Wikipedia talk:Most-referenced articles

Untitled

Unsurprisingly, the most referenced pages are those linked to by every one of a hojillion Rambot-generated US city pages. :) --Brion 23:50, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hmm.

Hmm. I'll go out on a limb and state that not one of those on the list is a surprise. To be interesting, you would probably have to list a thousand (or more) or at least 500 articles. The practicality of that though, is definitely out of my bailiwick. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

I will rerun the script and skip all years. A longer list is a matter of changing a parameter. Any other suggestions to make the list more useful ? Erik Zachte 00:22, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I might filter out country names as well. Erik Zachte 00:24, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I would like to see a list of some 100 most popular entries that lack counterparts in a language other than English (German, in my case). These entries would be suitable targets for a translation effort. Andreas Eisele 7 Jan 2004

Oh yes. Much more interesting!

I don't know what it says about Wikipedia (I tell a lie, I do know what it says about Wikipedia), but God gets only 886 links, while Science fiction is linked 998 times. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick

It says that people are more willing to write about sci fi topics because they don't have to worry that everything they say gets reverted or end up in an edit war. mydogategodshat

changes

Could it be usefull to detect the changes in this list, e.g Article XY: week=1 position=250 week=2 position=200 in order to have an overview which topics are newly covered, and to make later an ranking of interesting topics like Google_zeitgeist?--Nerd 16:19, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How many are...

Featured artical's, or at least at that standerd out of the top 100. main rational, if thats what all the links are too, then shuly they must be good, or... tooto 21:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any updates?

It's over three months now and somehow out of date. — HenryLi (Talk) 16:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just updated. Sorry for the delay. -- Beland 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bug fixed

While processing the latest update (from January 25, 2006) I discovered a bug which chopped off links at the end of the alphabet. Previous listings were probably slightly incorrect as a result. The current count may mess up a bit on articles with non-ASCII characters, but other than that is hopefully now accurate. -- Beland

Featured articles

I would've thought that making these articles FAs would be something of a priority. Perhaps those that are already FAs could be shown in bold? The only disadvantage is that it would highlight the dismal number of these articles that actually are FAs (only 1 of the top 25). Soo 15:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World War II/Second World War

Although Second World War redirects to World War II, the two are listed seperately, with World War II in 27th with 28259 links and Second World War in 259th with 3712 links. If links to redirects could somehow be folded in with the main article's listing, World War II would likely be in 19th with 31971 links, and other articles with commonly-linked redirects might have their rankings shift significantly as well. I appreciate this might be a difficult programming puzzle, but if it were possible, it would be nice to have it. UnDeadGoat 00:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double listing

Race (U.S. census) is in position bumbre 6 and 17. The only difference is the capitalization of the letter C. Since they mean the same thing, they should not have seperate rankings.

Update?

Any update for these few months? — HenryLi (Talk) 07:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a year now... any chance of a revision? DJR (T) 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Priorities lookin' good

Sydney (6288 links)
United_States_of_America (5843 links)

We love you too! Guess us ozzies need to start researching and writing up articles on the USofA. ;) Alastair Haines 16:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup in need

There is one section in need of cleanup on the project page, because it is in a gray box with blue dotted outline that copies the text in the edit box, rather than what it is supposed to appear as. I looked at this section in the edit box, and I couldn't see what was wrong. What's wrong? Us441 (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updating?

Why aren't these stats pages kept updated? They have been neglected for years! Newjerseyliz (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're that concerned then you can update them yourself. CallMeSalticidae (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN and such

It seems pretty obvious that the only reason ISBN is ranked so high is because it's automatically linked by many citation templates. I think that shouldn't really count for anything and that templated links like that should be deducted from the total. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

people

shouldn't we add a section for people I think that would be more interesting than years 68.229.192.96 (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]