Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom)

Jump to: navigation, search

← Current issue

WT:POST

Comments

Comments

[edit] New format feedback

I can't say I completely like the new format because it messes up highlighting of all the links to open all of them in new tabs at once (either it grabs the top part by accident or it misses the bottom left story). In the older format, it was much easier to highlight the two columns at once to open all. I like the new discussion report section! Very useful info and great to find out about some discussions which aren't always well advertised/publicized. As an aside...how about some archiving of this page? :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you do that operation from the Signpost subscription template (at the top of this page)? It's easy to highlight all of those. As for archiving, yeah, it seems about time.--ragesoss (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does work from there, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having it delivered to my talk page :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask around to see if the highlighting behavior could be changed without disrupting the look.--ragesoss (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Collectonian, thanks for taking a moment to feedback. If you drag from the beginning of the first story (this week, the words "From the editor"), to the end of the last story (this week, "Litigation"), all stories should select fine. You can then right click and open all your tabs. As an alternative, have you tried using the single-page version? It achieves much the same effect as opening all the articles at once. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried the highlighting when I first did it, and it messes up unless you hit it just right. And no, depending on the content, I skip some links and I prefer them all in individual tabs for easier scanning. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not a fan of the new format - mainly due to the excess space the new format takes up (I would prefer dropping the section headers and dropping the extra line spaces between sections). While I understand that some may prefer the new format - it's not for everyone. Can a variant be created that replicates the prior formatting? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the front page, or the format of the articles?--ragesoss (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The front page Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost. I use a modified version on my userpage; I understand that's somewhat unique, so that doesn't need to be directly taken into account ... but even if I wanted to switch to a standardly available version, all variants that I've attempted appear to include extra wording and spacing now that wasn't on the prior editions - resulting in them taking up more space than previously. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe Pretzels can cook up an alternative version that strips away the new text formatting.--ragesoss (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Cover-item has variant types 1, 2, 3, 4, and a default (and the related formatting series for each variant). If a variant 5 series were created that essentially replicates the original variant 2 series before the modifications, it should provide the retro-look functionality - although some tweaking would be needed to get it to work. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look into making a version more suited to your needs. You could use Template:Signpost-textonly, at the sacrifice of losing the two-column formatting. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the comments on needing a more compact version for delivery; I'll keep an eye on those developments - it may work for my needs as well. For now I'll hold-off on switching to the single column version; while it removes the extra spacing, having only a single column makes it take up almost as much page space, just with more white-space off to the right. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I've just thought of another method you might want to try in the meantime - {{colbegin}}{{Template:Signpost-textonly}}{{colend}}. Pretzels^Talk! 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm stuck on IE6 where I'm at right now, and it doesn't support the multi-column formatting. But when I get home I'll have access to current browsers, so can play with {{colbegin}} when I get there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I previewed the {{colbegin}} solution today. Worst case, if nothing else comes along - it's useable; but it's not an ideal solution. I'll keep an eye on other developments, then decide later what to do. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I decided to remove the signpost from my userpage for now. "colbegin" wan't a very good solution (poor layout and doesn't work in all browsers), and the new versions of other formats print too big; so not having it on my user page was just the better solution for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, love the new look. It's very clean and professional. I'm also a fan of the new discussion section. --Pres N 14:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer sentence caps to the Olde Style Small Caps, and I also prefer my browser/skin sans serif to the forced serifs. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-16t14:52z

Don't like the talk page announcements at all -- just too loud and screaming. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be helpful to create some sort of template that users can put on their talk pages that adjusts the way the delivery announcements appear. I'll look into that.--ragesoss (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be working on a more compact format for delivery to talk pages by next issue. This first time round, it was a bit huge, and I regret overlooking that. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I guess I'm the exact opposite of Ragesoss - I always want to read the Signpost in the single-page view, never in separate pages. Can we please have a link in the talk page announcements as it used to be? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean Collectonian, not me, but yes, we'll make sure it has the single-page view link next time.--ragesoss (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes. Yes, that's who I mean. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I did intend to include the standard footer (which includes the single-page link). This will be rectified in time for the next issue. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I, for one, like the new design just fine. I think the sparse use of serif typeface helps give a dynamic aspects to the page. And the new white-background header in particular is pretty neat. Circeus (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the the new Signpost font to be silly and completely unnecessary, especially in the delivered version (spamlist). I don't like such garbage in my userspace, even in a spam receptacle. At least have an option for users who get the Post delivered to not have that font polluting their pages - otherwise I see myself unsubscribing to the spamlist and thus unlikely to read the Post at all, which would be a shame. Otherwise, good work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, you're right - the new format is a bit huge for delivery to talk pages. I'll be making some changes to improve the delivered version by next issue. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it was an excellent job overall. Georgia is a perfect font choice for this in my humble opinion—a Scotch Roman typeface (one of the most time-honored and widely used styles in newspaper design), created specifically for screen viewing, that still looks great in browsers/OSs with subpixel rendering enabled. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit I'm not a big fan of serif fonts for titles/headlines, as they're used in the new layout, but it's nothing deal-breaking. Powers ^T 18:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Couple questions

