Wikipedia talk:Most-wanted articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Database analysis    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Database analysis, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Most viewed redlinks[edit]

It seems to me that this page should have a list of the most viewed broken links as well. This, to me, would be more closely aligned with the description "Most Wanted Articles". Perhaps this is just a harder thing to determine... Perhaps just a list of broken links that occur on popular pages.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nroose (talkcontribs) 03:42, January 16, 2004

I'm with the guy above me.Dan 18:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful to know how often each broken link has been viewed recently. However, that would probably require some analysis of the webserver and squid logs, which makes it a more complicated issue than just pulling information out of the database. I hope to work on this sometime soon (but not right now).--Wclark 17:39, 2004 Jul 11 (UTC)

Why would anyone view redlinks? Maybe for stubs this is a useful suggestion.--MarSch 15:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure many readers don't realize the the color red means the target of the link does not exist. On some web sites, this simply means that you've visited the page before, and on many sites it has no particular meaning at all. Implementing this would require developer assistance; Wikipedia's server are distributed and currently do not permanently record requests. -- Beland 20:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
If it doesn't exist, why would anyone visit it if they didn't want to create it? Seems rather useless to me. (But then again, what Beland said about people not knowing what red means is true.) --SheeEttin 20:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


The entry for ISBN 1-903111-14-15 isn't an error in the script- the person who added it to a bunch of pages put double-brackets around it by mistake. I'm fixing them now. -- Jake 07:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yay. -- Beland 20:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Filipino Actor[edit]

Seems like this request comes from one, or many users, who have a limited concept of the English Language. I am not going to wikify or stub any or all of these, but I am going through and replacing "Filipino Actor" with Filipino Actor. Any help would be appreciated. Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 01:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor Change[edit]

Let you know that i correct the the general headline like this 'j== general == '.. athough i forgot to check the 'minor edit' box. heh. oh well. my first edit ever! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maxhrk (talkcontribs) 08:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Technical difficulties[edit]

I discovered today that my laptop no longer has enough hard drive space to run the report-generation scripts for this page, and my desktop machine does not have enough RAM. We are currently trying to get these scripts moved to the Toolserver, anyway - see Meta:Toolserver/Reports. Someone will either need to adapt these scripts to run on the Toolserver (it runs Solaris and my laptop runs Fedora 4 Linux, but the scripts are in Perl and so should be reasonably platform-independent), download them and run them locally, or re-write them to use less hard drive space and/or less RAM (which is certainly possible and might be good to do anyway). Unfortuantely, I have a lot of other projects on my plate right now, and I probably won't have enough free time in the foreseeable future to take care of this.

In the meantime, I have posted a link to Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year, which was scheduled to be a major Maintenance Collaboration, anyway. Maybe we can eliminate the backlog there while we are waiting for technical fixes. -- Beland 22:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Most Wanted Stubs?[edit]

I thought I'd mention this proposal at the village pump for a "Most Wanted Stubs" listing, to see if there was any overlapping interest here. I'd assume there would also be a lot of overlap between the means of generating either such list... Alai 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Filter out template links?[edit]

Would it be possible to not count links that appear in a template, or to at least only count them once? I don't think it makes sense to inflate the "wantedness" of a missing article simply because it's linked to from a bajillion other articles that have a link-farm template at the bottom. Those articles aren't linking to the missing article in any meaningful way (or, at best, are doing so in a much less meaningful way than one that links in the article text itself) and so should be discounted. I'm not sure how the script that generates these counts is written, so this may not be feasible. --Wclark 06:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be done unless if it is not impossible or an extreme amount of work. The counting of templates makes this list of very little value in my opinion. Almost all of them get all or almost all of their links from being included on a template. If they were truly wanted, they would have a lot of links from articles, too. -- Kjkolb 04:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you, that this list is useless if the link resulting from templates are included. An especially nasty template along these lines has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Municipalities in Salamanca. Gene Nygaard 22:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not impossible... now define an 'extreme' amount of work. :/ Trouble is that the most ready source of this information, the "pagelinks" table in the database dumps, just doesn't distinguish between "real" links from the top-level page text, or those transcluded from templates. So an accurate count of the former would need to go a completely different route. I think it might be somewhat easier to add a "caveat" by flagging those that have links from the template space, and perhaps even the number of actual transclusions of those templates, though I think that's in yet another separate table... Just to play devil's advocate, isn't an advantage of the current basis that it flags up such 'problem' templates? If these are progressively cleaned up, lists from later dumps would be more meaningful (assuming reasonably regular updates). Alai 00:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course, as I've just discovered from trying this out, people's obscurantist template coding can frustrate even that. For example, {{Africa in topic}} as used on Roman Catholicism in Nigeria generates a 'crypto-link' from {{Roman Catholicism in São Tomé and Príncipe}}, which doesn't show up as a template link in the the table. So in short, the chances of getting a "clean" list are pretty vanishing at present. So for the time being, here's some moderately dirty ones: the top 100 on raw numbers of article-space red links, User:Alai/MWA, annotated with the numbers of redlinks for templates; and a similar list filtered to exclude articles with any redlinks from templates, User:Alai/MWA-0. I won't put these on the project page at this iteration, given the different format and method of counting, but anyone that wants to work with these, please feel free to mark up the lists. Alai 04:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


