Portal talk:Current events/Sidebar

Which event?

GWA88, this edit now puts a link to a disambiguation page on the sidebar, this one: 2021 United Kingdom gas crisis. That article was moved to 2021 United Kingdom natural gas supplier crisis - is that article about the plight of a handful of minor UK natural gas retailers really that important to you? If it is, you'll need to fix the link. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I've added both links to the sidebar. Also, it doesn't really matter if it's important to me or not. The fact is the sidebar is for notable current events and this is what is in the news right now, perhaps it won't be as protracted or severe as the Lebanese economic crisis but in terms of current notability there is far more international attention on the gas crisis in the UK than Lebanon. Also, it's not as minor as you might think. This is impacting almost 2 million homes in the UK, which is quite unprecedented and could even get worse. There are serious talks of another potential Winter of Discontent. GWA88 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@GWA88, I think there might be a confusion with US/UK terminology here. When you say "there is far more international attention on the gas crisis in the UK", do you mean the problem that a few small natural gas retailers are having with wholesale natural gas prices (dubbed a 'gas crisis' in the UK) or the panic buying of petrol (called "gas" in the US but not in the UK) and diesel fuel? The two are unrelated - the first is due to the increased wholesale price of natural gas on the European market resulting from increased demand from Asia and elsewhere, the second is panic buying triggered by exaggerated and sensationalised news reports based on data leaked from a private meeting about the long-standing delivery driver shortage in Europe. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Depp v. Heard

Farolif Can you please point out to me where the consensus/precedent is to only include criminal trials? I'm not aware of any and I see I'm not the first editor to attempt to add Depp v. Heard only to be reverted by you so I believe this warrants an explanation. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 04:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The immediate precedent is that Depp's defamation case against The Sun was not listed for the same reason. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, as we are all aware, and the Depp/Heard civil trial is certainly a trending favorite of that kind of media. If we allow its inclusion, then we also open up the excuse to add others such as Sandy Hook families vs Alex Jones, Blac Chyna vs Kardashians, Sarah Palin vs NYT, etc. (Add: Not to mention the impending suits from Dominion Voting and Smartmatic, as well!) Farolif (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Understandable. Thanks for the reply. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 22:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Bringing discussion from talk page

@Farolif: I brought the discussion here because this is a much more appropriate place to talk about our issues with the sidebar than my talk page. First of all, I DID NOT call or email User:Carter00000 or contacted them in any way. But I am glad you contacted me to discuss our edits, and hope we can reach an understanding.

