2010-01-04

← Back to Contents

sequential links

What about inserting links to the previous/next issue? Already inserted in the "In the News" section, it allows easy short-term browsing. ptrf (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be good. However, there's currently no way to actually view previous front pages - just article lists, in the Archive. If anyone can find a way to do this, I'd be happy to help. Pretzels^Talk! 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

F&A: Bots

I'm not convinced that the section is particularly useful in its current form (list of names, essentially), but it does fit nicely with the layout of the page as a whole. It always strikes me that bots/tasks that are currently in discussion are missed out - so Signpost readers only hear about them when the deed is done. I'm not here to moan, of course, without providing a solution. I for one would be happy to weekly turn this:

Eight bots or bot tasks were approved to begin operating this week: Citation bot (task request), Chris G Bot (task request),DYKHousekeepingBot (task request), LivingBot (task request),ListasBot (task request), D'ohBot (task request), Locobot (task request) andLivingBot (task request)

into:

Eight bots or bot tasks were approved to begin operating this week. These included:

• DYKHousekeepingBot (task request), a bot to update article talk page DYK tags, tag images that have appeared on Did you know (DYK), and create new DYK archives;
• Citation bot (task request), a new task for the bot, designed to standardise usage of citation templates in individual articles;
• ListasBot (task request), extending the list of places from which the bot can draw a listas parameter for{{WPBiography}}.

Also approved were Chris G Bot (task request), LivingBot (task request), D'ohBot (task request), Locobot (task request) andLivingBot (task request).

You could then append a section talking about the bots still in discussion, but I haven't given that bit much thought yet. Admittedly, there might also be bias perceived in the selection of the "headline" acts, but most of the time its quite obvious. As I said before, I'd be more than happy to do this if it was felt a net benefit, or not, as the case may be. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)}13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be useful! Feel free to try it out; you'll probably want to coordinate with Seresin/Garden. We may need to start an F&A draft in the newsroom like the other sections. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kudos!

I seldom do much but bang out typo or MOS corrections (and occasionally read some discussions to remind myself why I'd rather work than debate), but I do really enjoy each issue of Signpost. This week's LGBTI Project article was educational, informative and much needed. I say that from the viewpoint of being white and straight. Thanks to all of you out there who create, debate, police and report. LilHelpa (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

/Holy Family Hospital

Hi

I've rewritten this article. Do you want me to paste it here so you can have a look or should I just repost?

(Aussiescribe (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Could you clarify? What article are you referring to?--ragesoss (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This forum is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. If you are asking whether a new version of /Holy Family Hospital would still be deleted for not indicating the importance of the subject, don’t paste it here. Instead upload it to User:Dsouzaron/Holy Family Hospital, and then inquire (perhaps at the Wikipedia:Help desk) whether it meets Wikipedia standards. —teb728 t c 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Spamlist

The bot hasn't been sending the Signpost for the last 2 (including today) issues. Is there something wrong with the bot delivery? —MC10|Sign here! 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. We'll try make sure today's and last week's issues get delivered soon.--ragesoss (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking bot discussion

There is a community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates. Could you run something about this in the next Signpost? This issue has been rather heated in the past (including a very long arbitration case), but I hope we can gain consensus for this rather limited proposal. The discussion will be open for two weeks. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and the RFC is on the talk page. Thank you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed gadgets

It would be quite helpful if the weekly discussion report would list ongoing discussions on Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals (and possibly one or two related pages), as decisions there can affect every logged-in user of Wikipedia (if they happen to hunt down the Gadgets section of their preferences), and the page currently gets very little traffic. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog

The backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations is now up to 323 articles, and some are up to two months old. Can we please include a line in the next Signpost encouraging editors to review these nominations? It's easy and there are topics for everyone. There are also plans for another backlog elimination drive. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 22:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

classifieds?

