Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

Archives: General discussion | Content | Features and layout | Feedback | Images and logos

Please discuss the layout of The Signpost page and other general or technical issues here. Discussion about news items and stories themselves should be directed to the stories' talk page. Suggestions for stories should be left at the Tip Line. The Newsroom lists other Signpost-related pages.

Userboxes:

{{User wikipedia/Signpost}}	{{User Signpost}}
This user writes for The Signpost.	This user subscribes to The Signpost.

{{Signpost-subscription}}

Contributors welcome

If you're interested in writing about community news for The Wikipedia Signpost, please contact me (on my talk page or via email, however you prefer) so we can coordinate our efforts. As editor, I would at the very least need to have an idea of what topic(s) you're covering. If you use the wiki to write drafts of a news story, please do this in your user space. --Michael Snow 09:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Do you want article-specific comments on their respective talk pages, on an issue-specific talk page, or here? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

On their talk pages is great, I do watch the articles for the week until they get archived. This page can be for discussion about the newspaper in general. --Michael Snow 07:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question about article submission

Can anybody just submit an article to this newspaper? Or, what's the submission process? Can one write about themself, if they use the third person? (And is good gramma 'n speeling a pre-wreck-squizit?) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Joe D (t) 12:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A better link might be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#In progress Reporters: note here what items you are working on ... editing each other's work is encouraged. In short, yes, anyone can submit an article (either simply suggest a topic or actually write the text themselves). This is a wiki - it will all be "edited mercilessly", of course! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Featured content changes

Dear Signpost,

I'm interested to see the editorial/layout changes in the "featured content" section - nicely done. I especially like the brief descriptions of the reason why articles have lost their featured status. A long time ago I asked if it were possible to provide some more details to that sections, so it wasn't so list-like. This brief description is right along those lines. Cheers, and have a happy new year.

Witty Lama 03:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This week's Signpost

Dear Signpost,

Why is this week's edition not up yet? It was supposed to be up yesterday! I know it was delayed the last two weeks because of the holidays, but the holidays are over!75.104.128.57 (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Will somebody PLEASE post the new Signpost already, or least answer my question!?75.104.128.57 (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I have been checking and checking and checking since yesterday! What's taking so long!75.104.128.57 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

We're very sorry, I'm not sure where Ral315 has gone to. I have the new issue up now. --Michael Snow (talk) 19:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!75.104.128.58 (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What is to be done?

Well, I've purged my cache, but still the only edition available is last week's. It's past 8 p.m. here (UK), so it's at least three days late now for pretty well everybody. It does not look good for this to be continually late.

It is difficult I know to choose from all the bits and pieces to construct something coherent, especially at these times when you have to tread very carefully. And real life can intrude at the most inconvenient times. But the delays are so frequent and so great that something must be done.

What should be done? Should the publication date be moved to Thursday? Should the Signpost be made a fortnightly publication? Should production be taken on by someone else? --Anthony Nolan O'Nymous (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing's to be done at this point. I could use some more writers; that would help it get out faster. Ral315 (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What needs to be written up?
--NBahn (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You could add short paragraphs to User:Ral315/News and notes about various minor stories from the tip line -- I'll probably add something there about the Board election and RecentChangesCamp, for example, unless you or someone else does so. Ral315 (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Next week : article about the Graphic Labs ?

Hello redactors of the Wikipedia Signpost, I come to notice to you the existence of the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab, where graphist work every days to edit image, clean them up, or create totally new image to illustrate and summarize articles. Also, an article may be really welcome, especially according to the fact that the graphic lab is use under it's abilities. "Images hunter" (people who ask image improvement) and Graphist are both welcome.

To write an article, you can look at :

• WP:GL/English_presentation_of_the_Graphic_Labs - summary 2005 to July 2007
• Wikipedia:Graphic Lab - the english one
• fr:Wikipedia:Atelier graphique - the "father" one
• commons:Commons:Graphic Lab School - a Graphic Lab School for foreign graphists who haven't graphic lab on their own wikipedia

If you wan to interview leading contributors :

• commons:user:Sting - currently and historically one french leader, especially good to do maps, and one of the 4 awarded graphist on commons.
• User:Rugby471 - historical leader here on wikipedia english.
• user:MIckStephenson and user:Sagredo- recently really active.
• user:Fir0002 - amazing photograph, had produce many features pictures.

Yug 23:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) (old french leader, now away)

This would be an opportune time given the recent FP 1000. MER-C 06:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Single-page view still links to last weeks Signpost

... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokizzy (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --Michael Snow (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I believe when the new parser kicks in next week, we should be able to have it update automatically; I've tried, but the current parser doesn't allow it. Ral315 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

How can I display the signpost on my userpage?

I'd like to display a small version of the signpost on my userpage. What template(s) can I use? Bardofcornish (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I noticed you have the template displayed at the top of this page. Sorry! Bardofcornish (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What, no ArbCom review in this week's Signpost?

