This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
If you're interested in writing about community news for The Wikipedia Signpost, please contact me (on my talk page or via email, however you prefer) so we can coordinate our efforts. As editor, I would at the very least need to have an idea of what topic(s) you're covering. If you use the wiki to write drafts of a news story, please do this in your user space. --Michael Snow 09:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Comments
Do you want article-specific comments on their respective talk pages, on an issue-specific talk page, or here? —Ben Brockert(42)UE News 04:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
On their talk pages is great, I do watch the articles for the week until they get archived. This page can be for discussion about the newspaper in general. --Michael Snow 07:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note that one of my articles was in the contest - any problems with me writing about this anyway? Worldtraveller 10:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) (not really; just make sure someone else copyedits it! +sj +)
Media scoops: Cardinal Ratzinger elected the next Pope; Reuters, news.com reports on it
Article quickly becomes one of the most edited...
[4.19|16:36 EST] more than 400 edits on the en. article since the announcement :-/
Could also mention the peak on server traffic around the time of the announcement. --cesarb 00:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes; cesar, can you get some details? The article got 100 edits/hr for the first 12 hours of its life... +sj + 06:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have many more details; I felt the slowdown, went to IRC (where other people reported the same), and looked at a peak in the traffic graphs (following a link from IRC). Looking at my IRC logs, I can give the following info:
[1] Tim mentions the flash crowd and gives some numbers
NB: Moved here on 10:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC) by jp×g.
Question about article submission
Can anybody just submit an article to this newspaper? Or, what's the submission process? Can one write about themself, if they use the third person? (And is good gramma 'n speeling a pre-wreck-squizit?) -- Uncle Ed(talk) 11:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
A better link might be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#In progressReporters: note here what items you are working on ... editing each other's work is encouraged. In short, yes, anyone can submit an article (either simply suggest a topic or actually write the text themselves). This is a wiki - it will all be "edited mercilessly", of course! -- ALoan(Talk) 13:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The actual job of being an arbitrator- taking cases, doling out punishments...etc.
History of the Arbitration Committee- going back to the two previous elections.
The actual voting process (talk about why we use approval voting...or do we?) Discuss the proposals for different voting processes that have occurred, and why they failed (or succeeded).
Profile of the different candidates- Different than the nominations page that will occur on the voting page, this just profiles the candidates (i.e. date joined, date they became an admin if applicable, etc.) Possibly also get a quote or two from each candidate.
Calendar
Upcoming issues:
September 12 –
September 19 –
September 26 –
October 3 –
October 10 –
October 17 –
October 24 –
October 31 –
November 7 –
November 14 –
November 21 –
November 28 – Last issue before elections. This should probably be the issue when we run a candidate profile.
December 5 – Elections have begun. Run a story (not related to the series itself) about how the election's going.
December 12 – Another election-related story.
December 19 – Elections are closed. If results have been obtained, write a results story up; otherwise, just a story saying that the elections are done, results soon, etc.
I've taken this calendar as the basis for a sidebar box to put on every article relating to the ArbCom elections (though I'm sure this calendar will be changed, it's just something to go by. The one at right is one in my user space, approximating what the final thing is going to look like, but what I think we should do on actual pages, rather than showing articles that aren't coming for 10 weeks, and may change dramatically, instead we should include all articles previously written, as well as the article next to appear in the Signpost. Ral31517:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I like the box! I agree with that- have the current article bolded, links to all the past articles, and then at the bottom, something like "Coming up next week:...". I'll see if I make a modified version of your box. Do you want for me to start writing the introduction, or do you want to cover it? I'd be willing to write the majority of the series if no one else wants to. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 00:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
September 19 – Introduction to the series, explain the purpose
September 26 – Article about the need for ArbCom (history of ArbCom), background, dispute resolution
October 3 – In-depth look at ArbCom, what they do, etc.
October 10 – Current problems/criticism of the arbCom, proposals for reform
October 17 – An article about the current ArbCom members
October 24 – A look back:ArbCom elections 2004
October 31 – The voting process: multiple controversies about how to vote, etc.
November 7 – The week before candidates can run: A look at what it takes to be an ArbCom member (this one needs some work)
November 14 – Article on candidates, part I
November 21 – Article on candidates, part II
November 28 – Reminder on Voting, controversies, updates
December 5 – Elections have begun. Run a story (not related to the series itself) about how the election's going.
December 12 – Another election-related story; elections continue, controversy over XYZ (no, not this), etc.
December 19 – Elections are closed. If results have been obtained, write a results story up; otherwise, just a story saying that the elections are done, results soon, etc.
From Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Redesign, Sept 2005
Moved here in Aug 2023. jp×g 19:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
The front page right now looks really plain. Why not create a newer, fresher look? (more like Wikinews, is what I was thinking) I'm going to work on a mockup...post any ideas here. Ral31521:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
This is different than #1 now...I fixed #1 to work in Internet Explorer, still need to do so on this one.
While the original "plain" design was partly a deliberate effort to avoid "busy, cluttered, and unreadable", I think this redesign is quite attractive. I definitely prefer version 1 (given that most people have the general Wikipedia sidebar on the left, two sidebars on the left unbalances the layout).
I made a few minor changes to that version, the most important of which is restoring the shortcut. Many people use these shortcuts and learn to navigate the Wikipedia namespace by using them, so it definitely needs to appear somewhere on the page. I also reversed the order of volume/issue number vis-a-vis date to what would be my initial preference; that's an aesthetic matter and I certainly can be overruled on it. --Michael Snow04:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
No, it's fine either way. I wasn't sure what way you liked it - on the original design, it's hard to tell, since they're on one line. I like the idea of a redesign partly because it allows us to incorporate a calendar, as had previously been discussed (the one that was commented out really didn't fit that well with the current design anyway...)
I also like keeping the shortcut, but not the way it is right now...what about creating it below the "Archives" link? Keep it at the bottom, like it is now, and have it not stick out too much, while still being there. Ral31517:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
A couple additional things occur to me. While differentiating the right sidebar with a different color is not a bad idea, this needs to be done with care. It's okay in monobook, but have you checked how it looks in other skins (notably Classic, which I understand has quite a few loyalists)?
Also, it might be helpful to split the calendar into a separate subpage, then put it back in with template brackets. This will hopefully make it easier for people to watch and maintain. I think the calendar will work best if it gets updates from many more people than usually write Signpost articles. --Michael Snow15:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm moving it up to font-size 85% from 80%. But you can't make it too large, because otherwise, it can be multi-line (especially in Firefox). Ral31522:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The New Scientist reported on new software which gives a visual and dynamic view of the changing mass of links and edits that is Wikipedia.
"This chaotic-looking mosaic is one attempt to show which topics are contained in the online encyclopedia, and those most hotly contested. It's a mind-boggling task. About 4 million "Wikipedians" have made over 130 million edits, and the English-language version alone contains 1.7 million articles. Every second a new edit is made, and every day 2000 new articles spring up."
I'm interested to see the editorial/layout changes in the "featured content" section - nicely done. I especially like the brief descriptions of the reason why articles have lost their featured status. A long time ago I asked if it were possible to provide some more details to that sections, so it wasn't so list-like. This brief description is right along those lines. Cheers, and have a happy new year.
Why is this week's edition not up yet? It was supposed to be up yesterday! I know it was delayed the last two weeks because of the holidays, but the holidays are over!75.104.128.57 (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Will somebody PLEASE post the new Signpost already, or least answer my question!?75.104.128.57 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I have been checking and checking and checking since yesterday! What's taking so long!75.104.128.57 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've purged my cache, but still the only edition available is last week's. It's past 8 p.m. here (UK), so it's at least three days late now for pretty well everybody. It does not look good for this to be continually late.
It is difficult I know to choose from all the bits and pieces to construct something coherent, especially at these times when you have to tread very carefully. And real life can intrude at the most inconvenient times. But the delays are so frequent and so great that something must be done.
What should be done? Should the publication date be moved to Thursday? Should the Signpost be made a fortnightly publication? Should production be taken on by someone else?
--Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing's to be done at this point. I could use some more writers; that would help it get out faster. Ral315 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
You could add short paragraphs to User:Ral315/News and notes about various minor stories from the tip line -- I'll probably add something there about the Board election and RecentChangesCamp, for example, unless you or someone else does so. Ral315 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Next week : article about the Graphic Labs ?
Hello redactors of the Wikipedia Signpost, I come to notice to you the existence of the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab, where graphist work every days to edit image, clean them up, or create totally new image to illustrate and summarize articles. Also, an article may be really welcome, especially according to the fact that the graphic lab is use under it's abilities. "Images hunter" (people who ask image improvement) and Graphist are both welcome.
Apologies. I believe when the new parser kicks in next week, we should be able to have it update automatically; I've tried, but the current parser doesn't allow it. Ral315 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess not. David.Mestel, who usually puts it together, said he was very busy. Ral315 said he'd try to pick up for him, but that may have created too much work for him on top of simply getting the issue published. He's working hard to get back on the regular schedule. Basically, it illustrates the fundamental fact that we depend on having people step up and write. More reporters are always welcome. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I was planning to write it, but it got to be 5 a.m. in my area, and I knew I'd have to delay the Signpost at least another 8-10 hours in order to add the report. Ral315 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Other news?