I thought I would make a suggestion to include a "classifieds" page once a month; and in the section include things editor's little projects and writing contests and things of this nature to help get the word out for those who may be looking for something to do outside on Wikipedia other than what they usually do. I grant this may seem a little odd, but it may help put wikipedias who need x in touch with those who have x, and it may also help boost your readership some. Just something to think about. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Delivery

Although I am still on the subscriber list, I did not receive the July 13 edition. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikiconference New York article

Um ... it appears that the July 27th issue has been published with our article on Wikiconference New York still in an ... unfinished condition. Like the part about my talk, for example ... it might be good if someone polished that a little bit. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed :) --JayHenry (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoops ... missed that! Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Build-your-own edition

An interesting idea; hopefully it will suggest to some editors that they could be regular contributors.

But - and a very large but - a the Signpost is not a Wikipedia article, which is constantly being seen by an ever-changing group of readers. A newspaper is supposed to provide a snapshot of what happened of interest since the last issue. Readers of the Signpost don't expect to have to return to articles such as "News and notes" to see if they have been expanded.

So, a suggestion: Set a cut-off, say 48 hours after publication, for this idea, and then remove the invitations (on various pages) to readers to add information. (Perhaps the "From the editor" page could be changed to mention the cut-off.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

John, that's a good idea. My own thought was to keep an eye on it for the next few days and make sure it reaches at least the level of (in)completion that a normal issue would before publication and get it up to that level. And after that add a thank-you and remove the explicit invitations. I changed the "from the editor" a bit along these lines.--ragesoss (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If it stays in the historical record that I gave a half-hour keynote address singing Monty Python songs, then next year I'm going to do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm tempted to call it done right now.--ragesoss (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Brad, I think it's been published in a reliable source and is thus True, no? You're on for next year. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest that a DIY Signpost should link from the current article to the draft article for next week. I wouldn't mind writing a couple sentences on something that I see on Google news from time to time, but asking me to remember and wait until the article goes live to find time to put it in before the deadline is a bit inefficient. If done, I also wouldn't see much point for the tip line, as people would be expected to note their "tips" directly into the relevant recurring feature... - BanyanTree 12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've implemented something like this. Now the front page of the Signpost will link to the in-progress stories for the next week, and "news and notes" and "in the news" are linked to the coming issue (they always are as long as the page exists, but I'll make sure the pages get created early). Let me know if you have suggestions for how to make it easier and more intuitive.--ragesoss (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the forward link; I suggest that the not-yet-published page have something like "Under construction until publication date: You can help by adding to this page." -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'm not sure how to make work with the template system. Someone who has strong template kung-fu will be needed to code something that checks the 'date of next issue' parameter and applies that notice only until the issue is actually published. I'll try to recruit someone.--ragesoss (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've always seen Signpost as the New York Times of Wikimedia; something I can rely on for up-to-date quality news. I personally dislike the new, "Build your own" edition and I'm hoping that this does not become commonplace. –blurpeace ^(talk) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

References

If more than one transcluded article has references it can create a mess. Please use the groups extention to avoid this. Alternatively, clickable references like this or this [1] can be used, but be consistent with any given edition of The Signpost. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to make sure that problem doesn't crop up again.--ragesoss (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Link needs fixing

On the News page of the current edition, the link at the bottom to "News and Notes" does not go where it should, namely Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-08-03/In_the_news. However, I don't know how to edit the page to fix this. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I was wrong. THat link at the bottom of the page does not lead from "In the News" to "News and Notes", it goes from this week's "News and Notes" to next week's. Still confusing, as next week's issue has not been written yet :) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You!

Just wanted to thank everyone who works on Signpost, I do enjoy reading it. I'm missing the project interviews, though. I would like to see more interviews, one each week. They wouldn't have to be about projects. They could be notable Wikipedians or even random people that have, say, a thousand edits under their belt. It might be interesting just to get "the man in the street's" view. You could even try interviewing some vandals!... although I guess that might cause problems: perhaps best not to feed them the oxygen of publicity. Or the oxygen of oxygen, as Linda Smith would have it. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea!—well apart from the last bit(!) --candle•wicke 20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Update

Worth covering monthly and linking to or summarizing in between? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Thanks for the reminder. It's been our intention to highlight the updates each month, but it often falls off the radar.--ragesoss (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew Smith account apparently not compromised