If these are more wanted articles by virtue of "most linked to", and therefore most desired, why are some of the red links crossed off when they don't yet exist, for example under the general section? Unless I am misunderstanding these all must be created yet or redirected if something similar exists. · XP · 19:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Because, for one reason or another, the number of links to that page have significantly dropped. I checked the "What links here" for two of the pages that are crossed off, and they now have four and three total links, respectively (one each from this page, so really three and two). My guess is that these used to me linked to from a template that was included in many pages, but the template was modified, perhaps because the item was actually non-notable, perhaps due to a typo, or perhaps for some other reason. --Psiphiorg 05:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another reason for confusion is the fact that people create obscene links that spoil ones absolute exquisite taste for knowledge

Suggestions for improvement[edit]

(Moved from article page)

  1. Count multiple links from the same template due to transclusion. -- Beland 9 July 2005 01:09 (UTC)
  2. Some articles with non-ASCII and non-alphanumerical names are improperly included. (Removed manually for now.) -- Beland 08:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. One suggestion to count by number of linking pages, not counting multiple links on the same page: -- Beland 15:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. I think the number of linking pages should be the relevant count, not the number of links. As you can see in the example I gave, that number may be highly variable depending on subject. It seems that sports articles particularly tend to have multiple links in the same document, whereas in science articles, I've very rarely seen it. Hence some kinds of articles would be created at a higher rate than others, resulting in an asymmetric growth of wikipedia. I think this is a bad thing (TM). - Samsara 17:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      1. Or the script that generates the link count could also give the number of linking pages. Something like: (26 links from 4 pages) — RJH 23:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
        1. I think this should be done as soon as possible. Some of the articles with the highest number links are only linked to from a handful of articles. Also, sometimes there is a large number of articles linking to the page, but they are not what I would consider the most important, like a minor cast member linked from every episode page and repetitive list articles (often there is an article for each year). While they would probably not show up so frequently if they weren't somewhat notable/important, their apparent importance relative to other topics is skewed. -- Kjkolb 22:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. Try to automatically sort by topic, based on the categories that the link-from articles are in. -- Beland 20:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    1. I think this is a good idea. It would also be good to make the list longer, as I don't see any articles in the areas that I am interested in, such as science, energy and technology. It looks like the majority are biographies, with most of the rest being sports teams, buildings/stadiums, schools and companies. -- Kjkolb 22:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      1. The list was actually 500 entries long but some 250 were blue. I suppose the script was run on a slightly old version of the database which is why many of the entries from the december run were included. Celcius (Talk) Flag of Denmark.svg Wiki be With us! 01:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I have incorporated many of the above requested features into the list created from the most recent database dump, which I am about to post to the article page. --Sapphic 19:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

When to remove bluelinks?[edit]

I made some recent changes to the page (mostly additions to the "how to help" section) and was stuck on whether to suggest that people remove bluelinks from the list. I can see it going either way. On the one hand, it cleans up the lists and makes them shorter. On the other hand, some people have their stub display preferences set such that the bluelinks are more informative to them. We also might want to encourage people to get articles listed here up to start (or better) class before we take them off the list. What do you think? --Sapphic 01:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody else seems to care about this issue (at least not enough to comment), I'll go ahead and unilaterally decide that it's okay to remove bluelinks. If anybody disagrees, feel free to start the discussion here. --Sapphic 17:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I just deleted a few before I saw this talk, so it's a good thing your unilateral decision was in my favor! Hehe. --Segaba 22:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I was going to suggest strikeout text so that the item is still on the list but others know it's been taken care of, then I saw this item on the Project Page regarding removal of completed items.--CheMechanical 21:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Swedish football[edit]

The various entries that include AIF, IF, IFK or IK all appear to be Swedish football clubs. Can they be moved to the Football sub-section?RJH (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. — RJH (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for verification[edit]

Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for verification

A proposal designed as a process similar to {{prod}} to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.