I’m not “pushing” any edits, I’m just asking for consistency. Wikipedia uses the titles Tom Jones (writer) and Michael Boyd (theatre director) to differentiate them from other people with the same name, people such as Tom Jones (singer), Mike Boyd (police officer), and Michael T. Boyd. All three of these “Michael Boyds” are identified as such in their own articles. Yes, they could be “differentiated from the theatre director - by either having a middle initial, or from their first name shortened as 'Mike'”, but the community still thought it necessary to title Boyd’s article Michael Boyd (theatre director), not just Michael Boyd, to differentiate him from the others. So in the sidebar, for the sake of consistency, we could either use the Wikipedia title for both Jones and Boyd, or we could follow your advice and be more specific with their names. The Boyds could be referred to as “Michael Boyd”, “Michael T. Boyd”, and “Michael J. Boyd”, while Tom Jones could be referred to as “Tom C. Jones”, “Tom Collins Jones”, or “Thomas Collins Jones” to differentiate him from Thomas Jones Woodward. Or we could just write Tom Jones and Michael Boyd, and if anyone wants to know which specific Tom Jones or Michael Boyd died, they can just click the link. I’ll accept any option you choose, so long as it’s the same one for everyone involved. Brainiac242 (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Farolif: As for the Template:Resize, I used it last month to prevent long names from taking two lines because the “Recent deaths” section (unlike the “Elections and referendums” section) uses a gridlist, so when an item takes two lines, an empty line shows up next to it, and, as you said, “such a thing looks terrible”. Shortly after, however, I opened Portal:Current events in another computer and realized that a few items that took only one line in mine, took two lines in that one. If I had known that back then, I wouldn’t have used it; I can’t resize text just so that it looks better in MY display. Right now, for example, Howard James Hubbard and Delwar Hossain Sayeedi take two lines in my display, and it looks terrible. So I would welcome any proposal on how to make the sidebar look better that isn’t just resizing text so that it takes only one line in OUR displays. And using Template:Nowrap on an item that takes two lines doesn’t make the sidebar any wider, it just makes the text continue beyond the sidebar, which also looks terrible. A permanent solution may require changing the code behind the sidebar, so, in the meantime, I propose writing long names in a shorter format (e.g. Howard J. Hubbard and Delwar Sayeedi) in the “Recent deaths” section (which I think we can agree is the section where two-line items look the worst), and just letting items take more than one line in other sections in the rare cases in which they do. Brainiac242 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Brainiac242: That sounds like the issue is somewhere in the setup of your apps. I can create the same line wraps and text overflow problems which you have described when I increase my browser's minimum font size to 12. That setting really shouldn't be higher than 11 for the Sidebar; the ideal is probably closer to 10, which usually allows the midsize fonts (ie - election rounds) to clearly show. Of course, you would need to try some tests on your own devices to find the appropriate remedy. Farolif (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Farolif: I already tried some tests on my device. If I increase the web browser’s font (increase, not decrease for some reason) the two items I mentioned above take only one line. But my web browser’s default font being different than yours isn’t an “issue somewhere in the set up of my apps”. Different people use different web browsers on different devices with displays of different sizes. Websites are supposed to be responsive. If the sidebar is functioning as intended on some browsers but not in others, the solution may require changing the code behind the sidebar. In the meantime, I think writing long names in a shorter format and having some items on simple lists (not gridlists) take two lines, would make people with different browsers and display sizes see the website as intended. Brainiac242 (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Brainiac242: OK, let's try this again. You were likely increasing the basic font size of the browser, which would make some items fit on one line where they were previously wrapping to two lines. At the same time, this would also cause the entire Sidebar's width to increase. But that's not what I was suggesting. I was referring to the minimum font size, which should be a different setting option. Changing that to a lower value will allow your browser to shrink the text down to what the portal is already coded for, while leaving the Sidebar at its original width. Farolif (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Farolif: I don’t need you to help me fix my browser. I’m using my browser’s default settings. I made sure of it. I restored all browser settings to their default values. It still doesn’t work. So everyone using that browser is going to see the sidebar like I do. What do you propose? That we put a notice at the top saying “For this website to function properly you must set your web browser’s minimum font size to 10, allowing your browser to shrink the text down to what the portal is already coded for”? Websites are supposed to adapt to users, not the other way around. Brainiac242 (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Brainiac242: I don't know what else to tell you at this point. For all I know, you could be using an unsupported browser which certain folks use to mask their online activities. Or this whole matter is simply beyond your technical comprehension. Whatever the case may be, it's clear that you are in a narrow minority of users who are experiencing such difficulty with the Sidebar, and without finding out any further specifics, there's no way of knowing what kind of code overhaul is needed to accommodate "everyone using that browser". Farolif (talk) 01:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Farolif: Throughout this discussion I’ve referred to how the sidebar looks in several different browsers I frequently use. The one I’m using now, and the one where Howard James Hubbard and Delwar Hossain Sayeedi take two lines, is the DuckDuckGo app in an iPad Pro, which is admittedly not a very popular option. Now, I would clearly like the code to be modified to make the sidebar work as intended for me and for everyone else using this app, but I agree that this is “a narrow minority of users”. So, in the spirit of compromise, I propose I leave these two items and the code behind the sidebar alone, and you stop using the Template:Resize to make items fit in one line, which I’ve realized produces vastly different results in different browsers, including some of the most popular ones like Safari and Firefox, especially when set to a font size other than the default one. So if we used a shorter format only for names that are too long to fit in one line in YOUR browser, instead of resizing them, and let the longest items in the “Elections and referendums” section take two lines, I think the result would be one we’d both be content with. Brainiac242 (talk) 02:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Brainiac242: There will always be cases in which it's best for text to be resized - that's why the template was built in the first place. And responsive web design is not a WP guideline. You're not the first person to discover how the same markups can appear differently on multiple browsers and devices, especially among those who use novelty apps such as DuckDuckGo. I would recommend that you figure out which combination of your tech options works best for viewing the pages that you frequent and stick with that - many other WP users have done the same without harping on about it. Farolif (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sports section

Farolif has hidden seasons on international break, but others haven't done at any point in the past. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

That could be because fewer users have ever paid much attention to the association football portion of the Sidebar – especially when it gets glutted (as it is now) with minor seasons which carry little-to-no interest for them. Farolif (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I think there is absolutely a valid conversation to be had on which association football leagues and competitions to show, I just find it very strange to hide them just because they have gone on international break. I am actually in agreement that we show too many. There will certainly be more leagues showing than other sports due to the nature of how the sport is organized, but I think we can reasonably put a limit if we want to have that conversation. Jay eyem (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A suggested approach to determine which leagues are significant enough to list in the sidebar is to go by pageviews. By this measure, Premier League and (especially) UEFA typically have multiple times the en-WP activity of any other leagues and should remain. The top 1–2 women's leagues would provide a nice balance to the list, too. Aside from that, the remaining leagues' seasons should mostly be left for the Sports portal.

As far as handling season breaks, there is reason to hide the lines during extended pauses of a league's schedule, i.e. the interphase periods between qualifying rounds, play-offs, knockouts, etc. UEFA's constituent seasons are currently on a 3–4 week break before their league phase begins − which the pageviews are already reflecting − and there aren't likely to be any major updates to the articles in that time. Depending on which of the other leagues are kept on the list through at least the current football season, other calendar gaps should probably be handled accordingly as well. Farolif (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry in advance, I think this post is going to get long.

I find the use of pageviews to be an interesting choice, although I am confused by how limited your choices are. Many of the leagues listed have more views than many of the other sports listed (unless you are proposing to remove those as well, which is a conversation we can have). It is also worth noting that the seasons have all just started, so it should come as no surprise that they don't have a ton of pageviews yet; they usually get a surge at the end of the season after all. I think relying on the Sports portal that nobody uses, as opposed to the Current Events portal that is very highly used, feels like we are just getting rid of these entirely. You're talking about leaving out many of the largest revenue sports leagues in the world, many of which, again, have significantly more page views than some of the less popular sports listed.

Main ones I personally have no problem getting rid of are the Argentinian league, the Brazilian league, and the Copa Sudamericana. Those are of comparatively lower revenue, comparatively lower level of play (to Europe), and do have the fewest pageviews of those currently displayed. Main ones I think should be kept are all of the UEFA continental competitions, the Copa Libertadores, the Premier League, Serie A, La Liga, Bundesliga, and Ligue 1. These are all the highest revenue and highest level of play, and generally get the most pageviews. I am more neutral on MLS and the women's competitions. I think MLS has a large English-speaking audience (with pageviews reflecting that) and being the next highest revenue league behind Ligue 1 might give it an exception, and I don't have enough knowledge of women's club football to make a comment on those. Again, I think the nature of the sport is naturally going to lead to it having more competitions listed than many others.

I still think hiding the competitions when they are on a break makes no sense. When I see the seasons hidden, I think that the season has ended or has not yet started. Same with the continental competitions. I honestly don't think it is really even necessary to indicate that they are on an international break, especially since this has never been an issue before, plus that just seems like a lot of needless extra work. If anything, some sort of written indicator that the leagues are on break makes far more sense than just hiding them. Jay eyem (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I removed Argentine and Brasileiro leagues per your reply. I had tried removing them a few months back, but they kept getting restored by a Peruvian IP. Holding on to both Copa leagues for the time being, if no other reason than as a reminder that they have more views than other listed seasons (ex − Canadian Football).

Obviously, we are in disagreement about how to handle seasonal breaks. I would even go so far as to suggest that, in cases where the phases of a league's season have their own separate articles (UEFA is again a good example), it would be those focused articles which are shown instead of the full season's article. As it is now, the sidebar is usually padded with several sports seasons which last the better part of a year's time yet all have distinct and predictable fluctuations in readership.

OTOH, you mention an issue which I believe is at the center of this entire debate: the Current Events/Sports portal should be used much more often than it is. We can only speculate about why its usage is so bad, especially since it's clearly linked to at the top of Current Events and again in this Sidebar (in comparison, the 2024 in sports article − also linked to in the Sidebar − has about three times the average views as the Current Events/Sports portal). The best reason I can think of is because so many sports-interested readers have come to rely that much on this Sidebar for that purpose, which would also explain the regular edits to add minor items — it wasn't long ago that there actually was a section for "Other sports seasons" at the bottom of the list here. With in mind, while we're trimming what we can from this portal, it will also probably be helpful to find ways to help increase the total use of the sports-specific one. Farolif (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that is fair re:phases of the tournament. I just think it is confusing when a competition that is still active disappears from the sidebar due to a break or being in limbo between one phase of the tournament to the next. Not to mention that would necessitate a lot of additional editing. And yeah, even that one additional click from Portal:Current events to Portal:Current events/Sports I can completely understand the dropoff. I can also definitely see folks wanting to add their league of choice into the sidebar (I recently added the 2024 Leagues Cup for its duration, though tbf a lot of other leagues hadn't even started yet). Just kind of the nature of the sport, I guess. Jay eyem (talk) 05:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)