Would it be feasible to redirect the subpage and template talk pages here or to another central area? That way discussions can have some focus. Also, I can't figure out how to update {{User Signpost-subscription}} to the new look. §hep ^Talk 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that template existed. Pretzels probably wasn't aware of it either. Does it look different now than it used to? As for discussions, maybe we should just note here where they are going on. I suspect most issues brought up at a particular template will be technical issues related to that particular template (like the one you bring up at Template talk:Signpost-subscription). That's the only one I've noticed so far.--ragesoss (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a handful; it doesn't look any different then it used to...it just doesn't have the same look as everything else. But with so few uses it probably doesn't matter a whole lot. I'm not sure as to what makes it more useful then the other template, maybe it's a tad thinner? §hep ^Talk 07:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I got something. It looks decent in IE7/FF2. Thoughts? §hep ^Talk 09:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that I found this pretty amusing. §hep ^Talk 06:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, what do you think about implementin the idea at {{SignpostNavigation}} (talk) from almost a year ago? Maybe not specifically in that template...but somewhere? §hep ^Talk 07:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, cheers Shep for spotting that template and doing a little work on it. It's used by under 50 people, but is in the standard userbox dimensions so fits in with other userpage templates - a good example of this is at User:JimMillerJr. There is an archives search box on the Archives index now. Pretzels^Talk! 17:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] RSS

As a communications consultant, I routinely tell my clients that having their Internet content syndicated on RSS is an important key to building an audience. The current, Mediawiki-specific methods of delivering the Signpost are very effective for some people. But many Wikipedia editors, and others who may be interested in the goings-on of Wikipedia, get the bulk of their news via RSS. Either knowingly, or indirectly because it gets picked up on a web site they read regularly.

I suggest placing a high priority on distributing the Signpost via RSS, in addition to current publication and delivery methods.

Of course, it would be ideal if our wonderful programmers would add this capability to the Mediawiki software; but I think that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. So I'd suggest taking a less technical approach: simply set up a blog account, and paste the contents of each Signpost into it. (wikipediasignpost.wordpress.com might be a good place to start.)

Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, RSS should be a priority.--ragesoss (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This should work fine. Also available in Atom here. §hep ^Talk 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's very cool, but I don't think it's sufficient for what I had in mind. I'd like to see something that's worthy of inclusion in aggregators like Planet Wikimedia and Open Wiki Blog Planet. In other words, a single entry for every article, or at least for every issue. One lightweight way to do it would be to set up a Twitter or Identica account, and just tweet a link or collection of links every time an issue comes out. Probably means about 10 minutes of work/week to set up 10 shortened URLs and compose the messages. I'd be game to work on it, but would prefer to work with somebody(s) in getting it set up. Anybody? -Pete (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking into a couple of possibilities, one of which would be to duplicate the Signpost on another wiki that has RSS enabled. At the least, we can set up a blogger team blog or twitter feed.--ragesoss (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking to Mark from jeays.net, he said he should be able to setup a screen scrape similar to this that would check for updates every six hours or so. We could probably have it set to check around 3 UTC. What do you think about this solution? If it's no good I'll need to be able to let him know so he doesn't waste his time coding anything up. He said he should be able to look at it in the next few days. Cheers, §hep ^Talk 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I own wikipediasignpost.com, and if anyone comes up with a good idea to use it for, I'd be happy to offer it. It has, in the past, hosted a WordPress-based RSS feed, but the maintenance of keeping it up got to be a bit much. Ral315 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of:

Readers can subscribe to a web feed of the Signpost in RSS format.

