Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 8

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.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Two new templates proposed

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Signpost poll

Some question?

Yes (54%; 22 votes)

No (46%; 19 votes)

YesNo

Polls

The no-longer-working state of Jarry's polling template got me thinking about whether or not this could be done entirely within Wikipedia, allowing the poll to update results in real time, as it were, instead of forcing us to ask questions far beforehand. After a lot of wrangling I'm surprised to say that the answer is, yes! It requires the creation of two subpages every time a poll is made but it can be done: a working mockup is here. Try voting: it's fun to watch the bar move.

The advantages over the old format is that because it handles all counting using Wikipedia parser functions the poll can be updated in real time by the votes of the users, and it further requires no further effort on the part of the pollster once the poll (requiring subpages be created to cache votes) is implemented. The striking visual nature of Jarry's effort can probably be reproduced once I play with some opacity triggers and image transparency: right now it's just a simple stacked bar chart. Visual ideas would be appreciated. Done.

The disadvantage is that this hinges on users not changing inputted text while voting. My hope is that an edit-notice will provide enough warning of the need for them not to mess with the format too much—~~the template relies on doing a hidden character count on vote collection pages and so will be really easy to break if someone decides they want to say, paste the opening chapter of Moby Dick in.~~ A much more robust Lua function's been put into place which will be much, much harder to break.

A lot of work remains to be done. ResMar 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

After a full day's work I've realized I'm approaching this from an impossible angle and will have to redo most of it. Time to learn Lua I think. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Strange_behavior_from_PAGESIZE_magic_word. ResMar 03:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Never mind it, using Lua Mr. Stradivarius did in five minutes what I spent two hours failing to do and the template complex is now fully operational! To test out operations try out the poll at right; to see documentation and extensive semi-automated setup instructions see the documentation on the page.

I confess that when I figured out this is possible I jumped a little bit in my chair. I was expecting any number of reactions—but certainly not silence! Well? What do you guys think? ResMar 06:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks terrific, Resident Mario. This week's news and notes could potentially have a poll in it, so perhaps we can test it out! Thanks for your work on this. Go Phightins! 14:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Although now when I click yes or no, I am taken to a "bad title" page. Go Phightins! 14:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It won't be ready for use this week; maybe next week. I've got to squash more bugs (like the one you're mentioning) and automate a couple of things (opening poll display only after X votes, closing the poll after Y). I also want to set up support for a third polling option though that may be more of an optional feature. But do watch this space! ResMar 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Fixed that, I forgot to enable a default case for button clicks. ResMar 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: Status update: I'm about to do another dry run and if all goes well we're clear to go. Very extensive documentation and a tool-assisted creation has been outlined here. ResMar 18:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!:

Done; there was one final bug to squash but now it's done and fully ready to go! ResMar 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Three-option polling now a reality! ResMar 01:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Series

← return

view all authors →

All article series

Here, you can see various series from the Signpost archives.

Series

Below is a list of every series that's had its own specific template made.

TEDx talk on astroturfing on Wikipedia

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Helo, I've found this. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@NaBUru38: Wikipedia editors are not particularly impressed: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_182#Journalist_Sharyl_Attkisson_criticizes_Wikipedia --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Me neither. It's still relevant news. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@NaBUru38: We've already covered it in ITM: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-02-11/In_the_media Gamaliel (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I had missed it. Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Double delivery

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Hi all, apologies for anyone who received the Signpost twice in successive sections ... not sure what happened. Gamaliel? Was anything odd during publication? Anyway, the issue is so good, I suppose you'll just need to read it a second time ! Go Phightins! 11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I got a double delivery too. Sounds like a newspaper delivery boy that got lost and, just to "make sure he got all his assigned houses covered," delivered a second paper to the houses along his route. Well, if you lost your first copy (or used it to make paper maches), you at least have a second! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 12:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Me too. K6ka is right.

..Ṫ Ḧ ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 13:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Go Phightins!: I don't think that was Gamaliel unless he was awake at 5am EST (10am GMT) ... could this be a hiccup on MassMessage's side? It double-sent globally too, also six hours apart. [1] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@The ed17:, Ed, this is unrelated, but can you hop on the IRC sometime today? I've already given my spiel to Phightins and Gamaliel. ResMar 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I assure you that for once I was completely passed out at 5am. Gamaliel (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Log/massmessage says that the bot sent it out twice. Nothing in MM :) Legoktm (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Resident Mario: I can be on later tonight (about four or five hours?). @Legoktm: that means that I need to go poke Jarry again. Thanks for letting me know! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I will match you but at that point it's uncertain I'll be able to stay for long. ResMar 23:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm currently taking care of a sick woman and, this being a new computer, don't have my Chatzilla settings anymore. Name a time tomorrow evening and I'll be there. I'm really sorry, ResMar. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

White House flexes Wikipedia muscles, with moderate results

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I was surprised to see the White House tweet [2] and blog [3] about an "edit-a-thon" for Black History Month. According to Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/African Americans in STEM, the result of this were new articles for LaSalle D. Leffall Jr., Kimberly Bryant (technologist), Margaret S. Collins, Henry Aaron Hill, Leonard C. Bailey, and Thomas W. Talley (someone tagged this last one for speedy deletion). Also Ben Montgomery, St. Elmo Brady, Charles L. Reason, and Mary Eliza Mahoney were improved, and a new image loaded for Christine Darden. (I double-checked the participants' contributions and didn't see any others)

On one hand, yes, the White House called and people answered. But on the other ... this amount of effort is routinely matched by some of the more active Wikipedians on an individual basis. Whether or not a single person makes a difference in Washington, when it comes to Wikipedia -- one dedicated individual can match the output of a White House call for action. I find this surprising and ... oddly inspirational. Wnt (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel -- ITM secondary lead, perhaps? The White House running an edit-a-thon is a big deal ... Go Phightins! 04:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

This will be featured prominently in the next ITM. Just not enough time to get it in this week. Gamaliel (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Newsroom tweaks

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I have moved this discussion from the newsroom to here. Let's please keep the newsroom relatively clean; suggestions for articles go here (or even better, to the suggestions page), the newsroom ought to be for internal discussions. ResMar 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Following separate discussion with the head editors I have reorganized and refactored the newspaper's internal organization somewhat. The changes should be evident at the newsroom. All, ResMar 03:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Archival effort

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Extended content

Conversations from the opinion desk talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Extended content

I really hope that The Signpost doesn't become openly political (in terms of real world politics.) There's already too much of wiki politics for my taste. The real world is already there for all of us. Speaking for myself, I don't want to see more of it here in the The Signpost. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Until Skomorokh gets back, the opinion desk isn't going to be doing much of anything. As a general statement though, I don't think you have to worry. My attitude during the period that I was the coordinator was that if it didn't unambiguously have to do with Wikipedia, I had no interest in hearing about it. This has and will occasionally lead to people taking points that really aren't about Wikipedia and trying to write Wikipedia into them, but generally that's pretty transparent. The Signpost doesn't publish every opinion submission it receives. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing archives

It should be noted that submissions have been deleted without having been archived - I think anything before November 2011. E.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion_desk&diff=445853458&oldid=440464071 edit summary: clear out old.

I understand that such maintenance is an extra workload - perhaps links could be given to old versions, as an easy way of doing it. I'd do something myself, but I'm not familiar with archiving conventions. And I need to get back to work... Thanks. --Chriswaterguy talk 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Response to Brandon Harris' op-ed

Hi. I'd like to write a response to Brandon Harris' op-ed from August 6. Any thoughts on how best to do this? If I'm able to write something coherent by the weekend's end, could it be published in next week's issue? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If it were finished by Sunday evening UTC, I would think it could probably be reviewed (and copyedited) in time, yes, I would think so. Obviously Ed has the final call on content, but I would suggest that "same subject matter, different POV" is far more likely to be publishable than "Why I think the last guy is wrong". More specifically, Toa wrote on the talk there that "There is obviously a large segment of the community that does not like this idea and they need a voice too", which would, I think, be a bad starting point for an interesting and publishable Op-Ed, whereas "There is obviously a large segment of the community that thinks the following projects better meet the community's needs" would be be far better, if you see what I mean. My 2c anyway. Maybe start with something in userspace, which can then be moved across? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If I had been online sooner, I would have said the same thing as Jarry. Framing it in presenting an alternate point of view, rather than an attack on the last op-ed, both looks better from the SP's POV (I'd rather not have a personalized Wikipedian-WMF war waged through the Signpost ;-) ) while also making strides in advancing the debate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

All right, fair enough. I started work on a draft here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20/Op-ed. It was originally titled /2012-08-13/, but that was a bit of a pipe-dream. These thoughts need more time to fester. I think Steven Zhang was wanting to approach you all about an op-ed for this next issue as well, so it's probably for the better in several ways. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Both of you warned me to not write a response, but the page is now titled "/Response" (without the piece even mentioning what it's supposed to be in response to). This needs to be re-thought. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This is now fixed, thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Submission mechanism

Is there a way to make the mechanism more approachable for inexperienced editors? I just made a submission, but felt I had to be rather determined. I crafted it manually. Is there some form of guided submission mechanism that I missed? My grandmother never knew how to suck eggs, and I had no idea how to teach her either. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, you did it perfectly. The wording is confusing. Apologies, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Your clarification "overleaf" helps. I think my question was in two parts. You have made a great attempt at part 1.

Part 2 is about the actual 'thing' that is submitted. I chose to look at a prior submission and craft mine to have similar characteristics. I did that because I could!

Do you mind if the submission is not submitted, for example with the pathname as I chose? Can the piece be (say) in a user's sandbox and you grab it from there if it makes the cut?

I'm thinking of my granny again, you see. How would granny, who is keen on articles about knitting, draft and submit her WikiKnitting article here? Can we (by which I don't mean me, nor do I necessarily mean you) help her. She's pretty worldly wise, but she has no idea about modern things! Do you know a bloke who can put a thing together where my dear old gran can enter compulsory stuff in fields and it creates the article for her with th right pathname?

