Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report

{{Press

|collapsed=yes

| subject = article

| author = Emily Yahr

| title = Do you fall down a Wikipedia rabbit hole after each episode of 'The Crown'? You're not alone

| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/01/04/do-you-fall-down-a-wikipedia-rabbit-hole-after-each-episode-of-the-crown-youre-not-alone/

| date = January 4, 2018

| quote = The site confirmed this Wednesday when editors revealed the most-read English Wikipedia articles of 2017, and seemed fascinated by how many on the list had to do with pop culture, particularly TV shows. [...] In a discussion of the site's top 50 articles for 2017, the editor wrote that he was most struck by the queen's prominence on the list, which was "phenomenal when you consider the fame and ubiquity of many of the entries which fall below her." [...] The data was also a revealing glimpse into the viewing habits for Netflix shows, as the streaming service famously refuses to release ratings information. Wikipedia pages for Netflix's controversial teen suicide drama "13 Reasons Why" and sci-fi hit "Stranger Things" also made the most-read list at No. 10 and No. 20, respectively.

| archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20180104204155/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2018/01/04/do-you-fall-down-a-wikipedia-rabbit-hole-after-each-episode-of-the-crown-youre-not-alone/

| archivedate = January 4, 2018

| accessdate = December 17, 2020

| subject2 = article

| author2 = Stephen Harrison

| title2 = The Wikipedia Battle Over the Tragic Death of a Bollywood Star

| org2 = Slate

| url2 = https://slate.com/technology/2020/10/sushant-singh-rajput-suicide-wikipedia-conspiracy-theories.html

| date2 = October 9, 2020

| quote2 = When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September, her Wikipedia article rocketed to the top of the "Top 25 Report," a weekly list of the most popular articles on English Wikipedia [...] According to the Wikipedia volunteers who compile the Top 25 report, only five other articles [besides Sushant Singh Rajput] have ever seen weekly page views pass the 10 million mark[.]

| archiveurl2 = https://web.archive.org/web/20201214033522/https://slate.com/technology/2020/10/sushant-singh-rajput-suicide-wikipedia-conspiracy-theories.html

| archivedate2 = December 14, 2020

| accessdate2 = December 14, 2020

| subject3 = article

| author3 = Andrew Morse

| title3 = COVID-19, presidential election top Wikipedia's most-read articles in 2020

| org3 = CNET

| url3 = https://www.cnet.com/news/covid-presidential-election-top-wikipedias-most-read-articles-in-2020/

| date3 = December 28, 2020

| quote3 = The COVID-19 pandemic and the US presidential election dominated the online encyclopedia's year, with seven articles related to the two broad topics landing in its Top 10 for most-viewed articles of the past 12 months. Those seven articles generated a combined 297 million page views, according to preliminary data provided by the site. The Top 10 generated a combined 396 million page views. (Wikipedia published a blogpost with the Top 25 most-read articles on Monday.) [...] Three articles on the coronavirus -- COVID-19 pandemic, coronavirus and COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory -- netted nearly 145 million page views combined. The articles were Nos. 1, 6 and 8, respectively. More articles on the election made the Top 10, though they were more diverse in terms of topic. Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and the 2020 United States presidential election racked up 152 million combined views. They ranked Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 9, respectively. Articles on late NBA star Kobe Bryant and Britain's Queen Elizabeth II also made the list, as did an annual article on the year's notable deaths.

| archiveurl3 = https://web.archive.org/web/20201230174031/https://www.cnet.com/news/covid-presidential-election-top-wikipedias-most-read-articles-in-2020/

| archivedate3 = December 30, 2020

| accessdate3 = January 1, 2021

| subject4 = blog

| author4 = ((Ed Erhart))

| title4 = Pandemics and politics: 2020 through the lens of Wikipedia

| org4 = Wikimedia Foundation

| url4 = https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/pandemics-and-politics-2020-wikipedia-420928e9d220

| date4 = December 28, 2020

| quote4 = This is my sixth annual post sharing the list of Wikipedia's most popular articles of the year, and each year I've had to come up with different ways of saying "people really love the latest pop culture" ...

