This really indicates what readers come to Wikipedia to read up on the most: Deaths, entertainment (movies, TV, sports) and politics (including nation states). Even Stephen Hawking's listing is probably due to the film about his life. I've read criticism that too much attention has been given by editors to popular culture but it looks like these are subjects that readers frequently come to Wikipedia to read about. Perhaps few people will want to read about Chris Kyle 10 years from now compared to more academic topics. But while Wikipedia is not the news, readers are seeking the latest, verifiable information on subjects in the news. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that "this really indicates what readers come to Wikipedia to read up on the most" is supported by the evidence. It may very well be that, for example, no one particular smart phone, supreme court decision, or geographic feature gets as much traffic as Chris Kyle, but traffic for all smart phones, all supreme court decision, or all geographic features lumped together get more traffic. Counting the traffic to individual Wikipedia pages is an unreliable indicator of interest because some topics are contained within a single page while other topics are distributed among many pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Serendipodous: thanks for the commentary. I find it interesting to see how our viewership changes over time. --Pine^✉ 17:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It shows what we (Earth people) have in common. (E.g. I have read a lot of the article on the list and a lot of chemistry articles too, my neighbour has read the list too, and a lot of folk dance related articles ...) Christian75 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't go to the Internet for cat videos. That's what Tom Bergeron and Alfonso Ribeiro are for.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]