The reason I think this may be useful for you is to get a better pool (wider is not always better, but it can often be) of submissions form which to choose and thus create an even better Signpost with less effort by you on minutiae allowing you to do the creative stuff more easily. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The piece can be anywhere; we're pretty loose about that. When I have time later, I'll try to make this more user-friendly. Thanks for the help. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Conversations from the About talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago55 comments19 people in discussion

Extended content

newspaper?

Is the Signpost a newspaper in the true sense of the word? From Merriam Webster's definition, I think that the Signpost would qualify as something new altogether. (Unless we send out print copies). I see it as more of a on--wiki publication or periodical. Thanks, GChriss 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Periodical is a very general term. Our content model is that of a newspaper. It may not fit some literalistic definitions for that anachronistic term, but I don't see that as a problem. It's a newspaper published on a website, just like lots of other newspapers are published on websites. In an industry that's trying to navigate a shift in delivery models, we're perhaps fortunate not to have a big legacy commitment to a print version. --Michael Snow 19:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How about producing a PrintABLE version?Ajuk 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Look in the toolbox to the left (on the default Monobook skin) for the link that says "Printable version". --Michael Snow 22:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

In my first year or two here, I looked at the Signpost only a few times and saw it as an insiders' bulletin and not very interesting. After adding {{Signpost-subscription}} to my talk page in late March 2008 to track the progress of Single User Login, I began to see it as truly the Wikipedia editing community's weekly newspaper. I'm eager to read it when a new issue comes out. (I miss Greg Williams' "Best of WikiWorld" feature—I hope it can be resumed or another cartoon feature developed.) — Athaenara ✉ 02:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Where does the Signpost go from here?

What is the mission of The Wikipedia Signpost and what purposes ought it try to serve? What guidelines for content should the Signpost adhere to? Are opinion pieces or editorials desirable in the Signpost, and if so how should they be handled? What are the Signpost's relationships to the English Wikipedia community and the broader Wikimedia community, to the Wikimedia Foundation, and to the outside media that also cover Wikimedia issues?

I hope this RfC will result in a refined "About" page for the Signpost and a clearer idea of whether or how the Signpost should foster discussion through opinion/editorial content about the big issues faced by the project and community.--ragesoss (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See also

Tip line discussion about proposed opinion piece
"From the editor", Signpost volume 1 issue 1 - Michael Snow's introduction describing his concept of the Signpost

Goal

To me, the major purpose of Signpost is to unify the English Wikipedia community. It's a very broad community with hundreds of subprojects and vastly different activities going on: vandal fighting to preparing Wikipedia 1.0 to doing community outreach to chasing down references to researching Brazillian soccer players... Signpost is where the different communities can get a glimpse of what each other are doing, and how their activities all fit together to further one purpose. So I see the feature pieces about different projects as critical. Stevage 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The overall goal should be, as Stevage points out, to highlight what is taking place on different parts of Wikipedia. Help editors keep up to date with the happenings they may have missed. The other more editorial content should play a secondary role, though it too should be kept. Stevage makes a point about featuring different projects, perhaps a regular article like the Report on Lengthy Litigation should be introduced to cover the creation of new and the progress of old WikiProjects? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 16:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was a regular section? Maybe the stories about WikiProject:Chemistry were just sporadic rather than regular? IMHO, reports on progress of old projects are more important than new ones - plenty of other places to advertise those. Stevage 02:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Mission/purpose

A mission statement seems like a good idea. I'm going to propose something just to get the discussion started...not sure that this is even remotely right though! -Pete (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost is a weekly online publication serving the international community of editors of the English language Wikipedia and related projects. It covers significant changes in policy, trends, controversies, technology, volunteer and staff position changes, and projects, with the aim of keeping the community informed, motivated, and engaged. Published on the Internet under a copyleft license, it is available to all readers, reflecting and promoting Wikipedia's openness to new contributors.

How about just condensing Michael Snow's initial post?:

The Wikipedia Signpost mission is to be a worthwhile source of news for people interested in what is happening around the Wikipedia community. Published on a weekly basis, it is designed to resemble a newspaper. It will strive to maintain its objectivity as would be appropriate for an independent media organization elsewhere. The Signpost focuses strongly on the English Wikipedia and can spare people the effort of trying to be everywhere and read every community discussion. The subjects covered will be whatever community subjects interest the readers.

Questions: Is there anything here that is no longer true? Is there any other goals or characteristics that are not included that have proven to be as important for the Signpost since it was founded? - Banyan Tree 02:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that in the above, "The Wikipedia Signpost mission is to be a worthwhile source of news for people interested in what is happening around the Wikipedia community" would be the mission statement. This is very different from the need meant to be filled by the mission or how the mission will be accomplished, which is the filler in the rest of the post. - Banyan Tree 02:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's my go at a mission statement and a scope outline:

The mission of The Wikipedia Signpost is:
to be a worthwhile source of news for people interested in what is happening around English Wikipedia and throughout the Wikimedia community

to keep the Wikimedia community informed, motivated, and engaged

to serve as common ground for Wikimedians seeking to understand and guide the development of the Wikimedia projects

to push for transparency and accountability on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation as well as the Wikimedia community itself

to provide a point of contact between the Wikimedia community and the broader public sphere that discusses and analyzes what we do

The scope of The Wikipedia Signpost includes whatever subjects affecting the Wikimedia community and projects that readers are interested in and writers want to write about. These have included:

Discussions and changes of policies, guidelines, and other rules and norms on English Wikipedia and other projects

Trends and statistical data about the projects

Project governance, including elections and arbitration

Editorial processes and their results (including featured content and other quality assessment)

Controversies and disputes, both internal and external, that have significant impact on Wikimedia projects and their reputations

Technologies relevant to the projects, and their development

Perspectives from individual volunteers and Wikimedia staff members

The Wikimedia Foundation and its operations, staff and trustees

External media coverage and its quality and impact

Scholarly work that analyzes Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects

Book reviews

Wikipedia- and Wikimedia-related entertainment and humor

It incorporates elements of the first two statements and adds some things are part of what I personally think the Signpost does or ought to do.--ragesoss (talk) 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Content guidelines

Just a note, that IMO The Signpost should comply with MOS, as it offers a sample of Wiki guidelines to all readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would like to have some more information about how we develop regarding tech stuff (growth in servers, bandwith used etc), an added benefit of covering this could possibly also be to give more credit to those who run the hardware we all depend on for our writing, and help raise more funds for these much needed machines. Amazing also that a mostly amateur site can be so fast, better than many of the professional sites, would also be interesting in some articles about this. Ulflarsen (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps technical reports can be merged with the report on litigation? The question arises on how to source or gain access to this data, is it made publicly available? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Just had my attention drawn to the acronyms. I can see the point of BRION for the tech report, but are TROLL for litigation and DRAMA for discussion just a little too in your face? Hiding T 10:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion/editorial content

IMO, Snow's "worthwhile source of news" hits the mark. Some of the interviews might need editorial oversight, lest they verge away from facts and towards one editor's opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a regular "Letters to the Editor" page/feature is worth a try (if this isn't the right section to post this suggestion, please move it; thanks). — Athaenara ✉ 00:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I as well. Though I think that the editor-in-chief does need to be picky. I would suggest a word limit (500 words or maybe much less) for "Letters to the editor" just to make people get to the point. (I think anyone who has seen the novellas some editors feel a need to write on project talk pages rambling from one topic to another can see the aim of this, nevertheless a group of them on one page.) I envision a "Letters to the Editor" including all such posts, perhaps arranged by date of submission, rather than a separate page for each letter. If there are extended opinion pieces, like that submitted recently, there should be a footer explaining what standing the opinion writer has, including potential COI, e.g. Ex-clerk writing on ArbCom matters. I would suggest a template at the top of each page stating something to the effect of "This is an opinion piece. While vetted by the Editor-in-Chief, it may not represent the views of the Editor-in-Chief or The Signpost as a whole," just to draw a sharp line between the articles where the writers are attempting to stay on an even keel. - Banyan Tree 02:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that incorporating some sort of opinion format would be worthwhile. In theory, I suppose it makes editorial decisions a little more significant, as far as...what perspectives are sought, and what is published. But I suspect we (or Sage) would be able to deal with that effectively, one way or another. -Pete (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

More editorial content, please. I especially think a "From the editor" column is worth a shot. And I second or third the notion of a letters column. It would pretty much write itself. Hiding T 13:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I am not too sure I agree. As I mention in the #Goal section, I believe editorial content should play a secondary role. The primary role of the Signpost is to coordinate between various communities and subsections of the Wiki and keep everyone abreast of the latest developments even in areas with which they might not ordinarily concern themselves. Editorial content does have a role to play, but honestly, a "Letters to the Editor" and a "From the Editor" sections? On an open collaborative Wiki? Not only does this send the wrong message, but it makes no sense when you can just drop by the editors page and be having a direct discussion without any fanfare. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 16:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense when you consider that Wikipedia is also a community and anything that can be done to foster a sense of community is of benefit to the project. I don't see how "Letters to the Editor" and "From the Editor" sections in a community newspaper would harm an open collaborative Wiki. Especially when you consider that this open collaborative Wiki also harbours a secretive decision making process and a God-King to boot. The great thing about being an open collaborative Wiki, when you think about it, is that nothing is actually ruled out because of that fact, rather everything is ruled in. And I'm not sure in what way "Letters to the Editor" and "From the Editor" conflict with keeping everyone abreast of the latest developments in areas with which they might not ordinarily concern themselves. Surely such sections would enhance that. Hiding T 22:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I would like to see such sections created then, if only to see how well they do. My overall point was that editorial content should take a back seat to technical content, but such minutiae get lost when I am editing at 3am the night before an exam. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it seems like most people who've commented think some sort of editorial/opinion content would be a useful addition, I think we should try it out. I'll put out a call for letters to the editor in the coming issue, and we can see how that works out.--ragesoss (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to community, WMF, media

At least at the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål version of Wikipedia I believe there are quite a few that read and follow Wikipedia, same goes for contributors to the Estonian language Wikipedia. It's good if the Signpost cover the whole of language versions and not only the english language version of Wikipedia. Ulflarsen (talk) 08:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I would have thought other language versions would have their own publications. Does anybody know if the larger ones do? If so, it might be worthwhile trying to engage the editors in this discussion... -Pete (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If they did it would good for all wiki's ;signposts' to summarize each another in a international section. If signpost is the only active one, maybe editors to other wikis could be persuaded to give an overview of their resoective wikis for an inclusion in this section. L∴V 00:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Publication technology, commenting

Last time I was involved with a discussion like this (when Sage first took on editor-in-chief duties), I suggested syndicating Signpost content via blogs/RSS. I was really pleased to see http://www.wikipediasignpost.com/blog -- but what I had in mind was somewhat different. I was thinking the actual content, not just a directory, could be published on a blog. This would have three advantages: (1) it would be possible to actually read each story as a separate piece in an RSS reader, (2) it would be possible to republish selected pieces of Signpost content on other web sites (which might or might not be useful), and (3) it would be possible to discuss Signpost content in a centralized place (in the blog comments).

