about Inventing Anna) igordebraga 17:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have almost no recollection of writing that entry at all so I'm more amused some of my writing managed to make an RS than anything else, haha. Also, since I haven't been around here too much, I've gotten real life under control to a point where I can dedicate more time to Wikipedia so I'll probably start contributing here again with the next report. JOEBRO64 20:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Viewership[edit]

This might be the right time for this question, with the start of the 2024 Indian Premier League today. While I definitely agree that articles with primarily non-human views should be excluded from the list, it's a shame that many articles with actual human views are also excluded because of high mobile viewership. Last year, two articles - Indian Premier League and 2023 Indian Premier League - accumulated 32.4 million and 20.8 million views respectively, with 94-96% of the views from mobile phones. One look at Pageviews shows that most of the views for these articles came during the tournament. Considering that most Indians access the internet through their mobile phones, the reason for this high percentage of mobile views seems pretty clear. In fact, there are two more articles related to cricket that accumulated similar views on Wikipedia (2023 Cricket World Cup and Cricket World Cup), which suggests that the IPL's viewership numbers were legitimate. I'm sure there are some other articles that were excluded despite having actual views, but this was the example that I could think off the top of my head.

My point is that a hard blanket limit of 95% is not the best way to filter out articles with non-human views, as it results in the omission of articles with actual human views too, especially with the rise in mobile internet usage across the world since that rule was made 10 years ago. A better way would be to list the articles with over 95% mobile views and check if those views were random or if they are actually legitimate. - Rajan51 (talk) 17:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I at least do my best to check, as suspicious spikes always appear, and sometimes don't even have the fishy mobile\desktop numbers to make it more obvious (or is it believable YouTube surpassing 100k daily now?). But the limit is that high for a reason, as the March 23 list shows aside from Indian Premier League-related articles, the others who surpass 95% are clearly automated (XXXTentacion, Pornhub, Porno y helado, XXX (film series), and a TV station) and the explained but still deserving of exclusion Cleopatra. Still, being more lenient towards Indian subjects (after all, the Cricket World Cup was in the Report during the whole duration, even when it finally broke 95%) should not be much of a dealbreaker, as long as those knowledgeable help write the entries. igordebraga 08:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the 95% limit is helpful in a lot of cases. My point is that we need to make sure that articles with actual human views do not get filtered out. And I'll help write the commentary for Indian articles as much as I can. ~ Rajan51 (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]