? §hep ^Talk 06:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this feed only update when the content changes? In other words, could it be included in the wiki planet aggregators and behave like a normal feed that gets pushed down the page as it gets older and pops up at the top again when the new edition comes out?--ragesoss (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand everything some program checks the /Spamlist/Message page every 6 hours to see if the links have bbeen updated. If the links are new, it updates the feed. I'm not sure if it would move down a page... You could always email Mark who runs the website, I'm sure he'd have an answer for you. §hep ^Talk 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've asked Ral315 to set up WordPress on wikipediasignpost.com, which I plan to update manually. But this RSS will be good to have as well, as it will serve a different purpose... simply an up-to-date list of articles in the current issue.--ragesoss (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WikipediaSignpost.com is now live as a WordPress blog, which will be updated weekly. I've added/suggested the feed [1] to the blog planets.--ragesoss (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice. §hep ^Talk 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I've noticed that many of the content and editor conduct RfC's posted lately haven't received much community participation. Perhaps, in addition to the ArbCom case report, you might list the open RfC's with a brief description of each. RfC participation is important because they are one of the most important steps in dispute resolution. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, there's just too many content Rfc's for me to cover. I think Jake should be able to help out next week; though, so maybe we could add something then? If you'd like to add the content/editor Rfc's to DRAMA you'll be welcomed with chocolate chip cookies. :D §hep ^Talk 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll try to help out with it. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue going out on the 23rd is just getting started at User:Stepshep/Signpost. If you'd like to add content to this week's edition that'd be the place for an eventual merge. The cookies are good. Promise. §hep ^Talk 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Can you talk a bit about the Graphic Labs. That s an interesting graphic initiative, and we just openned a Map lab :] --Yug (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Image Workshop (make a request) | Map Workshop (make a request)

[edit] Couple more things

What do you guys think about adding WP:UPDATE's monthly summary of guideline changes? If would have to be modified a bit to fit with the post's style, but it's very useful information just not widely publicized. I count that at the end of January it had about 40 or so hits for the January report for one page and less than 20 for another. The author might even agree to provide us one in the Posts' format if we ask nicely. Thoughts? §hep ^Talk 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we could just a line in News and notes pointing readers to the summary in the issue after each new summary becomes available. I don't see how these digests could be condensed much more, and there's no need to duplicate the effort by re-writing it all over again just to fit Signpost style when a link will do just fine. Just a thought.--ragesoss (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if written in a form that works with the Signpost (i.e., more prose), I think running it as a monthly feature might work too.--ragesoss (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a single link in NN. I just thought that part of the project could use a flashlight. §hep ^Talk 00:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion report

This is an excellent addition to the Signpost. Too often, discussions go on with limited input simply because the majority of editors are unaware of them. I think that this should be included every week. I'd suggest following the example of the Lengthy Litigation page by including discussions from prior weeks. Maybe have two sections: One at the top: Newly Listed Discussions and then underneath it, Previously Listed Discussions. Once a discussion has been closed, drop it from the list. Un school 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] More feedback

I'm not on Wikipedia too much these days, but I like the new look. Stay classy, guys. — Bob • (talk) • 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lessons for the "brits"

We are British, or Britons, not "Brit". Shnitzled (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Except me. I'm a Brit. (chorus of "Oh yeah. Except Derek, Of course, Obviously, etc.") -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to figured out of if the conveniently short "Brit" was derogatory, but Wikipedia and Wiktionary failed me by giving no indication. Sorry to any Britons that were offended.--ragesoss (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No more derogatory than Yank, Kiwi, or Canuck, I would say. I think that people would need to be pretty thin-skinned to be offended when there was no intention on your part to offend. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive, it's just not what we are called. Shnitzled (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Brit is fairly common usage, just slang. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Brit Awards? :-) And I'd say Britons has several meanings. I'd use British every time. Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Design

I've been trying to think up something clever for users who liked the old style or would prefer a modified one. I have a feeling, though, that this might be too parser heavy. It would rely on checking if a user has a specific subpage created, then giving the correct output. For instance

{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Style|{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Style}}|}} Would, in theory, modify the appearance. With other subpages such as /text font size and face could be modified. I'm just not sure if it would make archives and /Signpost pages too parser heavy. Thoughts? §hep ^Talk 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I hope we can do for the deliveries, which have been the main concern of disgruntled readers. It's only <1000 pages, and talk pages aren't super high traffic, so something like this applied to the deliveries would be good, I think.--ragesoss (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I got lost. A bot could do separate lists. Users on this page get this format, users on another page get a different format, etc. It would require keeping 1 more page updated at publishing, though. The the bot could send out the new version, the old version, and the "/2009-30-02" (plain list) version, without much trouble. §hep ^Talk 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New Design