What do others think of this idea? It would take more work to maintain...though it might be possible to automate publication. Are these worthwhile goals? If so, are there other/better ways they could be accomplished? -Pete (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pete. I'm open to something like this if there is a good way to do it automatically (or if someone else wants to maintain it). I'm a little wary of blog comments, which might dilute the main venues of discussing Signpost content, the talk pages, but if a lot of people like the idea it might be worth that risk.--ragesoss (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm- I guess I'm so used to using talk pages to discuss changes to content, it didn't even occur to me to use them as venues for discussion of a Signpost story. Do they get used for that much in practice? -Pete (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A related question -- can you maybe post the number of hits that wikipediasignpost.com gets per day/week/month? This would be interesting to know, and maybe compare to stats for on-Wikipedia viewing. -Pete (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this idea of using the talk page for discussion about a news item, and have a couple things to bring up. They both spring from the notion that blog software is generally designed to facilitate discussion, and Mediawiki software is designed for a more general purpose.

First, a general point: while I think the Signpost is primarily meant to serve the community of existing Wikipedians, often its subject matter is interesting to beginners, or to people who are not "yet" Wikipedians. For many people, entering a discussion on a Mediawiki site is one of the more daunting challenges. You have to learn some wiki markup; you have to learn some loose and variable conventions about indenting, bulleting, etc.; and to be taken seriously, you pretty much have to have a user account. A blog is generally a much more inviting for the non-hardened-Wikipedian audience to ask questions, raise observations, etc.
Second, looking at some numbers. Essentially, considering the ratio between page views and comments, and comparing the wiki Signpost pages with blog posts. To do this scientifically would take a lot more time than I can put in right now, but I found two posts that are reasonably similar in subject matter:
- this Signpost piece was viewed about 1300 times in July and August; it received zero comments on its talk page.
- This blog post was viewed 260 times; it received 15 comments in the comment thread.

Of course that is just a single sample. But none of the Signpost pieces that I looked at had robust discussions on their talk pages; so I remain kind of skeptical that on-Wikipedia discussion should be considered the "main venue" for discussing a published article. -Pete (talk) 15:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

If the main Signpost page was in blog format, I think it might work. I wonder if we can get the devs to put a blog at en.wikipedia.org/blog or signpost.wikipedia.org or some such. Articles could still be developed wiki-style, and then put on the blog at publication. It would make corrections more complicated and reduce the amount of spontaneous copyediting that happens (unless editing posts could be done by anyone, but I don't think WordPress does that).--ragesoss (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we really want another three-user sister site, which is what this sounds like it will turn into? What happened to the original idea, namely a simple RSS feed which would publish Signpost articles? If anyone wishes to make a blog out of it on their own time/dime, they would be welcome. By the way, I too didn't know talk pages were used for discussion of articles, perhaps we should publicise this fact further somewhere? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just add a "Discuss this story" link into the standard footer? I think you and Pete are right that Signpost talk pages would get more discussion if people didn't have the idea that they were only for coordinating the writing.--ragesoss (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good and simple enough solution. A standard header on the talks explaining the situation may not go amiss either. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's been tons of comments this issue, which is great to see :) regarding the per-article RSS, I've set up this feed, which works for this issue - it remains to see how it will cope with automatically updating. Pretzels^Talk! 14:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Redesign

I would suggest making it a little more up to date looking, and I'd be glad to help. Honestly, I think it would get more views if it was just a bit (gasp!) tabloid looking, or at least cleaned up. I would be more than pleased to help with that, being an ad agency owner and a designer.--RobNS 02:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested to see what you have in mind. Feel free to sandbox it so it can discussed.--ragesoss (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Something splashy would be cool. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of images in the body of the text where appropriate may improve readability. Such images to be free-use images only. These may need to be protected in a similar way to those appearing on the main page are for the duration of the edition of Signpost in which they are used. Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I shudder to think what might happen to the Signpost under the guise of jazzing it up. Frightful Flash videos, blink and marquee tags and animated gifs spring to mind. I strongly vote for leaving it as is. The Signpost has an admirable simplicity and clarity to it, both of which significantly contribute to its readability and accessibility. It is unencumbered by distracting and unnecessary images, templates or colours unlike much of the rest of the Wikipedia these days. The Signpost is not a tabloid, and I sincerely hope it never turns into one. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see sandbox versions rather than rule anything out. It'd be nice to at least have something I could judge. Hiding T 22:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC):
It probably would be possible to allow different "skins" of the Signpost through templates and separation of the body of articles and their stylesheets. Might be interesting to see a few sandbox versions, but I still would prefer the default remain the current design. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Tweaked the code slightly to better match the current layout, and change the text depending on whether there are comments already or not. Pretzels^Talk! 22:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice.--ragesoss (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't we have several 'skins' by transcluding sections, that way we have ye'olde, traditional, futuristic - whatever styles readers prefer ... L∴V 00:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

More prominance

Currently if I want to quickly catch up on whats happening I go main page, scroll down, click community portal, scroll fown, click the signpost. I believe the signpost should be accessible from the main page, it gives a alternative and succint view of current happenings and an insight into the inner workings of WP. Even if a first time reader might accidentally enter this domain, they would be given a better appreciation of what WP is about... L∴V 00:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Classified section

How about a 'classified section', I'm picturin a few categories with a selection of relevant or random snippets. Examples Rfcs, events, Help wanted ( a couple of projects in there), Help Offered, commendations (awards), commemmorations. L∴V 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Further areas of WP

Another bonus for me would be including a short summary of more areas of wiipedia , e.g. village pump proposals, reference desks. I am not sure really but I just know there are communities out the in WP doing lot's of hard work that isn't obvious to the community at large - say wikignomes, antivandals, admin stuff ... L∴V 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not affiliated

well its running on their servers, if that's not affiliation ... -- 78.51.178.201 (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Conversations from the Interviews desk talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Extended content

Informational interview questions

Some of these questions might be useful to use in our interviews. Obviously, they're more geared toward seeking information to help one figure out whether a career would be a good fit, but some might be helpful. http://www.quintcareers.com/information_interview.html Tisane (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Tips on effective interviewing?

This is a bit of a unique situation in which to be interviewing, in that a lot of community members are anonymous, and we're not in the habit of contacting one another by phone and whatnot. But I read in this article that the results of email interviews can end up being "stilted and unnatural." Any thoughts on effective interviewing, given the format/environment we have? Tisane (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Conversations from the Review desk talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Extended content

Everyone Knows Everything: Wikipedia and the Globalization of Knowledge, by Marshall T. Poe

I'd be really interested in reviewing this one. I can't say I have specific expertise in epistemology but I have spent some time discussing the very topic of this book. In real life, I'm a university professor. I first got involved on Wikipedia (under my main account but I'd rather keep anonymity in this case) because I used it to find quick info on fairly technical subjects in my field. When reading such articles, I know enough to tell the difference between solid information and low-quality or even incorrect/misleading content but I often see that my students fail to treat Wikipedia as a potentially flawed source. I also have discussed with colleagues the gap between our expectations of Wikipedia as a reliable hub for globalized knowledge and our reluctance to put efforts into contributing to highly specialized topics. Ragesoss, I can send you my email and postal address if I can have the privilege of doing the review. Pichpich (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia, by Robert E. Cummings

Frankly, the concept of teaching writing in the age of Wikipedia is of great interest to me. Cummings seems a sensible man, and I'm interested in hearing about his opinions on the matter while bringing substantial Wikipedia experience to bear as I review the book. Rageoss, I'd be happy to send you my postal address etc. via e-mail if I have the opportunity to read his work.– Thomas H. Larsen 06:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, for that book (and Lih's) I found reviewers by announcing the opportunity on the Signpost suggestion page. The publisher has already sent out 4 review copies to the people listed. However, we're planning a voice discussion among a number of people who are interested in Wikipedia assignments (including Cummings, if he can make it for whatever time we schedule). See Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Wikipedia assignments.--ragesoss (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand completely. I wish the reviewers all the best—good luck! I'll be eagerly awaiting the public release of the book. – Thomas H. Larsen 06:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus on Wikipedia?

