Wikipedia talk:Special:FewestRevisions

Its usefulness is limited because it includes redirects. :( 129.120.94.151 20:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I think every "article" listed here seems to be a redirect.

And it's limited to only 1000 pages I think. ---Majestic- 15:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone really should submit a bug report; as is, this is a complete waste of resources. It also would be a complete waste of resources even if redirects were eliminated: almost all of the 1000 listed articles would probably be those created within the 24 hours prior to the report being run. (There are roughly 4000 articles created each day.) To be worthwhile, this report should be limited to articles that have been around for a bit - say, those created more than 60 days prior to the report date. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Pages?

FewestRevisions appears to consist of low-priority redirects and deleted pages. Why are deleted pages being counted? - Frankie (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The page data is cached from 2007 and some of the pages included in the report have probably been deleted by now. Nakon 01:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

7516820m

<nowiki>Insert non-formatted text here <gallery> Insert non-formatted text here </gallery> </nowiki>

2 revisions

All of the things I've seen say 2 revisions, yet the first page on here (the only one I've checked: !! (disambiguation) has WAY more than 2. May be a little outdated.--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Checked a couple of others, this thing is broken--Awesomewiki64 (talk) 14:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Awesomewiki64, !! (disambiguation) does have two revisions. ([1]) I think you might have been confused because it is a redirect and the page it redirects to has more than two revisions but the redirect itself doesn't. TVShowFan122 (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

The list contains almost (?) exclusively redirects. A redirect with one revision is standard, so the list isn't useful.Xx236 (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps redirects could be excluded from the list? Elassint ^Hi 02:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This page is useless

I agree with other comments here. This page serves no useful function. Most entries are disambiguation or redirects, which require few updates. Let's just drop it. Cossaxx (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Disagreeing with other comments

Since this page is mostly disambiguation pages, it helps to determine disambiguation changes that might need copy editing or transformation into set indices or surname pages, or may be likely to contain red links.

Order

Is there any logic to the way these pages are ordered? It’s difficult to try to work through these pages when it’s unclear if there is a reasoning for their ordering. Michaelwallace22 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)