Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-08-12/Traffic report

• That bonus chart is such a great idea, thanks for including it. Why are John Kasich's numbers so high? I guess people saw him during the debate (rumor has it that Roger Ailes jiggered the numbers so Kasich snuck in at #10) and wondered who the hell he was. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen some reports saying Kasich seems to have picked up some in the polls after the debate -- similar to Fionrina, the attention and a decent performance probably helped them.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that bonus chart is a great addition. It's not a sign of how individuals might vote in a future election but it does show who they are curious about, who they want to find more information on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey, remember NPOV?

EllenCT (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• These were not candidates in the GOP debate, I believe!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest calling Kalam a "former scientist" is not how Wikipedia generally treats such major personages. He holds a large number of honours for his work, and we ought not diminish his stature by saying "former" when he was stricken five minutes into a lecture on climate. Collect (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I happen to follow American politics so I find the chart interesting, but I agree with EllenCT that only creating one for the Republicans does appear biased. It also contributes to complaints of some that the English Wikipedia and Signpost have an American bias in coverage. Most editors are probably American, but many aren't. There are a number of other bonus charts that could have been created about more prominently featured articles on the list that had universal appear. Mkdw^talk 03:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. No one complained about my prior chart comparing the Furious movies. I guess that's because they are famous worldwide. It simply drew my attention, as did this. Anyone and everyone is encouraged in use the WP:5000 for research.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the U.S. Republican chart is only of interest because there are so many candidates at this point in the presidential race. I doubt it will become a regular, weekly feature of the traffic report. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly we don't intend to do that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Donald Trump: Is politically biased comment allowed in wikipedia (I know, this is not a wikipedia article and The Donald makes a good comedy sometimes (believe it or not, reminds me Zhirinovsky), but still propaganda makes me feel uneasy. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV issues are a regular feature of this section, but my protests have all fallen on deaf ears. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• We are not deaf, we just disagree. NPOV does not apply to the Signpost as discussed before, but I heartily welcome comments and differing opinions to be discussed here. I just got to find out who Zhirinovsky is, and that's a fascinating connection that Altenmann made. I believe the commentary section of the chart, which many have cited as their favorite part, serves an important purpose. My hopes may well be grandiose, but these charts are a first draft of the history of human culture, I would like those in the future to be able to gain some insight into what wikipedia readers might have been thinking about in 2015. See the "insights into popular culture" section of this 2013 article for more on my thoughts about this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]