Is the signpost just restricted to Wikipedia or can it report other outside real world news? And if so are there any plans to put this into operation? Harland1 (t/c) 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, yes I do know what wikinews is, I was merely wondering whether there could be some sort of newspaper her, I suppose that it would be a bit silly as there are much better newspapers out there and ours would get out of date, sorry for asking such a silly question. Harland1 (t/c) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I love the concept of the new "Dispatches" series, but I can't say I'm enamored with the name. It implies that we are at war out here while editing. The analogy is that editors are like soldiers. I'm not sure that is the image we want to convey. There is too much of that anyway and it signals destructiveness rather than constructiveness. Awadewit | talk07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's not an association I would have made. I wonder what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch would think about it? Anyway, while the image you describe is problematic, I don't at all see how it's necessarily implied by the term. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Because the name was inspired by a historical reference to mentioned in despatches you think the name of the series is going to make editors behave like soldiers? That's a bit of a stretch. Anyone who missed the editors note is never going to realize the reference, which is just a bit of fun anyways, meant to elicit a small :) from those of us that did read it :) Signpost titles are historically a bit tongue-in-cheek too. What's the acronym for "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" after all? --JayHenry (t) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't the say the term would make editors behave like soldiers - I said it "implies we are at war" and that it is probably not the best image to put forth. That is different. And, by the way, I realized the reference without the note, and I certainly believe others did as well. It elicited a small :( from me, which is why I posted the note in the first place. Awadewit | talk20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for paraphrasing, Awad. My point though is that it's just for fun. It's not seriously advancing the idea that we're at war. --JayHenry (t) 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I guess I should be more conscious of just how many military history buffs there are around here, I missed that part of the note and the name doesn't really carry connotations of war for me. By all means, fight (combat? battle? attack? campaign against? My thesaurus isn't helping here) pseudo-military attitudes about editing if you like, they've been complained about in the past too, but I'm also not thinking this is the most important front (excuse me again) on which to tackle the issue. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I operate on the assumption that the words we use are important and signify our attitudes towards things. I know that the editors meant it as a joke, but my point is that the joke may not really send the best message. Awadewit | talk03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
While I obviously knew the reference Raul654 was making, having little military background, I didn't make the connection that the word was so wrapped up in military meanings. Wiktionary's definition (which I just looked up), in part, is "A message sent quickly, as a shipment, a prompt settlement of a business, or an important official message sent by a diplomat, or military officer." I would have never assumed the "diplomat/military officer" part of the definition -- it simply didn't occur to me. And I certainly didn't intend the name to be a joke -- if so, I would have probably stretched the current joke far past its limits, and named it "Editing Dialogue, Interactions, and Trouble On Roads" or something along those lines :)
That said, I'm truly not sure what most people would assume from the term; if it seems like a decent number of people have those same concerns, then it might be worth changing. I still see the term as multi-layered, only one or two of which have military references. I think my main understanding was that it was editors, dispatching editing news to us, and the Signpost dispatching this news to the editing community ("dispatcher" being the term there). And to be honest, I'm not keen on renaming a feature right after its introduction, but if there's a problem with the name.
Thoughts? I guess what I'm wondering is what everyone would have assumed it meant had I not explained Raul654's thoughts about it. Ral315 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Raul brought it up a week ago at Wikipedia talk:FAC#Wikipedia dispatches and explained the title. Nobody there expressed any concern that this could somehow cause problems because of the message that could be sent by the title of the column. Maybe we could call it "Content Review And Promotion" or the "Weekly Article Recap" or "Best Articles of The Truly Laudable Editors". --JayHenry (t) 05:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
This is not a question of whether the name has a military connection or not - it clearly does and the connection was announced in the first installment of the series. That the word has other meanings is clear. What we want to ask ourselves is whether or not we want to promote the war-like imagery that is clearly tied to the word. If we are going to change the name of the series, I would think it would be easier at the beginning of its run than later, when everyone has become accustomed to it. I'll try to come up with some ideas for names as well, but I need time to do that. I noticed that the initial discussion JayHenry linked to only went on for about two days. Awadewit | talk17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the same thoughts occurred to me when I read Ral's explanation of Raul's explanation of the title. I immediately thought of The Cunctator's words: "This user is a non-member of the Counter Vandalism Unit, because paramilitary fantasies have no place on Wikipedia." On the other hand, there is a continuum of conflict between cordial scholarly disagreement and actual war, and it's in some respects natural to invoke hyperbolic language about the things we care about on Wikipedia. At least with this particular piece of war-imagery, it's about a fight for something abstract (high-quality content) rather than against something concrete (e.g., vandals and vandalism). I'm not especially pleased with it, but it's tolerable to me.--ragesoss (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, when I first saw the name "Dispatches", I thought it was a new section about Wikipedians who had passed away. Not nice. enochlau (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally like the name. It's hard to remember sometimes that Wikipedia is so vast that some areas really are foreign countries (even just on en, not counting all the actual foreign Wikipedias!). It romantically conjures up the days of the British Empire, a period replete with amateurs and dabblers and heroic feats. There are worse associations. --Gwern (contribs) 21:18 4 February2008 (GMT)
The single-page view has yet to be updated...
...leading to my inability to store it simply and quickly in my USB Flash disk and read the Signpost at my leisure, without spending precious Internet connection time. I really appreciate the work that the Signpost's editors make, but all these delays that have been characterising it lately are, I must say, frustrating. Waltham, The Duke of14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I can say, quite confidently, that it has not been updated; I have accessed the page from three or four computers during the last few days, from two different cities, and I have yet to see the new issue. Maybe the new parser does have something to do with it, but I shouldn't know, as this is nowhere near my area of expertise. Waltham, The Duke of21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Didn't work. I'm telling you, the situation is the same wherever I attempt to load the page; right now I am editing from a public computer I have not used for weeks. The same situation. Something is wrong... Quick question: can you see the page updated? Waltham, The Duke of13:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
If you saw the January 28th issue, that was correct when you posted it. I've since updated that to the February 4th issue; you should see that now. Ral315 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually no, I was only able to see the 21 January issue (which was not correct when I posted this). I can now see the 4 February issue, and I assure you that it is the first time. Well... Problem solved.
Yeah, I'm not sure why it would have shown the January 21 issue; I was seeing the January 28 issue the whole time. Good to hear you're able to see the current issue. Ral315 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Was there at one time some sort of email subscription? I have a hazy memory of that, but I can't find any evidence of that now. Regardless, I'd love that. Or even better, RSS. If it exists, please point me in the right direction! Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Both existed at one time, but have been discontinued, because there really turned out to be no easy way to do either. Ral315 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What if someone hosted a WordPress blog where we posted up the contents of each weeks' Signpost? That way people could have that on their RSS feed. Would that be a good solution? enochlau (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried that, but it became a burden for me. If someone else is willing to maintain one, I'll host it at wikipediasignpost.com. Ral315 (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Might want to do a little blurb about Spanish Wikipedia having a year-long contest to create articles, called WikiReto. Cheers. miranda21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Isn't sound one of the "media"?
In the "Features and admins" page, there is, as you know, a "Featured pages" section, a "Former featured pages" section, and a "Featured media" section. A very good layout, I should say—easy to read, and effective in handling all this data. However, I have one concern about the way this format is being used. Why is sound dealt with in the sections for pages and not in the section for media? Is sound not a medium itself? I find it much more rational to have articles, lists, topics, and portals in the former, and sounds, images, and videos in the latter. After all, these three are all in the Image namespace. Sounds have no content, so classifying them as "pages" simply makes no sense. Waltham, The Duke of16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw that, and have been thinking about it since then. When the transclusion system was first put into place, I considered doing so, but figured I'd wait and see if anyone saw the glaring bug :) I see you created Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Protection, and I think it's a good idea. I don't think there's a major concern with non-admins needing to edit it -- in practice, non-admins very rarely edit the headlines. Ral315 (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Single-Page View Archives not updated for six months
Is it possible to get a script or bot to update the SPV archives? This would be especially handy when there are multiple issues released on the same day. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Curse you, Quiddity, you've ruined it all. You should have posted this 15 hours and 22 minutes earlier. :-D
Seriously, though, I agree that these things should be done automatically when there are the means available. At least when the manual system, erm, stays behind schedule once in a while. Waltham, The Duke of19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Question: Do you use the [see heading]? From what I have seen so far, the [see heading] has been mostly followed, although there are sometimes deviations, and dates have often been left unlinked. What is your policy on this? Waltham, The Duke of22:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding "see heading". Date linking usually depends on what the situation is, and we essentially follow a modified Manual of Style that's pretty much evolved over time. Ral315 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The Manual of Style, what else...? Fill in "Manual of Style" where "see heading". Tried to be a bit humorous there; it is quite obvious that I blew it. Waltham, The Duke of03:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Nah; in some areas I'm great at picking up humor; I just seemed to be a bit dense when it came to that one. But yeah, the Manual of Style is a recommendation when it comes to the Signpost; usually, I link dates when they're in a reference, header, or a list of dates. When it's not really necessary, I don't make an effort to date-link, because for some reason, some users get really annoyed when there are a lot of date links in articles. Ral315 (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. And what about ENGVAR, to state it in Wikipedia terms? Do you always use American English or does it depend on the writer of each article? (I know I could just look this up, but I guess I'm a little too bored.) Waltham, The Duke of00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed this question; it basically depends on the individual writer. I see no reason to edit for consistency as in general, Wikipedians are used to mixed variants of English. In practice, anyway, it's mostly American English, although we notably have a Canadian and Australian writing for us weekly right now, and have British writers in the past. Ral315 (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This is reasonable. I only make edits, nowadays, to correct obvious typos and a couple of punctuation matters (like en dashes instead of hyphens in number ranges and lists); these are common between the various dialects, are not controversial, and improve readability, if only slightly. If at some time I happen to overstep my bounds, of course, I should be reverted. I flatter myself that it will never be necessary. Waltham, The Duke of18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
News
Wikipedia in second place (after Google) on the 2008 Web Globalization Report Card. "This year, the report rated the Web sites of 225 companies across 21 industry categories, analyzing elements such as languages, global navigation, global consistency, and localization." VanTucky19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
RSS feed
Hello. I made an RSS feed for the Signpost here via FeedFire.com. It seems to work well enough, although it's not super fast to update. Each post is a link to a story that week (not fulltext, but better than nothing). regards pfctdayelise (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If I understand correctly FeedFire pareses the entire HTML page and then adds every link on it to the feed? In that case this api link might be more suitable, although it contains some garbage around it and sends out the wrong content type. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 10:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it adds every link with > 4 linked words. (That turns out to be quite a reasonable limit to figure out navigational vs new/s links.