Hm? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess not. David.Mestel, who usually puts it together, said he was very busy. Ral315 said he'd try to pick up for him, but that may have created too much work for him on top of simply getting the issue published. He's working hard to get back on the regular schedule. Basically, it illustrates the fundamental fact that we depend on having people step up and write. More reporters are always welcome. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was planning to write it, but it got to be 5 a.m. in my area, and I knew I'd have to delay the Signpost at least another 8-10 hours in order to add the report. Ral315 (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Other news?

Is the signpost just restricted to Wikipedia or can it report other outside real world news? And if so are there any plans to put this into operation? Harland1 (^t/_c) 21:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost coverage always has a relationship of some kind to Wikipedia. Perhaps you're looking for Wikinews? --Michael Snow (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, yes I do know what wikinews is, I was merely wondering whether there could be some sort of newspaper her, I suppose that it would be a bit silly as there are much better newspapers out there and ours would get out of date, sorry for asking such a silly question. Harland1 (^t/_c) 16:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New "Dispatches" series

I love the concept of the new "Dispatches" series, but I can't say I'm enamored with the name. It implies that we are at war out here while editing. The analogy is that editors are like soldiers. I'm not sure that is the image we want to convey. There is too much of that anyway and it signals destructiveness rather than constructiveness. Awadewit | talk 07:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's not an association I would have made. I wonder what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch would think about it? Anyway, while the image you describe is problematic, I don't at all see how it's necessarily implied by the term. --Michael Snow (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That was how the term was envisioned. See here. Awadewit | talk 18:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the name was inspired by a historical reference to mentioned in despatches you think the name of the series is going to make editors behave like soldiers? That's a bit of a stretch. Anyone who missed the editors note is never going to realize the reference, which is just a bit of fun anyways, meant to elicit a small :) from those of us that did read it :) Signpost titles are historically a bit tongue-in-cheek too. What's the acronym for "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" after all? --JayHenry (t) 19:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't the say the term would make editors behave like soldiers - I said it "implies we are at war" and that it is probably not the best image to put forth. That is different. And, by the way, I realized the reference without the note, and I certainly believe others did as well. It elicited a small :( from me, which is why I posted the note in the first place. Awadewit | talk 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for paraphrasing, Awad. My point though is that it's just for fun. It's not seriously advancing the idea that we're at war. --JayHenry (t) 20:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should be more conscious of just how many military history buffs there are around here, I missed that part of the note and the name doesn't really carry connotations of war for me. By all means, fight (combat? battle? attack? campaign against? My thesaurus isn't helping here) pseudo-military attitudes about editing if you like, they've been complained about in the past too, but I'm also not thinking this is the most important front (excuse me again) on which to tackle the issue. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I operate on the assumption that the words we use are important and signify our attitudes towards things. I know that the editors meant it as a joke, but my point is that the joke may not really send the best message. Awadewit | talk 03:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

While I obviously knew the reference Raul654 was making, having little military background, I didn't make the connection that the word was so wrapped up in military meanings. Wiktionary's definition (which I just looked up), in part, is "A message sent quickly, as a shipment, a prompt settlement of a business, or an important official message sent by a diplomat, or military officer." I would have never assumed the "diplomat/military officer" part of the definition -- it simply didn't occur to me. And I certainly didn't intend the name to be a joke -- if so, I would have probably stretched the current joke far past its limits, and named it "Editing Dialogue, Interactions, and Trouble On Roads" or something along those lines :)

That said, I'm truly not sure what most people would assume from the term; if it seems like a decent number of people have those same concerns, then it might be worth changing. I still see the term as multi-layered, only one or two of which have military references. I think my main understanding was that it was editors, dispatching editing news to us, and the Signpost dispatching this news to the editing community ("dispatcher" being the term there). And to be honest, I'm not keen on renaming a feature right after its introduction, but if there's a problem with the name.