Following Shep's suggestion, I thought I would stop by to comment on the new design. Personally I would like something nice and simple, such as the way it was sent this week. It doesn't take too much space, and it still has everything there... Of course my opinion is one among thousands. :) Pax85 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the exact same thing. The plain list works best for me. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to a new working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial coordinators together so that projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. We are also planning a better coordinatopn among all projects and centralizing.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hep ^Talk on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 20:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comic

Would anyone be objected to going over to the Graphic Lab to see if anyone over there would be interested in carrying out WikiWorld. The comic artist seems to want to approve anything that uses "his" name of WikiWorld, but something similar maybe? Of course they'd have to go under the scrutiny of Ragesoss and others before they got okayed, but that always looked like a neat section that brought some light to obscure articles and a bit of humor which we could always use. Or maybe the project was discontinued here for a reason? Thanks, §hep ^Talk 00:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The only reason it was discontinued was because Greg Williams stopped making new comics. (Actually, the Signpost continued running repeats for a while when new comics were occasional and it was unclear whether Williams would pick it up again.) I'd love to have new comics to run, but producing decent comics is no simple task, even for people with graphics skills and/or writing skills.--ragesoss (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's some artists over there that seem to have a stream of FPs created. I'll see if anyone would have interest; then post back for you to review if some talent bites the bait. Thanks, §hep ^Talk 01:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Humorous wikipedia-culture cartoons are not necessarily out of the question. Fr:'s Rama has made some rather funny stuff. Circeus (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Signpost doesn't update on my user page

Hello there. The template on my user page doesn't update to the latest issue anymore. Can someone more knowledgeable than me fix this problem, please ? If it is of any help, the template does update itself when I pretend to edit my userpage (i.e. click "edit this page" on my userpage and then save without changing anything). As a side note, I do like the new version, it looks more professional, especially graphically. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to purge your cache in order to see the most recent changes. Wikipedia doesn't automatically load templates every time you visit a page, this keeps down on the server load, the downside of this is that it takes a null edit to update the templates on said page else you have to wait for the job queue to get to it which can take a few days. It's very similar to the way categories update. §hep ^Talk 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you and Ragesoss, who helped too. Thing is, the template doesn't update ever (for weeks in a row) if I don't make a null edit, so I thought I'd ask. Now that I know what to do, everything is fine. Have a nice day ! Rosenknospe (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of going through with AWB and null editing every page that transcludes the template when I or X! do the deliveries. Can't do it in auto mode, it just skipes the page...but it's under 20,000 pages. §hep ^Talk 22:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in the latest Signpost

In the 'WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics' - "They need not all be Featured articles; Good articles and articles which have been through Peer review (with any major problems addressed) can be part of a Featured topic." - misleading, it's articles that are ineligible to become Good or Featured articles and which have been through Peer review. Good Topics have the exact same rule; only the required percent of FA/Ls changes (from 25% to 0%). There's no rule that says that at least three of the articles in the GT have to be GA or FA; I'm not sure where the writers got that from. --Pres N 15:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I updated the page. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] In the news

The AJR article appears to be from this time, 2008. Can I ask why it was included? §hep ^Talk 21:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No. No you cannot ask why.--ragesoss (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

heh, I read it and thought "that sounds a lot like a similar article I read a while ago" but didn't catch the date :) Regardless, it's a good article! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Article alerts "news ticker".

Just to let you know we're setting up an "Other news" section for the article alerts (see WP:AAlerts/News). It's not live yet, but since you guys hound the 'pedia for news-related stuff, I thought I'd let you know. What would be acceptable in this (IMO) is anything that WikiProjects would have an interest in, and Signpost releases. I'm also letting you know so you can monitor the "new request page" so you can get ideas for the signpost coverage.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page delivery format

Resolved.