I was previously watching the front page of the signpost to spot the new edition but I've just realized that this no longer updates so I am about 5 editions behind. Is there a page I can add to my watchlist that will simply update everytime a new edition is posted? I've not after a talk page or email, just something that shows up on my watchlist. - SimonLyall (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that I may have mentioned this somewhere else before, but how about a classifieds section? People who want to get the word out of a neglected part of Wikipedia, asking for help, etc, can make requests. Since many people read the signpost, it can help bring people in to reduce both wikistress and the chance of a project failure. Some people may think this is Canvassing, but the counter-arguement: It is open, nonpartisan, neutral. Some may call it mass-posting, but because it's in with a message with at least 5 other projects, then it really can be considered an exception. I'd like to hear what you guys think! Soxred93 | talk bot13:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
News and Notes has been used to advertize stuff like newly launched projects, but a formal "classifieds"-like to advertize things such as informal or new project collaboration, prospective new projects and similar stuff. I'm sure the community will find uses for it. Circeus (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
An intensive background check on Kingrock disclosed no crimes of moral turpitude that would disqualify him from membership. Accordingly, he is hereby declared to be a member of the Union. As per custom, no dues will be assessed during the first year of membership.
You might also want to tell him you were joking about the union... Deadpan humour doesn't always work on the internet. Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Oops. Misread date. Thought it said 2nd May, not April...
The introduction to the joke was concluded with an emoticon; therefore, all of the following statements pertaining to the same matter fall under the coverage of said emoticon, under the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act 2006. Get your facts straight. Waltham, The Duke of19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC) You filthy, despicable liar; you were bidding your time, waiting for this day to arrive, so that you could comment here and get away with it. But you cannot deceive us, no...
Besides, I mightn't be able to gain admittance in a month; there seems to be a full-scale journalists' strike in progress, and who knows how long that could carry on...?
Enter the words "main page" into Google. For a long time, Wikipedia's main page was the first thing that appeared. Then CNN's main page overtook it and Wikipedia was in second place, and so it remained for several months. That's changed within the last few hours. Now, not only is Wikipedia in first place again, but, just as with youtube, you get a box that says "Search Wikipedia". Michael Hardy (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In all sincerity, this is a very interesting thing to hear. However, this page is about the running of the Signpost. Perhaps you are looking for the tip line? Waltham, The Duke of22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
For some reason {{Signpost-subscription}} on my user page isn't display the date of the current issue, it is still showing last week, but the link to single page works correctly. I've refreshed and it still doesn't show. Is this known? RJFJR (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't send it out due to a hectic schedule, and the fact that we didn't post it until Saturday due to the difficulty in getting feedback for a sensitive story. I'll send both weeks' worth together today. Ral315 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Leaving aside the fact that I didn't see the new issue until late Sunday, I wonder why it was back-dated; the second of May was last Friday. (For the record, I shall be the last person to complain about delays of the Signpost; however, I appreciate precision.)
On another note, I have often seen a belated issue distributed with the next one; is there a specific threshold for that to happen? Waltham, The Duke of01:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
To the first point, it was published on Friday night/early Saturday, so I dated it to Friday, which seemed to make the most sense to me. To the second point, usually only when I don't have time to send it out until Saturday or Sunday, in which case I figure it's least disruptive to send it once. While the delays in last week's issue had nothing to do with me, I've been extraordinarily late over the last few months, due to real-life busyness; I expect to be nearly on-time by the end of the month. Ral315 (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
As I see it, unless you live very far eastof the Greenwich meridian, it might make more sense to stamp a late Friday / early Saturday issue with Saturday's date, as that will be the day most Wikipedians will read it. Besides, the morning newspapers are distributed in the dead of the night, aren't they?
PS: Is it all right if I copy-edit the articles after they are published? I take care only to make small changes, as I do not consider it proper to alter the authors' style; this is not the mainspace, after all. (For example, although I disagree with italicising quotations, I have not acted against them so far.) Waltham, The Duke of04:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is an appropriate announcement for Signpost, but I'll suggest it anyway. There is a proposal to reform the "In The News" section on the main page. Whereas all of the other sections, like Featured Articles, get updated every day, ITN gets two or three new news items a week. For example, the same picture of Fernando Lugo has been on ITN since April 20, almost two weeks. In addition, deaths like Arthur C. Clarke don't make it to the main page, nor items of "local" interest like the London mayoral election. I think a lot of editors would support something more open and dynamic. If you would like to help in this reform proposal, please see Wikipedia:In The News 2.0. Thanks. Lovelac707:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Features and admins
The section Features and admins contains admins/bots and featured articles/lists/pics. I reckon the featured stuff should be moved to the top, rendering admins and bots at the bottom. Reason: the featured content is more important, and also more interesting to readers who are not-so-regular editors. It would follow the structure of the headline we use: features, then admins. Punkmorten (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
First, I am very disappointed by your unilateral change 1 minute after posting this discussion. Furthermore, you silently slipped this discussion into the archive [3] to avoid anyone noticing it. Please avoid pushing your personal layout POV without allowing reasonable time for discussion. OhanaUnitedTalk page17:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Please do not change the layout of that page; this has been discussed before, and the decision was to leave it as-is. Ral315 (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
You are joking... The only area where I am knowledgeable enough to actually write a tutorial is succession boxes... And I doubt that it is that much an important part of the editing process. The boxes are not even officially recognised by Wikipedia... Waltham, The Duke of17:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I personally think that your idea might be too hard to acccomplish. Although it could be useful, it's just to complicated to keep track of those other newsletters. -- RyRy5 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. But bear in mind that there's editors behind those newsletters, who presumably want to see them read as widely as possible. So I'd hope that they'd come to the signpost when they have a new newsletter, rather than the signpost having to go to them continually to check. It may prove difficult to make the list of newsletters and editions complete, though. I would be interested in creating such a page, and maintaining it at least for a while to see if it works and does become self-sustaining, if a) it is thought to be useful and b) the Signpost is willing to experiment. Mike Peel (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Project notables could go at the end of dispatches,like the shorties of News and Notes? With references to the full newsletter. This would also solve partly the issue of running short dispatches. Alternatively, re-use Project reports as an internal News and Notes covering WikiProjects? That would be shorter than the full report, and could be replaced any week by a full one. A possible example of such note is the external blog recently inaugurated by WikiProject Oregon. Circeus (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to write a tutorial about using AutoWikiBrowser? It is a really powerful tool and can help save a lot of time for editors (if they know what it is and how to use it). Thanks, Ganeshk(talk)20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have heard that users don't know how to use it, even though they have read the directions and procedure at WP:AWB. IIt could be useful, but I'm not entirely sure. -- RyRy5 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey Dudes, dudettes, chimps, clowns, cellular blobs and the stuff I found on my shoe last week!
How about a comedy section! We need to introduce some light-heartedness once in a while! Cmon, it's good to laugh at yourself!--Editor510 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Be careful if you go down the humour route: one man's joke is frequently another man's insult... (e.g.: pseudo-academic analysis could come across as pseudoscience.) Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
For the last couple weeks, we've been running a bit behind, typically publishing late in the week instead of early. If you're eager to see something in particular, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, which has links to most of what will be in the 6-02 edition.--ragesoss (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Clicking the Signpost title image now leads directly to the current issue instead of the image description page (if the titlewidth parameter is provided, the non-clickable version has to be shown). Currently, the Signpost subscription box redundantly links to the table of contents of the current issue while the more useful single page view link is hidden in the footer. The issue link of the proposed box now points to the single page view and the footer has a new link to the Front page. Cacycle (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't there a fuss about the image being a image mapped before? Here and here spring to mind. As was said in the discussion, consensus can change but I believe it was more of a legal issue rather than an aesthetic one? I dunno.. just posting as an observer here really. Rehevkor✉ 12:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The legal point was mooted, as I redrew the image (not exactly, of course), and made it public domain. I don't like click much as an accessibility issue, and I'm not sure whether most readers, who tend to be well-versed in Wikipedia's conventions, would expect it to link to the Signpost, or to the image description page. Any thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
And, as for linking to the Single Page version, I oppose this, because the basic interface design makes much more sense when it links directly to the front page. Ral315 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have proposed this change because linking from the box to a page that just replicates the box without any additional content always felt very redundant to me. Actually, it is the so-called "single page view" that contains the complete issue, including the front page with its table of contents. I have never really understood the reasoning behind prominently linking to just a table of contents instead to the whole issue (it cannot be bandwith as the Signpost is not longer than common Wikipedia articles). In the proposed version, insiders can click through right into the complete issue view. For those interested only in the "front page" table of contents there is now an new easy to find link in the footer. Cacycle (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I access the Signpost via my watchlist mostly, but I remember moving my mouse over that image when I first saw this template (to see where it would take me). It just seemed logical that an image reading "The Wikipedia Signpost" would also link to The Wikipedia Signpost. I know that normal article images link to description pages, but images like this are placed in different contexts. I would support an imagemap. Cheers, Face21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Ral, with one basic exception. I really don't like seeing the Signpost logo link to the image-description page, and, generally, I prefer seeing captions, and in some cases—like portal boxes—image-mapping, in most images used in message boxes and the sort. Furthermore, it has been a long-standing convention across the Internet to go to the main page of a website when clicking on the logo or title, and thus it would be more intuitive for most editors to have the image link to the Signpost's main page instead of the current issue; besides, it makes more sense (it does say The Wikipedia Signpost). In the same way, it is more sensible to have the issue's link lead one directly to the current issue.
