other stats Wikipedia: Most read about albums by female artists (2015-now data)

[The Music Industry]

5 hours ago, Moonlight Nation said:

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.

Well, except you are trying to subtly discredit or at least water down the impressive nature of her dominance by feeling the need to point out that it's caused by her massive fanbase. Taylor has a massive fanbase because there is massive interest in her. There are lots of Wiki editors who are fans of Taylor Swift because there is massive interest in her. It's not rocket science, really. 

 

Also this idea that rabid fanbases carry Wikipedia page views is just wrong. The more rabid fanbase is probably BTS fans, and their biggest album doesn't even have a fourth of the total page views of Taylor's most recent album. 

Edited June 29 by The Music Industry

[Sazare]

It's botnets most likely. There's some random-ass town in Kentucky with maybe a couple hundred people in it and absolutely no historical significance whose article has a total of 9.8 million views (more than any album on this list).

Which means one of two things:  either all pop girl albums have less "impact" or "relevance" (or whatever it is the OP is trying to allege) than Neatsville, Kentucky, OR Wiki views aren't a great indicator of anything. I'm inclined to go with the latter.

[Taylor fanboy]

Oh reputation the People's Pop Bible that you are.

[Zaram]

this also includes pc views since 2007

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages

Albums

(December 1, 2007 – January 1, 2023).

 

Rank	Page	Artist	Views in millions
1	Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band[45]	Beatles	18
2	The Dark Side of the Moon	Pink Floyd	17
3	Thriller[46]	Michael Jackson	16
4	Recovery[47]	Eminem	15
4	My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy	Kanye West	15
4	Abbey Road	Beatles	15
4	The Beatles	Beatles	15
8	XXXX (album)	You Say Party	14
8	The Wall	Pink Floyd	14
10	21	Adele	13
11	Nevermind	Nirvana	12
11	Let It Be (album)	Beatles	12
13	The Marshall Mathers LP	Eminem	11
13	Watch the Throne	Jay-Z & Kanye West	11
15	Led Zeppelin IV	Led Zeppelin	10
16	808s & Heartbreak	Kanye West	9.5
17	1989	Taylor Swift	9.4
18	Rubber Soul	Beatles	9.3
19	Red	Taylor Swift	9.2
20	Fearless	Taylor Swift	9.0
20	Metallica	Metallica	9.0
22	The Slim Shady LP	Eminem	8.8
22	Graduation	Kanye West	8.8
24	The Eminem Show	Eminem	8.7
25	Wish You Were Here	Pink Floyd	8.5
25	Teenage Dream	Katy Perry	8.5
25	Good Kid, M.A.A.D City	Kendrick Lamar	8.5
28	Bad	Michael Jackson	8.4
28	Yeezus	Kanye West	8.4
30	25 (Adele album)	Adele	8.3
30	Hybrid Theory	Linkin Park

[Moonlight Nation]

8 minutes ago, Zaram said:

this also includes pc views since 2007

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages

 

Albums

(December 1, 2007 – January 1, 2023).

 

Rank	Page	Artist	Views in millions
1	Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band[45]	Beatles	18
2	The Dark Side of the Moon	Pink Floyd	17
3	Thriller[46]	Michael Jackson	16
4	Recovery[47]	Eminem	15
4	My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy	Kanye West	15
4	Abbey Road	Beatles	15
4	The Beatles	Beatles	15
8	XXXX (album)	You Say Party	14
8	The Wall	Pink Floyd	14
10	21	Adele	13
11	Nevermind	Nirvana	12
11	Let It Be (album)	Beatles	12
13	The Marshall Mathers LP	Eminem	11
13	Watch the Throne	Jay-Z & Kanye West	11
15	Led Zeppelin IV	Led Zeppelin	10
16	808s & Heartbreak	Kanye West	9.5
17	1989	Taylor Swift	9.4
18	Rubber Soul	Beatles	9.3
19	Red	Taylor Swift	9.2
20	Fearless	Taylor Swift	9.0
20	Metallica	Metallica	9.0
22	The Slim Shady LP	Eminem	8.8
22	Graduation	Kanye West	8.8
24	The Eminem Show	Eminem	8.7
25	Wish You Were Here	Pink Floyd	8.5
25	Teenage Dream	Katy Perry	8.5
25	Good Kid, M.A.A.D City	Kendrick Lamar	8.5
28	Bad	Michael Jackson	8.4
28	Yeezus	Kanye West	8.4
30	25 (Adele album)	Adele	8.3
30	Hybrid Theory	Linkin Park

