Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2012-09-17

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-09-17. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

From the editor: Signpost expands to Facebook (1,309 bytes · 💬)

• Like But seriously, it's great to see Facebook being used as a means to expand readership. Thanks for doing that! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Talk to me} 17:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • ^ Michaelzeng7 likes this. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Like Very cool, Ed! Thanks for doing that. Amazing to find that so many of my friends share an interest in Wikipedia. Cindy(talk to me) 23:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• Have to say, I'm impressed. I honestly expected the comments for this article to be full of "No Facebook! WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK! FB is teh evils!"--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: Tens of thousands of monuments loved; members of new funding body announced (4,436 bytes · 💬)

According to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Funds_Dissemination_Committee/2012_Round_1_Eligibility_Status Wikimedia UK is not presently eligible for FDC funding. Yet the article says, "Mike Peel is a former chair and the current secretary of the UK chapter. He has a PhD in astrophysics and is a postdoctoral researcher at Jodrell Bank in the UK. He is the only voting committee member to hold office in an entity that is potentially eligible to apply for FDC funds." Does this "potentially" wording reflect that WMUK may acquire eligibility next month? And what about Anders Wennersten, who is described as being on the election committee of the Swedish chapter, which is already eligible for funds? JN466 17:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The table that you link to say WMUK will be eligible if they submit their "Financial report 2011" which might have been approved at their recent meeting. As far as the Swedish Chapter, likely they don't consider being a member of the election committee the same as being an "officer" which is often used quite narrowly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks Jayen, excellent catch. i indeed originally worded "relevant office" but the specification seems to have got lost in copyeditorial transit (background: i looked at the swedish chapter's rules over the weekend and their nomcom doesn't seem to interact with potential FDC issues). i put it back in, regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• ...the ruins and the palace of Merkenstein at Gainfarn in Lower Austria. The palace is thought to have been constructed in the 12th century; in 1683 it was occupied by Ottoman troops and destroyed. Beethoven dedicated two songs to the ruin. Anyone know what the two songs referenced in the above comment are? TomStar81 (Talk) 17:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Tom, I did wonder myself. I got that information from the German WP: "Der deutsche Komponist Ludwig van Beethoven hat der Ruine Merkenstein zwei Lieder gewidmet." Unfortunately, it's unreferenced, tsk tsk; and WP articles are not regarded as reliable sources. Oh meh. Tony (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Here it is in the German WP article on Beethoven: Merkenstein WoO 144 (1. Vertonung); and Merkenstein Op. 100 (2. und 3. Vertonung). Vertonung means setting. Tony (talk) 01:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• I've done a first rough translation at Merkenstein ruins. It needs an infobox, etc. Also needs a review for wording (for example, how exactly is "gut" translated in a feudal sense?) and maybe more sources. As a new article, we should be able to get a DYK out of it if we move quickly. --Slashme (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Slash. I had a quick run-through; tell me what you think. Tony (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Some good edits; well done! --Slashme (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
• Don't all you admins thank me all at once for taking the PC stuff on... seriously, I find it very engaging, and haven't regretted doing it for a second. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Blade. - Dank (push to talk) 03:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: Future-proofing: HTML5 and IPv6 (2,977 bytes · 💬)

• If you guys are running scripts using jsMsg for interfaces, you can use this library to emulate the old interface. Give Tim a high five for writing this, which has already fixed the bug in several scripts. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• On Wikipedia Redefined: Magnus Manske also has a prototype running on the Toolserver. Jean-Fred (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
• RE next week's poll: what exactly do you mean by an "external site?" Is en.widkipeia an external site or is that concept more like Wikia? --agr (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I assume it means any non-Wikimedia wiki. Powers ^T 01:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• I'm a little surprised only 15% of respondents to last week's poll don't have an iOS device. Powers ^T 01:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
  • The poll question asks about adding a Signpost app "to your iOS device." People without one may not bother to look at the possible responses. Maybe we need some process for editorial review of these poll questions. This week's and last's seem poorly worded.--agr (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
• The questions are usually fairly clear, but I had trouble understanding this week's question. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

  +1 Philosopher. I assumed this was about folks who use MediaWiki freeware on their own websites, but it might be taken to be about whether any external site (such as "I hate Wikipedia" blogs and forums) deserves some consideration. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I think the meaning of this week's question is (in retrospect) more obvious from the answers than the question. It meant, generally, any reuser (or potential reusers) of MediaWiki development, which in practical terms means sites hosting non-Wikimedia wikis. I agree that non-iOS owners may not have clicked through, but I wanted to give those that did something to click in order to make it clear that we were, for once, excluding hypothetical answers. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)