Thoughts? I guess what I'm wondering is what everyone would have assumed it meant had I not explained Raul654's thoughts about it. Ral315 (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Raul brought it up a week ago at Wikipedia talk:FAC#Wikipedia dispatches and explained the title. Nobody there expressed any concern that this could somehow cause problems because of the message that could be sent by the title of the column. Maybe we could call it "Content Review And Promotion" or the "Weekly Article Recap" or "Best Articles of The Truly Laudable Editors". --JayHenry (t) 05:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes it's not even that. Words are important, but they are also complex and capable of many interpretations. --Michael Snow (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a question of whether the name has a military connection or not - it clearly does and the connection was announced in the first installment of the series. That the word has other meanings is clear. What we want to ask ourselves is whether or not we want to promote the war-like imagery that is clearly tied to the word. If we are going to change the name of the series, I would think it would be easier at the beginning of its run than later, when everyone has become accustomed to it. I'll try to come up with some ideas for names as well, but I need time to do that. I noticed that the initial discussion JayHenry linked to only went on for about two days. Awadewit | talk 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the same thoughts occurred to me when I read Ral's explanation of Raul's explanation of the title. I immediately thought of The Cunctator's words: "This user is a non-member of the Counter Vandalism Unit, because paramilitary fantasies have no place on Wikipedia." On the other hand, there is a continuum of conflict between cordial scholarly disagreement and actual war, and it's in some respects natural to invoke hyperbolic language about the things we care about on Wikipedia. At least with this particular piece of war-imagery, it's about a fight for something abstract (high-quality content) rather than against something concrete (e.g., vandals and vandalism). I'm not especially pleased with it, but it's tolerable to me.--ragesoss (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, when I first saw the name "Dispatches", I thought it was a new section about Wikipedians who had passed away. Not nice. enochlau (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally like the name. It's hard to remember sometimes that Wikipedia is so vast that some areas really are foreign countries (even just on en, not counting all the actual foreign Wikipedias!). It romantically conjures up the days of the British Empire, a period replete with amateurs and dabblers and heroic feats. There are worse associations. --Gwern (contribs) 21:18 4 February 2008 (GMT)

The single-page view has yet to be updated...

...leading to my inability to store it simply and quickly in my USB Flash disk and read the Signpost at my leisure, without spending precious Internet connection time. I really appreciate the work that the Signpost's editors make, but all these delays that have been characterising it lately are, I must say, frustrating. Waltham, The Duke of 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks updated to me, as of two days ago. I don't know whether automating that update has been improved with the new parser yet, though. --Michael Snow (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I can say, quite confidently, that it has not been updated; I have accessed the page from three or four computers during the last few days, from two different cities, and I have yet to see the new issue. Maybe the new parser does have something to do with it, but I shouldn't know, as this is nowhere near my area of expertise. Waltham, The Duke of 21:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not automatic (though may be in the future), and should have nothing to do with the new parser. Try flushing your cache. Ral315 (talk) 03:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work. I'm telling you, the situation is the same wherever I attempt to load the page; right now I am editing from a public computer I have not used for weeks. The same situation. Something is wrong... Quick question: can you see the page updated? Waltham, The Duke of 13:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If you saw the January 28th issue, that was correct when you posted it. I've since updated that to the February 4th issue; you should see that now. Ral315 (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, I was only able to see the 21 January issue (which was not correct when I posted this). I can now see the 4 February issue, and I assure you that it is the first time. Well... Problem solved.

I hope. Waltham, The Duke of 17:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why it would have shown the January 21 issue; I was seeing the January 28 issue the whole time. Good to hear you're able to see the current issue. Ral315 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I know I don't have to answer, but I just love the indentation. Anyway, case closed. Waltham, The Duke of 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Email or RSS subscription?

Was there at one time some sort of email subscription? I have a hazy memory of that, but I can't find any evidence of that now. Regardless, I'd love that. Or even better, RSS. If it exists, please point me in the right direction! Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Both existed at one time, but have been discontinued, because there really turned out to be no easy way to do either. Ral315 (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What if someone hosted a WordPress blog where we posted up the contents of each weeks' Signpost? That way people could have that on their RSS feed. Would that be a good solution? enochlau (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried that, but it became a burden for me. If someone else is willing to maintain one, I'll host it at wikipediasignpost.com. Ral315 (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiReto in Spanish Wikipedia

Might want to do a little blurb about Spanish Wikipedia having a year-long contest to create articles, called WikiReto. Cheers. miranda 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't sound one of the "media"?

In the "Features and admins" page, there is, as you know, a "Featured pages" section, a "Former featured pages" section, and a "Featured media" section. A very good layout, I should say—easy to read, and effective in handling all this data. However, I have one concern about the way this format is being used. Why is sound dealt with in the sections for pages and not in the section for media? Is sound not a medium itself? I find it much more rational to have articles, lists, topics, and portals in the former, and sounds, images, and videos in the latter. After all, these three are all in the Image namespace. Sounds have no content, so classifying them as "pages" simply makes no sense. Waltham, The Duke of 16:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is, and should probably be in media. Ral315 (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And it now is. Thank you for considering and applying my suggestion. Waltham, The Duke of 14:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

single page version not updating?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Tools/Single is still displaying the February 11th edition for me. RJFJR (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

SIngle page view behind

Single page view is still displaying Feb 11th's issue, but it looks like Feb 18 is complete... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, not again... I think it also happened to me yesterday or the day before, when I looked. In any case, it seems to be fine now. Waltham, The Duke of 16:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Protecting the current signpost