As far as the footer link is concerned, I think it is a matter of usability and link prominence. I am unsure as to whether it is the image link or the issue's link that is more prominent; both appear to me as relatively obscure. The image is more prominent in general, and many might think to click on it, but that is rather un-Wikipedia-like and many experienced editors are unlikely to see the image as a link. Still, I have another idea: why not link the date to the issue as well instead of applying auto-formatting? I mean, do we need preferences activated in the Signpost box? A double link to the issue below the image (but not a single link including the separating dash—that would be too much blue) in conjunction with a "Front page" footer link might restore the desired balance. And even if someone still manages to miss the link to the single-page version, it can be accessed from the main Signpost page, one click away.
PS: The image-description page can still be accessed from the main Signpost page, as a loop link leading back to the same page would be useless. Waltham, The Duke of12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
I was asked to comment again on linking to the Single Page, so I'll say, for the record, that I think it's non-intuitive, because that's not the front page. Google's logo still links to Google's main page, even on search results, even though the front page gives little more benefit than the search bar already available at the top of the screen. Also, the single-page view is only viewed half as many times as the main page, and of those users who read the Signpost from the template, the main page is preferred to the SPV by a 4-1 margin. Thus, I think it makes much more sense to leave the link as-is, to the main page. Ral315 (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I am surprised that so many readers actually use the full view, given that the link to it is so difficult to find. To me, this clearly demonstrates a significant user demand to prominently link to the full issue. I am not aware of any print newspaper or online news portal that has no article text on the front page. Also here on Wikipedia do we show the complete encyclopedic articles on the first click instead of only their table of contents. Moreover, I do not see any advantage of forcing the readers through a contents-only page. I would strongly prefer to have the full issue as the default view (or at least to have a prominent link to it). Cacycle (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I've made my arguments for the link to the main page, and again, I don't see any reason why linking straight to SPV would even be intuitive. I wouldn't mind adding a link to SPV at the bottom with the other links, however. As for text on the main page, I made a proposal back in 2005, but reaction was mixed, and it seemed many users preferred the more simplistic design simply because it fit without forcing users to scroll. Ral315 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not "outing" to use a real name that the user discloses on the wiki (the first name is on her user page, the full name is on the image description page of her photo, and on her blog, both of which can be found from her user page). It has always been routine for The Signpost to identify people by real names where those have some relevance, and it definitely does here where the name appears on a published paper. --Michael Snow (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikiworld cartoons
This is what I've just posted on the talk page of the latest cartoon:
Please be less US-centric in your topics!
I love your cartoons, but they are seriously US-centric. As Wikipedia is supposed to be international, please look further than the US for people or things to write about. I've looked back in the Wikiworld archive and there is a massive US bias in it. I know it's easier to write and draw what you know about because you're American, but please stretch your boundaries. It gets very tedious for the rest of us.
I think it should be renamed WikiUS as it barely covers the rest of the world.
They are not "our creations", they are (were, rather, as he does not produce new ones anymore) created by an independent cartoonist that happened to have an interest in Wikipedia, and were not even specifically intended for the Singpost. Circeus (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the latest Signpost has a new cartoon. If you have specific topic suggestions, you might mention them to the creator, User:Greg Williams. He's made comics based on other users' suggestions in the past, and if he plans to start making them regularly again, he may find the suggestions helpful.--ragesoss (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe Greg has any current plans to publish new comics on a regular basis; rather, he'll do so on an occasional basis. That said, I'm sure he'd appreciate ideas for comics. Also, if any artists are interested in contributing a regular, Wikipedia-themed cartoon of their own, let me know. Ral315 (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
C68-FM-SV: The case has seen little activity over the last few weeks.
I believe it's well worth pointing out that the "little activity" was mainly the arbitration committee's little activity. The community has provided a lot of evidence and workshop proposals. And there is currently fairly big discontent over a proposed motion to close the case. user:Everyme16:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia in the News
The last few Signposts I have missed the "Wikipedia in the News" section, which summarizes and links various mentions of Wikipedia in the news media. The last "Wikipedia in the News" appeared in the July 7 issue. Have there been simply no stories about Wikipedia in the press over the past month or so? This is the primary section of the Signpost I look at, so I should hope it returns. Badagnani (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's summer, so I guess there just isn't much to report. It's my favorite section too, and I hope it returns after the holidays. Cheers, Face12:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
If I were an editor of the Signpost, I would certainly do so. There have certainly been articles about Wikipedia in the media, and they have even been suggested at this talk page, yet have not shown up in the Signpost over the past month or so. In my opinion, this section should not be allowed to lapse. Badagnani (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
You become an editor of the Signpost by, um... editing the Signpost! There's no designated "editors" (apart from Ral315) - it's just written by whoever feels like it. You might want to drop a note in the planning room if you do intend to write something, to avoid overlapping. the wub"?!"09:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Normally, minor milestones (and this is a minor milestone) are part of the "News and Notes" feature, which has been irregular in recent times. Circeus (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Please restore "Wikipedia in the News" section
Another media mention here. The past month or two, several such stories have been presented, but none has been included, and the "Wikipedia in the News" section has not appeared in the past three or four issues. Badagnani (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, real life issues meant that I didn't have as much free time as I would've liked. I've written something for the upcoming issue. In future, if I happen to disappear for a while, I'm happy for someone else to fill in temporarily - just take the initiative. enochlau (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This is getting silly... the Signpost is an entire week behind schedule. Maybe the next issue should just be dated September 8 instead of 1? TheCoffee (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Template:Onlinesource is a talk page template for Wikipedia pages referenced by the press. Is Wikipedia Signpost considered the press (e.g., can I use Template:Onlinesource on talk pages with org=Wikipedia Signpost ?) or is there a separate talk page template that can be used when the Wikipedia Signpost references a Wikipedia page? Thanks. -- Suntag (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Good question. There is no separate template. I would consider us a press source along the same lines, as we've been cited as such on some pages. Ral315 (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
He mentioned WP before he died
Randy Pausch died July 25, 2008 of metastacized pancreatic cancer. But before he did, he wrote a book called The Last Lecture. And in that book he favorably mentions Wikipedia (in relation to the quality control over at World Book). My question is, has this been reported in Wikipedia Signpost's In the news feature yet?
That sort of stuff normally wouldn't be covered in ITN because it's typically restricted to online sources only (for practical reasons). What kind of stuff did he write though? Is it actually newsworthy? enochlau (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The signpost, obviously, doesn't conform to the WP:MOS, but there are no comprehensive editing guidelines. Therefore, I would like to propose that articles for the signpost follow (or closly follow) the Wikinews style guidelines at WN:MOS. Citation is not generally nececarry, though links to relevant discussions and med/arbitrations.--Ipatrol (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
What's happened to the Signpost?
There seems to have been a problem; there's been no new issues of the signpost since October 13th, nearly 3 weeks ago. What's happened? If Ral is unavailable, is someone else willing to step in and pull things together? At least, have other people besides me noticed the problem? 75.214.6.56 (talk) (really, User:JesseW/not logged in) 08:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Everyone has noticed. The Signpost has been a great thing while Ral and others have been willing to write so much for it, but unless enough other people step up to the plate it will go the way of the Dodo. Or maybe it's best to fix on a slower release schedule, say monthly. - TaxmanTalk15:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, though, I know a lot of editors rely on the Signpost for coverage of the Arbcom Election candidates - and we're days away from opening nominations for the next election cycle. Anyone keen on putting together an Election report? UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I asked Ral on his talk page ages ago, as well as on the newsroom page, but got no response. I'd be happy to put something together. As much as Ral's work on the Signpost is appreciated, perhaps it is time a new editor was appointed. It can't go on like this. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I left a note here for Ral. He said here that he was aiming for 27th October (over a week ago) but also said he had been swamped with a lot of things to deal with. I'll e-mail him as well. Maybe it would be a good idea to try and get some people to volunteer to help see things through this period? I don't think the Signpost is quite dying, but it is struggling at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Rumors of the Signpost's death are greatly exaggerated. Seriously, help is always appreciated, particularly now. Ral315 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost stories on BLP and living people
I was recently using the new search features (full details here) to search all Wikipedia's pages for pages with "blp" or "living" in the title, in order to provide an overview of the pages related to WP:BLP (the result is here). One of the things I noticed from this was that there have been several stories in the Signpost on BLP (the policy on biographies of living persons). This is not a comprehensive listing, as there may be other stories without 'BLP' or 'living' in the title, but I thought the following would still be of interest:
I'm not sure of how to go about this, or to not make it sound rude or anything. The fact is though, Ral315 has been only semi-active as of late, and while he's been mostly working on this when he is here, Signpost hasn't been published for weeks now. While I appreciate Ral's hard work over the years on this, perhaps it is time a more active editor took over the role of Editor-in-Chief? In order for Signpost to be successful, it needs to be run smoothly - I and others have left comments for him regarding the Signpost on his talk page, which have seemingly been ignored, and it cannot go on like this. At least until he can commit more attention to this, we should at least point a new temporary Editor-in-Chief. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I know Ral has been slow to respond sometimes lately (or failed to respond?), but could you notify him of this on his talk page and by e-mail? We should really give him a day or so to respond here before moving forward with anything. If you look at his contribs from 30 October, you will see that he was working on the Signpost for that week, but it never got published. I sent him an e-mail to check that everything is OK. Hopefully we will hear from him at some point. Let's not rush into anything. Also, you will need to advertise this proposal to get more input, as I don't think many people watch this page. But as I said, I'd wait a day or two before doing that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for my absence; I've been extremely busy between work, school, and other issues (none too serious, but time-consuming). I plan to publish tonight.
