Wikipedia talk:2024 Top 50 Report

Format for peak and exclusions

@Vestrian24Bio: Why is that the format for the peak column? The efn tag allows for it to look cleaner/more organized. Also going to restore the exclusions chart because why remove it? This isn't a mainspace article, so it doesn't hurt to include it. Soulbust (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like for example, the Taylor Swift peak date can have a more precise explanation with the efn tag. I can see in one edit you removed "which experienced a boost in ratings attributed to Swift's presence" but that's valuable information here. Particularly because these broader annual reports have a wider reach than the weekly ones and even get looked at by news media outlets. Think it's definitely a better move to have the peak reason have slightly more detail when applicable. Soulbust (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also for instances where the peak date references another Top 50 article (i.e. Kamala Harris' peak being involved with Joe Biden), referencing it as something like "#19's withdrawl" doesn't seem as accessible to that aforementioned wider reach of readers this annual report will have. What I mean by that is that we shouldn't treat that blurb as something for the reader to go scroll down and find out what #19 is (while I would enjoy perusing the list back-and-forth, I wouldn't want to assume that for every reader). Instead, I think we should just give the full reasoning for that peak in the blurb. Referencing something in that "#n" manner is something that is more reasonable/apt for the weekly reports. I think I'll boldy restore the formatting I went with and if anyone has a strong opinion otherwise, I think we should have a further discussion about it. Soulbust (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soulbust See the previous year's report Wikipedia:2023 Top 50 Report. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: I worked on a report in the past, I believe in 2018. So I am aware of the previous format, but I see no reason why we need to stick with that one if it can be improved upon. Soulbust (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with the things you said above, but with the efn tags readers will have to scroll down the page to see the reasons, compared to having it right there... and things like Swift's presence at Super Bowl could be given detailed in the Notes/about column. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's true about needing to scroll down, but I do think readers can also hover over the in-line note? Also true about things like Swift's presence being able to be expanded on in the notes, though I guess that's up to whoever provides the commentary on if they want to touch on reasons for the specific peak, or if they want to provide broader commentary on the article. I would say if the latter, then we should at least provide some more detailed information on the peak through an efn tag?

Either way, would love some other editors to pitch in their thoughts since we have plenty of time to make any sort of decision on this. Soulbust (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hovering over the notes doesn't work the same for mobile readers...

I'm not sure if other editors are aware of the page being created, perhaps should ping some them. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot that mobile editors would have that issue with not being able to hover the notes. Definitely good point to consider. Though I checked the pageviews of last year's report. Its mobile app (114) + mobile web (1,512) have a combined figure of 1,626 compared to the 6,083 desktop pageviews, which is a relatively low 21.1%. I think seeing that % split, I would still opt toward efn tags for the peak details but it's less of a lean now because I definitely think the mobile hover issue is a good point. Soulbust (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the notelists underneath each tables, so its less distance to scroll at least. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soulbust: We should start up the Wikipedia:Top 50 Report/2024 daily as well, because unlike this for daily measures top articles are known for sure to date. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll get it started up in a moment. Soulbust (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Igordebraga: I actually don't think the size of the peak section has worked fine the past few years, or perhaps it has worked "fine", as in I believe it can be improved. Genuinely think it clutters the table to have text of varying amounts in that column and would work better as an efn tag orr perhaps in the notes section but as a separate paragraph that is less commentary and more explanatory... Soulbust (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking maybe a < br > break after the date and before the (reason) would also maybe look cleaner/less cluttered.. Unsure. Will have to go offline for a bit right now. Soulbust (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, or simply <small> (which as I revised all the previous installments in my phone to check your claim, was used in the first Annual in 2017 but not since) could reduce the space. At most, make the column to 90% or 95% of the other ones. The peak's reason is always short, don't see how transplanting to footnotes would be an improvement. igordebraga ≠ 22:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusions chart

