Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 13

Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This is like a joke!

This issues humour page becomes Signpost's most viewed article ever?

I would just like to make a small point that this issues humour page has become The Signpost's most viewed article since the beginning of 2018 at least, currently with over 7800 views (in only 7 days). The second most viewed article is far behind at only 5240 views. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The deletion page for the article has over 14,500 views so far. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the deletion discussion ever has more !votes than the article which is its subject has views, that is likely to be indicative of a problem with the discussion process. MPS1992 (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It had 154 distinct editors, well below the multiple thousand views the article had. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I will honor the decision -- for the time being, anyway. MPS1992 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't you mean, since the beginning of 2019? GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GoodDay, since the beginning of 2018 (at least). I had done an article in 2018 related to Signpost stats, so that's why I said 2018. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool :) GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice to see some positive fallout from all this drama: educating some participants on the Streisand effect… — JFG talk 13:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. They appear to be ineducable, flatly denying that the Streisand effect could possibly apply to their attempts at censorship. See the section below this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any sort of "Streisand effect" is really immaterial to anything here, and you're also conflating correlation with causation. You argue, without evidence, or much internal logic, that the MFD and the mess is what caused outrage/drove the view count up, therefore leading to more damage/negative impact than otherwise. But there's an alternative scenario here: the outrage is what drove the viewcount up, and caused the MFD and all the mess, and would have happened anyway. In all scenarios, the root cause is having published a piece so outrageous that it exploded all over Wikipedia because the Signpost needed to hear that punching down on marginalized communities, many of whom edit with us, is not acceptable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WMF blog link

The link to the WMF blog on the About page, [[wmfblog:|Wikimedia Foundation Blog]], currently points to a "We've moved!" page at It should be directed to I would have done it myself but I'm not sure how the wmfblog: redirect works. –dlthewave 12:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ed Erhart (WMF): Can you manage wmf redirects? This seems out of Wikimedia community control. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. I wouldn't want to retarget that shortlink because it would break all of the existing links. Can the about page link not be converted to a regular external link? Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or foundationsite:news per meta:Interwiki map? --Pipetricker (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed it to foundationsite:news with no prejudice against other viable options. –dlthewave 17:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Outside coverage on paid editing

Somebody should probably have a writeup of these reports, even if they are biased sources: (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/In the media pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 19:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editorial team

Thank you Pythoncoder for adding a disclaimer about editor transition/turnover. Would it make sense to include a masthead or "official" list of editors within each issue, to eliminate any confusion over who oversaw publication? –dlthewave 15:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pythoncoder , Dlthewave, isn't this a bit OTT? The Newsroom has been in a period of transition since April last year when the then E-i-C abandoned it without so much as a word, and on and off for years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean everyone was “interim” but the core team was sort of consistent. There was you and Bri on the editorial team (Bri also did arb report), Evad was editor emeritus/tech report, I was editor/discussion report, Chris was publication manager, Barbara was humor, (checks notes) Acorri was traffic report, and Tbayer was recent research.
Now, we've got Smallbones at EiC, Chris still PM, I'm still on discussion report (though Headbomb stole half of it this month, no hard feelings, I’ll just need to write it faster; also funny to see that this’ll be my 12th issue and yet I’ve been here the longest out of almost anybody), then Evad, Headbomb, Danny, Matt, Rasberry, and Dlthewave are in there somewhere??? (Apologies for putting anyone on the spot, this is as best I can figure it out right now, I probably got something wrong.) My head is spinning. This is more confusing than Brexit. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 12:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New header

I've improved the banners at the top of the page here see old version.

Particular improvements include

  • Removing an annoying The Signpost feedback header which showed up above the TOC
  • Using standard message boxes for the information about where to discuss what at the top
  • Using a horizontal archive box to save on vertical space
  • Generally improved and more consistant looks at all scales

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who are the similar publications in other languages?

There's de:WP:Kurier in German. Who else? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata is your friend: d:Q7395165#sitelinks-wikipedia. – Ammarpad (talk) 18:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Publishing script

