Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mohamed Ouda (talk | contribs) at 22:50, 3 February 2017 (→‎Report in Another Language: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Top 25 Report



Shortcut

New report is up

Have at it. Serendipodous 03:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need an apprentice

Real world commitments are eating into my Wiki time, which means I need to take a step back from Wikipedia, which means the Top 25 report. If anyone else is interested in taking up the reins, let me know, and I can instruct them on what I've learned over the last four years.Serendipodous 03:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Serendipodous: First off, thanks Serendipodous for your work; your contributions do not go unrecognized. While I'd still love to see someone to step forward and volunteer for help with the report, whatever form your knowledge dump takes, I hope it can be posted publicly here to benefit all potential report authors, current and future. West.andrew.g (talk) 07:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggested above, after Milowent suggested that they may need someone to step in for them, I would love to take a swing at doing the report sometime. I wouldn't even know where to start, though. ~Mable (chat) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Serendipodous: I would like to thank you for your wonderful work, I've only been visiting the top 25 report for about a year, but I visit it weekly and greatly enjoy your work. Ralphw (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Serendipodous 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a rough draft; may be expanded as thoughts occur:

Rule 1: Check the mobile percentages. The mobile viewing percentages are without question the best tool in our box. You can divide this project into the time before we had them and the time after, since they completely revolutionised the process. As a general rule, if a page has 5% or fewer mobile views, or 95% or more mobile views, then it can be excluded summarily. Most "normal" pages have between 50 and 75% mobile views; if a page has between 17 and 30%, that's a good sign that it is a Reddit thread.

Rule 2: Check the news. Most sudden appearances of swarms of related topics can be traced to a single news event. Be prepared to do your research; you will have to know the story inside out to cover every entry.

Rule 3: Watch the viewing patterns. The pageviews page is your friend. Just remember to click "begin at zero". Different types of topic have different viewing patterns. Reddit threads and Google Doodles have one or two day spikes followed by rapid returns to normal. News stories have sustained rises and shallow falls centered around the Main Event. If a page has a strangely flat viewing pattern, with seemingly the exact number of viewers every day, it's probably fake.

Rule 4: the type of article can usually give away its origin. If it's an article on a strangely offbeat topic with seemingly no global relevance, like Hawaiian pizza or Bill Werbeniuk, then it's probably a Reddit thread. If it's an article on a personage of historical, academic or artistic import of whom you may or may not have heard, like Maria Mitchell or Carrie Derick, then it's probably a Google Doodle. If it's a current celebrity, then check the news.

Rule 5: The hardest topics to locate aren't usually the most obscure ones. Those can usually be found with some precision Googling. (sidenote: this job requires at least a red belt in Google fu. Learn that virtual monstrosity's weak points and tame it before you start) The hardest ones to locate are those that hide in plain sight- celebrities for instance may be on the list for any number of reasons. If you're not sure, check the viewing patterns over the dates covered by the list (DON'T just click "last week" unless you're starting this as soon as the data come in), locate the point at which views were highest, then narrow your search to the days immediately before and after. Remember that views occur AFTER the event they're following, so pay very close attention to the days before the spike.

Rule 6: Reddit is not your friend. I can give you my Reddit gate, and the standard advice: to search for a Wikipedia entry on Reddit, type "url:" and then paste the article's web address after it without a space. That USUALLY works. On the occasions when it doesn't, follow rule 5, and if that doesn't work, flat out tell Google to search Reddit. Don't lose hope; if it looks and acts like a Reddit thread, it almost certainly is one, whatever Reddit thinks.

Rule 7: Like India? Hope so. Because you're going to have to get familiar with that culture in ways you never imagined when you went to buy incense and sitar music at your local new age store. You'll need to remember that different Indians speak different languages (Hindi, Tamil and Marathi are the most important) a rough understanding of modern Indian history and the importance of cricket, and a blagger's knowledge of all things Bollywood (such as the difference between an "Indian film" and a "Bollywood film", the meaning of the word "crore"; who is marrying whom; innumerable actors named "Khan"). Sorry, but this is the English Wikipedia and India is the world's second largest English-speaking population. Welcome to the new world.

Rule 8: boxofficemojo, metacritic and rottentomatoes are your best resources for the buzz surrounding films, TV and video games, which usually show up because they're newly released (occasionally not, so keep an eye out).

Rule 9: If the article is on a person, check his or her birth and death dates.If s/he's dead, and it's his or her birthday, then it's a Google Doodle. If the celeb is alive and it's his or her birthday, or if the celebrity died in the last week, then you have your answer.

And finally, Rule 10: Don't be afraid to admit defeat. Very occasionally you will not be able to locate the reason for an article being on the list. When that happens, just say so and move on.