Yesterday, after a vandal had caused hundreds of pages to show up in CAT:CSD by placing a deletion tag on what was then the current signpost, I placed the current signpost under protection. Later it was suggested that I ask about it here. Do you think it's a good idea? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, and have been thinking about it since then. When the transclusion system was first put into place, I considered doing so, but figured I'd wait and see if anyone saw the glaring bug :) I see you created Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Protection, and I think it's a good idea. I don't think there's a major concern with non-admins needing to edit it -- in practice, non-admins very rarely edit the headlines. Ral315 (talk) 07:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Single-Page View Archives not updated for six months

It's a shame the Single-Page View Archives have not been updated since September 2007, I needed some catching up. A script or a bot should do that... 62.147.36.176 (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to get a script or bot to update the SPV archives? This would be especially handy when there are multiple issues released on the same day. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Curse you, Quiddity, you've ruined it all. You should have posted this 15 hours and 22 minutes earlier. :-D

Seriously, though, I agree that these things should be done automatically when there are the means available. At least when the manual system, erm, stays behind schedule once in a while. Waltham, The Duke of 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject report

Question: how can you apply your Wikiproject for the WikiProject report? The Chronic 06:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Question: Do you use the [see heading]? From what I have seen so far, the [see heading] has been mostly followed, although there are sometimes deviations, and dates have often been left unlinked. What is your policy on this? Waltham, The Duke of 22:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about regarding "see heading". Date linking usually depends on what the situation is, and we essentially follow a modified Manual of Style that's pretty much evolved over time. Ral315 (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Manual of Style, what else...? Fill in "Manual of Style" where "see heading". Tried to be a bit humorous there; it is quite obvious that I blew it. Waltham, The Duke of 03:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah; in some areas I'm great at picking up humor; I just seemed to be a bit dense when it came to that one. But yeah, the Manual of Style is a recommendation when it comes to the Signpost; usually, I link dates when they're in a reference, header, or a list of dates. When it's not really necessary, I don't make an effort to date-link, because for some reason, some users get really annoyed when there are a lot of date links in articles. Ral315 (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. And what about ENGVAR, to state it in Wikipedia terms? Do you always use American English or does it depend on the writer of each article? (I know I could just look this up, but I guess I'm a little too bored.) Waltham, The Duke of 00:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this question; it basically depends on the individual writer. I see no reason to edit for consistency as in general, Wikipedians are used to mixed variants of English. In practice, anyway, it's mostly American English, although we notably have a Canadian and Australian writing for us weekly right now, and have British writers in the past. Ral315 (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This is reasonable. I only make edits, nowadays, to correct obvious typos and a couple of punctuation matters (like en dashes instead of hyphens in number ranges and lists); these are common between the various dialects, are not controversial, and improve readability, if only slightly. If at some time I happen to overstep my bounds, of course, I should be reverted. I flatter myself that it will never be necessary. Waltham, The Duke of 18:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

News

Wikipedia in second place (after Google) on the 2008 Web Globalization Report Card. "This year, the report rated the Web sites of 225 companies across 21 industry categories, analyzing elements such as languages, global navigation, global consistency, and localization." VanTucky 19:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RSS feed

Hello. I made an RSS feed for the Signpost here via FeedFire.com. It seems to work well enough, although it's not super fast to update. Each post is a link to a story that week (not fulltext, but better than nothing). regards pfctdayelise (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand correctly FeedFire pareses the entire HTML page and then adds every link on it to the feed? In that case this api link might be more suitable, although it contains some garbage around it and sends out the wrong content type. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 10:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it adds every link with > 4 linked words. (That turns out to be quite a reasonable limit to figure out navigational vs new/s links.

Would that API link thing update itself every week as the Signpost page does? pfctdayelise (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It should :) Maybe when I have some time (in 2020) I'll create some tools for the Signpost, such as an RSS feed. -- Bryan (talk|commons) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What to watch?

I was previously watching the front page of the signpost to spot the new edition but I've just realized that this no longer updates so I am about 5 editions behind. Is there a page I can add to my watchlist that will simply update everytime a new edition is posted? I've not after a talk page or email, just something that shows up on my watchlist. - SimonLyall (talk) 02:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue. Graham87 08:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks - SimonLyall (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Classifieds?

I think that I may have mentioned this somewhere else before, but how about a classifieds section? People who want to get the word out of a neglected part of Wikipedia, asking for help, etc, can make requests. Since many people read the signpost, it can help bring people in to reduce both wikistress and the chance of a project failure. Some people may think this is Canvassing, but the counter-arguement: It is open, nonpartisan, neutral. Some may call it mass-posting, but because it's in with a message with at least 5 other projects, then it really can be considered an exception. I'd like to hear what you guys think! Soxred93 | talk bot 13:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the function of the Community Bulletin Board? Waltham, The Duke of 19:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The what? (by the way, this also shows that a change might be nice) Soxred93 | talk bot 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

News and Notes has been used to advertize stuff like newly launched projects, but a formal "classifieds"-like to advertize things such as informal or new project collaboration, prospective new projects and similar stuff. I'm sure the community will find uses for it. Circeus (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps...