As far as the Signpost in general: This isn't my project, it's the community's. I will say that I think I can get back to a weekly schedule from here on out. The issue is that I don't have much help. When we were operating at our best, I had a lot of writers. Right now I'm handling the News and notes, Features and admins, and Arbitration report sections, and no one is handling the In the news section. That's in addition to the non-regular stories that I've been trying to cover, like Board of Trustees news, the fundraiser, chapters discussions, and local community news.
The only user I've had helping me on a regular basis lately is Ais523, and he's been inactive over the last few weeks as well. So, I don't know whether we need a change in editor-in-chief, and I'm certainly not the right person to answer that. But I do know that we need writers, desperately. Ral315 (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll volunteer to take up In the News right now. I check RSS feeds (which include "wiki" and "Wikipedia" alerts) and my watchlist every day, and I'm more than capable of writing it on a weekly basis. Let me know, Steven Walling(talk)22:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
No, having worked on the Dispatches for almost a year now, I don't see any indication that the issue is that we need either a new editor-in-chief or a deputy. I see the same problem in the Dispatches and throughout Wiki. Everyone says they'll help, and shows up when they want something published, but very few are willing to commit to the day-in, day-out responsibility of meeting deadlines, following up, doing the busy work. It's easy to criticize the editor-in-chief when others aren't pitching in to write: exactly what I'm finding at the Dispatches, where no matter how often I go out and drag people in to write articles, I have shouldered most of the responsibility of making sure content is generated each week myself. The solution is not a new editor-in-chief: it's people committing to writing something and then following up on the responsibility once they say that they want it. Just like in mainspace, we need writers. And we need writers who do a good job, so the editors don't have to pick up the pieces and rewrite and rework entire aricles to prepare them for press. And who don't drop the ball after they ask for a slot: I've had dozens of editors ask specifically for a slot at the Dispatches, and then not follow through, complete the article, or generate an article worthy of publication, so that I have to finish up every article myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the problem is finding reliable writers who will write week-in and week-out without needing to be hassled to make deadlines. But I would point out that it is part of the role of an editor to organise that sort of thing (and find new writers if the current ones aren't reliable enough). Admittedly not to the extent that you had to do for Dispatches. For example, Sandy, you could try to find someone willing to edit the Dispatches, but then you might lose editorial control or want to still do the "final edit". If you want to take more of an executive editorial role for Dispatches (i.e. approve the subject of each week's dispatches and pass the final page for publication - still subject to Ral's overall approval), and leave others to do the dirty work of hassling people to make deadlines, that could work. But the problem, again, is finding people to do that work. Not all writers are reliable enough to make deadlines, and sometimes editors will have to hassle people to keep things moving. Carcharoth (talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Carcharoth, when commenting on issues, please try to be better caught up on the history of those issues. I have located over and over and over again, editors, writers, collaborators, people who want slots, you name it. It's an issue of being there over the long haul, when the publication is due, consistently. Writers explicitly ask for a slot, and then don't complete the article on time, or don't complete it all. Almost every single Dispatch results from me locating, tracking down, badgering, following up, etc. Others agree to edit or help shepherd Dispatches, but aren't there over the long haul. Those are the facts of Wiki: it's a volunteer effort. Please don't make statements about whether those willing to do the work need to be replaced unless you're one of those who has been there over the long haul. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, when commenting on issues, please try and get your facts straight. I did not, and never have, called for Ral315 to be replaced. He does sterling work on the Signpost. The person who started this section was User:How do you turn this on. Carcharoth (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear things are OK, Ral. Thanks for the response and the apology for absence. My view is that these things happen and that the problem is, as Ral says, writers for the Signpost, not really the editor (who as he says is doing far too much of the writing). I would volunteer to do stuff, but will be fairly busy myself over the next few weeks. I did leave a suggestion at the Tip Line to include something about the new Wikipedia search functions. I think readers would be very interested in that. As for getting new people to write, I think you need to make a sustained effort to advertise far and wide for new writers, posting in lots of different places (maybe the previous appeals were not posted widely enough?). If you get more volunteers than you know what to do with, try and find someone to deal with that while you edit the Signpost, or get someone to do an interim Signpost while you organise the volunteers. It is possible that a deputy of some kind would help if you were pressed for time in the future. Carcharoth (talk) 09:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, I would be happy to help with the Signpost. However, my offers were simply ignored by Ral, twice when I asked on his talk page, and on the Newsroom page. If you want help, accept it when it's offered. As a complete newbie in this area, I don't have the faintest idea of how to go about doing this. I'd surely expect the editor-in-chief to answer my queries when I offer to help out on a particular area. You can't simply expect people to know how things are done. – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I thought I had replied to you after the second note on my talk page; my apologies. Please also consider the possibility that the real-life issues that have prevented me from publishing over the last few weeks also precluded me from responding to queries about the Signpost. Ral315 (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand your busyness, and only came to believe you'd missed my notes when you were still editing in other areas. In any case, it's not a problem at all. I'm still interested in helping out all the same. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I skimmed through the above a bit, so if this is incorrect sorry. But if you guys ever need a botop to spam the post I'm available pretty much every day. I'd volunteer to write, but I'm afraid I'd fall under that "creates something, but the editor still has to mess with it for an hour to make it readable" category. :( §hep • ¡Talk to me!05:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
The single-page view was still displaying the old Volume 4, Issue 41: please click the link "click to purge if transcluded articles are updated" at the bottom of SPV after a new issue is out or it won't be visible. 62.147.36.165 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
This shouldn't be the case, as when I edit the page, to add Volume 4, Issue 42, it should clear the cache. Is it possible your browser cached the old version? Ral315 (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep it up
I'm very glad to see the Signpost moving along better again. Keep up the good work, everyone, I still find it extremely useful, and only regret that I can't get even more news by reporting on stuff myself. And Ral315 should be commended for continuing as long as he has without completely giving out, it's a good bit longer than I was able to last. By the way, I've asked to get the audited financial statements published, if you want to know - I'd do it myself, but the version we reviewed had been faxed around and marked up, and I want to get a clean copy. --Michael Snow (talk) 04:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There are several red links here, and I have no idea how to fix the problem. I'd post this in the column's (so to speak) discussion page, but I don't know how many people watch those pages (and it's a previous issue anyway). Waltham, The Duke of13:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Fixed the red links with this for now, to mimic the method used at {{Ffr}}, although this method isn't correct (there are often multiple archived reviews). There was a problem recently with Wikimedia, where the previous redirects are being redlinked. I'll leave a note to Gimmetrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The From the editor: 200th issue article provides lists of Signpost writers with a certain number of articles. DYK has a medal recognition system that provides a motivation for people to make further contributions to DYK and provides a way to recognize their efforts on their user page. Perhaps the Signpost would benefit from adopting its own medal recognition system. -- Suntag☼20:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Contributing?
I've got some spare time, a relatively good command of the English language, and the desire to help out with the Signpost. What can I help with? Hermione198003:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
This week, a story on this might be good. (It's also been covered in the press, and if you're feeling really ambitious you could scour the web for examples of the kind of usability problems non-editors or would-be newbies experience).
A lot of interesting news coverage and academic studies of Wikipedia falls through the cracks, and doesn't even appear on the suggestions page. Periodically doing news and blog searches for Wikipedia stories and posting the significant finds on the suggestion page is always appreciated.--ragesoss (talk) 04:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Would one page, edited by anyone, like the Germans do it be better?
I guess the German version of the signpost is continuosly updated, instead of coming out in issues. Since we seem to have trouble with deadlines, might this be an improvement? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a thought, but maybe the Signpost could do a regular segment on the activities on Commons - there's not really much call for a newspaper over there, but it might help educated Wikipedians about what Commons does. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
This must be the fourth or fifth Signpost issue that I've looked at. Even so, every time I see The Report for Lengthy Litigation I reflexively associate real-life lawsuits, not arbcom proceedings.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
No opinion on whether it should be changed or not, but I believe the odd-sounding title was chosen so that the initials would spell out "TROLL". (I used to tease David.Mestel, who wrote that page for a couple of years, about his "TROLLing for the Signpost".) In the same silly vein, "Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News" abbreviates to BRION, which is a reference to Brion VIBBER, who does much of the programming. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Please reword "not dead yet" -- yeah I get that it's a cute Monty Python reference, but I'd like to think that Wikipedia has outgrown such childishness. Mike R (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
It's in keeping with the other slightly silly titles the Signpost uses for its regular features (BRION and TROLL). But if others object as well, I'll change it.--ragesoss (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't see a need to change it, Washington Post/others use similar titles. PS to requester, this page doesn't have the text you're speaking about, it's a transclusion. §hep • Talk21:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What's childish about an on-topic cultural reference? The Signpost has a long history of occasionally dropping in a bit of humor to keep from being completely dry and stuffy. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, as pointed out above, many major newspapers use the same strategy for stuff that's funny, I wouldn't call it childish either. There's no need for us to "outgrow childishness" either: it's a volunteer-written community newsletter, not the International Herald-Tribune.--Aervanath (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Our encyclopedic style of writing is already considered blander that that often found in other encyclopedic sources, so I don't see why we should restrict ourselves in content made by and for wikipedians. Circeus (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue
I've moved the thread above to this page from the /Issue talk page, which I've redirected to here. This is to allow this page to be a centralised discussion point. Also I'm sure I'm not the only one who keeps /Issue on their watchlist, and don't want to clutter up the watchlist with discussion. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 06:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd definitely consider it. I encourage Signpost contributors and readers to suggest questions, and I'll try to think of some. By the way, normally the place for tips like this is the SignpostTip Line.--ragesoss (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to make a small suggestion regarding the Features and admins section, specifically the admin section. This section lists those users who were successful; I wonder if we can/should list those who were unsuccessful. If perhaps not a list of those not getting adminship, even just a one-liner like "...and four users were unsuccessful or withdrew."
