Feanor Posted Friday at 09:32 PM Share Posted Friday at 09:32 PM Based on the Wikipedia's Pageview tool, these are the albums by female artists with the most page visits. The results are unfortunately not as complete as they could be, as the tool only goes back to July 2015, but it is nevertheless an interesting, more unusual stat, which is summarized below: 1. Taylor Swift, '1989' (*) - 9.38M page views 2. Adele, '25' - 8.93M page views 3. Beyoncé, 'Lemonade' - 8.71M page views 4. Taylor Swift, 'reputation' - 8.23M page views 5. Taylor Swift, 'folklore' - 6.96M page views 6. Taylor Swift, 'Lover' - 6.59M page views 7. Rihanna, 'ANTI' - 6.04M page views 8. Taylor Swift, 'Taylor Swift' (*) - 5.77M page views 9. Taylor Swift, 'RED' (*) - 5.62M page views 10. Taylor Swift, 'Midnights' - 5.37M page views (*) signifies album released prior to July 2015. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Honorable mentions: If we only included albums released in the timeframe this tool covers (July 2015 till now), then these three albums would complete the top 10: Taylor Swift, 'evermore' - 4.64M page views Billie Eilish, 'WHEN WE ALL FALL ASLEEP, WHERE DO WE GO?' - 4.16M page views Taylor Swift, 'THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT' - 4.10M page views ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– Any surprises? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodflowers. Posted Friday at 09:41 PM Share Posted Friday at 09:41 PM Justice for Head Above Water by Avril Lavigne 1 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post The Music Industry Posted Friday at 09:49 PM Popular Post Share Posted Friday at 09:49 PM 9 out of the top 12 belonging to Taylor. Even Wikipedia readers cant get enough of Taylormania! 5 2 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoghon Posted Friday at 09:53 PM Share Posted Friday at 09:53 PM 1989 Wikipedia page has ALWAYS been a banger wbk, the WAY I'm still in awe of that era whew! I still find myself binge-reading the article from time 2 time 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbsparce Posted Friday at 10:31 PM Share Posted Friday at 10:31 PM The way the wiki views more or less match their sales.. except for one 1 14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrettyHurts Posted Friday at 10:33 PM Share Posted Friday at 10:33 PM 0. Beyoncé - Cowboy Carter, 35m page views 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Snow Posted Friday at 10:34 PM Share Posted Friday at 10:34 PM McDonald's 26,5M 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tost1 Posted Friday at 10:45 PM Share Posted Friday at 10:45 PM Taylor Swift stans being chronically online confirmed 4 4 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoOneDiesFromLove Posted Friday at 10:46 PM Share Posted Friday at 10:46 PM Of course the pop Bible is number 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magazine Posted Friday at 10:50 PM Share Posted Friday at 10:50 PM Reputation alone clears the whole list 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyoncei Posted Friday at 11:00 PM Share Posted Friday at 11:00 PM Good to see 2 black women in the top 10! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Nation Posted Friday at 11:09 PM Share Posted Friday at 11:09 PM 6 minutes ago, tost1 said: Taylor Swift stans being chronically online confirmed Only further confirmation of what we already knew. In addition, Swifties have genuinely infiltrated the community of Wikipedia editors, so I reckon a good part of these views also come from these editors constantly reviewing and adding new things (+ the professional folks having to verify any biased or flat-out ridiculous edits). Particularly unserious how each one of her albums has a 'Legacy and Impact' subsection. It would be fair game if it wasn't so stan-driven, nearly exclusive to Taylor, and for the most part based on fluff pieces (because it's become extremely profitable to rave about Taylor Swift for easy engagement, let's not forget). Not to mention the embarrassing 'Post-review commentary' section of "THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT", though to be fair, it's merely reflecting the embarrassing real-life coddling from institutions, so can't really blame the editors for reporting it. 8 3 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post By the Water Posted Friday at 11:12 PM Popular Post Share Posted Friday at 11:12 PM Here come the conspiracy theories 15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ONOPKA Posted Friday at 11:19 PM Share Posted Friday at 11:19 PM the wikipedia page refresher farms are in full force i see 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Music Industry Posted Friday at 11:22 PM Share Posted Friday at 11:22 PM (edited) 22 minutes