"Recovery" being here is so unserious, let alone at #4!  Seems like we also have a fair share of Stans™️ as part of the Wikipedia editors community. Also loads of Beatles and Pink Floyd fans by the looks of it.

 

#8 is beyond chaotic too. Does anyone know what happened there, or is it another Neatsville, Kentucky situation as mentioned by @Sazare ?

 

Delighted to see "Teenage Dream" and "Hybrid Theory" making this list, though. Ditto for "21" in the top 10! 

 

 

[Lemon]

17 minutes ago, Moonlight Nation said:

"Recovery" being here is so unserious, let alone at #4!  Seems like we also have a fair share of Stans™️ as part of the Wikipedia editors community. Also loads of Beatles and Pink Floyd fans by the looks of it.

 

#8 is beyond chaotic too. Does anyone know what happened there, or is it another Neatsville, Kentucky situation as mentioned by @Sazare ?

 

Delighted to see "Teenage Dream" and "Hybrid Theory" making this list, though. Ditto for "21" in the top 10! 

 

 

 

Do you really think that Pink Floyd and Beatles albums up there is the outcome of them having "stans among wiki's editor community"? Or anyone else's album for that matter? 
I mean, maybe you are speaking from your perspective as in it wouldn't be strange for you to actually do something like that, because I can't see another valid reason of this dubious explanation. 
 

I mean, by your logic, Katy Perry and Adele stans are also reason why they appear on this list too. 

[Moonlight Nation]

1 hour ago, Lemon said:

 

Do you really think that Pink Floyd and Beatles albums up there is the outcome of them having "stans among wiki's editor community"? Or anyone else's album for that matter? 
I mean, maybe you are speaking from your perspective as in it wouldn't be strange for you to actually do something like that, because I can't see another valid reason of this dubious explanation. 
 

I mean, by your logic, Katy Perry and Adele stans are also reason why they appear on this list too. 

Some people's reading comprehension are in the pits. Imagine acting so obtuse to fuel bad faith interpretations... 

 

Did I say that was the sole reason for them to have so many albums up there? I just implied this helps to inflate the numbers to some extent. Of course there's organic interest as well, but it doesn't surprise me there would be more care and attention to the pages honouring two iconic rock groups with a hypothetical editing community where a fair share of members happen to be rock fans. And honestly, similar to the Taylor Swift situation, I doubt people are deliberately doing this to increase the views - that's ridiculous. It's just a consequence of them being active members and frequently finding new articles and sources to enhance the pages, which naturally boosts the number of views and engagement from albums which already attract lots of casual interest.

 

I'm surprised this is such a controversial observation to make, but I'm not surprised even something so tame bothered the fragile, insecure egos from a certain group. 

 

That being said, sorry, there's no way Eminem's "Recovery" and that random You Say Party album didn't benefit from extreme inflation, especially the latter. Not even necessarily from stans for You Say Party, but maybe a similar situation as to what @Sazare was describing.

 

But I guess by your logic I should blindly accept that "XXXX" has organically attracted more Wiki readers than "Nevermind" and "1989".

[Lemon]

36 minutes ago, Moonlight Nation said:

Some people's reading comprehension are in the pits. Imagine acting so obtuse to fuel bad faith interpretations... 