I figure there would be some interesting trends that come out of that stat. Recently there have been fewer adminship granted (this past week had none); I wonder if this is a function of fewer nominations or fewer successes.
Too hard to count them all. Some are only opened for few hours before they got snowballed because the editor has less than 100 edits. Tracking all of them involves too much time. OhanaUnitedTalk page15:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the Signpost is fine the way it is, with only actual promotions listed. After all, those are the ones which are of interest to the community at large, and similarly we don't list every failed featured article candidate. It just seems a little negative to point out those who didn't make it every week. BTW, The NoSeptember Admin Project has a wealth of statistics and information on admins and RfA already. the wub"?!"15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
MotD Story
I have to be honest, I was a more than a little disappointed with the story about the Motto of the Day project. When I was interviewed (and I think many of my comrades would agree with me, though I don't speak for them), I assumed that the author was going to take the information from the interview and use it to write an actual article. Had I known that it was just going to be copied and pasted, I would have written in a much different (and more serious) tone. I thought I was doing an interview for use in an article, not writing the article itself. At the very least, we should have been informed this format was what the author had in mind so we could have been certain to write it at our best. As it is, my response is filled with jokes, parenthetical statements and non-sequitors that never should have made it into a finished article, and would not have had I known this is how it would be used. I feel like this article made me look like a schmuck in front of my peers. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoa boy. I just took the format from other Wikiproject reports, that is, the interviews. I probably should have told you the format beforehand. Apologies. On a brighter note, I feel the interviews there are very light-hearted which reflects the tone of the project, as well as giving readers a bit of respite from the "same old same old". I believe the interview responses were exactly what I would have wanted an article to sound like. However, it was flawed judgement not to inform you of the format. Sorry again, GARDEN14:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Apology accepted. In truth, I would have kept a light tone with my answers, but I would have also stayed away from some of the jokes that would be less appropriate in a finished article (like the parenthetical statement that I asked you not to give for attribution), and the answer to the last question would have been in a much different format. Thank you for taking the time to reply to my concerns. Nutiketaiel (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
What about inserting links to the previous/next issue? Already inserted in the "In the News" section, it allows easy short-term browsing. ptrf (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, this would be good. However, there's currently no way to actually view previous front pages - just article lists, in the Archive. If anyone can find a way to do this, I'd be happy to help. PretzelsTalk!09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the question. This is an old discussion thread; the feature has since been set up. — PretzelsHii!08:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
F&A: Bots
I'm not convinced that the section is particularly useful in its current form (list of names, essentially), but it does fit nicely with the layout of the page as a whole. It always strikes me that bots/tasks that are currently in discussion are missed out - so Signpost readers only hear about them when the deed is done. I'm not here to moan, of course, without providing a solution. I for one would be happy to weekly turn this:
Eight bots or bot tasks were approved to begin operating this week. These included:
DYKHousekeepingBot (task request), a bot to update article talk page DYK tags, tag images that have appeared on Did you know (DYK), and create new DYK archives;
Citation bot (task request), a new task for the bot, designed to standardise usage of citation templates in individual articles;
You could then append a section talking about the bots still in discussion, but I haven't given that bit much thought yet. Admittedly, there might also be bias perceived in the selection of the "headline" acts, but most of the time its quite obvious. As I said before, I'd be more than happy to do this if it was felt a net benefit, or not, as the case may be. - Jarry1250(t, c)13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that would be useful! Feel free to try it out; you'll probably want to coordinate with Seresin/Garden. We may need to start an F&A draft in the newsroom like the other sections. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Kudos!
I seldom do much but bang out typo or MOS corrections (and occasionally read some discussions to remind myself why I'd rather work than debate), but I do really enjoy each issue of Signpost. This week's LGBTI Project article was educational, informative and much needed. I say that from the viewpoint of being white and straight. Thanks to all of you out there who create, debate, police and report. LilHelpa (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
/Holy Family Hospital
Hi
I've rewritten this article. Do you want me to paste it here so you can have a look or should I just repost?
The bot hasn't been sending the Signpost for the last 2 (including today) issues. Is there something wrong with the bot delivery? —MC10|Sign here!01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
There is a community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates. Could you run something about this in the next Signpost? This issue has been rather heated in the past (including a very long arbitration case), but I hope we can gain consensus for this rather limited proposal. The discussion will be open for two weeks. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and the RFC is on the talk page. Thank you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Proposed gadgets
It would be quite helpful if the weekly discussion report would list ongoing discussions on Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals (and possibly one or two related pages), as decisions there can affect every logged-in user of Wikipedia (if they happen to hunt down the Gadgets section of their preferences), and the page currently gets very little traffic. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy100022:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Good Article Backlog
The backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations is now up to 323 articles, and some are up to two months old. Can we please include a line in the next Signpost encouraging editors to review these nominations? It's easy and there are topics for everyone. There are also plans for another backlog elimination drive. Thanks, Reywas92Talk22:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
classifieds?
I thought I would make a suggestion to include a "classifieds" page once a month; and in the section include things editor's little projects and writing contests and things of this nature to help get the word out for those who may be looking for something to do outside on Wikipedia other than what they usually do. I grant this may seem a little odd, but it may help put wikipedias who need x in touch with those who have x, and it may also help boost your readership some. Just something to think about. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Um ... it appears that the July 27th issue has been published with our article on Wikiconference New York still in an ... unfinished condition. Like the part about my talk, for example ... it might be good if someone polished that a little bit. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
An interesting idea; hopefully it will suggest to some editors that they could be regular contributors.
But - and a very large but - a the Signpost is not a Wikipedia article, which is constantly being seen by an ever-changing group of readers. A newspaper is supposed to provide a snapshot of what happened of interest since the last issue. Readers of the Signpost don't expect to have to return to articles such as "News and notes" to see if they have been expanded.
So, a suggestion: Set a cut-off, say 48 hours after publication, for this idea, and then remove the invitations (on various pages) to readers to add information. (Perhaps the "From the editor" page could be changed to mention the cut-off.) -- John Broughton(♫♫)13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
John, that's a good idea. My own thought was to keep an eye on it for the next few days and make sure it reaches at least the level of (in)completion that a normal issue would before publication and get it up to that level. And after that add a thank-you and remove the explicit invitations. I changed the "from the editor" a bit along these lines.--ragesoss (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
If it stays in the historical record that I gave a half-hour keynote address singing Monty Python songs, then next year I'm going to do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Can I suggest that a DIY Signpost should link from the current article to the draft article for next week. I wouldn't mind writing a couple sentences on something that I see on Google news from time to time, but asking me to remember and wait until the article goes live to find time to put it in before the deadline is a bit inefficient. If done, I also wouldn't see much point for the tip line, as people would be expected to note their "tips" directly into the relevant recurring feature... - BanyanTree12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've implemented something like this. Now the front page of the Signpost will link to the in-progress stories for the next week, and "news and notes" and "in the news" are linked to the coming issue (they always are as long as the page exists, but I'll make sure the pages get created early). Let me know if you have suggestions for how to make it easier and more intuitive.--ragesoss (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I like the forward link; I suggest that the not-yet-published page have something like "Under construction until publication date: You can help by adding to this page." -- John Broughton(♫♫)16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a good idea. I'm not sure how to make work with the template system. Someone who has strong template kung-fu will be needed to code something that checks the 'date of next issue' parameter and applies that notice only until the issue is actually published. I'll try to recruit someone.--ragesoss (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I've always seen Signpost as the New York Times of Wikimedia; something I can rely on for up-to-date quality news. I personally dislike the new, "Build your own" edition and I'm hoping that this does not become commonplace. –blurpeace(talk)04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
References
If more than one transcluded article has references it can create a mess. Please use the groups extention to avoid this. Alternatively, clickable references like this or this [5] can be used, but be consistent with any given edition of The Signpost. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
On the News page of the current edition, the link at the bottom to "News and Notes" does not go where it should, namely Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-08-03/In_the_news. However, I don't know how to edit the page to fix this. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I was wrong. THat link at the bottom of the page does not lead from "In the News" to "News and Notes", it goes from this week's "News and Notes" to next week's. Still confusing, as next week's issue has not been written yet :) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank You!