It reads:

This page has been listed in Category:Requests for verification.
It has been suggested that this article might not meet Wikipedia's core content policies Verifiability and/or No original research. If references are not cited within a month, the disputed information will be removed.

If you can address this concern by sourcing please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you reference the article.

The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 30 days. (This message was added: 28 May 2017.)

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, improve the article so that it is acceptable according to Verifiability and/or No original research.

Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)

Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.

I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources

Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Astronomy links[edit]

Many, if not most, of the desired astronomy links are references to amateur astronomy observatories. It might make more sense to consolidate and/or link these references to the Minor Planet Center page (, since that is the organization where all such discoveries are officially recognized and cataloged. The official web site for the Minor Planet Center can be found here: (or just go to the wiki and follow the link from there.)

Deadend411 01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


Is there a way to get rid of the underscores? Doing so would make this list much easier to read. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Tra (Talk) 20:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Invert the stats[edit]

It would be much more useful if the numerical stats were inverted, e.g. "22 articles (37 links)"; it is the article count that matters, not the link count. Also, having the list sorted by the article count would be much more helpful. (No criticism intended; the fact that this list exists at all is a great boon). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 12:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am (finally!) almost done testing the latest version of my processing script, and will be updating the lists within the next few days. I'll invert the stats as you requested, unless somebody else presents opposing argument here before then. Also, no criticism inferred. :) --Sapphic 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Update from 2007-09-08 data[edit]

I am preparing to update the page using the output of my processing script run on the 2007-09-08 database (XML) dump. The format of the data has changed, so that it inverts the order of the article count and link count (as requested above), and also so it provides an indication of how the two counts have changed (or not) since the last update. A timestamp is also provided on a per-entry basis, to indicate whether this is a previously existing entry that has been updated, or if it is a completely new listing. Only requested articles with 20 or more articles linking to them are listed, since this seemed to provide a reasonable number of listed items. This cutoff can be adjusted as needed for future updates. I'll be updating each sub-list individually, and then doing some cleanup work. Once I'm through, I'll report back here. --Sapphic 16:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am done updating now. I've pruned the 'Uncategorized' section so that it's only about 1000 entries now. It could probably stand to be broken down into more sub-lists. --Sapphic 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Page Missing Update[edit]

The page is gone and no text is showing. Someone messed with it. Please help. Thanks ---Washington Public School System 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC).


Can we sort all the horse jockeys out from the bio list, the way the tennis players are? I stubbed out a few of there, but I'm starting to feel like I'm cleaning out a stall here. -- Kendrick7talk 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You should feel free to break the lists into more specific sub-lists, however you see fit. The creation of sub-lists is an entirely manual process, so any help is appreciated. --Sapphic (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh[edit]

Is it possible to have an automated "most wanted articles" listing for Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh? Bangladesh related articles are still pretty few in number, and so is the number of active editors interested in them. This will be enormously useful in channeling there efforts to the most wanted area. It will also act as a beginning of a new step in project collaboration, especially the biggest and smallest projects with wide scopes. Cheers. Aditya(talkcontribs) 13:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there isn't any practical way to do that at the moment. The lists on this page are divided into categories after the list of most wanted articles has been generated. The scripts used to update the lists can only determine which articles are most wanted, and the categorization is done by humans. The "see also" section of the project page lists other pages where you can request articles on specific topic. --Sapphic (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge Possibly unwanted articles[edit]

I am suggesting a merge and redirect from Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery/Possibly unwanted to Wikipedia:Most wanted articles#Possibly unwanted articles. Both list contain the same articles and have the same needs and requirements. It seems that recently [[Wikipedia:Most wanted articles#Possibly unwanted articles]] has received more attention and more periodic updates, based on that I am suggesting it as the primary area for coordinating work on these articles. Jeepday (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Melina Yuros[edit]

Cantante(1978 - )cantante de música popular argentina.Comenzó cantando tango y folclore luego de abandonar la carrera de Psicología. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melinatempe (talkcontribs) 15:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

8 September 2007[edit]

Since the entire list is from the 8th of septembers database dump is there a need to have it written down after every link? I think how it says at the top that "this list is from the 8th of september database dump" is sufficient rather than saying it after every line? Maybe the bot that handles this list should be modified to not include the date after every link?

Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC).

Frederick T. Haneman[edit]

I went to do some initial investigation before planning to create the article for the current topper of the "biographies (general)"-list, Frederick T. Haneman, and it seems that the page hsa already been created and deleted twice.

Maybe he should be removed from wanted articles? He seems notable enough, being an author of the Jewish Encyclopedia and all.

Bobber0001 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Chemical compounds[edit]

Because of the diversity of chemical compounds there are and always will be many links on Wikipedia to compounds for which there is no page, some of which are very common or important in a specific scientific field. If you see a link such as this and have the time to do so it would be beneficial put some basic information on the page such as a chem box, a one or two sentence description of the chemical and an appropriate "see also" section. Even a stub articles are a very helpful start, as is improving stub articles. (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


Just because these articles all have pages linking to them, are they all necessarily going to pass the notability test? I see entries on that list with 20-30 pages linking to them, but I can find almost nothing on them, or maybe just enough to write the type of bare-minimal stub article that gets put up for AfD within 10 minutes. --Susan118 (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Since these data do not represent the diversity of the incoming links for all we know some of these could be linked from 100 similar pages all added by the same user, those pages themselves obscure. Craig Pemberton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC).


This page is prominently linked to when starting to look for ways to contribute, but the list is based on two year old data. Is it just me or is that really counterproductive?

I agree. I have spare computing resources if someone knows how to generate a new one of these I could even do the number crunching on my end. Having a concurrent list would be nice. Craig Pemberton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC).

Now that we have a good dump again, can this be regenerated?[edit]

Please? Thanks! (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Please! Crashandspin (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

'Most wanted articles' from foreign wikipedias?[edit]

Is there any page that lists articles that are missing on English Wikipedia but present on many other-language wikipedias? Chinese and several others have such a page zh:Wikipedia:最多語言版本的待撰條目, nl:Wikipedia:Ontbrekende Interwiki in en:, etc.. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles. Look for the "Other Wikipedias" section. -Pollinosisss (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

20 articles about texas state leg 20-40 are 20 of Wikipedia's "Most Wanted" articles?[edit]

Can someone explain this? Maybe improve the article on the Texas state legislature by adding a section on important acts and legislation it's passed. Are there other states in the United States? Do they have legislatures? Are there other countries other then the US? Do they have states with legislatures? Are any of them important like the 20 legislatures in Texas from the 20th to the 40th?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Guillaume Gaston I Cardinal de Rohan-Soubise[edit]

Listed under Biographies (General) with 46 links - all seem to list him as Bishop of Strassburg in the first half of the 18th century, but Archbishop of Strasbourg lists Armand Gaston Maximilien de Rohan as the bishop between the relevant dates. As this looks like a wrong name, a redirect seems inappropriate - but I haven't got time to edit the pages one by one. PWilkinson (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Daryl Goodrich - is this really a wanted biography link ?[edit]

I looked at the end of the list and see

  1. Daryl Goodrich

So I attempted to add — X articles with X links to at least make that row follow the format of teh other entries.

And I was going to count manually how many whatlinkshere items there were and add that it appears that Daryl Goodrich has nothing linking to it except this page (or perhaps I didn't read that correctly?) I'm doubting that this entry will be read for soem time but I thought I'd mention it. EdwardLane (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Was manually added to the list by User: - see [ - TB (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

New list -- July 2011[edit]

Hey everyone, I generated a new list of red links and put the top 250 up on the project page, with the top 1000 at Wikipedia:Most_wanted_articles/July_2011. However, unlike the December 2010 lists, they are uncategorized and include links that originate from templates, which may things off a bit. Stu (aeiou)I`m Researching Wikipedia 18:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

incorrectly named red link[edit]

Hi, I believe that #172: 4-trifluorophenylpiperazine is incorrectly red linked. do they actually mean 1-(2,3,4-trifluorophenylpiperazine)? I cannot find where this is even red linked so I am having a hard time determining this. 4-trifluorophenylpiperazine is ambiguous. or do they mean trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine? because that page does exist. is there a bot or something that can change these links quickly once we figure out which they mean? The same goes for #174: 3-methoxyphenylpiperazine. Thanks! MichChemGSI (talk) 03:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Eliminating navbox links?[edit]

The introduction to this article says it specifically excludes links from Navboxes, yet they still appear in the list and heavily bias the results. Can this be remedied? I would rather work on article links that are a natural part of the article content. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Chemical substances[edit]

Hey all, Just letting you know that I'll be working my way through all the drugs listed without a page dedicated to them. Since most of them are relatively new/experimental, I can't exactly write too much without it becoming too dense to be readable, but I thought I'd at least have something for them.