I need more information to work on, and I shall reserve judgement until I have it. Waltham, The Duke of 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I really do not want to see classifieds; the signal-to-noise ratio, I think, would get too small. Ral315 (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

How do I join

how do I join to help write articles or write articles for the post?-- King Rock ^{Go 'Skins!} 00:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you in the Union? Sorry, but you can't join if you aren't in the Union. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 03:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An intensive background check on Kingrock disclosed no crimes of moral turpitude that would disqualify him from membership. Accordingly, he is hereby declared to be a member of the Union. As per custom, no dues will be assessed during the first year of membership.

OK, Kingrock, now that you're eligible, go to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom and check out the links there to decide how you want to contribute. JamesMLane t c 05:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to tell him you were joking about the union... Deadpan humour doesn't always work on the internet. Carcharoth (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Oops. Misread date. Thought it said 2nd May, not April...

The introduction to the joke was concluded with an emoticon; therefore, all of the following statements pertaining to the same matter fall under the coverage of said emoticon, under the provisions of the Electronic Communications Act 2006. Get your facts straight. Waltham, The Duke of 19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC) You filthy, despicable liar; you were bidding your time, waiting for this day to arrive, so that you could comment here and get away with it. But you cannot deceive us, no...

LOL! That would have been even funnier if you had waited a full month to reply to that... Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps... However, I am not the filthy, despicable liar that it would take.

I simply represent such people and stand for all they believe. Waltham, The Duke of 07:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I mightn't be able to gain admittance in a month; there seems to be a full-scale journalists' strike in progress, and who knows how long that could carry on...?

Single-page version wasn't purged

Someone forgot to flush. I did ;-) 62.147.39.166 (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Google treats Wikipedia better today

Enter the words "main page" into Google. For a long time, Wikipedia's main page was the first thing that appeared. Then CNN's main page overtook it and Wikipedia was in second place, and so it remained for several months. That's changed within the last few hours. Now, not only is Wikipedia in first place again, but, just as with youtube, you get a box that says "Search Wikipedia". Michael Hardy (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In all sincerity, this is a very interesting thing to hear. However, this page is about the running of the Signpost. Perhaps you are looking for the tip line? Waltham, The Duke of 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I still see Main Page at #2. --Gwern (contribs) 16:51 6 April 2008 (GMT)

Wikipedia in the news: The Brooklyn Rail

Here's an interview with me about my Wikipedia photography and interviews that was just published in The Brooklyn Rail, a New York literary print magazine. --David Shankbone 14:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

dates in template

For some reason {{Signpost-subscription}} on my user page isn't display the date of the current issue, it is still showing last week, but the link to single page works correctly. I've refreshed and it still doesn't show. Is this known? RJFJR (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I see it just fine. Try purging your cache. Ral315 (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That fixed it. Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No post this week?

No POST for the 28th April week? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

For a variety of reasons it's been delayed. I plan to post it later today. Ral315 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Still nothing. Can we start speaking of a record? :-)

(No offense; I like records.) Waltham, The Duke of 07:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Did anyone else NOT receive delivery of the May 2nd issue? ArcAngel (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't send it out due to a hectic schedule, and the fact that we didn't post it until Saturday due to the difficulty in getting feedback for a sensitive story. I'll send both weeks' worth together today. Ral315 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that I didn't see the new issue until late Sunday, I wonder why it was back-dated; the second of May was last Friday. (For the record, I shall be the last person to complain about delays of the Signpost; however, I appreciate precision.)

On another note, I have often seen a belated issue distributed with the next one; is there a specific threshold for that to happen? Waltham, The Duke of 01:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To the first point, it was published on Friday night/early Saturday, so I dated it to Friday, which seemed to make the most sense to me. To the second point, usually only when I don't have time to send it out until Saturday or Sunday, in which case I figure it's least disruptive to send it once. While the delays in last week's issue had nothing to do with me, I've been extraordinarily late over the last few months, due to real-life busyness; I expect to be nearly on-time by the end of the month. Ral315 (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, unless you live very far east of the Greenwich meridian, it might make more sense to stamp a late Friday / early Saturday issue with Saturday's date, as that will be the day most Wikipedians will read it. Besides, the morning newspapers are distributed in the dead of the night, aren't they?