Just wanted to thank everyone who works on Signpost, I do enjoy reading it. I'm missing the project interviews, though. I would like to see more interviews, one each week. They wouldn't have to be about projects. They could be notable Wikipedians or even random people that have, say, a thousand edits under their belt. It might be interesting just to get "the man in the street's" view. You could even try interviewing some vandals!... although I guess that might cause problems: perhaps best not to feed them the oxygen of publicity. Or the oxygen of oxygen, as Linda Smith would have it. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Thanks for the reminder. It's been our intention to highlight the updates each month, but it often falls off the radar.--ragesoss (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Drew Smith account apparently not compromised
Two independent checkusers were run on the Drew Smith account, and both determined that it is highly unlikely that anyone besides the primary account holder has used it. See his talk page for a discussion and evidence. Thought you should know, since the Signpost is still reporting otherwise. Toodles. --Jayron3202:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The story seems incomplete. Perhaps you could add a little more information on Wikipedia's reaction to this fraudulent selling of Wikipedia articles?--Edge3 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think they've commented, mainly because it's not fraudulent; that's why we license things the way we do. Shoddy, but not illegal. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]19:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I've got a bit of flak from someone because I've posted their comments, per the manual of style, as a quotation and therefore have to "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." What's the general opinion on that sort of thing? Do we cut fellow Wikipedians a bit of slack, or are we to follow the Manual of Style and preserve the text? One way of going at it is perhaps to tidy the quote and then quote it, but then that has implications if you change the feel of the text. I could ask the authors, but if I'm close to the deadline I may not have time. Thoughts? HidingT08:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Use the manual of style. If you're going to be quoting someone, you can't change their typos no matter how embarassed they are or how much they want to rant on your talk page. I think the way you're working now is just fine; however, if you insist on a compromise, perhaps you could just put a single "[sic]" at the end of the quote rather than after each individual typo. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Internal links
Wherever possible please use internal links in articles, such as for mailing lists. It looks a lot neater than having the whole link there. Thanks, Majorlytalk12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
moving wikipediaweeekly template during wikimania
Just to inform everyone,
I've moved the WikipediaWeekly template on the Community portal *above* the Signpost template. This is, as per tradition, done during wikimania as there is a lot of new content coming out from Wikimania from the podcast. This is our big event of the year at which we record daily episodes and interviews.
This will be reversed to the norm at the end of the conference (the next time the signpost publishes an edition).
Would it be possible to append an article's talkpage to the bottom of the page, for example
{{hat|reason=Comments|2=These comments have been [[transcluded]] from this article's [[Wikipedia talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talkpage]]- please add your comments there!}} {{Wikipedia talk:{{PAGENAME}}}} {{hab}} Which is similar to the layout on various news sites (those with a comment system, at least)?
I like this idea and would be happy to implement it into the template if others are in support. The "Also in this issue" section could be adjusted to run as a sidebar to the comments. PretzelsTalk!20:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why not. I'd suggest adding a disclaimer at the bottom specifically mentioning the transposition transclusion from the talkpage as well, lest users used to other systems try to add comments directly to the page. --KingÖomie18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Edit- I've updated the code above, and added it (activated, minus the actual transclusion, because we're already ON this page) below-
Comments
These comments have been transcluded from this article's talkpage- please add your comments there!
The latest issue I've received is the August 31 one, so I got suspicious and checked the Signpost's page. Turns out I've missed the last 2 issues. Is this normal? Thanks, Airplanemantalk18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize for this. The normal delivery bot stopped halfway through on a few deliveries and hasn't done the last two at all. I'll try to recruit some more delivery bot operators and get talk page deliveries back to normal.--ragesoss (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe there are several existing bots that could do this task. I believe Ragesoss is planning the check on that. If for some reason they are inadequate or unable to do the job, let me know. A message delivery bot is a pretty simple coding bot & as such I could write one if needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to say, I've adapted all the templates I can find to support auto date formatting; dates should now format themselves according to the setting you've made in Preferences. If you find anywhere this doesn't happen, let me know. Thanks! PretzelsTalk!22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
But we're not supposed to do date auto-formatting any more. And in this instance it's particularly a problem because people may expect to click on the date and come to the current issue of the Signpost. Certainly that's what I do, because the Signpost header isn't obviously clickable. Can you change it so the date goes to the current Signpost, please? Rd232talk08:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I've used the formatdate function, not wikilinking, to autoformat. This is the proper method of doing this. Where are you referring to with the date link? --PretzelsTalk!14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Two questions
[Discussion moved from old Planning room]
I like the idea of having opinion pieces; I think if we get some that are written well, they will be a very good addition. My question is how the decision to run them will be made. Is this an editor-in-chief thing, or is it anyone-who-wants-to may provide input? Second question is a minor style point. When referring to editors, should it be written [[User:Foo]], or [[User:Foo|Foo]]? My preference is the former, and without doing any significant checking, I seem to recall that being the format used traditionally. The latter seems to be used often lately, though. ÷seresin22:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the decision of what to run, the "anyone-who-wants-to may provide input" model seems the most appropriate to me. The way I imagined it working would be to use the opinion desk as a holding pen for non-time-sensitive pieces to give feedback and try to find ways to improve and polish them (and to collect sets of related pieces), and publish pieces or sets once they are mature. I think the "White Barbarian" essay would be a good way to start it off this week. There are some other submissions that are strong, but most of them I think could use some feedback and polishing.
As for referring to editors, the convention that I've been using lately is "[[User:Foo|Foo's Real Name]] (User:Foo)" for users who identify themselves by their real names on their userpages, and "[[User:Foo|Foo]]" for those who don't. But I'm not wedded to that, it just seemed like a good combination of naturalness and transparency. I think a Signpost style guide would be useful.--ragesoss (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I don;t mind this one. I don't like TROLL or DRAMA. I don't mind keeping this one as a tribute, but I'd support a move to retitle the other two. HidingT10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
If I've calculated correctly, the issue dated December 7th 2009 will be our 250th issue. Does anyone have any ideas regarding this? Bumper issue? Save up some extra pieces? Get a short opinion piece from Michael Snow, or Ral315? I think it would be nice to do something. PretzelsTalk!01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm all for doing something special for the 250th issue. I'll do a "from the editor" in the November 30 issue to try to attract some interest. Something from Michael Snow and/or Ral315 is also a nice idea; I'll send them an email about it.--ragesoss (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There's a link to it at the top of the Feedback page... although I agree we may need another. The footer gets cluttered though - do you think we could add a stinger sort of thing in the article footer, by the comments? --PretzelsTalk!14:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This user is deceased in real life. Can you please stop the sign posts building up on the talk page. Thanks. (Reminds me of the fact my house still gets mail for its previous owner who has been dead for four years) --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
So I have an idea. Would it be a worthwhile to propose a requirement that all closed arbitrations, RfCs, RfAs, etc be added to a Template page that was automatically transcluded into the Signpost? Mention would be very brief, just a one-sentence blurb for each. We Signposters could take care of creating the transclusion mechanics and the subst: template or whatever, but in the future the onus would be on closing admins to add mention to the centralized template.
It seems to me that the Signpost is an ideal place to centralize information on many important but widely scattered projects. This vision could make the Signpost a powerful tool for keeping abreast of all the mechanics of WP. - Draeco (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
With the improved design of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, it's no longer clear where members of the community should post material and other things that might be worth coverage in Signpost. Can this be better indicated - a clear section on that page or a separate page?
Also the redlink for "Add a summary directly into the next issue of the Signpost" here should never redlink. Can pages for the next issue be automatically created a week or 2 in advance, or when the current issue is closed to additions?
we could just turn the 'feedback' link into 'suggestions' and have it link to the suggestions page, with a top notice on where to leave feedback -- rather than the other way around as it is currently. More people seem to leave suggestions than feedback. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Would it be useful/interesting to conduct an interview with people associated with the EOL? I know it's not a Wikimedia project, but it could be nice to see what other wikis are doing and to talk about crossovers and Wikispecies. --Danger (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, what gives? I want to use a talk page to post comments to the authors of a Signpost piece while it is being written. However, I find that the talk page has been transcluded into the article. That strikes me as a really awkward change. I don't want my comments being read by every editor that reads the resulting article; that's unnecessary. If one is going to have a transcluded comment section for every article, could you please use something other than the talk page? Talk pages, by convention, are for discussing the appropriate content of it's associated page. By turning it into a generic comment section, you violate that convention (using it to discuss the topic of the article, rather than the article's content), and deprive people like me of any natural space for discussing article content. Dragons flight (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
What I had been doing when there was significant discussion related to the writing was to blank the page upon publication. How about wrapping your comments in noinclude tags? And then we'll try to make sure that happens with all the stuff about the writing process. That seems to me a simpler solution that subpages for comments, since to some extent the talk pages have long been used for post-publication commentary (as well as discussion of the writing before publication).--ragesoss (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason the bottom section couldn't link to /Comments rather than to Talk:? It seems like it would accomplish exactly the same purpose and function just as well without destroying the availability of the Talk page for content discussions? Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Just as Signpost articles are not bound by the same guidelines as regular mainspace ones, the talk pages hold a different purpose. Most stories do not require pre-publication discussion, but readers frequently like to comment and discuss on published articles. As the article does not need to appear finished until publication (unlike a mainspace article), I would recommend just adding any fragments to the main article, perhaps with a note requesting expansion or comment. — PretzelsHii!18:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Feedback on style, typos, etc... are all welcomed. I'm thinking this could be ready for the 30 November edition (what section, you tell me), but it could also be published another week if that's too short notice (or that some problem remained to be solved). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. It would most likely fit as an item in News and Notes. Somebody will pick it up nearer the publication date. — PretzelsHii!00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
International talk page delivery
In 2006–2007 there was a time when the Signpost was delivered to talk pages on other projects than the English Wikipedia. It was, however, turned off because it was too much work to maintain. But since then we have had SUL and global bots, and I imagine it would be a lot simpler now to have a bot deliver the Signpost notification on other Wikimedia projects as well. Could someone look into that? :-)Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good. The latter alternative was the one used back in 2006, and to be human-readable (=working links, as opposed to the @xxwiki redlinks) that would be nice, but the format is not that important. It wouldn't need to be on Meta though – the Signpost is an enwiki publication, so I imagine splitting the maintenance page for teh bot to a different project would be slightly confusing. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Report on prompt litigation
Is it time yet to drop the "lengthy" bit? It may have been inserted originally with tongue in cheek, but in view of complaints about tardy hearings (like five and half months), I think the title has unfortunate overtones. IMO, the generic title "Arbitration report" is just fine. Tony(talk)02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
William Connolley & report of alleged Wikipedia manipulation in the Financial Post of 19 Dec 2009
I was shocked to recently see this news report about purported large scale POV pushing by Climate change scientists. It sounds really fantastic and ominous to me, an (relatively) uninformed editor.