 

Did I say that was the sole reason for them to have so many albums up there? I just implied this helps to inflate the numbers to some extent. Of course there's organic interest as well, but it doesn't surprise me there would be more care and attention to the pages honouring two iconic rock groups with a hypothetical editing community where a fair share of members happen to be rock fans. And honestly, similar to the Taylor Swift situation, I doubt people are deliberately doing this to increase the views - that's ridiculous. It's just a consequence of them being active members and frequently finding new articles and sources to enhance the pages, which naturally boosts the number of views and engagement from albums which already attract lots of casual interest.

 

I'm surprised this is such a controversial observation to make, but I'm not surprised even something so tame bothered the fragile, insecure egos from a certain group. 

 

That being said, sorry, there's no way Eminem's "Recovery" and that random You Say Party album didn't benefit from extreme inflation, especially the latter. Not even necessarily from stans for You Say Party, but maybe a similar situation as to what @Sazare was describing.

 

But I guess by your logic I should blindly accept that "XXXX" has organically attracted more Wiki readers than "Nevermind" and "1989".

And how much of "to some extent" do you think amounts to all of those albums being "inflated" on this list?

Because it seems you yourself are giving it "less weight" in this reply than what you have tried to convey a while ago. And if it just "little", then it doesn't even matter, because majority of these reads/page views are definitely… organic. 
 

Your whole rationale is basically an assumption after assumption. At least, it reads like that. 
 

When someone types any of these albums' names in the Google, Wiki page is one of the first sources to jump at them, so naturally, people look into it. Occam's razor gets upper hand here. 
 

And how come Teenage Dream and 21, albums you are delighted to see on this list, are not helped by "some of the inorganic inflation by editors' community"? Or you also think their placement are "helped" by it too? 

[Moonlight Nation]

1 hour ago, Lemon said:

And how much of "to some extent" do you think amounts to all of those albums being "inflated" on this list?

Because it seems you yourself are giving it "less weight" in this reply than what you have tried to convey a while ago. And if it just "little", then it doesn't even matter, because majority of these reads/page views are definitely… organic. 
 

Your whole rationale is basically an assumption after assumption. At least, it reads like that. 
 

When someone types any of these albums' names in the Google, Wiki page is one of the first sources to jump at them, so naturally, people look into it. Occam's razor gets upper hand here. 
 

And how come Teenage Dream and 21, albums you are delighted to see on this list, are not helped by "some of the inorganic inflation by editors' community"? Or you also think their placement are "helped" by it too? 

So much exhausting energy and projection towards something that was at its core a lighthearted comment. I can't believe you're still going on about this. 

 

I shared a grounded speculation on what might contribute to some artists being more represented than others. Wikipedia editors work on all these pages, mind you, but I assumed that those who happened to be fans of certain acts would understandably spend more time reviewing and adding new sources + quotes for albums that interest them. And upon further research I was proven correct.

 

If you want evidence of what I'm talking about, just compare the 'Talk' pages (where editors discuss new additions, removals, and corrections) for "Let It Be" and "THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT" compared to those from "21" , "Teenage Dream", and Drake's "Scorpion".  More in-depth discussions + topics vs. fairly standard Wiki editor talk, highlighting profiles of enthusiastic fans for the former two. At the same time, the pages for "Abbey Road" and "1989" are very straightforward.

 

Zero intention of 'discrediting' anyone, if anything it's a testament to how widespread the following of these artists is. But it's something interesting to note regardless.

 

All albums featured on both lists are probably benefitting from some unintentional inflation either way. Some properly blatant and genuinely suspicious, like the You Say Party album, but most of them not a big deal.

 

Hope I made my points clear this time around and we can finally put this to rest.

 

[Cleanromantic]

19 hours 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.

And you say Swifties are chronically online!!!!!!!!