Anyway, thanks for the response. Keep up the good work, and us informed. Waltham, The Duke of 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: Is it all right if I copy-edit the articles after they are published? I take care only to make small changes, as I do not consider it proper to alter the authors' style; this is not the mainspace, after all. (For example, although I disagree with italicising quotations, I have not acted against them so far.) Waltham, The Duke of 04:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• No post this week either? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It was just delivered now. I assume it is a little late. -- RyRy5 (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"In The News" reform

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate announcement for Signpost, but I'll suggest it anyway. There is a proposal to reform the "In The News" section on the main page. Whereas all of the other sections, like Featured Articles, get updated every day, ITN gets two or three new news items a week. For example, the same picture of Fernando Lugo has been on ITN since April 20, almost two weeks. In addition, deaths like Arthur C. Clarke don't make it to the main page, nor items of "local" interest like the London mayoral election. I think a lot of editors would support something more open and dynamic. If you would like to help in this reform proposal, please see Wikipedia:In The News 2.0. Thanks. Lovelac7 07:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Features and admins

The section Features and admins contains admins/bots and featured articles/lists/pics. I reckon the featured stuff should be moved to the top, rendering admins and bots at the bottom. Reason: the featured content is more important, and also more interesting to readers who are not-so-regular editors. It would follow the structure of the headline we use: features, then admins. Punkmorten (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First, I am very disappointed by your unilateral change 1 minute after posting this discussion. Furthermore, you silently slipped this discussion into the archive [1] to avoid anyone noticing it. Please avoid pushing your personal layout POV without allowing reasonable time for discussion. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change the layout of that page; this has been discussed before, and the decision was to leave it as-is. Ral315 (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Has the Tutorial ended?

No new instalment has been issued for almost two months (more specifically, since 17 March). Waltham, The Duke of 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We're working on it; we haven't cut it or anything, but we have none left. Feel free to write one! weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You are joking... The only area where I am knowledgeable enough to actually write a tutorial is succession boxes... And I doubt that it is that much an important part of the editing process. The boxes are not even officially recognised by Wikipedia... Waltham, The Duke of 17:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Project newsletters?

A number of wikiprojects run newsletters containing project news; for an example, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Newsletter/May 2008. How about having a page in the Signpost that links to new issues of these newsletters? Mike Peel (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that your idea might be too hard to acccomplish. Although it could be useful, it's just to complicated to keep track of those other newsletters. -- RyRy5 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But bear in mind that there's editors behind those newsletters, who presumably want to see them read as widely as possible. So I'd hope that they'd come to the signpost when they have a new newsletter, rather than the signpost having to go to them continually to check. It may prove difficult to make the list of newsletters and editions complete, though. I would be interested in creating such a page, and maintaining it at least for a while to see if it works and does become self-sustaining, if a) it is thought to be useful and b) the Signpost is willing to experiment. Mike Peel (talk) 08:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Project notables could go at the end of dispatches,like the shorties of News and Notes? With references to the full newsletter. This would also solve partly the issue of running short dispatches. Alternatively, re-use Project reports as an internal News and Notes covering WikiProjects? That would be shorter than the full report, and could be replaced any week by a full one. A possible example of such note is the external blog recently inaugurated by WikiProject Oregon. Circeus (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mention

Just a heads up, this project was mentioned recently on the WMF Blog. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tutorial for AWB

Is it possible to write a tutorial about using AutoWikiBrowser? It is a really powerful tool and can help save a lot of time for editors (if they know what it is and how to use it). Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have heard that users don't know how to use it, even though they have read the directions and procedure at WP:AWB. IIt could be useful, but I'm not entirely sure. -- RyRy5 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dudes, dudettes, chimps, clowns, cellular blobs and the stuff I found on my shoe last week!

How about a comedy section! We need to introduce some light-heartedness once in a while! Cmon, it's good to laugh at yourself!--Editor510 (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What sort of comedy are you thinking of? I like the idea of pseudo-academic analysis of wikipedia using essays in Category:Wikipedia humor Circeus (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Be careful if you go down the humour route: one man's joke is frequently another man's insult... (e.g.: pseudo-academic analysis could come across as pseudoscience.) Mike Peel (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiWorld is a non-serious look at encyclopedia content. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was thinking...uh...excerpts from wikistories, and wikipedia-related jokes, a wiki webcomic...--Editor510 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

First Signpost in June

Why hasn't Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-02 been posted? — Athaenara ✉ 04:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[ The issue went live at 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC). — Athaenara ✉ 04:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC) ]

For the last couple weeks, we've been running a bit behind, typically publishing late in the week instead of early. If you're eager to see something in particular, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Other, which has links to most of what will be in the 6-02 edition.--ragesoss (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. — Athaenara ✉ 05:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Clickable Signpost image

I would like to change the Signpost subscription box as follows:

The Wikipedia Signpost

[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Single|Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue]] — [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue]]