Anyone know what happened with the Signpost talk page delivery format? It used to be a lot ... prettier. If this is a bot problem, I wouldn't mind helping with whatever is wrong. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a coding problem with the design (well, kind of). There were many complains (see above) about font size and it's general size and font face. The most major issue was brought up here. I believe we're more than happy to have someone look at the design to see if we can accomodate most of the complaints and major issues, but it has nothing to do with the bots. §hep ^Talk 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a bot solution might be appropriate... a bot that checks some bit of code on a subscriber's talk page, and delivers whatever format that user wants. Some people have said that they prefer the plain text version that we've fallen back on while we work on the kinks in the more styled version, so a delivery bot that detected which version ought to be delivered might be useful. User:Pretzels, I believe, is still planning on tinkering with the updated version he designed to address some of the problems, but it's been a few weeks now.--ragesoss (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Newest delivery had a minor issue. Its lacking of a normal header keeps an edit link from appearing for easy clearing after reading[2]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya, that probably should have stayed somehow. §hep ^Talk 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Editing tip of the week

I think it might be useful to include in each issue a brief editing tip — the kind of stuff that a lot of editors might not know about. For example

If you put stub templates after categories, the stub categories will appear at the end of the category list.
You can link to a page that starts with a leading slash, such as /dev/null, by including a leading colon in your link: [[:/dev/null]].
You can make a multi-paragraph bullet point by using <p> to separate the paragraphs: * Paragraph 1<p>Paragraph 2.

Hesperian 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please use section breaks when throwing papers onto talk pages

Resolved.

When ShepBot tosses the paper onto someone's talk page then please create a new section using == Wikipedia Signpost ==. The existing method of adding a br/h2/... meanings the Signpost blob is appended to the previous talk section. People hitting edit for that section end up needing to remember to insert their new content above the stuff added by ShepBot.

I believe you can get nearly the same affect as what you have now by having the bot append the following.

== The Wikipedia Signpost ==

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

16 March 2009

You will need to view that in edit mode to see what gets added. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for overlooking that. I've updated the design for next week's delivery, you can see an example on my talk page. This fixes the issue you mentioned, and also allows for an [edit] link as requested previously. Pretzels^Talk! 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks great. It's pretty cool in what you can get away with on MediaWiki. My only comment would be the use of the long dash, I think it's an mdash, in the title and you end up with a .E2.80.94 in the URL for section links. For example, User talk:Pretzels#Wikipedia Signpost .E2.80.94 16 March 2009. Hopefully the Signpost lead will be so riveting that no one will see the URL. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Love this week's...

It was great to see some unusual articles in this week's Signpost - love the followup on the Obama story, and really loved the bit about the researchers who analyzed the arb processes.

Well done, really interesting stuff. - Philippe 02:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I want to second this btw. Last weeks issue was one of the best ever. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SIPO

WP:SIPO is also a redirect. -Ste vertigo 03:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Section title for Arbcom case reports

The title for Arbcom matters ("Report on Lengthy Litigation") might be better changed to "Arbitration activities" or "Arbitration cases and activities" or some such:

Arbcom has for some time deprecated and discouraged words that have "real world" legal meaning such as "probation" and "litigation". They have potential to be assumed to have a similar meaning when quoted off wikipedia, leading to potential defamatory impact if reported using such terms.
A lot of Arbcom activity isnt just "cases", and the section often reports (or would be improved by reporting) the committee's other major activities when there are such.
It sounds pretentious. And nobody calls it anything like that :)

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

These come up in a quick search of the linked archives. 1, 2, 3, and 4. Past editor-in-chiefs have commented there. §hep ^Talk 01:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound very pretentious in the abbreviated form, which is actually the point :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] My open letter

The article says: "Larry Sanger posted an open letter to Jimmy Wales' talk page last week, outlining his dispute with Wales over the issue of who founded Wikipedia."

That's not how I would put it. I did not outline the whole dispute, nor was my letter focused first and foremost on "the issue of who founded Wikipedia." Rather, I took Jimmy Wales to task for his lies about me. What inspired the letter was not a lack of agreement on the foundership issue, but instead, several specific lies and misrepresentations about me in the recent Hot Press interview, and in other public sources in the past.

Quite poor reporting on the subject altogether. --Larry Sanger (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when Jimmy Wales appeared on German nationwide early-morning TV program Morgenmagazin on April 6, he was introduced by the moderator as "co-founder together with Larry Singer [sic]." The program's web page for that day states, Jimmy Wales, in der Szene auch Jimbo genannt, hat das Online-Lexikon 2001 gemeinsam mit Larry Sanger in den USA gegründet. (Jimmy Wales, or Jimbo as he is called in the culture, founded the online encyclopedia jointly with Larry Sanger in the U.S. in 2001.) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject report

