Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-07-31/Traffic report

Discuss this story

I find it incredible that William, Elizabeth, Kate, Charles, and Diana are all on this list, and yet the royal whelp himself isn't. — Richard BB 06:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:TOP25. Serendi ^pod ous 07:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's a bit odd that the reason his relatives are all in the top 10 is because of his birth, and yet he's lower down at #16. — Richard BB 07:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article Prince George of Cambridge (368,049 views) also appears in the WP:5000 under its previous titles: Son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (234,539 views) and Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (119,854 views). Summing all these gives a total of 722,442 views, enough to move the royal baby up to 3rd place. the wub "?!" 10:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot more sense. Yes, I had all of those articles at one point on my watchlist, and the numerous page moves would certainly have dented its traffic. — Richard BB 11:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The word "monarchism" with a capital letter, praise of the British monarch… No ideology (including monarchism and patriotism) is an excuse to WP:NPOV violations. --Синкретик (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William is not a "baby-daddy". That is slang for a man who is technically a father, but is not involved with the child or mother Urban Dictionary maclean (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]