Two independent checkusers were run on the Drew Smith account, and both determined that it is highly unlikely that anyone besides the primary account holder has used it. See his talk page for a discussion and evidence. Thought you should know, since the Signpost is still reporting otherwise. Toodles. --Jayron32 02:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Can you point us to the checkuser reports?--ragesoss (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Versageek and I ran them, there were no formal SPIs filed... see [2] (look for my sig) and User_talk:Lar#Email (which will get archived at some point. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles on Amazon

The story seems incomplete. Perhaps you could add a little more information on Wikipedia's reaction to this fraudulent selling of Wikipedia articles?--Edge3 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they've commented, mainly because it's not fraudulent; that's why we license things the way we do. Shoddy, but not illegal. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 19:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't claiming to be the author of the articles illegal?--Edge3 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It would hang on you definition of claiming authorship I would think. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there enough notability to warrant a new article? I think I might want to write one... :) --Edge3 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The Signpost and the Manual of Style

I've got a bit of flak from someone because I've posted their comments, per the manual of style, as a quotation and therefore have to "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." What's the general opinion on that sort of thing? Do we cut fellow Wikipedians a bit of slack, or are we to follow the Manual of Style and preserve the text? One way of going at it is perhaps to tidy the quote and then quote it, but then that has implications if you change the feel of the text. I could ask the authors, but if I'm close to the deadline I may not have time. Thoughts? Hiding T 08:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Use the manual of style. If you're going to be quoting someone, you can't change their typos no matter how embarassed they are or how much they want to rant on your talk page. I think the way you're working now is just fine; however, if you insist on a compromise, perhaps you could just put a single "[sic]" at the end of the quote rather than after each individual typo. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Internal links

Wherever possible please use internal links in articles, such as for mailing lists. It looks a lot neater than having the whole link there. Thanks, Majorly talk 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

moving wikipediaweeekly template during wikimania

Just to inform everyone,

I've moved the WikipediaWeekly template on the Community portal *above* the Signpost template. This is, as per tradition, done during wikimania as there is a lot of new content coming out from Wikimania from the podcast. This is our big event of the year at which we record daily episodes and interviews.

This will be reversed to the norm at the end of the conference (the next time the signpost publishes an edition).

Best,

Witty Lama 16:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Inline discussion?

Would it be possible to append an article's talkpage to the bottom of the page, for example
{{hat|reason=Comments|2=These comments have been [[transcluded]] from this article's [[Wikipedia talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talkpage]]- please add your comments there!}}
{{Wikipedia talk:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{hab}}
Which is similar to the layout on various news sites (those with a comment system, at least)?

Or is this not the proper place to ask this? --King Öomie 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I like this idea and would be happy to implement it into the template if others are in support. The "Also in this issue" section could be adjusted to run as a sidebar to the comments. Pretzels^Talk! 20:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea, but would it work on the single page view? Hiding T 11:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I'd suggest adding a disclaimer at the bottom specifically mentioning the transposition transclusion from the talkpage as well, lest users used to other systems try to add comments directly to the page. --King Öomie 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit- I've updated the code above, and added it (activated, minus the actual transclusion, because we're already ON this page) below-

Comments
These comments have been transcluded from this article's talkpage- please add your comments there!
Test test test!

• 
  I've created a mockup of what inline discussion could look like if used in the Signpost (pictured right). It matches the existing design for consistency, and uses part of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series template. I really like it, and would appreciate some feedback as to whether there is consensus to implement such a feature. Pretzels^Talk! 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's now coded into a template, and you can see it in action on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-09-21/In_the_news (as an example). If I don't hear back from anyone I'll add that to new articles in time for the next issue; it requires no extra parameters and is a one-word change from the existing template. Pretzels^Talk! 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I like it! I think one of the "add a comment" links should be removed, though. Preferably the second one.--ragesoss (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

    • Thanks! You have a fair point, I removed the second link. Pretzels^Talk! 19:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

      • Damn! Way cooler than my suggestion. Nice! --King Öomie 04:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Features and admins

Is this section missing from the current issue? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• It should be added to the issue later today. --Pretzels^Talk! 14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, still missing. And the week is now over. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, seems last weeks' edition wasn't fully completed in time. However, this week's report covers the last two weeks. --Pretzels^Talk! 15:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It's missed this week, but...