Oh, and one more thing: it's not a rule, and you don't have to follow it, but try to inject as much of your own personality into the list as you can; this is, at its core, a fairly boring bit of info, and sparkling it up will engage readers' interest. You're not in the mainspace so opinions can be expressed.

Serendipodous 00:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mable, I wholeheartedly endorse you giving it a shot next week! The new WP:5000 is usually sometime on Sunday UTC time for the prior week. Seren gives great substantive advice above. On a simple logistics level, I just cut and paste the most recent report into my sandbox, and start from there when I create a new report. Usually 5-10 entries are repeats in any given week, or if popular previously can be found by searching for "Top 25 Report" and "(article title)" under the Everything tab. I can help walk you thru any questions on your first try in terms of how to put it together. Also, speaking of apprentices, I can already predict Donald Trump will already be #1 once again.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh my, next week already? This is exciting. I'm glad that I have been following the report for a while now, so I have a decent grasp of the kinds of articles that pop up. My Google-fu is alright and I've just successfully used Reddit, so that's a good sign :p My knowledge of India is at least alright (though I'm sure I'll be doing a lot of research on Bollywood in the near future, because I know none of these people), and I'm more worried about my knowledge in crime history, as I wouldn't know one murderer from the other. I'm fairly young, by the way, being only 22 years old. I'm sure that just means we'll have a fresh perspective on things ^_^ I'll start playing around with a userspace draft right away, and I should have plenty of free time on Sunday and Monday. In what timeframe should a new report optimally be published? ~Mable (chat) 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mable, optimally the new report gets put up on Monday (or Tuesday at the latest - my track record of late is not as good, as we do need help!). Don't worry about your age, topics come up all the time I've never heard of, and having a different perspective due to age will be great.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be sure to be on time! I've started a draft in my userspace to edit once the information is available. I'm quite excited, as I imagine next week is going to be fun. There has been plenty of news lately~ ~Mable (chat) 18:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mable! I'm sure you will prove a far less cynical voice than mine. It's quite a task to undertake, so remember to pace yourself. All best wishes and hope all goes well! :-) Serendipodous 01:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working hard on the draft and I expect to finish it today, but this is a lot more work than I initially expected. I quite respect you guys for doing this every week. I already see ways in which I can speed this up, but I have no idea if I would have time to do this every few weeks. We'll see how it turns out. I am really enjoying speaking my thoughts on everything :3 ~Mable (chat) 13:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maplestrip's first report is up (2017-01-22)

It was a lot of work, but it is finally up. I can understand why you guys want to get an apprentice. I don't know if I can do this again, honestly, as doing it considerably faster than this would force me to cut corners. I am fairly happy with the results, though. What do you all think? ~Mable (chat) 15:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK if you don't want to keep going, Maple. I perfectly understand. I've been doing this for years and it never gets any easier. But I think you've made a pretty good first impression, so if you were to keep going, that would be fine. :-) Serendipodous 01:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip: Nice work Mable! It's a very difficult job and difficult to do well. I've long admired @Serendipodous and @Milowent's work. As was stated earlier, it's basically boring information and adding personality and drama to it requires prodigious writing skill and just enough discretion. Keep up the good work all!  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad my first stab at it is well-received. I wouldn't mind doing it again sometime, but doing this regularly just doesn't seem like something I want to do. ~Mable (chat) 10:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maple, you did a great job! And you got it up ON SUNDAY! The first one is no doubt the hardest one to do, it will be easier if you are able to do it again. Seren, I will plan to take the next report as this would have been my week.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Maplestrip, Milowent, and Serendipodous: I loved reading Maplestrip's first report too, but now I'm doubly frustrated not seeing the next report emerge, and it's Thursday already. Do you guys need a hand? — JFG talk 20:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new report is now up. My schedule has been very difficult to coordinate with wikipedia lately. But for this report I probably would be a "semi-retired" or "retired" editor at the moment. I really like doing the report once I'm able to do it, but I know my lack of timeliness is really unhelpful.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks indeed! — JFG talk 18:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing. This report's become something of an albatross for both of us. But if it is to become a regular feature of Wikipedia, obviously we two cannot do it for the rest of our lives. So I ask, is anyone else prepared to take up the torch and run? Serendipodous 18:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe advertising our need in a broader forum? West.andrew.g (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it now: new report up (Jan 22-28, 2017)

have at it.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask – Do you really want a picture of that former Iraqi Minister up instead of Sean Spicer? Or is that just an "alternative picture"? Debouch (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Image aside, nice job Milowent! ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 19:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it rather unsettling that I don't want to remove it. Debouch (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Report in Another Language

Please how can I generate this report in another language than English Wikipedia --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Top_25_Report&oldid=763561223"