Why did you remove the exclusions chart? But more specifically giving the reason that it's "taking up space"? Yes I get that the Toolforge list will give us the unedited list, but I was trying to give those exclusions in an organized way. Including it here instead of through the link to take readers to the separate Toolforge list is also helpful, to just have it all one one page. Also I don't understand how you can say it is taking up space, when (1) this is already an extra page a bunch of editors are working on essentially for fun or out of interest for the data (or both) and (2) nothing else would go at the bottom of the page anyway. I don't see the harm in including it. Soulbust (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping @Igordebraga: Soulbust (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does a full table with the articles really adds something that the simple description with a link to the raw list doesn't? Specially as Toolforge itself weeds out truly questionable pages by putting them in a separate page of automatic exclusions (even if last year technical issues made two valid entries that were on the Top 50 enter the false positives), so us going the other way to highlight those seems counterproductive. If the others disagree with me, it can be returned on the condition that it's a collapsible (and I won't put it on the Signpost transclusion). igordebraga ≠ 02:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a table, maybe the view counts for the articles excluded form Top 50 can be added in parenthesis to the existing text, that would be enough. And, @Igordebraga: are we going to put the entire list on Signpost, because it's usually the Top 10 for Top 25 reports, so the Top 20 entries would be proportionally enough in my opinion. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's always the entire list (Last year, first year). The first two also included the inquiry Stormy clouds decided to put for the authors. But the last time that there was a bonus in 2020 (acknowledging both a big number of articles with 10+ million views and how between the pandemic and the bot that compiled the views crashing, it was not easy and some extra write-ups were deserved) I cut that off the Signpost, because the 50 were enough. igordebraga ≠ 03:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of collapsible information here, particularly for the non-XXX pages, such as the IPL. And "no need for a table" is cool and all but then again, this entire page is purely for fun/interest purposes and sticking an exclusion table at the bottom does nothing to take away from the information already present. Whether it is on the Signpost transclusion or not isn't something I'm taking into account, as that is not a project/page I work on so definitely okay with your call on not putting it on there. Soulbust (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could include some information about them, but no need for a table with images, just bullet points would be enough. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think the images/table format help it maintain a visual consistency with the Top 50 table and also help it have a visual flair/interest to the information. Otherwise it'd basically just be the simple bullet points we have now which is essentially what we have on every Top 25 Report, and I'd figure this year-long one would have a bit more to it. But I'm cool with having some extra bullet points if others truly object to the table. Just thought a small one with some imagery would be fine at the bottom here...

Side note, I don't know if we should actually exclude the IPL (24.76 million views) and 2024 IPL (12.05 million views); their page view numbers, yes do go over that mobile % threshold, but looking at the year-long graph we can see that there is a significant drop off in views from May to June, suggesting there is indeed some legitimate viewership there that would be dismissed/unaccounted for on this Top 50 list. Soulbust (talk) 02:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 daily report

@Igordebraga: Could we colorize the date column, similar to the commentary colors here... Because, it's too much colorful.¡ Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 04:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vestrian24Bio: You mean following what I was doing priorly and making the whole row one color? (although I'll keep that nice idea of highlighting the most\least of the month) igordebraga ≠ 08:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Igordebraga: Ah, no coloring the first columns and leaving others plain, example: -

Current table

Date	Article	Views
1	New Year's Day	1,272,053
2	Saltburn (film) †	350,302
3	Luke Humphries	362,352
4	Jeffrey Epstein	922,162

What I'm suggesting

Date	Article	Views
1	New Year's Day	1,272,053
2	Saltburn (film) †	350,302
3	Luke Humphries	362,352
4	Jeffrey Epstein	922,162

Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the color in the article was mostly just keeping with what Serendipodous used to do, but can try the Stormy clouds-created scheme given this year other people already changed the page a bit. Only disadvantage is that I'll need to paint a lot of days when it's an article dominating for a period, yet I'm probably changing to a day by day at least this year. igordebraga ≠ 18:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the consideration. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]