Wikipedia talk:2017 Top 50 Report

Archives

Tell us what you think

Did we get any facts wrong? (You can fix them too; it's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.)
Is our commentary too extreme?
Were there other reasons why these articles got so much attention?
Let us know what you think! SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Factual inaccuracies and commentary

List of Bollywood films of 2017 - "India being the second largest English-speaking country in the world, it only makes sense that the annual list of their films would make its way into the high-viewers list."

Bollywood refers very specifically to Hindi movies that come out of the country. Hindi is merely one of the 22 official languages in the country and one of the roughly 1652 languages spoken in the country. An alternative could be "it only makes sense that the annual list of its Hindi films would make its way into the high-viewers list.

Baahubali 2: The Conclusion - "The second film in the blockbuster series, Baahubali 2 was, and remains, the biggest show in Bollywood's tinseltown." Seriously, have you clicked on the Baahubali 2 article to see that the film was made in Tamil and Telugu? FYI - Bollywood

"I always have found Bollywood to be weird. Unlike Hollywood, where James Cameron has held top spot for two decades, Bollywood cinema receipts are growing year on year, producing a captivating chase between productions to claim the title of highest-grossing Indian film." - Yes, I guess two vastly different movie industries producing vastly different movies with creative talent from vastly different backgrounds and personalities and catering to vastly different audiences is weird. And it's weirder that a part of the Indian film industry doesn't conform to Hollywood notions of success. Again, see above two points. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManasaRao (talk • contribs) 07:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ManasaRao:-

Done - all resolved. Thanks. Stormy clouds (talk) 10:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for compiling this report. I do a lot of image editing here and on the Commons, which normally involves clicking on the Random page link until I find an image that needs attention, and they don't necessarily have much of an impact since they're just randomly selected. By using this report I was able to make a number of edits to images with a broad reach, making the endeavour much more worthwhile. Nobody generally notices me making edits like this – Before/After – so it's heartening to know that it will be seen by millions of people (I don't need them to know what I did, just that what I did was worth doing, of course). I really appreciate the help you provided, and maybe you didn't realize that the report would be useful in this way, so there you have it. Happy New Year to everyone involved and keep up the good work! Kind regards, nagualdesign 00:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: You might be interested in looking at the big list then. See User:West.andrew.g/2017 Popular pages, which goes to the top 5000. By the way, you've got one of the most nicely designed signatures I've seen on Wikipedia. Thanks for your work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! That link is really helpful too, so thanks again. My signature is actually my company logo. I say company, I'm actually a sole trader (self-employed designer). Someone was once on the verge of complaining about me using it on my talk page (which I think looks rather nice too) but there's no conflict of interest and I think the grandfather clause applies (the one whereby I've been using it here for many years, not Father Christmas's dad

), and even if I went by my real name here I'd still be promoting myself and my work. I appreciate the feedback. All the best, nagualdesign 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nagualdesign: And if you or anyone else ever needs more than 5000, it's no problem to do that, either (although I'd distribute that in a less elegant format; the table of 5000 stresses the parser and web browsers a little bit). It is also feasible to produce the most popular 'x' articles in a given category, provided that category is very broad (I've done it for WP:MED in the past). Glad to hear the list is having meaning impact beyond just satisfying the curiosity of readers. West.andrew.g (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		I just read the annual report, and I want to say thank you to everyone who has worked on these reports this year. It's amazing you guys do this all year round and then so particularly well at the end of the year to boot. The annual report is a particular example of proper teamwork. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Political Opinions

I agree with many others in saying that folks who come to a page to learn the top Wikipedia articles should not be treated to your highly divisive political opinions. One that especially stood out to me was the "United States" commentary. Many of us Americans are grateful for our beautiful country and to say that there are Nazis marching in the streets when we live in the freest society in history is ungrateful and unaware. Sure, there are arguments to be made pro Kaepernick kneeling but there are also arguments to be made pro individual citizens having the right to protect themselves. To fail to notice both sides care only leads to the division you refer to in your commentary. Please take a walk outside to see the beauty of our country or else make it known that this is highly personal commentary-in which case, I am not sure why it is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Averageyoungmerican99 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get that there is commentary, but why are there so many political opinions? It seems that the whole neutral point of view policy got thrown out the window. It doesn't matter that much, but I think it gives the wrong impression about Wikipedia. Also, many of the opinions are presented like facts when they should not be.TheUserU2 (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This list is published in Wikipedia space rather than in article space. This gives us a greater degree of liberty when composing the list than one would in main space, allowing us to indulge in POV to a point (which I don't feel has been exceeded). Moreover, most of the commentary is opinion, and the personal pronoun has been asked to be removed by multiple editors - thus, the current schematic is aimed to meet the middle ground. Stormy clouds (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV does not apply to this space, because this is just an op-ed/essay. However, I do feel that the political commentary is silly and over the top. I want to comment on two: the entry for Facebook says that it is responsible for Trump, and is thus a "societal scourge", while the entry for Melania Trump compares her treatment to that of Jackie Kennedy, and criticizes media coverage of Melania Trump for the "sin of marrying Trump". These comments have nothing to do with the traffic figures or the encyclopedia, but are simply partisan gripes for various sides. I realize that politics is rather polarizing in the US, but I suggest that if you want to opine on political matters, please do it the old-fashioned way and get a blog. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: - While I cannot speak to the Melania entry, the predominant story on Facebook this year has been its efforts to curtail the fake news that has dogged the site. These highly publicised debates, including from reputable officials who attribute Trump's win to fake news and echo chambers online, have absolutely impacted Facebook's traffic. Thus, it is a warranted point, not a partisan gripe, in my view. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss the fake news story on many different terms. Calling Facebook a "societal scourge" because it (allegedly) led to a Trump win is a partisan gripe. To see this, let's assume Facebook was the decisive factor in a Trump win. Would Trump supporters see it as a "scourge" or a "blessing"? Also, please appreciate that not everything in the world revolves around US politics. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsindian: - in light of your comments, I re-read and amended the passage to label it a scourge for its direct role in the rise of fake news, without mentioning Trump. I am acutely aware that the world does not revolve around US politics, I don't live in the US, and I routinely oppose ITN nominations that are purely based upon the politics of the United States as being geo-centric. To be fair, US politics has played a big role in 2017, but I feel that the report shows that it has not been the only event, or even the definitive one. I hope this allays some of your concerns. Stormy clouds (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are these political opinions, the title of the section with these comments should be changed from notes to comments. I think that will make things a little more clear to a reader.TheUserU2 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @TheUserU2:. That change was appropriated. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move this page to "Annual Top 50 Report 2017"?

Thank you for a fantastic analysis. But shouldn't this be done for every year? What about "Annual Top 50 Report 2016". Also as quite interesting year, don't you think? Hogne (talk) 12:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it will work like the Top 25 Report, in that, when working on the report for 2018, we will archive this at your suggested page move - but for now it will stay here. There is a link at the bottom of the page for the 2016 Report as well, if you want to check it out. Stormy clouds (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Now moved to WP:2017 Top 50 Report, while volunteers are drafting the 2018 iteration at Draft:2018 Top 50 Report. — JFG ^talk 20:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]