...The Onion has commented on the male/female ratio. Here [3] Darrenhusted (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this normal?

The latest issue I've received is the August 31 one, so I got suspicious and checked the Signpost's page. Turns out I've missed the last 2 issues. Is this normal? Thanks, Airplaneman ^talk 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to inquire about this. The last issue I received was the August 24 issue. Is this a problem with the bot or what? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for this. The normal delivery bot stopped halfway through on a few deliveries and hasn't done the last two at all. I'll try to recruit some more delivery bot operators and get talk page deliveries back to normal.--ragesoss (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I don't know a thing about the bot languages, but I could run one for the Signpost if you guys want. Airplaneman ^talk 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll go ask ThaddeusB about it. Airplaneman ^talk 23:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Asked at his talk. Airplaneman ^talk 23:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe there are several existing bots that could do this task. I believe Ragesoss is planning the check on that. If for some reason they are inadequate or unable to do the job, let me know. A message delivery bot is a pretty simple coding bot & as such I could write one if needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. Airplaneman ^talk 03:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Radio 4; medicine and Wikipedia.

This week's Case Notes on Radio 4 [4] had a section talking about the accuracy of mediical pages on WP. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting

Just to say, I've adapted all the templates I can find to support auto date formatting; dates should now format themselves according to the setting you've made in Preferences. If you find anywhere this doesn't happen, let me know. Thanks! Pretzels^Talk! 22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But we're not supposed to do date auto-formatting any more. And in this instance it's particularly a problem because people may expect to click on the date and come to the current issue of the Signpost. Certainly that's what I do, because the Signpost header isn't obviously clickable. Can you change it so the date goes to the current Signpost, please? Rd232 ^talk 08:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've used the formatdate function, not wikilinking, to autoformat. This is the proper method of doing this. Where are you referring to with the date link? --Pretzels^Talk! 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Two questions

[Discussion moved from old Planning room]

• I like the idea of having opinion pieces; I think if we get some that are written well, they will be a very good addition. My question is how the decision to run them will be made. Is this an editor-in-chief thing, or is it anyone-who-wants-to may provide input? Second question is a minor style point. When referring to editors, should it be written [[User:Foo]], or [[User:Foo|Foo]]? My preference is the former, and without doing any significant checking, I seem to recall that being the format used traditionally. The latter seems to be used often lately, though. ÷seresin 22:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  Would it be helpful for this kind of thing to be collated in a brief style guide? Pretzels^Talk! 21:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the decision of what to run, the "anyone-who-wants-to may provide input" model seems the most appropriate to me. The way I imagined it working would be to use the opinion desk as a holding pen for non-time-sensitive pieces to give feedback and try to find ways to improve and polish them (and to collect sets of related pieces), and publish pieces or sets once they are mature. I think the "White Barbarian" essay would be a good way to start it off this week. There are some other submissions that are strong, but most of them I think could use some feedback and polishing.

  As for referring to editors, the convention that I've been using lately is "[[User:Foo|Foo's Real Name]] (User:Foo)" for users who identify themselves by their real names on their userpages, and "[[User:Foo|Foo]]" for those who don't. But I'm not wedded to that, it just seemed like a good combination of naturalness and transparency. I think a Signpost style guide would be useful.--ragesoss (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  I've been using [[User:Foo]] and then Foo for later instances in the article. Hiding T 10:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Technology report (B.R.I.O.N.)