I think we should clarify that (if...?) we are focused on Wikipedia, and clearly state whether we will review books that don't mention the word Wikipedia (or at least any project of Wikimedia Foundation of the foundation itself...). Also, what about reviews of academic articles? I don't think this is centralized now. --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews aren't limited to books that mention Wikipedia or other Wikimedia projects directly. Some deal with issues that are important to the community (e.g., intellectual property, research methods, the sociology of online communities) and can be applied to Wikipedia by savvy readers. We have a review of The Independent Scholar's Handbook in the works; it was published in 1993, but the reviewer sees it as relevant for Wikipedians. I've tried to make it clear that the main criteria is that reviews should be written for an audience of Wikipedians; feel free to make changes to the introduction or guidelines.

As for reviews of academic articles, that's something I'm open to, at least for specific coherent collections of articles. Evaluating (and not just reporting on) academic articles is a little trickier than reviewing books, because the associated genre ("review article") is more specifically a scholarly endeavor than the "book review" genre (which varies widely, and is flexible enough to accommodate opinionated reviews). But the more we can get in the Signpost about academic studies of Wikipedia, the better, as far as I'm concerned.--ragesoss (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Against the Machine: How the Web Is Reshaping Culture and Commerce -- and Why It Matters, by Lee Siegel

I'm willing to review this book. Actually, it would really interest me because one of my current MET courses is called Curriculum Issues in Cultural and New Media Studies so I would be very interested to read Siegel's take on the cultural aspect in particular. The course text I am currently reading is called Culture & Technology and it's informative but rather dry--I am guessing Siegel's book would balance out my readings nicely. If you have a review copy, I can email my address to you, let me know... If not, I'll grab a copy from Amazon. κaτaʟaveno^T_C 02:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Done - needs updating

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Review_desk#The_World_and_Wikipedia:_How_We_are_Editing_Reality.2C_by_Andrew_Dalby is done - just read it in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-03/Book review :) Also, I am wondering - are Signpost articles categorized - can we see the "Signpost book reviews" category? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus| talk ]] 21:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Piotrus. I saw this message when you posted it, and updated the page. As to your categories idea, I thought that was a good idea and planned to add cats to all the reviews, I just hadn't gotten around to it yet, and so put off replying here. Feel free to add such cats yourself if you like, or I'll get to it soonish.--ragesoss (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Book reviews inactive?

It looks like this section of Signpost has been inactive since 2010. I love reading book reviews, especially on communal projects (like WP), social media and how technology is impacting culture. Any chances you might revive this area? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

@Ragesoss and The ed17: I'm interested in writing some reviews once the fall semester ends. I'm looking at The Plugged-In Professor: Tips and techniques for teaching with social media by Ferris and Wilder ~~as well as A Social History of Knowledge II: From the Encyclopaedia to Wikipedia by Burke~~. I'm not opposed to other books already on the list. Any recommendations? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Conversations from the Archives talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Extended content

Sort Archives by Subject

I have a suggestion: could we have an archive of Signpost articles based on the arcticles' subject? I'll get working on that if anyone else thinks its a good idea. JaredW! 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That an excellent idea! (three years and three months later...) --can dle •wicke 02:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Tutorials TOC

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Tutorial. —Markles 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Search link?

{{Google custom}} can search the Signpost and its archives:

{| class="wikitable"
<!-- ! width=280px | Type this !! width=130px | To get this !! What it produces, or searches for -->
! Type this !! To get this !! What it produces, or searches for
|-
| <tt>{{google custom|en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost||Search Wikipedia Signpost}}</tt> || {{google custom|en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost||Search Wikipedia Signpost}} || Blank form to search the [[WP:SIGNPOST|Wikipedia Signpost]]
|-
|}

I suggested adding a search link to {{SignpostNavigation}}. Perhaps a search link on the archive page would be helpful too. --Teratornis (talk) 05:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Conversations from the Resources talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Extended content

Editor discussions

Moved from Newsroom ResMar 00:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this week's issue! A lot of good stuff. About publication time: This time, Tony and I worked hard to eliminate the N&N/ITN bottleneck that caused so many delays in recent months, and we were mostly successful. But then other problems dragged publication into the (UTC) evening again. Still, we managed to publish well in Monday territory, i.e. with the correct date, and it was the most punctual of the last six issues [4]. We should try to publish even earlier, though. As a regular section writer, please do not plan to add substantial content on Monday afternoon/evening, it might be too late by then - preferably add it on Sunday or earlier. (Yes, this means the WikiProject Report.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Length: ramifications for us, the readers, and the deadline. Yes, it's a very very beefy edition: in display mode, nearly 13,500 words!!!. It's really good, I agree, but we're starting to get longer, and I'm concerned that readers will balk at the task. Such an expansive model also makes it harder for us to meet the deadline. One principle I've heard is "Leave them wanting more". The relevance of this is that rather than trying to be comprehensive, taking all of the apparently runnable stories, we might consider drawing a line under shorter pages; I'm referring mainly to ITN and NAN, but all pages are a concern. Two big stories seems enough to me—or three if they're not each so big—plus the "Briefly" section. I think a three-minute read for each is asking enough of visitors. Drowning readers in text, perversely, has the effect of dampening their interest, I think. (Research confirms this in supermarket isle consumer choice.) I wonder whether we might establish a loose guideline for the maximum length of each page, just as there is for book reviews, for our own sanity, as much as that of the reading experience?

F and A length. In terms of F and A, I worry that it's too long; there are going to be times when I can't sink so much time into it (at the moment it's just doable). I want to experiment with listing all FAs and FPs in the coming week, but supplying blurbs only for what I perceive as the most newsworthy, the most interest to our readers; this is already what we do for the FA and FL pics, of course. The service of laying out titles and links will still be provided, but the journalistic "good read" might be limited to blurbs on a third to half of them. Is this OK if we experiment? Dabomb, with whom I've raised this, does the FLs (and important late-stage fixes on the whole page); there are usually fewer FLs, so I don't see rationing it as such as issue. People seem to love the admin blurbs, so I believe all of those blurbs should remain as they are.

My opening-gambit non-binding suggestions for display mode word counts—and to be considered as a norm that is breakable according to the weekly ebb and flow—are this:

NAN: < 1,200 (this week 1,337)
INN: 1,000–2,000 w (this week 2,882)
Special stories (including Dispatches): < 1,000 w (the Tools article is 986, but would have been huge if not split into parts)
Book reviews: < 1,200 w as now (this week's 2,279 w)
WikiProject Report: > 1,000 w (this week was shorter than normal, at 1,077 w)
F and A: Cut many of the less interesting blurbs for FAs and FPs when a section receives a waterfall of promotions. Think of other ways of trimming. 1,500–2,000 (This week's is 2,576 w)

Technology and Arb reports don't seem to present size issues.

This is a very raw set of estimates. Pleased to have your thoughts. Tony (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I've not been a substantial contributor for a few weeks now, I think this is a very good idea and certainly the next step for the Signpost - improving our quality control. I definitely think NAN and ITN should stay short and snappy, pointing readers in the direction of more information if they need it. Special stories and book reviews though, should remain in-depth and complete, although this can be achieved by running them as a series. F&A is getting very long, but it's still developing in its new format so I'm not too concerned about it. Would it be a good idea to get a definition of what each regular section is, what should be in it, general format guidelines and the suggested word count on our Resources page? This discussion might be better held on the main talk page. — Pretzels^Hii! 17:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"NAN and ITN should stay short and snappy, pointing readers in the direction of more information if they need it" - indeed there is a frequent problem in these two sections with stories that consist mainly of copy+paste from a single source. I think a good principle that can guide editing of these sections is that Signpost stories should add value beyond mere paraphrases. This can be done in the following ways:

by summarizing/highlighting the most salient points from the source, i.e. saving the reader time and, as you say, pointing them (as a good signpost does) to the source which is often merely one click away
by adding relevant details that are missing in the source (very frequently there is an opportunity for that in ITN, e.g. when newspapers report about certain edits but fail to provide difflinks), or noting corrections
most importantly, by providing context and additional reporting - e.g. for a press release, explain what may have prompted it or ask others for additional quotes (that's what Tony did with the Health speaks story); for a new proposal, mention earlier similar proposals; for a controversy that is only covered by current soundbites in the source, provide some history to help understand the positions of the protagonists (that's what I tried with the Wikileaks story)

Having definitions for the regular sections is an excellent idea, especially to clear up the frequent confusion between ITN and N&N. Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with guidelines of this sort is that it might cause us problems in the future because feedback is never constant - that is, at one point, for example, arb report used to contain stuff people didn't care for so it was made a lot more succinct. It was then later considered too sanitised and not sufficiently detailed (and the titling thing too). Readers tastes will keep changing and we'll keep changing so that they don't stay bored, and keeping those guides up to date will be a bit of a headache.... As it is, changing policy/guideline can be an insane exercise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Length control should be instigated on a case-by-case basis. ResMar 17:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true that this week's issue was longer than usual, but I haven't seen any TLDR complaints by readers yet - on the contrary, this rather enthusiastic comment (by a former competitor ;) explicitly applauds this issue having a lot of content. My impression is that the reader who reads the whole issue from start to finish is the exception. People are more likely to pick the topics that interest them according to section title, subtitles, and story titles; so it is much more important to have a good structure than to limit the overall length. - That being said, there is certainly a danger in stories becoming too bloated. But I believe it is better addressed by cutting text on its own merits, i.e. because it is redundant or irrelevant (something I do each week and encourage others to do too), rather than imposing detailed, artificial word length regulations. Also, they would create all sorts of practical issues:

The need to make contributors constantly aware of how much space "is left" or "needs to be filled" (one solution would be to require everybody to install the "Prosesize" script, but its "readable prose size" feature - which counts words - does not seem to work with the Signpost format, and also I think such requirements might be off-putting for many contributors).
Generating needless friction - I do not want us to be in a situation where someone who comes in with a good, interesting news item anxiously checks page sizes to see whether it would "fit in" or whether he would need to advocate deletion/redaction of stories that are already written up in order to make room for the suggested topic, etc.
I also think the proposal seriously underestimates the "ebb and flow" of relevant news to cover. Compare this week's ITN, covering 10 different news items and the upcoming one, for which we have only two or three of similar relevance so far. It is an established fact that a publication format which is too inflexible to handle such variations causes serious problems.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we are talking about editorial decisions "up the line", as it were. Obviously, it would be the job of E-i-C to make that decision to include or otherwise, or allocate weight to any given section. It may be difficult to implement any 'hard and fast rules' as to the length at the contributing editor level, who should obviously bear in mind that there is a certain need for brevity, for length may be detrimental to quality. But they should note and accept their contributions may be heavily edited down at a global level. A balance always needs to be struck between exhaustivity and readability, and retention of readers' interest, and we obviously don't want editors to be put off from inserting some newsworthy topic just because some word limit they need not to be concerned with has been reached. I can also contribute by ensuring the prose bloat is minimised, but I would prefer to work to fairly clear guidelines to minimise potential conflict and complaints from contributors. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If the rest of Wikipedia is anything to go by, it will certainly only create more conflicts that are worse in too many ways; the rest of us, and consequently, The Signpost, will end up being worse off because of it. That is, guidelines don't exist for inflexible mindless hammering by some users; those users tend refuse to accept that or to even recognise when they are doing so. I'm not prepared to support turning The Signpost into yet another disaster zone of that sort. Moreover, I don't see anything that needs to change; based on the way we do things at the moment, we've got the balance and the reader interest and until such a time that I see evidence that we're actually losing it (which isn't going to happen when we continue with the same approach anyway), this becomes a foolish exercise. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No one is proposing hard-and-fast word limits, but guidelines that at least act as a benchmark from week to week for our own judgement. Every journal of any professionalism has such guidelines for length, and advises journalists, contract writers and letter writers of these limits. I was not proposing a tool with which to beat people over the head.

Some of the pieces have been too long (including my own), and lack "tightness". It's no big deal to apply nipping, tucking, trimming, and even lopping. Fact of life; cost of doing business. Tony (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess we all agree that there is a value in conciseness, and that articles often can be shortened, although the difficult thing is to determine when that is the case.

It is valuable work to going through Signpost articles before publication and look for opportunities to shorten them without loss to the reader. Writers should be prepared for this and be able to give reasons for each part they want to keep in.

I just think that when one removes a sentence, it should be justified along the lines of "This is redundant to the previous paragraph" or "not relevant for Signpost readers", not by "this section is still 15 words above the length limit".

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't stuff creepy beans up your nose; it's not healthy for you, or the the encyclopedia :) again, people should determine length on a case by case basis. ResMar 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the beans situation, but I still think we should establish a brief explanation of what each section should cover, for reference and to help new writers start contributing within the format. — Pretzels^Hii! 00:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

By giving out percise rules you are tempting people to ignore them. Again, this is best applied case-by-case. Also, beans are fun

and I had to do something with the page ^^ ResMar 01:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

They're not precise rules. Tony (talk) 01:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. — Pretzels^Hii! 02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

As soon as one writes down concrete numbers, one will run into the problems described above. The more one loosens such limits to avoid inflexibility, the less they will serve their intended purpose. Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

With the pending trial done and gone, I'm thinking about writing up a history as a special report. If school doesn't get in the way of course; it has a way of doing that... ResMar 01:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that somehow related...? If anyone wants to have a shot at an initial definition for a section, a good place to do that would be Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Resources. — Pretzels^Hii! 02:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I just wrote an initial version, please review. Besides giving a rough idea of each section's scope (this shouldn't become too detailed), I also tried to clear up the frequent confusion between "News and notes" and "In the news", and address the issue (discussed above) of ITN stories that basically just paraphrase a media report instead of pointing the reader there and adding own value.

I'm not yet sure if "Resources" is the best place for these, one could also think of the "About" page.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the About page may be more appropriate if we do go ahead with this, but the resources page seems to be perfect for us to try it out and come up with something. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know really, the 2009 article is a great summary :) ResMar 02:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Series

Conversations from the Series talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Extended content

Should the Wikimania 2006 series go here? I'd like to call it the "Wikimania 2006 series" on the page itself, but M.A.N.I.A. (Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages) in the footer. +sj + 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Movement roles

I'd been planning a series of overviews of serious movement roles - from those the MR working group is tackling this summer to those that were raised during the strategy discussions and have yet to be revisited. Hopefully this will have two outcomes:

the MR working group's work will be more visible and get input from critics and enthusiasts
people will think more about how we scale decision making beyond simple consensus - how we hack it now and how we might do this in the future
people interested in tackling the movement roles of individual contributors and wiki-projects -- something expressly left out of most MR discussions to date because of its intricacy -- will sign up to take part in a similar process over the coming year.

HaeB has been bugging me to do this for some time (thank you!); I'd love to have a coauthor for the series who isn't otherwise involved in those discussions to ensure the result is engaging and useful. – SJ + 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Idea for the first 10 issues in the series:

Jun 13 - Movement roles (intro, whitepapers, overview of current work)
Jun 20 - Transparency and accountability (fundraising summit recap)
Jun 27 - Clarifying roles: movement models (historical examples)
Jul 4 - Independence and shared principles (local projects, a movement charter)
Jul 11 - Community roles (counterpoint to initial MR focus)
Jul 18 - Conflict and resolution (wikimedia examples)
Jul 25 - Global communication (multilingual and cross-project decisions)
Aug 2 - Setting shared priorities (flow of funds, Wikimania pre-cap)
Aug 7 - Future of the movement (next steps, Wikimania recap)
Aug 14 - Fundraising and grants

Conversations from the Style talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Extended content

Almost impossible to find discussion

I have Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue on my watchlist. When I go there I see no links to discussion of the Signpost articles. When I go to the single-page edition I still see no links to discussion of the articles. When I go to Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20 I still see no links to discussion of the articles.

Only when I click on a specific article from the Signpost do I see discussion. There needs to be an explanation of how to find the individual article discussion on the entry page, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue, and on the single-page edition, and on the book edition (Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20). --Timeshifter (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The discussions are of articles; the discussion pages are where they should be, and function in the watchlist like they should. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The individual article comments are in the correct place. But many people do not know of those discussions. This discussion has more participation:

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue#Almost impossible to find discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Conversations from the Issue talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Vital articles debate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Conversations from the purge-list talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Extended content

Pages to be calculated at run-time

Any page that transcludes any of these pages needs to be purged when the bot is run, but only if the page listed below has been modified since the last purge:

Anything in Category:Wikipedia Signpost or its sub-categories excluding archive and static pages.

I would have put this on the project page, but that page looks like it's meant to be input to a bot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'll generate some lists tonight using AWB — then I'll get to writing some actual code. :) —Theo polisme 00:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that just Category:Wikipedia Signpost is a little too....expansive?

Snipped during archiving. ResMar 19:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I did actually read your message. In going through the list above, and as Ed says, the only really 'in need of purge' pages seem to be the base Signpost and /Single. Have you seen anything else? —Theo polisme 00:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The list above is not meant to be a list of what should be purged.

Rather, it is a list of what needs to be checked to create the "to purge" list.

Here's what I had in mind:

For each item in the list above:

Remove items we know we don't care about, such as old archives

Has the item changed since the last purge? If no, move on to the next item in the list (this will be the case for almost all pages in any given run).

With what's left:

Calculate a list of all Wikipedia pages that transclude this page. This is our "to-purge" list.

Remove any obvious historical page or page not of interest, such as old Signpost archives, discussion pages, and possibly user pages (there is merit to purging user pages, but there are a lot of them). Possibly remove everything other than Wikipedia: and Template: pages from the list.

Purge what's left on the list.

Of particular importance:

If any of the Signpost-related templates are changed, any pages that transclude them should be purged fairly shortly thereafter. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single alone uses 9 templates that have no protection and which are not date-specific.

After two or three weeks of runs, we may find it easier to do the "full run" only once a week and create a manually-maintained short list of pages that should be purged frequently. Basically, anything that was purged at all after the first week would be a good candidate to be on the short list.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Purge frequency

I would recommend purging every hour for a day or two after the new Signpost is posted, then every 6-24 hours after that to pick up late changes and changes to things like templates that might happen at any time. I also recommend a method to kick of a purge "on demand" and/or "delayed on demand," that is, schedule a purge within 1 hour if an editor requests it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider semi-protection

Consider semi-protection of the actual list of pages the bot pays attention to. Granted, if the bot monitors all pages in a category, that can't be protected using normal protection mechanisms. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Conversations from the Tutorial series talk page

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Single-page view

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just a query and suggestion here. Whenever I get the delivery on my talk page, I normally go to read the issue through the "Single-page" link. However, that link has been red for a long as a day after publication lately. When it's still a redlink, I just plain don't read the issue, and I've forgotten to read issues right away as a result. Whatever has changed recently, can you un-change it so that the "single-page" version of The Signpost is a valid page at the time of delivery? Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's an issue with redirects. I'll ask Jarry to change the page address in the bot delivery. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Internal discussion (2)

Latest comment: 9 years ago46 comments8 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is unproductive. ResMar 05:17, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The part Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work. - That was Oprah who said it. I take her word for it. --Hafspajen (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. While I'm very sure that it was unintentional (really, I can't stress enough that I'm not blaming or mad at you or anything like that), I don't feel that it should be in a description. Is that alright? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Then I simply have to say, I do not agree. Which part of the :Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise. Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work. - is sexist? It was maybe a joke, but part of it was serious. I am going to reinstate either way the: Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise. -

Can't find ANYTHING offensive with this. Not a word, not one single word of it. About the part Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work... - I don't find it sexist at all. I what what is this sexist? ON THE CONTRARY: In this world where people only look for women who are young, beautiful and all guys try to find YOUNG women, who are willing to look up to them because they are like ten years older and so called wiser and measures their value in youth and beauty - our friend Sheikh Mijwal al-Musrab stands out as a shining star. It is a man who married a woman twenty years older than him and made her happy. Excellent. Just wonderful. Every woman, every feminist, every person who cares about a woman should applaud this. It is a man who cared for a woman for what she was, and have seen her with his hart and not with his eyes. And succeeded to won her heart, above all stupid barons, all kings, a princes, a colonels, and counts who never succeed to keep her for long, because she left them. That was no woman who knew nothing about men, I can promise you. I now reinstate the part: Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise.' Hafspajen (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. The above is not. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I move this discussion to Signpost talk. And if you remove this once more I remove all the enrty and leave nothing but: Jane Digby (created by William Charles Ross, nominated by Alborzagros ) This miniature by the artist William Charles Ross portrays the fascinating Jane Digby. - That is what I have to say. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

For one thing, it used the patronizing word "girls" instead of "ladies" before I changed it. The Signpost was two days late waiting for FC and we had to make a last minute call late in the evening our time on Friday, and that was the decision we made. We appreciate and value the time all of you take to create FC as it is an important part of the Signpost, but when it is significantly late we have to sacrifice our time at odd hours as well, and we have to make decisions like this without the luxury of being able to discuss them with you before publication. We are willing to discuss editorial decisions with you in private or in public, but delivering public ultimatums is not professional or appropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hafspajen, last night while we were in the process of publishing, we noticed that the summary in question could be perceived differently than we know you intended it. After asking for some input from others, we decided it would be best to pare the summary as we did. We certainly do not think you intended it to be "sexist", but as perception is reality, we needed to guard against it being perceived that way. Thanks for understanding. Go Phightins! 18:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You apparently tell me that you didn't afforded the 'luxury of being able to discuss them with ME before publication. But you decided to discuss it among yourselves. Now answer me just one question: Do you, Gamaliel, Ed and the guys deciding this - DO you know if I am a man or a woman? Please answer the question with a simple yes or no. Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes-

No-

go ahead. Hafspajen (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

We were all online publishing the Signpost at the same time. The bot is down we had to publish manually, which is laborious and time-consuming, so thankfully others were there to assist me, and we collaborated via a Skype chat. In the process of publishing, someone brought up the passage in question. I have no idea what your gender is and it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. At the time we did not know or discuss who contributed the language in question (which would have required searching the edit history, something we did not do) so it would not have mattered if any of us knew your gender. Our concerns were not with you, your gender, your thoughts, or your intentions, only the language used. We believe your intentions were positive and not negative. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

You didn't answered the above question. It is not irrelevant in a discussion about being accused of sexism. Not a bit. It is the core of the question. If you don't know - than you all made the sexist assumption that I am a man making derogatory comments against woman.

If I am a woman, in that case you three are now forcing me to step up and disclose my gender, to defend myself. Because in that case I can't be making sexist remarks, can I?
If I am a man - than I must defend myself as I did above.

Wrong in all ways. Either ways - do you wish that I should here and now disclose my gender? If you do, I will. Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: No, I most certainly made no assumptions about your gender. What I saw was language that could potentially be construed as sexist, something we've been accused of missing, and decided to play it safe. Your gender is, to me, immaterial. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not immaterial. Because if a woman wrote the above - it is not sexist. If a man did it, it is. Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil is a woman. Do you think User:Sagaciousphil - the above remark is sexist and a derogatory comments against woman? Hafspajen (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No one has accused anyone of sexism. We do not think you are sexist. We disagreed with your choice of language, that is all. At the time we made the decision to change the language, we did not know or care about the gender or identity of the author. You don't have to be sexist to accidentally make a mistake that someone perceives as sexist. Gamaliel (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

What Gamaliel said. Someone I trust told me that she thought it was sexist, so I took it off, thinking it was an uncontroversial editorial choice that still had an enormously interesting blurb (that's a lot of affairs!). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

How am I supposed to interpret the words (posted on my talk) : Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. If you don't think I am sexist, don't say so. Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *Firstly, let me thank Hafspajen for all the work undertaken - I'm sure that was also "laborious and time consuming". Please explain how the comment can be perceived to be "sexist" and by whom? As a British female I just cannot see it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC) And it does come across as Hafspajen being accused as being sexist. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

No doubt it was difficult and time-consuming for them, and I have repeatedly praised Hafspajen and others who put together FC for their hard work. Why do you find it so difficult to believe someone would perceive something in FC that wasn't intended by the author? After all, right now you are perceiving an accusation of sexism where there is clearly none. Gamaliel (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ - and I find your comment and tone unbecoming of an Admin. I'm withdrawing from any further participation in this "discussion", it just reminds me of the way certain areas of SignPost are being used. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Well... that's a pretty low bar for being unbecoming of an administrator, no? We're trying to maneuver to protect the Signpost from undue accusations, that's all. Clearly the FC team puts in an enormous amount of work each week, and everyone else—especially content contributors—appreciates that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ask AGAIN: How am I supposed to interpret the words (posted on my talk) : Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. If you don't think I am sexist, don't say so. Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

She said the sentence was sexist, not its author. That is not the same thing. Gamaliel (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The sentence was sexist. Not you. I am have written sexist sentences without being a sexist person. These things happen even when we don't intend to. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Näää. Tell me then how the sentence was sexist. And also who is SHE who said She said the sentence was sexist, not its author, may I ask. Hafspajen (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)^{Difficult not to perceive it as such, if someone tell you you write sexist things .}

Just tell me then how the sentence was sexist. And point me to that discussion you had can't notice any discussion about the topic anywhere, not newsroom or any talkpage. Hafspajen (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Was it: Older woman-young guy – it can work? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Was it: Their marriage was happy? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise? Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

We asked two women about the passage in question. We are not going to divulge their identities without their permission. Gamaliel (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The use of "girls," which has commonly been used as a demeaning term, and the whole concept of demanding that ladies consider younger men for their marriage possibilities. I'm not going to name who gave me the opinion—it would have a chilling effect. This she read the sentence without any context (read: knowing who authored it) and gave an opinion. That's all. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is answering my question (girls were removed when you removed the bit already, and and yes Ladies were an improvement, thank you Gamaliel) :

−

Was it: Older woman-young guy – it can work? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

− −

Was it: Their marriage was happy? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

−

Was it:Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise? Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

− −

YOU can answer it without ever telling me who said it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

And the context was: Sheikh Mijwal al-Musrab was a man who married a woman twenty years older than him and made her happy. She was forty-six, and he was twenty-six. He was a man who cared for a woman for what she was, and have seen her with his hart and not with his eyes. And succeeded to won her heart, above all barons, all kings, a princes, a colonels, and counts who never succeeded to keep her for long, because she left them all and : Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise - Hafspajen (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think it made as much sense without the following context. That said, I probably could have left the "happy" sentence. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

May I? I think its sexism is marginal (for clarity's sake, this is what we're talking about, I believe), but if I were running the show I wouldn't print it either. Sorry Hafs. Oprah said this? If she did, it was for a very different audience than the Signpost. Besides what I think is marginal sexism, there's tone (but perhaps I'm too formal) and content: it suggests that women always marry men. But yes, "Their marriage was a happy one" could have been left. But let's please realize that "sentence A is sexist" is indeed dependent on context etc., and that no one is accusing no one of being a sexist. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Women who are forty-six, together with a guy who is twenty-six are often harassed by society and are indeed regularly facing people making derogatory comments against the woman, yes, sexist comments from all the others. Oprah said this, yes - when making a program about women living happily together with younger men. Married, living in serious relationships. AND we also made a lot jokes in the Singpost - before. And some women do marry men, the above example was about a man and a woman, and just how are we supposed to bring in same-sex marriage into it? And before anyone starts that part - I am not against that either. The Swedish church do allow gay marriages. And has woman priests to. All priest-candidates are regularly asked before getting into the program :Do you have anything against to perform blessing or joining together in marriage a gay couple - and if you say, I am against, you are out. Hafspajen (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

May I add a few comments? I think this discussion is actually about several different things, and they've all gotten tangled. Regardless of what one thinks of the quote, Hafs has told me that s/he was up all night working on the Signpost - that is, actively editing on WP. If the editors working on the Signpost is indeed a team, it would have been courteous to ask Hafs what s/he thought before removing the quote. Not asking Hafs may have made him/her feel as if s/he were not an equal member of the team. Also, this is the second time in the last few weeks that I've seen hurt feelings and misunderstanding arise out of a rush to get Signpost ready for publication in a very short time. Isn't there any way to work ahead a bit so that there is a little more time for discussion before publication? CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the above comment. It was told, somewhere above: After asking for some input from others, we decided it would be best to pare the summary as we did. I agree, why wasn't anyone asking me? I was spending my Saturday that in fact I intended to spend a very diffent way, by editing the Singpost. Circa eight- nine-ten something hours. I was up until dawn, fixing this one and putting up the next draft, all night. Here next issue. I could have told you the story THEN; instead of NOW, publicly, as you stated above. And about the rest (not this issue) why - well, my theory is total lack of communication. Nobody knows what the others do or intend to do. Hafspajen (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought we were working as a team. I was actively editing all night, so you could have contacted me. I feel it would have been more courteous to ask me before removing the quote than to remove it first and let me find out after publication. Regarding the quote, I do not understand how it can be perceived as sexist. Could somebody please explain to me exactly what in the quote is sexist, and why? Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Haf, we can't monitor everything that is added while it is being added. We published only minutes after you finished! We're going to start a dialogue this week to get our houses in order (with regards to communication), and I'm very hopeful that Resident Mario will be able to code a bot to significantly lessen the manual labor you all have to to. As for the sexism, Drmies explains it well above. I'd add that "ladies" and "girls" are words that should be used cautiously. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@The ed17: I wouldn't wait for a bot with bated breath, unfortunately the problem looks to be more complex than I initially imagined. Did you know that WP:GO is also updated manually? Since 2004? Wow! Nonetheless I'll look into at the end of this month. ResMar 03:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean, I did know, but being clueless in these matters, I did not know would affect the construction of a bot. :-p Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Signpost MfD