---

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue}}

---

Front page·Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Subscribe

Clicking the Signpost title image now leads directly to the current issue instead of the image description page (if the titlewidth parameter is provided, the non-clickable version has to be shown). Currently, the Signpost subscription box redundantly links to the table of contents of the current issue while the more useful single page view link is hidden in the footer. The issue link of the proposed box now points to the single page view and the footer has a new link to the Front page. Cacycle (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there a fuss about the image being a image mapped before? Here and here spring to mind. As was said in the discussion, consensus can change but I believe it was more of a legal issue rather than an aesthetic one? I dunno.. just posting as an observer here really. Rehevkor ✉ 12:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The legal point was mooted, as I redrew the image (not exactly, of course), and made it public domain. I don't like click much as an accessibility issue, and I'm not sure whether most readers, who tend to be well-versed in Wikipedia's conventions, would expect it to link to the Signpost, or to the image description page. Any thoughts? Ral315 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And, as for linking to the Single Page version, I oppose this, because the basic interface design makes much more sense when it links directly to the front page. Ral315 (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have proposed this change because linking from the box to a page that just replicates the box without any additional content always felt very redundant to me. Actually, it is the so-called "single page view" that contains the complete issue, including the front page with its table of contents. I have never really understood the reasoning behind prominently linking to just a table of contents instead to the whole issue (it cannot be bandwith as the Signpost is not longer than common Wikipedia articles). In the proposed version, insiders can click through right into the complete issue view. For those interested only in the "front page" table of contents there is now an new easy to find link in the footer. Cacycle (talk) 03:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I access the Signpost via my watchlist mostly, but I remember moving my mouse over that image when I first saw this template (to see where it would take me). It just seemed logical that an image reading "The Wikipedia Signpost" would also link to The Wikipedia Signpost. I know that normal article images link to description pages, but images like this are placed in different contexts. I would support an imagemap. Cheers, Face 21:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as Ral said, there is indeed no legal issue (PD). - Face 21:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would very much like a clickable Signpost image. VanTucky 02:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Ral, with one basic exception. I really don't like seeing the Signpost logo link to the image-description page, and, generally, I prefer seeing captions, and in some cases—like portal boxes—image-mapping, in most images used in message boxes and the sort. Furthermore, it has been a long-standing convention across the Internet to go to the main page of a website when clicking on the logo or title, and thus it would be more intuitive for most editors to have the image link to the Signpost's main page instead of the current issue; besides, it makes more sense (it does say The Wikipedia Signpost). In the same way, it is more sensible to have the issue's link lead one directly to the current issue.

As far as the footer link is concerned, I think it is a matter of usability and link prominence. I am unsure as to whether it is the image link or the issue's link that is more prominent; both appear to me as relatively obscure. The image is more prominent in general, and many might think to click on it, but that is rather un-Wikipedia-like and many experienced editors are unlikely to see the image as a link. Still, I have another idea: why not link the date to the issue as well instead of applying auto-formatting? I mean, do we need preferences activated in the Signpost box? A double link to the issue below the image (but not a single link including the separating dash—that would be too much blue) in conjunction with a "Front page" footer link might restore the desired balance. And even if someone still manages to miss the link to the single-page version, it can be accessed from the main Signpost page, one click away.

PS: The image-description page can still be accessed from the main Signpost page, as a loop link leading back to the same page would be useless. Waltham, The Duke of 12:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello? Waltham, The Duke of 04:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ral315 (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I should post smaller messages. (expression of magnanimous forgiveness) Waltham, The Duke of 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment again on linking to the Single Page, so I'll say, for the record, that I think it's non-intuitive, because that's not the front page. Google's logo still links to Google's main page, even on search results, even though the front page gives little more benefit than the search bar already available at the top of the screen. Also, the single-page view is only viewed half as many times as the main page, and of those users who read the Signpost from the template, the main page is preferred to the SPV by a 4-1 margin. Thus, I think it makes much more sense to leave the link as-is, to the main page. Ral315 (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that so many readers actually use the full view, given that the link to it is so difficult to find. To me, this clearly demonstrates a significant user demand to prominently link to the full issue. I am not aware of any print newspaper or online news portal that has no article text on the front page. Also here on Wikipedia do we show the complete encyclopedic articles on the first click instead of only their table of contents. Moreover, I do not see any advantage of forcing the readers through a contents-only page. I would strongly prefer to have the full issue as the default view (or at least to have a prominent link to it). Cacycle (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made my arguments for the link to the main page, and again, I don't see any reason why linking straight to SPV would even be intuitive. I wouldn't mind adding a link to SPV at the bottom with the other links, however. As for text on the main page, I made a proposal back in 2005, but reaction was mixed, and it seemed many users preferred the more simplistic design simply because it fit without forcing users to scroll. Ral315 (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Military media mention?