With the impending depature of Brion Vibber, will the age-old technology report need a new headline? Or, do we keep Bugs, Reports, and Internal Operational News in tribute? --Pretzels^Talk! 15:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I say tribute! what do others think? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never been a particular fan of these pseudo-acronyms, since some of them are rather insulting; but this one is pretty innocuous. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don;t mind this one. I don't like TROLL or DRAMA. I don't mind keeping this one as a tribute, but I'd support a move to retitle the other two. Hiding T 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

250th Issue

If I've calculated correctly, the issue dated December 7th 2009 will be our 250th issue. Does anyone have any ideas regarding this? Bumper issue? Save up some extra pieces? Get a short opinion piece from Michael Snow, or Ral315? I think it would be nice to do something. Pretzels^Talk! 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• They seem like good ideas. That's nearly five years then, isn't it? Hiding T 10:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm all for doing something special for the 250th issue. I'll do a "from the editor" in the November 30 issue to try to attract some interest. Something from Michael Snow and/or Ral315 is also a nice idea; I'll send them an email about it.--ragesoss (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap

Several months ago you did an article on OpenStreetMap. Can you give me a link to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-06/Interactive maps --Pretzels^Talk! 13:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem — you can search Signpost articles here. Pretzels^Talk! 14:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-footer

Should we add a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions at Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-footer? Hiding T 12:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a link to it at the top of the Feedback page... although I agree we may need another. The footer gets cluttered though - do you think we could add a stinger sort of thing in the article footer, by the comments? --Pretzels^Talk! 14:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What's a stinger sort of thing? Hiding T 15:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Like, an advert of sorts - a note saying "Got something for the Signpost?" or similar. Pretzels^Talk! 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, yes. Whatever people think works best. Hiding T 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Templarion

This user is deceased in real life. Can you please stop the sign posts building up on the talk page. Thanks. (Reminds me of the fact my house still gets mail for its previous owner who has been dead for four years) --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Templarion won't be getting Signpost deliveries any more. Thanks for bringing this up.--ragesoss (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary Templates and transclusion into signpost

So I have an idea. Would it be a worthwhile to propose a requirement that all closed arbitrations, RfCs, RfAs, etc be added to a Template page that was automatically transcluded into the Signpost? Mention would be very brief, just a one-sentence blurb for each. We Signposters could take care of creating the transclusion mechanics and the subst: template or whatever, but in the future the onus would be on closing admins to add mention to the centralized template.

It seems to me that the Signpost is an ideal place to centralize information on many important but widely scattered projects. This vision could make the Signpost a powerful tool for keeping abreast of all the mechanics of WP. - Draeco (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Interview

So when do I exactly get to interview people? Please respond on my talkpage ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Interviews are being coordinated by User:phoebe at the Interviews desk, but that page looks to be dormant at the moment. I expect you are welcome to contact staff and interview them for the Signpost whenever you see fit. --Pretzels^Talk! 14:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions?

With the improved design of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, it's no longer clear where members of the community should post material and other things that might be worth coverage in Signpost. Can this be better indicated - a clear section on that page or a separate page?

Also the redlink for "Add a summary directly into the next issue of the Signpost" here should never redlink. Can pages for the next issue be automatically created a week or 2 in advance, or when the current issue is closed to additions?

Thanks. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• We've got Template:SignpostNavigation at the top right of the newsroom, and that has a link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions in it. Do we need to rethink that? Hiding T 14:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

we could just turn the 'feedback' link into 'suggestions' and have it link to the suggestions page, with a top notice on where to leave feedback -- rather than the other way around as it is currently. More people seem to leave suggestions than feedback. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Pretzels ^Hii! 14:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life

Would it be useful/interesting to conduct an interview with people associated with the EOL? I know it's not a Wikimedia project, but it could be nice to see what other wikis are doing and to talk about crossovers and Wikispecies. --Danger (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think an interview with someone from EOL would be great.--ragesoss (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a contact; I can prepare an interview perhaps by late December.--Danger (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Style

Okay, what gives? I want to use a talk page to post comments to the authors of a Signpost piece while it is being written. However, I find that the talk page has been transcluded into the article. That strikes me as a really awkward change. I don't want my comments being read by every editor that reads the resulting article; that's unnecessary. If one is going to have a transcluded comment section for every article, could you please use something other than the talk page? Talk pages, by convention, are for discussing the appropriate content of it's associated page. By turning it into a generic comment section, you violate that convention (using it to discuss the topic of the article, rather than the article's content), and deprive people like me of any natural space for discussing article content. Dragons flight (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What I had been doing when there was significant discussion related to the writing was to blank the page upon publication. How about wrapping your comments in noinclude tags? And then we'll try to make sure that happens with all the stuff about the writing process. That seems to me a simpler solution that subpages for comments, since to some extent the talk pages have long been used for post-publication commentary (as well as discussion of the writing before publication).--ragesoss (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason the bottom section couldn't link to /Comments rather than to Talk:? It seems like it would accomplish exactly the same purpose and function just as well without destroying the availability of the Talk page for content discussions? Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as Signpost articles are not bound by the same guidelines as regular mainspace ones, the talk pages hold a different purpose. Most stories do not require pre-publication discussion, but readers frequently like to comment and discuss on published articles. As the article does not need to appear finished until publication (unlike a mainspace article), I would recommend just adding any fragments to the main article, perhaps with a note requesting expansion or comment. — Pretzels ^Hii! 18:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Could I get some feedback on this

Here's a piece I wrote: User:Headbomb/Signpost

Feedback on style, typos, etc... are all welcomed. I'm thinking this could be ready for the 30 November edition (what section, you tell me), but it could also be published another week if that's too short notice (or that some problem remained to be solved). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks good. It would most likely fit as an item in News and Notes. Somebody will pick it up nearer the publication date. — Pretzels ^Hii! 00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

International talk page delivery

In 2006–2007 there was a time when the Signpost was delivered to talk pages on other projects than the English Wikipedia. It was, however, turned off because it was too much work to maintain. But since then we have had SUL and global bots, and I imagine it would be a lot simpler now to have a bot deliver the Signpost notification on other Wikimedia projects as well. Could someone look into that? :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The bot that's currently doing the deliveries is EdwardsBot. It bases its deliveries off of a configuration page (see a Signpost example). Something like that at Meta might be kinda neat. You could figure out delivery targets using links like User:MZMcBride@enwiki or maybe like w:en:User:MZMcBride. Does something like that sound reasonable? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds good. The latter alternative was the one used back in 2006, and to be human-readable (=working links, as opposed to the @xxwiki redlinks) that would be nice, but the format is not that important. It wouldn't need to be on Meta though – the Signpost is an enwiki publication, so I imagine splitting the maintenance page for teh bot to a different project would be slightly confusing. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Report on prompt litigation

Is it time yet to drop the "lengthy" bit? It may have been inserted originally with tongue in cheek, but in view of complaints about tardy hearings (like five and half months), I think the title has unfortunate overtones. IMO, the generic title "Arbitration report" is just fine. Tony (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• But that wouldn't spell T.R.O.L.L.! T.R.O.P.L.?! — Pretzels ^Hii! 02:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

MOTD

Would i be allowed to as Signpost to invite people to the Motto of the Day project or insert an add? @Simply south (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

William Connolley & report of alleged Wikipedia manipulation in the Financial Post of 19 Dec 2009

I was shocked to recently see this news report about purported large scale POV pushing by Climate change scientists. It sounds really fantastic and ominous to me, an (relatively) uninformed editor.

I could not find any reference to this issue on Wikipedia. I have posted a request in the Village Pump for more information.

Since such allegations are detrimental to the confidence and morale of editors, could a balanced response be given in the next issue for the information of the community?

In case this is a dead horse being flogged yet again, my apologies. AshLin (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Solomon article suffers from serious problems, chief among them being that he gets the facts all wrong. Been discussed various places including Talk:William_Connolley#Solomon_op-ed.

Which facts are wrong? I can't find any wrong facts mentioned at that talk page. Badagnani (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your responses. Perhaps the issue is not as important as I first thought. AshLin (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Flag related discussion at WP:Footy

All there is a flag related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Proposed_major_change_to_Football_squad_system which may be of interest to readers of signpost. This change could have a major effect on flags in soccer related articles. Perhaps you could drop a note about it in the next issue? Gnevin (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add a short summary to the Discussion report.--ragesoss (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Too where sorry? Gnevin (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Full-date unlinking bot.

...has finished it's task. And the process that it went through may be worth a note in the next SP. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Template loop

The single page issue has problems, there is a "template loop detected" message, and this talkpage is transcluded at the bottom. Paradoctor (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)