I could not find any reference to this issue on Wikipedia. I have posted a request in the Village Pump for more information.
Since such allegations are detrimental to the confidence and morale of editors, could a
balanced response be given in the next issue for the information of the community?
The Solomon article suffers from serious problems, chief among them being that he gets the facts all wrong. Been discussed various places including Talk:William_Connolley#Solomon_op-ed.
The single page issue has problems, there is a "template loop detected" message, and this talkpage is transcluded at the bottom. Paradoctor (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why removing them would be a problem. Many of the subscribed users are likely blocked, dormant or have left the project. — PretzelsHii!23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
What algorithm would be used for finding out? (Also I don't think being indefinitely blocked is in itself a criterion - you might still want to know what's going on around Wikipedia, even if you're not currently permitted to edit.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I imagine one could just look at each user's block log. And I rather doubt indef-banned users care to read the Signpost. If they're that interested, they can just get a new account... --Gwern (contribs) 17:41 23 January 2010 (GMT)
Don't know if they're allowed to do that (or even able to, if their IP is blocked). But I meant more what algorithm should be used to identify users who are dormant or who have left the project.--Kotniski (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Dormancy could be ascertained by checking the date of the last edit in the user's contributions history (but, as I noted below, I am reluctant to remove users from the list on the basis of dormancy) and block status by checking the block log for the user. –Black Falcon(talk)21:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I am a little hesitant to remove users on the basis of dormancy or having left the project since it is not uncommon for users to take extended wiki-breaks, to edit in periods that are many months apart, or to return after having left. –Black Falcon(talk)21:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if this is really a problem, but if we want to avoid jamming up user talk pages with a growing number of unread signpost deliveries (I've seen such pages), we could just have the bot leave a note on the pages of subscribers who haven't edited for X months, saying that deliveries have been suspended, and giving them a link they can always follow to the current edition (and a link to resubscribe).--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Or better yet, the bot could make a null edit - triggering the talk warning - and leave the link in the edit summary. Links in edit summary become hyperlinks, so it'd work as well. --Gwern (contribs) 16:19 24 January 2010 (GMT)
I think that either of those options would work. Is there a single bot that currently handles Signpost deliveries? There is a list of bots at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe, but it seems to be out-of-date; for example, the most recent run was performed by EdwardsBot, which is not on the list. If there is just one bot, contacting the operator should be all that's needed to implement a change. -- Black Falcon(talk)08:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
MZMcBride maintains EdwardsBot, but it's a set up to be operable by others; I set up new bot runs for each issue. It's pretty much become the default, because it doesn't require tracking down a free bot operator for each run. But yeah, I'd say feel free to remove users from the delivery list if you know they won't be returning. I don't see a particular problem with delivering to users who are long inactive, although it also wouldn't be a big deal to remove them.--ragesoss (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I think it's definitely a good idea to clean this list of inactive users. Maybe after 1 year of inactivity they get a note that they've been removed from the subscriber list? (and let them know to re-subscribe at any time) –xenotalk18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
In the politest way possible: I don't care at all. :-) Remove inactive accounts, remove accounts starting with vowels, remove all the accounts. I don't even get the Signpost delivered to my talk page!
I will note, though, that EdwardsBot does follow redirects. So sometimes people will redirect their user talk pages to their user pages and end up getting deliveries there. There isn't a very good "fix" to this, as it follows redirects to catch the much more common case of user talk pages redirecting to other user talk pages (user names, like whoa).
Hello, there seems to be one bug or another with the new issue (March 1): at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost there is currently the old Feb 22 issue (even after a purge so it's a not a cache issue), but its "next issue" link is blue and goes to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2010-03-01 where the new one is sitting. As I see it:
if the new issue is ready, it should have been moved live
if the new issue isn't ready, it shouldn't have been archived yet (triggering that odd link from the old issue's page)
As it stands now, the current delivery and Display of the signpost is a ripe target for vandalism, all it takes is one edit to severely disrupt thousands of pages, while an easy rectified fix, there's still the issues of cached vandalized copies that will be served to an unknown number of users. QTC07:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
We have a number of potential solutions:
Protect (or semi-protect) each new signpost as part of the publishing process.
Delighted to see renamed ArbCom section: now let's complete the job
I suggested last year that "Report on lengthy litigation" was an extremely unfortunate title, since ArbCom was subject to criticism (justifiable in my view) for its tardy judgements.
If one title can be changed, why can't another? "Dispatches" is a non-title: it says nothing to the reader of what on Earth it contains. The fact that it appears only intermittently is more reason to announce its theme in the title. Why is it plural, anyway?
Please consider "Dispatch", or better, something substantive, such as "Featured and good content". "Featured content" would be a much nicer title wording if GAs could be considered to be part of that category. Tony(talk)01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
PS Oh, I see the "lengthy" title is still appearing on my talk-page notification, even though it is thankfully absent from the page itself. Why? Tony(talk)01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Possibly because those who wish to see the title change are in quite minority? (count me in the majority BTW) Circéus (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I too enjoy the current title. --Gwern (contribs) 17:16 19 March 2010 (GMT)
Why you would "enjoy" such a title is beyond me. It fails on three counts: first, it is confusing (when I first saw it, I wondered what on earth it was). Second, if it is meant to be ironic or humorous, that is unclear. A joke that is unclear is not much of a joke. Third, it treats lightly a serious matter of tardiness and bloat in ArbCom process; some people may not be pleased that this is being treated with the misplaced triviality given the pain and upset they have endured in the incompetent running of a case. Tony(talk)15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
How to start another language edition of Signpost?
Well... I'd say this is a) too vague (which language?) and b) not exactly the right place to ask... I mean, you'd think a page on other project would be a better place to ask! Circéus (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear. I would like to start in Telugu language. I want to know how the articles are protected and comments are allowed, where the draft articles are created and consolidated. Are any scripts/ templates need to be ported to new language. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Most community news projects in other languages use much simpler systems, e.g., a single page that is continuous updated. The weekly format with many separate articles is probably only appropriate for very large Wikipedias; even most of the other large projects don't use this format, because the overhead and complexity isn't worth it. But if you do want to try to use something like the templates the Signpost uses, you'll just have to go through the different pages to see which ones are useful; it's not well-documented, and different parts were created and updated at different times, so it's pretty confusing even for most of the people who work with them. The comments template is one that might be useful though, if modified appropriately for a simpler format: Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end.--ragesoss (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. It is very much useful. May be I will start with a single page for now and explore how comments could be added. Arjunaraoc (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there a possibility that the Wikipedia Signpost will ever be able to be delivered by email? If so, would we have to use the EmailUser feature? A p3rson ‽01:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The current issue requests Wikipedians to cover strategy issues. Normal journalistic standards would bar me from doing so because I actually am involved in a few aspects of strategic planning such as museum relations. Would there be a way to work around that for Signpost purposes? How frequently are you seeking reports? (Monthly? Weekly?) Durova40921:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks like Eekim wants to write a weekly column himself, with help from others on strategy wiki, but I think separate coverage in a more journalistic mode would be a good complement. I don't see a problem with you doing reports (at whatever frequency you think appropriate); Signpost reporting has traditionally often relied on people involved with the related area (especially, for example, the featured content dispatches, but also arbitration reports have at times been done by clerks).--ragesoss (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I consider Eekim's columns to be opinion pieces, of the type we've occasionally been running in recent months. Basically, a chance for the strategy people to ask for help from Signpost readers or share their perspectives, rather than act as reporters on their own progress.--ragesoss (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
To clarify slightly, amidst my smiling snarkiness ... the facilitator (initiator/orchestrator) of the "strategy" discussion should clearly be given much leeway in framing what they're doing ... and while there are (as always) many provocative questions which might be posed [which I will refrain from posing here to avoid provocation^;^] ... but before I begin laughing too hard to type [yes, I've got myself stitches], let me wrap back around to an earlier question I raised elsewhere: What it the role of Signpost in the strategy conversation — something which is unprecedented in this form: a consultancy-orchestrated discussion (design process, to use my favored keywords).
Semi-suggestion - Observing the BLP RfC, it should relatively clear that, 1,000 people cannot participate meaningfully in purely dialogic conversation ... and so, I will posit the idea that something like secure-poll preference indication could be used to "steer the conversation" ... and that if Signpost was the vehicle of such a thing (in some way), that would be a useful thing for it to do. AND Signpost could then "cover" what the community thought about it all.
Yes, I may seem I've leaped off-topic with the above, but what I'm trying to address is the problem of covering something which few will care much about unless it is somehow paddled from its quiet cove into the middle of the community lake. etc.[And yes, I will seek more carefully pondered metaphors in future.]Proofreader77(interact)19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Comments not visible in Single version
Comments are not visible at all(!) in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single page version. That have to be corrected as soon as possible, because: 1) if nonsense are accidentaly published, only typos are allowed to correct; 2) it is demotivating for writing of comments if users know, that nobody will read their comments. --Snek01 (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I have no any specific suggestions. I have expected, that they will be included in the same way as in "separate articles" version. --Snek01 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Technically, we would need to remove the "noinclude" tags around {{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-en...}} in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story.
To avoid confusion between articles and comments, we could still wrap something like <div style="font-size:80%; background:#E8E8E8">.. around the transcluded comments page, maybe also an "overflow: auto;" so that long discussions would be displayed with a scroll bar and not dwarf the actual articles.