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

(conversation moved from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions)

I was going to propose an MfD for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Set, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deadline/core and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Colour as it seems like they haven't been regularly used in several years. Alternatively, you could mark them {{historic}} if you wanted to retain them for their page history. What do you think? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: No it's in active use—it's a sub-template for {{Signpost assignments}}, the core status matrix at the newsroom. Also, two things: we ask that users not get overly zealous with deleting materials in the Signpost namespace: see this discussion for instance, which resulted in a failed MfD and a truckload of ill will. Things that may seem useless now may come in handy in the future (I just brought article status templates back, something we last used in 2012). Second, this page is our tip line, meant for story suggestions only; more general messages should go to the talk page. Thanks, ResMar 15:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok seriously look before you leap. ResMar 15:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

One, I've already asked Gamaliel if I could work on the Signpost categorization system and got the okay to organize pages which lack categorization. Issues like this one will come up during that process. Second, I am not deleting anything, I left a note here describing what I found. I realize that it is up to the Signpost staff to determine whether something is in use or not so I will not be putting forth any proposals. If I see a page that looks like it hasn't been used in several years, I'll note it on the talk page then and you all can decide what to do about it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Contact me on #wikisignpost ^connect to further discuss. If you are interested in categorization there's a project we're starting soon that will be in your domain. ResMar 15:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if those work pages were not currently being used by Signpost editors, it would be apppropriate to mark them as "historical" using Template:Historical, i.e {{Historical}}. I suspect MFD and other deletions have been used sometimes when stuff should be saved. WikiProjects and other Wikipedia-space material should often be kept this way, else we lose our own history of how Wikipedia was built. Workpages and their edit history provide the records of good work done by many editors, keeping them retains our/their ability to document what they did and credit them. So, Liz, if you come across other workpages not being used, don't think they must be deleted. --do ncr am 05:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've since deprecated a lot of stuff with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Deprecated. ResMar 12:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Refresh

Latest comment: 9 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

Statement of facts:

The content of an article being written is at the discretion of the writer.
The content of articles to be published is ultimately at the discretion of the editor(s)-in-chief.
When making significant changes or removals editor(s)-in-chief ought to speak with the writer as part of due process.
When this is with regards to material added on-deadline or past-deadline, however, prior consent is not always possible.
The removal in this case was minor and in no way impacted the general palatability of the article.
Continuing to argue over it will get us nowhere.

If we wish to argue about the issue of communication within the Signpost we can commence it here. ResMar 05:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

cf. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination. ResMar 05:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't count on me. I agree with the part: The content of an article being written is at the discretion of the writer. The rest - no. Dead-lines occur all the time. If this is not a democratic process, but an announcement about that discussion forbidden, when it takes two seconds to leave a message - I can't agree. On Wikipedia where even admins actions can be discussed, and if editors are not respected but commanded as in the army - no. It was fun, until it lasted. I removed myself from the regular editors. And, a last minor point - nobody did answered the question. Still. The only thing someone told me was that an unknown woman thought it was sexist, without even knowing the context. And who knows, maybe I am a woman myself. If this is true you are loosing the one woman editor you had. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not true. One never knows. Hafspajen (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Haf, just the appearance of sexism—even in passing, and even if only through a quick reading, not a close examination—is undesirable in a community that has a 10–90 gender split and at a time when males have had almost all of the social and economic power in society for a looooong time. Could you be a little flexible on this? I like the humorous vein of FC. Is that your doing? Tony (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Partly, yes. Hafspajen (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

With regards to sexism, who the hell cares. With regards to communication, we're an online newspaper, we don't do things the same way the rest of the Wikipedia publication does things. It's not that these things can't or shouldn't be discussed, it's that at the end of the day the editor(s)-in-chief have final say. ResMar 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In this case, it wasn't even that we wanted the final say, we just didn't know that this change would be so controversial. We would have gladly engaged in a discussion of this change if we knew it would be so objectionable and if there was time before publication. We are, of course, willing to engage in that discussion now, as we have been for the last two days. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

If it was taken so seriously that the the whole bit was cut, then it's serious enough that it should be able to explain it to me when I asked. I never got any strait answer, the issue was dismissed. If you are so afraid that someone *may* read sexism into something, then that is kind of makes my case. And if me - who possible, who knows - could even be a woman - or not - but if -and didn't thought it was sexist, probably it was not that sexist at all. Hafspajen (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue was not dismissed; User:The ed17 and I spent a great deal of time yesterday discussing this issue with you. If you still have concerns, we are still willing to discuss this matter with you. User:Go Phightins! will also be contacting everyone involved with FC soon to see what we can do to improve the production of that section. Gamaliel (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, in that case if you are still listening to me: in my view this sentence was all about the woman having agency. I was recommending women to consider *choosing* young men or at least to *listen to* and *look at* them. The whole point of my sentence was - women *choose*. Most people find it very hard to think of a woman having agency - in their minds the woman gets mobbed by lots of men and the most she gets to do is decide how many times to say no. If you are used to thinking of the man as always doing the asking and not thinking about what the woman might want, maybe you could miss that that's what I *wrote* was chosing - a choice - one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will. For what it's worth, that is what I meant. Hafspajen (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@Hafspajen: User:Go Phightins! is attempting to contact you to discuss this incident. Would you please email him? He cannot email you since you do not have email enabled on your Wikipedia account. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

There may be movement soon on getting FC set-up botted, but it'll take a while for the code to come together. ResMar 14:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the whole damned thing is a tempest in a teapot, but here's my opinion anyways. First, AFAIK the general condemnation of the word "girls" is a predominantly American phenomenon (though if I'm mistaken, do be sure to let me know), and thus part of this is quite likely a cultural misunderstanding. (And last I checked, the word was being reclaimed by some circles, such as Riot grrrl, though I doubt it's that mainstream yet)

Second, if our benchmark is "may possibly be construed as sexist", that's way too low: even asking a woman the simple question "When are you getting married?" could be construed as enforcing gender roles by saying that a woman must be wed. "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", by the same standard, could be understood as a sexist song. Yes, we have to draw a line, but "may be construed as (racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.)" is probably not it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

April Fool??

Latest comment: 9 years ago38 comments8 people in discussion

I completely disagree with the vulgar comments made by Adam in this week's FC. Wikipedia is not censored, but does it mean that you can say of scro*** of John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore and the like. -The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You... do realize that the content itself regularly includes painted nudes and the like, right? Hell, this very week includes Sardines (Inside No. 9), which is far worse than anything in the issue in that respect. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am well aware of it Adam and have supported many paintings in FPC. But what is related to the Hafnium and Earl pictures? You can comment on the others of the kind which reveals the nudity, not on the completely unrelated ones. I again say..I DISAGREE...-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 16:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

As a possible compromise, could we maybe allude to it instead of mentioning it outright? Gamaliel (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Even Wikitionary says so, which ought to be good. But with signpost, I will say as Gamaliel had it, allusion...-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't work as a joke - sporran scrotum are similar - if we don't use the word. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well. I don't see it as a problematic word, but I'm also not a large fan of gendered jokes. In any case, you may find it funnier to run with the very concept of a kilt, which is silly enough (in American culture, at least). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I live in Scotland. Wordplay's one thing.. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

People on the streets of Edinburgh

Gosh, took me a while to got it. Um, saying to a Scottish that kilts are "silly", it's the same as saying saying to an American that the Statue of Liberty is silly, or to an Indian that Ghandi had a silly outfit. I am fine now, if puts me back on the redaction list I will edit again, and well, Hafnium as a sex- toy ...

..ahem .. well. Huh. ^{^{^{^{You know.}}}} Hafspajen (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

At the Wedding of Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, and Mary Donaldson, of the Danish prince, the future Danish king, the relatives of the bride, Mary McDonald were all wearing the McDonald clan's kilt at the wedding, when the guests from the bride's side were filmed there was an endless row of guys entering the reception and all guys were in kilts, actually. check out Mary's dad leading the bride in the church dressed in kilt- It is considered a serious full dress. Something the Scottish are very proud of. When the Danish Queen raised and held her speech at the wedding, saying she is welcoming the family of Mary into the Danish Royal family, Mary's dad held the next speech, in kilt, and said he is now welcoming in turn the Danish Royal Family into the members of the McDonald clan ... it is a serious thing, this, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Some useless stuff on some thing called continentalism/culture of no use which very few could understand. Come on guys..Its April fool..-The Herald ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

American culture obviously rules yet again ... to insinuate kilts are "silly enough" is insulting and yet more evidence of American POV pushing. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil: See, that's why I included in American culture, at least. I'm certainly not certain how it comes off elsewhere. That said, let's not go overboard and start slinging accusations of being an American POV warrior. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Everything's offensive to someone, in this case there is the trade-off between funniness and the number of offended parties—in this case, indignant Scotsman. ResMar 21:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I don't want to mess with indignant Scotsmen. Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) Unfortunately, having witnessed SignPost being used to push the POV of certain editors and seen accusations of "sexist" and accusations of editors being "racist" being slung about, I find it sad that the kilt is considered "silly enough" - it appears the only opinion considered "sensible" and not "silly" is the American POV ... ... by the way, a "ping" will only work if you have the courtesy to get my user name right - however I do appreciate courtesy is something many US editors don't bother to extend to British editors. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

So this really isn't about a kilt at all then, is it? Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

You've asked a person from Scotland to poke fun of Scottish icons, instead of doing harmless wordplay. And ignoring completely, I might add, the one entry I thought might possibly offend people, and was willing to back down on.

So far, I've had complaints about: 1. harmless wordplay. 2. jokingly saying that the person Michelangelo copied from wasn't important. The latter complaint at least had a little merit: the joke needed to be more over the top to make it clear I wasn't serious.