Also, if anyone has any drugs to add to the list, or any in particular they are interested in, I would be more than happy to indulge. Purple Blanket (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Just like to let you know that I am listing RedLinks and erasing all the BlueLinks.[edit]


W (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Please update this page[edit]

The last update was done in June 2011 and we ar now at Oct 2012. Most redlinks are fixed. please update this page. -Wikishagnik (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I will try to do this in the next day or two. - TB (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Please go ahead and subdivide as required. - TB (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

it looks like 1 E+ m^2 may have roots in Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction[edit]

Judging by 1 E+sq. km m² (221 links) - Odd coding in Template:Infobox Indian jurisdiction — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Related list not updated[edit]

The Wikipedia:Most missed articles -- often searched for, nonexistent articles -- has not been updated since a batch run in 2008. The German Wikipedia person, Melancholie (de:Benutzer:Melancholie) who did the batch run has not been active since 2009. Where would be a good place to ask for someone with expertise to do another run? --Bejnar (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there's a similar list to this old listing here: User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks. It runs once per week I believe. Guy1890 (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

how are links counted for this ranking??[edit]

Hi, I'm a bit confused, perhaps someone can help. At the top of the page it says: "This list shows the most common targets of red links. Red links that arise on templates are ignored, even if they are also linked directly from an article. "

I thought this means that only links from articles are counted.

But then you see multiple examples of items on this list that have lots of links but if you look at the "what links here" info you can easily see that the links don't come from proper article text, they come from templates.

So there are many missing articles that look like "high priority" but actually they're not. They're just something that appears on one template, and that template is included in many pages. It doesn't make sense to count links in that way.

For example, there is an item called "Climate of Plazas de soberanía (63 links)" and if you click on it and go to "what links here", all those links come from a single template.

Any thoughts?

Thanks, Azylber (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC).

Anybody out there? Azylber (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it means how many articles link to it. For the Plaza de soberania article, each link in the template that goes to Plaza de soberania is classed as one. I'm not quite 100% sure. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

My guess is, the notice is incomplete and misleading. The links from a template are not counted, but the (far more numerous) links via templates are counted. Better if they weren't, or if they were indicated separately. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys, thanks for the clarifications. Azylber (talk) 12:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Time for a new run?[edit]

Hi, we've already gone through most of the articles on the January 2013 list.

From the top100, there are only 36 left. From the top 200, there are only 97 left. And the list is also already almost a year old. I think we need a re-run.

If possible, this new run should ignore links to articles via templates. That would make it a lot more meaningful. And it would eliminate results that are obviously wrong, such as the "Climate of Plazas de soberanía (63 links)" example.

Just some thoughts.

Azylber (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Definitely. There are a good number of pages on this list that don't actually have any incoming links. bd2412 T 14:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you know who could do it, apart from TB who seems to be away? I could probably do it, but at the moment I'm dedicating all my free time to writing a bot for Russian articles. Azylber (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
please please yes +1 to separate in text, "real" links from template ones. I came to this page from curiosity, seeing if maybe I could help, and then find that IMHO many of the requests make no sense as to being "encyclopaedia relevant". Like, "Rugby union in Abkhazia"? AFAIK this is the first time that "request" has a real link :-) Now, Demographics of Ceuta, maybe, but 123 links to it? not very logical YamaPlos talk 17:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there a tool to tell you the most redlinked articles in a particular category (or category tree)?[edit]

When I look at this list, I generally don't end up doing anything as a quick skim tells me I know nothing about the topics mentioned. Whereas if I could see the most redlinked articles for categories that I normally work in, say Category:Queensland and its subcats, there's a very high chance I know of the topic and know where to find the sources. Another variation would be find the most redlinked articles from the articles on my watchlist; again, this is a set of topics I am probably motivated to try to create. Another variation would be the most redlinked articles from pages tagged by a particular Project. I think more redlinked articles would get written if people knew about the ones relevant to their interests and expertise. Thanks. Kerry (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Aha, I found one here Missing Topics. It works for categories and category trees (but not watchlists or Projects). Yippee! Kerry (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: A bot is being developed for WikiProjects, see User:ProjectRequestedPagesBot. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Time for a re-run?[edit]

It has been more than a year since the last version of this list was posted. Is it perhaps time to put up a fresh list? 1bandsaw (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@1bandsaw: Re-run has been done. --Bamyers99 (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Section headings[edit]

I find the current section headings confusing. Nowhere in the introduction does it say anything about "500 most-wanted articles", nor anything about ranking (there's no numbering of the topics by rank). I propose that section headings instead be numbers of links for the wanted articles. Right now, the first heading might be titled "50–234 links", the next "38–49 links", etc. Yes, the sections would differ in length and there may be more of them, but it would be much more intuitive than the current system. — Gorthian (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)