Wikipedia talk:Most-missed articles

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Rich Farmbrough in topic 2008

What am I looking at? edit

What do these numbers mean? Is it accurate? I guess It seems a bit strange that those would be the most searched things. Some of them highly specific and non-notable even in an off-wiki sense. Are these bot searches? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Outdated edit

It looks like about half of these pages actually do exist. Is it ok to remove them? This page needs more context. Craig Pemberton (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be a good idea to remove them (after you check to make sure they do not lead to a disambig or wrong page). But maybe double check with the creator of this list and see what he thinks. Maybe there will be a more recent update when more of these articles are cleared. Calaka (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

That is what I noticed too, some of the articles have already been written up, perhaps they should be removed from this list... Lilaac (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

But who will do it? :)
7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( t / c ) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Frequency of requests edit

Some of the numbers #seem# rather excessive getting on for 3 000 requests #per day# for obscure topics. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Talk page request edit

Hello! An editor made a request concerning User:A Nobody/List of traps in the Saw film series at User_talk:A_Nobody#listed_as_.231_requested_non-article and anyway any admin participants willing to unprotect have my permission to move my userspace article to the mainspace given the renewed enthusiasm for this article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 15:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It looks like the article isn't going to be recreated anytime soon, the name has been salted. As to why: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination) Josh Parris 05:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

2008 edit

Wait... "based on 149 days in year 2008", this is about 2008? Why is anything still linking to this page (or: why hasn't it been updated)? --82.171.13.139 (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree with this, this list needs an update, if possible. Tazerdadog (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

It would be great if we could have a similar list generated for 2013. --Bejnar (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

There is a more up-to-date list somewhere, if I can find it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC).Reply
User:West.andrew.g/Popular redlinks All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC).Reply