Remind me, why am I agreeing to do this? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I ask myself that same question every day.

You guys were working together long before I came along, I'm sure you know that Ed meant no offense. Some harmless suggestions were made; you are free to accept or reject them as you see fit. Hafspajen complained that we did not consult him or her before we made some changes to FC that we mistakenly thought would be seen as minor. This is exactly what we are trying to do here, consult the people who create FC in advance. I thought that would be greeted as a positive effort. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Perhaps the ridicule of the kilt serves to emphasise the fact Americans and certain SignPost editors/Admins are unwilling to concede there are cultural differences? SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Ed was just pointing out that Americans think it's funny. Others disagree. So we won't make fun of the kilt. But really, the suggestion of a joke in a section regularly filled with jokes - for the April Fool's issue no less -- is hardly the cause for drama. And really, you've pretty much come out and admitted that the kilt is a pretext for airing your preexisting grievances. I am already aware of your grievances regarding Hafspajen, but please take the opportunity to educate this American about whatever other cultural differences that you feel are at issue regarding the Signpost in general. I try to write with an international audience in mind, such as avoiding too many overly American idioms and attempting to insure that the coverage in ITM is international, or at least as much as it can be with only two languages and a limited amount of time at my disposal. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"certain SignPost editors/Admins are unwilling to concede there are cultural differences" Are you joking, Phil? If you'll re-read my second post above, I plainly stated that I wrote those words to account for the possibility of cultural differences.

@Adam, I meant no offense to Scotland, not in the least. I was pointing out another possible angle to take, with the possibility/expectation that it would be rejected. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(After yet more edit conflicts) I doubt you will want to hear my opinion - yourself and your "co-editors" have ensured (doubtless via Skype/off wiki discussions) that the only POV included is your own; you all caused great hurt and distress, which you have still not acknowledged or apologised for, but continue to consistently "close" any discussions that are not following a path of your choosing while still happily slinging accusations of "sexist" or "racist" as it suits you - of course, you also selectively block/deny talk page access to suit your own agenda ... but, naturally, you all consider your opinion is all that matters - perhaps you should consider asking the opinion of British females about the supposed "gender gap" instead of always deferring to the vocal/vociferous Americans? And, by the way, my husband is Scottish, so ridiculing the kilt is insulting. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If you think I did not want to hear your opinion, why did I ask for it and why did you offer it? I certainly am not asking for it because I enjoy being denigrated publicly.

I am aware of your opinion regarding Hafspajen, and as we have repeatedly said, no accusation was made of sexism, and we have repeatedly affirmed on numerous pages that we do not think that Hafspajen is sexist. I regret what has happened and we have all labored to attempt to address grievances and miscommunications and repair relationships. I do not know what else we can do here, but we are not going to acknowledge or apologize for something that was not done.

I would like to hear some specifics instead of generalities on these other Signpost issues you allude to. Gamaliel (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, since you asked: you specifically use SignPost to push your POV regarding gender gap and gamergate; SignPost was recently used to manipulate an AE request. I worked in the media for many years and so can easily recognise media manipulation and POV pushing ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"SignPost was recently used to manipulate an AE request."? What? Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What a short memory you have ... think very carefully - or I guess you could always "phone (or Skype) a friend", perhaps even "ask the audience"? Do you instigate so many AE requests/clarifications that it becomes difficult to differentiate between them? SagaciousPhil - Chat 23:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Or you could just say what you mean. Your continued vagueness only convinces people of the lack of substance to your complaints. Gamaliel (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

We're instigating AE requests? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Who have we caused hurt and distress to? I've never heard an allegation like this before. Are you aiming these comments at me, Gamaliel, both, everyone, or who? Is your complaint only recent or long-term? What's wrong with our gender gap coverage, aside from there not being enough? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(again after edit conflicts) I can easily be very specific - however, it will no doubt result in you (Gamaliel) slinging further accusations and blocks around: "racist", "abusive emails" (please note I have not and will not ever email you), take your pick. SignPost was recently used to manipulate an AE request; the hurt and distress caused to Hafspajen cannot surely have been forgotten and disregarded by yourselves so quickly? SagaciousPhil - Chat

Since you are unwilling to identify the AE request or how it was supposedly "manipulated" by the Signpost, I can only conclude that your allegations are without any substance or merit. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

"Forgotten and disregarded" ..... or just utterly confused. Give us specificity, and then we'll all talk on level terms. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

SignPost carried a piece recently which resulted in Gamaliel instigating an arbitration request against Eric Corbett ... "give us specificity, and then we'll talk on level terms." - joke? There is absolutely no point in trying to discuss these matters with yourselves, you have closed minds and are selective in what you want to hear. SagaciousPhil - Chat 23:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I am glad you were finally forthcoming with the substance of your allegations. The Signpost posted a piece written by User:Go Phightins! which quoted comments by Eric Corbett. A comment on the story by User:Ironholds suggested that these comments were a violation of a topic ban by Eric Corbett. After I read that comment, I submitted a request to WP:AE to determine if this was a sanctionable violation. That's it. There's nothing there that constitutes a "manipulation" of anything. I understand you are angry on behalf of your friend Hafspajen, but that does not justify fabricating allegations out of whole cloth. Gamaliel (talk) 23:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

No, not a joke at all; I'm quite open-minded. I would be worried if Gamaliel had written the story himself, but having no involvement in crafting it, I think he's well within his prerogative as an English-language Wikipedian to file a request at AE, no? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Taking administrative action on something that happened in a Signpost article might be a potential conflict of interest, but submitting it for others to evaluate is not a "manipulation", it was the appropriate course of action. Gamaliel (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I beg to differ - manipulation and distortion were used; had it been an "appropriate course of action" it would not have been declined. Whatever: the actions by SignPost editors have caused a great deal of distress and hurt to Hafspajen, which are still unresolved, and you no doubt continue to decide everything between yourselves via "Skype discussions" - not exactly the open and transparency supposed to be used by Wikipedia, is it? Any discussion that doesn't suit is summarily closed. Anyway, I have nothing further to add to this "discussion" - there is little point in trying to discuss matters with those who have significant POV problems and I note Gamaliel is slinging further accusations by stating I am "fabricating allegations" - par for the course, I suppose. SagaciousPhil - Chat

Sorry, did you just seriously say that the options are "everyone agrees Gamaliel is right, every time" or "Gamaliel is engaging in manipulation and distortion"? Do you seriously see those as booleans? Ironholds (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

At least in the mass of hot air that was the sexism debate there was a kernel of reason for concern—the procedures for editorial changes made immediately before publication deadlines. This, here, is just patently ridiculous. I don't have the others' level of patience, phil, and I seriously suggest you go do something more productive. ResMar 01:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You have yet to identify this supposed "manipulation" that you are accusing the Signpost of, while hypocritically complaining about supposed accusations by me. And the claim that anything submitted to AE that ends with no sanction is some kind of breach of process would be considered laughable by the administrators working there. But these are all side issues; clearly you are really mad about Hafspajen. We have labored to resolve this issue but to our regret we have been unable to. We attempted to have a Skype discussion with Hafspajen but they refused. We find Skype a more appropriate place to discuss sensitive issues than a public talk page where drama mongers can attempt to inflame issues for their own ends instead of working to solve them in a constructive manner. Gamaliel (talk) 01:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No traffic report this week?

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I mean, it's done, it's right there. Serendi ^pod ous 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

We'll be running a non-April Fool's issue this evening with ITM, traffic report, and news. Gamaliel (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: I put a note in the newsroom and pinged Milowent elsewhere, but I should have pinged you as well. My apologies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Serendipodous, thanks for catching. milo_went at yahoo.com is best email to reach me if anything urgent ever comes up. thanks.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Double and triple delivery

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi subscribers, if you've come here to ask why the Signpost was delivered two to three times in the last three hours, we're as mystified as you are. I've left a question at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders#Multiple sends. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

SVGs used on content guidance page

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The SVG images used in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance should be redone to sync the names with the rows in the graphics. The way they are being done now relies entirely on users' font settings not being very different from those of the editor who added (or last changed) these images. In my browser, the last names are slightly off in the editor-in-chief image and completely off in the regular-features image. Alternative images containing the names exist at File:Signpost Head Editor Timeline.svg and File:Signpost Articles Timeline.svg, but I suppose the font was judged too small to be readable. In that case, perhaps the SVGs with names could be simply converted to PNGs and the names replaced with larger versions. - dcljr (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Dcljr: I'm afraid I wasn't aware of this issue. The reason I implemented it this way is that it's more useful for readers for me to be able to hyperlink references and names and section names. I tested it on two different platforms, Mac and Windows, and didn't discover issues. Since this appears to be an issue with personal fontage preferences, which to be honest, can and will mess up almost any sufficiently intricate design, I've gone and forced conformance with what my default settings be default. How does it look from your end now? This sort of thing is used in-wiki at times: see for instance {{clade}}. If it still doesn't work right I'll poke around at the village pump. ResMar 03:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Despite my great dislike of hardcoded font settings, I have to admit it seems to be necessary in this case. Works for me now. - dcljr (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 8

Contents

Two new templates proposed

Series

Tags

TEDx talk on astroturfing on Wikipedia

Double delivery

White House flexes Wikipedia muscles, with moderate results

Newsroom tweaks

Archival effort

Conversations from the opinion desk talk page

Conversations from the About talk page

Conversations from the Interviews desk talk page

Conversations from the Review desk talk page

Conversations from the Archives talk page

Conversations from the Resources talk page

Conversations from the Series talk page

Conversations from the Style talk page

Conversations from the Issue talk page

Vital articles debate

Conversations from the purge-list talk page

Conversations from the Tutorial series talk page

Single-page view

Internal discussion (2)

Signpost MfD

Refresh

April Fool??

No traffic report this week?

Double and triple delivery

SVGs used on content guidance page