ago, Moonlight Nation said: Only further confirmation of what we already knew. In addition, Swifties have genuinely infiltrated the community of Wikipedia editors, so I reckon a good part of these views also come from these editors constantly reviewing and adding new things (+ the professional folks having to verify any biased or flat-out ridiculous edits). Particularly unserious how each one of her albums has a 'Legacy and Impact' subsection. It would be fair game if it wasn't so stan-driven, nearly exclusive to Taylor, and for the most part based on fluff pieces (because it's become extremely profitable to rave about Taylor Swift for easy engagement, let's not forget). Not to mention the embarrassing 'Post-review commentary' section of "THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT", though to be fair, it's merely reflecting the embarrassing real-life coddling from institutions, so can't really blame the editors for reporting it. "It's because Swifties are chronically online!!!!" "It's because Swifties infiltrated the community of Wikipedia editors!!!!!" Or could it be... hear me out... because there's just significantly more interest and demand for Taylor Swift? Wild idea, I know! Edited Friday at 11:32 PM by The Music Industry 7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Posted Friday at 11:29 PM Share Posted Friday at 11:29 PM questionable entries and interesting how wikipedia "allegedly" starting this in 2015. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Music Industry Posted Friday at 11:33 PM Share Posted Friday at 11:33 PM 2 minutes ago, Devin said: questionable entries and interesting how wikipedia "allegedly" starting this in 2015. ugh I know. I wish this started in 2014 so the first full year of 1989's massive success wouldn't be missing from the data 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Dick Posted Saturday at 12:01 AM Share Posted Saturday at 12:01 AM Do you have any info on pre-2015? I'd like to know how The Fame compares to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
family.guy123 Posted Saturday at 12:03 AM Share Posted Saturday at 12:03 AM The spats that go on in the edit history section are so funny 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Nation Posted Saturday at 12:09 AM Share Posted Saturday at 12:09 AM 29 minutes ago, The Music Industry said: "It's because Swifties are chronically online!!!!" "It's because Swifties infiltrated the community of Wikipedia editors!!!!!" Or could it be... hear me out... because there's just significantly more interest and demand for Taylor Swift? Wild idea, I know! Or maybe it's a genuine combination of all these factors? I know Swifties don't do nuance, but it should be fair to acknowledge how the longtime intensity and hardcore obsession of the massive fanbase undeniably contributes to inflating her numbers to some extent. There's no such thing as 100% organic 'interest and demand', particularly one of this magnitude. People who grew up with her music and remained passionate fans went on to work for prestigious writing institutions and have the platform to influence public opinion as well as make their takes credible sources to be cited on Wikipedia. And from the 'Talk' pages for each of her albums it's clear there are Swifties among the editing team - which is fair enough, mind you. This isn't discrediting her placements here, but just offering a reasonable additional explanation behind her having so many albums here. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericcartman Posted Saturday at 12:22 AM Share Posted Saturday at 12:22 AM At this point, these lists should be accompanied by taylorless version (TV) so we can get a sense of how other artists are stacking up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeAg Posted Saturday at 12:26 AM Share Posted Saturday at 12:26 AM justice for Hounds of Love tbh I wonder if it got as many hits as my optimist stan ass hopes it did considering Stranger Thingies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumbsparce Posted Saturday at 01:07 AM Share Posted Saturday at 01:07 AM I'm not even a Swiftie but how are you gonna accuse them of being online 24/7 when the wiki views : sales ratio reaches astronomical numbers only for that one album 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LesFleur Posted Saturday at 01:19 AM Share Posted Saturday at 01:19 AM Unexpected by Michelle Williams deserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_(Michelle_Williams_album) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qegqeg Posted Saturday at 01:20 AM Share Posted Saturday at 01:20 AM No one knows Taylor's albums so they have to read about them on Wikipedia, which is why the numbers are so high 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts