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]