In the June 23, 2008 Signpost, there is supposed to be a "military media mention" in the News and Notes section, but it doesn't actually appear there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That mention was from the previous News and Notes; I forgot to remove it. Fixed; thanks. Ral315 (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

grammarnerd outed

In this week's Signpost you outed the real name of grammarnerd. Was that done on purpose? 68.78.64.142 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not "outing" to use a real name that the user discloses on the wiki (the first name is on her user page, the full name is on the image description page of her photo, and on her blog, both of which can be found from her user page). It has always been routine for The Signpost to identify people by real names where those have some relevance, and it definitely does here where the name appears on a published paper. --Michael Snow (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiworld cartoons

This is what I've just posted on the talk page of the latest cartoon:

Please be less US-centric in your topics!

I love your cartoons, but they are seriously US-centric. As Wikipedia is supposed to be international, please look further than the US for people or things to write about. I've looked back in the Wikiworld archive and there is a massive US bias in it. I know it's easier to write and draw what you know about because you're American, but please stretch your boundaries. It gets very tedious for the rest of us.

I think it should be renamed WikiUS as it barely covers the rest of the world.

I'm going to copy this to the Signpost talk page in case you miss this 86.138.46.163 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

They are not "our creations", they are (were, rather, as he does not produce new ones anymore) created by an independent cartoonist that happened to have an interest in Wikipedia, and were not even specifically intended for the Singpost. Circeus (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the latest Signpost has a new cartoon. If you have specific topic suggestions, you might mention them to the creator, User:Greg Williams. He's made comics based on other users' suggestions in the past, and if he plans to start making them regularly again, he may find the suggestions helpful.--ragesoss (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Greg has any current plans to publish new comics on a regular basis; rather, he'll do so on an occasional basis. That said, I'm sure he'd appreciate ideas for comics. Also, if any artists are interested in contributing a regular, Wikipedia-themed cartoon of their own, let me know. Ral315 (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

2008-06-30/Arbitration report

C68-FM-SV: The case has seen little activity over the last few weeks.

I believe it's well worth pointing out that the "little activity" was mainly the arbitration committee's little activity. The community has provided a lot of evidence and workshop proposals. And there is currently fairly big discontent over a proposed motion to close the case. user:Everyme 16:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia in the News

The last few Signposts I have missed the "Wikipedia in the News" section, which summarizes and links various mentions of Wikipedia in the news media. The last "Wikipedia in the News" appeared in the July 7 issue. Have there been simply no stories about Wikipedia in the press over the past month or so? This is the primary section of the Signpost I look at, so I should hope it returns. Badagnani (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to have a response about this. Badagnani (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's summer, so I guess there just isn't much to report. It's my favorite section too, and I hope it returns after the holidays. Cheers, Face 12:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This being wikipedia, the best response is: If you like it, create it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If I were an editor of the Signpost, I would certainly do so. There have certainly been articles about Wikipedia in the media, and they have even been suggested at this talk page, yet have not shown up in the Signpost over the past month or so. In my opinion, this section should not be allowed to lapse. Badagnani (talk) 08:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If I were an editor of the Signpost, I would certainly do so. But, I've already said that. Badagnani (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You become an editor of the Signpost by, um... editing the Signpost! There's no designated "editors" (apart from Ral315) - it's just written by whoever feels like it. You might want to drop a note in the planning room if you do intend to write something, to avoid overlapping. the wub "?!" 09:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No "Wikipedia in the News" section in the new edition as well. Badagnani (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My point earlier was, stop complaining and start helping. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but nevertheless those regular contributors to the Signpost should take note of these comments. Badagnani (talk) 18:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

In the news: John McCain may have utilized Wikipedia

See [2]. Badagnani (talk) 07:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was there no response to this, and it wasn't included in the last edition? Badagnani (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The place to leave news is the Tip Line page: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#McCain_speech_appears_partly_plagiarized_from_Wikipedia for related discussion]].--ragesoss (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Single-page view still links to last weeks Signpost

The same as told above, except this time, it is the 28 July 2008 version which is hanging around. Comte0 (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

In the news

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/

Badagnani (talk) 05:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The place for this is the tip line. In any case, interesting article. Waltham, The Duke of 13:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody mentions the 2.5 millionth article milestone here?

What is the matter? Why is there no fanfare about the 2.5 millionth article; not even a single mention on the latest Signpost? --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 07:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Normally, minor milestones (and this is a minor milestone) are part of the "News and Notes" feature, which has been irregular in recent times. Circeus (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please restore "Wikipedia in the News" section

Another media mention here. The past month or two, several such stories have been presented, but none has been included, and the "Wikipedia in the News" section has not appeared in the past three or four issues. Badagnani (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, real life issues meant that I didn't have as much free time as I would've liked. I've written something for the upcoming issue. In future, if I happen to disappear for a while, I'm happy for someone else to fill in temporarily - just take the initiative. enochlau (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Regarding the recent change at WP:DATE, the autoformatting of the issue date should probably be removed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; a little less blue won't hurt. Waltham, The Duke of 12:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This means e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-25 would have to be moved to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/25 August 2008 etc. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Would this change break all the old issues as well as future issues? enochlau (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)