[Lemon]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Nation said:

So much exhausting energy and projection towards something that was at its core a lighthearted comment. I can't believe you're still going on about this. 

 

I shared a grounded speculation on what might contribute to some artists being more represented than others. Wikipedia editors work on all these pages, mind you, but I assumed that those who happened to be fans of certain acts would understandably spend more time reviewing and adding new sources + quotes for albums that interest them. And upon further research I was proven correct.

 

If you want evidence of what I'm talking about, just compare the 'Talk' pages (where editors discuss new additions, removals, and corrections) for "Let It Be" and "THE TORTURED POETS DEPARTMENT" compared to those from "21" , "Teenage Dream", and Drake's "Scorpion".  More in-depth discussions + topics vs. fairly standard Wiki editor talk, highlighting profiles of enthusiastic fans for the former two. At the same time, the pages for "Abbey Road" and "1989" are very straightforward.

 

Zero intention of 'discrediting' anyone, if anything it's a testament to how widespread the following of these artists is. But it's something interesting to note regardless.

 

All albums featured on both lists are probably benefitting from some unintentional inflation either way. Some properly blatant and genuinely suspicious, like the You Say Party album, but most of them not a big deal.

 

Hope I made my points clear this time around and we can finally put this to rest.

I don't think I am the one emitting "exhausting energy" here considering you are the one investigating this... speculation regarding "some unintentional inflation" (which is obviously not big deal indeed) about albums being read about more or less. 

[bad guy]

Oh WWAFA and Anti don't reset culture like that…

 

 

[Capruni]

Anti 👏

[Feanor]

On 6/29/2024 at 1:24 PM, Zaram said:

this also includes pc views since 2007

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Popular_pages

 

Albums

(December 1, 2007 – January 1, 2023).

 

Rank	Page	Artist	Views in millions
1	Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band[45]	Beatles	18
2	The Dark Side of the Moon	Pink Floyd	17
3	Thriller[46]	Michael Jackson	16
4	Recovery[47]	Eminem	15
4	My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy	Kanye West	15
4	Abbey Road	Beatles	15
4	The Beatles	Beatles	15
8	XXXX (album)	You Say Party	14
8	The Wall	Pink Floyd	14
10	21	Adele	13
11	Nevermind	Nirvana	12
11	Let It Be (album)	Beatles	12
13	The Marshall Mathers LP	Eminem	11
13	Watch the Throne	Jay-Z & Kanye West	11
15	Led Zeppelin IV	Led Zeppelin	10
16	808s & Heartbreak	Kanye West	9.5
17	1989	Taylor Swift	9.4
18	Rubber Soul	Beatles	9.3
19	Red	Taylor Swift	9.2
20	Fearless	Taylor Swift	9.0
20	Metallica	Metallica	9.0
22	The Slim Shady LP	Eminem	8.8
22	Graduation	Kanye West	8.8
24	The Eminem Show	Eminem	8.7
25	Wish You Were Here	Pink Floyd	8.5
25	Teenage Dream	Katy Perry	8.5
25	Good Kid, M.A.A.D City	Kendrick Lamar	8.5
28	Bad	Michael Jackson	8.4
28	Yeezus	Kanye West	8.4
30	25 (Adele album)	Adele	8.3
30	Hybrid Theory	Linkin Park

Thanks for this!

 

So using this data + the page views since 01/01/2023, these would be the most read about albums by female artists:

 

 

1. Adele, '21' - 13.57M page views

 

2. Taylor Swift, '1989' - 12.02M page views

 

3. Taylor Swift, 'RED' - 10.93M page views

 

4. Taylor Swift, 'Fearless' - 10.90M page views

 

5. Katy Perry, 'Teenage Dream' - 9.12M page views

 

Edited November 1 by Feanor

[Arrows]

On 6/29/2024 at 2:09 AM, Moonlight Nation said:

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.

The massive fanbase is not an asterisk to the success, it is the success. This is where your argument is flawed.