| archiveurl4 = https://web.archive.org/web/20201228163530/https://medium.com/freely-sharing-the-sum-of-all-knowledge/pandemics-and-politics-2020-wikipedia-420928e9d220

| archivedate4 = December 28, 2020

| accessdate4 = January 1, 2021

| subject5 = article

| title5 = 10 most-read Wikipedia articles of 2020

| org5 = Gadgets Now

| url5 = https://www.gadgetsnow.com/tech-news/10-most-read-wikipedia-articles-of-2020/articleshow/80165040.cms

| date5 = January 8, 2021

| quote5 = 2020 was also the year when for the first time "in the (short) history of this list, more than 50 articles got over 10 million unique views!", noted Wikipedia. Wikipedia has shared a list of top 50 but here we bring you the top 10.

| accessdate5 = January 10, 2021

| subject6 = article

| author6 = Gwen Aviles

| title6 = 'Avengers', Billie Eilish and Chernobyl among top Wikipedia articles of 2019

| org6 = NBC News

| url6 = https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/avengers-billie-eilish-chernobyl-among-top-wikipedia-articles-2019-n1107861

| date6 = December 27, 2019

| quote6 = Film and television dominated Wikipedia's catalog of top 25 most popular articles of the year

| archiveurl6 =

| archivedate6 =

| accessdate6 = April 18, 2021

| authorN =

| titleN =

| orgN =

| urlN =

| dateN =

| quoteN =

| archiveurlN =

| archivedateN =

| accessdateN =

-->

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}

|maxarchivesize = 75K

|counter = 12

|minthreadsleft = 3

|minthreadstoarchive = 1

|algo = old(14d)

|archive = Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report/Archive index |mask=Wikipedia talk:Top 25 Report/Archive index <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}

Report schedule

Useful links regarding "random" spikes:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/top/?sort=top&t=week Reddit's TIL (past 7 days)]
[https://www.google.com/doodles Google Doodles]

1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre views

Hi all. I am starting to put together the Wikipedia:2025 Top 50 Report/daily, because, why wait? When I was going through it, the page views for 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre caught my eye ...

The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre tops the list on the following days:

16 March, it also appeared in the top 25 report this week. It had 60 percent mobile views on this day
31 March it topped the list again, but this time with 2.3 percent
1 April with 1.4 percent mobile views. I can see no connection with this dates and the event.
15 April, the 36th anniversary of the initial protests, it has 2 million views, 27 percent mobile.
16th it is also top (excluding Schutzstaffel which had several milion view, <0.1% of which were mobile, so excluded this one too) on 950,000 with 1% mobile views
17 April with 800,000 views, of which 0.9% are mobile.

Like I said, these are only instances where it topped the daily views, but it is also second or third on many other days. The article was actually 21st in March and top in April (20% and 5.7% mobile views respectively; May's results are still to come out). For reference, these two months alone would have put this article in the top 20 in last years top 50 report.

For now, I have used the generally guideline that articles with less than 5% or more than 95% should be excluded, but might it be worth to have discussion about if this article should be excluded from the top 50 this year, because of this suspicious view count? SSSB (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:I have only included upto 17 April. This phenonmen occurs on subsequent days too. I have added a note to Wikipedia:Top 50 Report for all the days where the protests appear on top with a suspicious amount of mobile views. SSSB (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

:After that first week, I saw both consistently high views and exclusion-worthy mobile percentages, which is why I don't even consider that page anymore for the weekly report, and will definitely not consider for the yearly list. Though I must notice in that ignoring I didn't notice this one day you found that was an exception, but why will I retroactively change that week's list when possibly the other 6 are suspect? igordebraga ≠ 04:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

''The Last of Us'' (TV series)

I'm curious about the lack of entry for The Last of Us (TV series) on the latest report; it received [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2025-05-25&end=2025-05-31&pages=The_Last_of_Us_(TV_series) 511,440 pageviews], which would have placed it at 20th. Was there something that prompted its exclusion? Thanks in advance! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:09, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

{{replyto|Rhain}} My mistake, probably forgot to count it while compiling the list. Rewrote to include it. igordebraga ≠ 05:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:Makes sense, considering there was a related article with a very similar name at #15 anyway. Thanks for looking into it! – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)