I would suggest eliminating or modifying the weekly wikiproject reports. First of all, they are not reports about the wikiprojects, but rather softball interviews of particular (and apparently random) wikipedians who work on projects. The interviews in Signpost simply accept everything the interviewee says as true. How are the editors to be interviewed selected? Why do we care about the interviewee's favorite article and the other personal information that these interviews contain? IMO, including this section, as currently structured and executed, makes the signpost look like more of a frothy club rag than a serious journalistic effort. If we need to add content to the signpost, how about, instead, an actual report on what projects are doing, what they hope to accomplish and have accomplished, and why the project featured needs the assistance of wikipedians more than other projects. How about a report on the projects that have refused to use the C-class ratings, and why? Or, instead of the wikiproject reports, a report on what is happening at wikimeetups and chapters around the world? I like the suggestion of the guy above who asked about adding a secion on editing tips. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in what others think of the WikiProject reports in the current interview format. While I agree that they are essentialyl "softball interviews" and are somewhat at odds with what happens in the rest of the Signpost, my own attitude has been that one doesn't have to read them if one isn't interested, that they put a personal perspective on what people think of the work they do on Wikipedia (and thus may have a positive community-building role), and that because they foster a different kind of self-reflection than the types of meta-discussion that takes place elsewhere on Wikipedia they might be a valuable record down the road for people looking at how Wikipedia works/worked.

All that said, I do prefer actual reports on WikiProjects. But that's a lot tougher of an undertaking than interviews, and the Signpost depends on what people are willing to write.--ragesoss (talk) 23:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see more reports on meetups and chapter events regardless -- if anyone wants to help with this let me know. And please post if you'd also like more meetup coverage; I'm happy to run an ongoing upcoming/reports section in News & Notes at least. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Illegible logo

FYI, the logo is illegible when viewed by users like me who have enabled the preference User interface gadgets... Use a black background with green text on the Monobook skin, which is really useful with OLED-based displays. Can we set an explicit background color?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Make "comments" into a "Feedback" link on the main page

A feedback link that creates a new talk section would be handy from the main page and the talk-page notices. The tip line is useful, but most good feedback isn't in the form of a tip. +sj + 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How's it look now? I added a link as you suggested to the footer, which appears on both the Signpost frontpage and on individual articles.--ragesoss (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the feedback link! Nice to promote discussion. But feedback & tips are two separate things. Many of the comments that we get are in fact tips rather than comments about the 'post itself... though people usually figure out where to put the appropriate thing. We should consider restructuring the newsroom at some point. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. We need to prioritize the pages that get used: this one, the tip line, and the planning room (which really is the newsroom, in the analogous sense to an brick-and-mortar newsroom).--ragesoss (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Add forward/back links from archive subpages

I love navs. An auto-generated nav from archive subpages that link forward and backwards to the previous/next week would be handy, perhaps with another link to the full year's archive.

For example: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18

+sj + 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see something like this; if anyone knows how to code something like that up, please do. Preferably, it would be a template where the parameters are the dates of three consecutive issues: {{Signpost archive|2009-05-04|2009-05-11|2009-05-18}} would look like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost with the 5-11 issue contents, and it would be on an archive subpage like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2009-05-11, and have links that work the same as the previous and next links for the individual regular features.--ragesoss (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've set something up and am working on populating the back-issue subpages.--ragesoss (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] /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)

[edit] Spamlist

The bot hasn't been sending the Signpost for the last 2 (including today) issues. Is there something wrong with the bot delivery? —M C 10|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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New format feedback

[edit] Couple questions

[edit] RSS

[edit] Suggestion

[edit] Suggestion

[edit] Couple more things

[edit] Discussion report

[edit] More feedback

[edit] Lessons for the "brits"

[edit] Design

[edit] New Design

[edit] Coordinators' working group

[edit] Comic

[edit] The Signpost doesn't update on my user page

[edit] Errors in the latest Signpost

[edit] In the news

[edit] Article alerts "news ticker".

[edit] Talk page delivery format

[edit] Editing tip of the week

[edit] Please use section breaks when throwing papers onto talk pages

[edit] Love this week's...

[edit] SIPO

[edit] Section title for Arbcom case reports

[edit] My open letter

[edit] Wikiproject report

[edit] Illegible logo

[edit] sequential links

[edit] F&A: Bots

[edit] Make "comments" into a "Feedback" link on the main page

[edit] Add forward/back links from archive subpages

[edit] Kudos!

[edit] /Holy Family Hospital

[edit] Spamlist

[edit] Date unlinking bot discussion

[edit] Proposed gadgets

[edit] Good Article Backlog

[edit] classifieds?

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Interaction

Toolbox