Rather than posting on @Evad37's about this, I thought I should post here. Currently, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#Publication says that the publishing script does not automate requesting a watchlist notification. It should be fairly easy to add that functionality - this script makes it really easy to add a new section to the current page, and I could configure it to allow use on any page. Should I? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'ld rather use the mw.Api module directly, as per the rest of the editing the script does, instead of requiring the loading of another script. It's not hard to specify appending a new section - Evad37 [talk] 00:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evad37: that's what I meant - I can rewrite my script to always add to that specific page, and you can copy it. My suggestion wasn't the importation, but rather automating the request for a watchlist notification. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, does sound like a sensible idea. If you want to code something up I'll take a look. Feel free to make a sandbox copy of the publishing script and edit that, if you want to. - Evad37 [talk] 01:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evad37: User:DannyS712 test/sps.js is a fork of the script, with the added step 14 of requesting the mass message. See the changes I made at I ran it a couple of times in dry-run, and it seems to work fine --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that works, I'll start working on the other on-wiki step that isn't automated (Cleanup the newsroom). That one should be pretty straight forward. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done I just made a couple of minor changes (specify the month name in the section title, fixing some of my mistakes in comments, etc) - Evad37 [talk] 05:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evad37: Okay. After the next release, if everything works according to plan, I'll send you a version that automates the newsroom cleanup. Until then, you should probably remove me from the list of approved users - I don't have the rights, nor the community support --DannyS712 (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chris troutman: I just wanted to make you aware of this, since I believe it is you that actually publishes each issue. I'll check that the watchlist request was made properly once I see the issue sent out, but just so you know starting this month we are attempting to automate requesting watchlist notifications. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DannyS712, Evad37, and Chris troutman: - could you make sure that the script removes the new {{Signpost draft helper}} from drafts upon publishing? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Headbomb: I'm not part of that, its all Evad's code. Once they get it working with the new newsroom, I'll look into helping clean up the newsroom automatically, but that should probably wait a release or two to ensure that your redesign works. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DannyS712, Evad37, and Chris troutman: cleaning up the newsroom is done by substing a template, so that doesn't need to change. What would need to 'change' is removing {{Signpost draft helper}} from drafts before publication. If this can't be automated, there's a safety check in there to make sure that the draft helper only display in the drafts. (At least I think I put that in. If not I'll add it soon.) But it's stray code that can be removed from published version. It's easy to remove manually before publication though, just a bit tedious. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll be updating the publication script either this weekend or next week. Removing {{Signpost draft helper}} won't be a problem. - Evad37 [talk] 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couple of minor issues

I noticed that the archive box at the top of this page doesn't have links to the archive pages (it says "no archives yet"). Also, the "Previous issue" link at the bottom of the current issue leads to the Newsroom instead of the 2/28 issue. –dlthewave 21:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's because @Anthony Appleyard: deleted the page under WP:CSD#G8. Surely this is a mistake. I'll investigate the issue with the footer. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The footer functionality seems to have been broken since 2016. I've fixed it for this month, although this will require an update from @Evad37:. See [1]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Headbomb: Sure, I can get the script to add the previous issue date in the switch's |3=. Not sure what the point of |4= and |5= are nowdays. They only seem to be used in the preload templates (where they've been outputting blank values for 2 years without a problem, and should probably just be removed) and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue (which could use the fixed value "Next issue" instead of {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue|4}}, and could calculate the the next volume/issue numbers based on {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue|2}} instead of needing {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue|5}}). - Evad37 [talk] 03:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to tweak Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue to make use of fixed dates/calculated volumes and such instead, go right ahead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I just want to thank Wikipedians on the Science desk for their immense aid they gave me regarding mental health (without giving medical advice of course), and I want to thank Wikipedia for being such an open-minded place. Apart from that I'd suggest Wikipedia prints a year bulletin! would be awesome! Very kind regards! -- --LLcentury (talk) 11:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page size estimates

Previous discussion: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 5#Size_estimates

Continuing on the previous discussion, it is technically feasible for the publication script to get size estimates. For this issue they were inserted as hidden comments in on the main Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost page, and are fairly close to the transferred bytes reported by the network section of Chrome DevTools. So now we can decide whether/how to implement such a feature. Some points to consider:

  • Smaller pages don't really need a size warning – perhaps this should just be used for larger pages over some arbitrary threshold
  • The main Signpost page isn't the only way to navigate to the articles – there's also talkpage messages, mailing list email, templates like {{Signpost-subscription}}, RSS feeds, and "In this issue" links at the bottom of each article.
  • Should we just try to keep page sizes smaller instead? This would mean that featured content would probably have to only show images for FPs (at a smaller size), and maybe one or two images for each of the articles, lists, and topics sections.

- Evad37 [talk] 00:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to add the page size for the larger pages, e.g. Featured articles, go ahead but it looks more complicated with all the access pages. Perhaps just on the main Signpost page if it's not too easy for the other methods.
And if you want to just go with smaller and fewer images, that's ok with me. Let's just keep it simple. If it's something that might conceivably delay publication by 30 minutes while somebody figures out what went wrong, I wouldn't want that. That would mean that I have no clue how to fix it! Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's an argument to include it for small pages too, given that this lets users/mobile users know that this is indeed a small page (and this lets us avoid the debate about what exactly is 'small'). I'm all for adding it to other ways of accessing the Signpost (e.g. on delivery pages) if it's doable, but that can be done later if it's not straightforward to do so at the moment. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is now done for the main page. There's no additional delay needed for the publishing script, the change there is literally just dropping the hidden comment tags (<!-- and -->) from the script's output for the main page, along with this change to Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet. Pinging @Smallbones: as an FYI - Evad37 [talk] 03:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Evad37: I like this. Thank you. --Pine (✉) 05:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fram ban

Still no article on this? How come?--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it's wating for adequate secondary coverage to pass WP:N. Otherwise it's still a purely WP internal matter, and there's plenty of that within the WP namespace. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I'm a bit lost here. I thought the Signpost was for (internal) news by Wikipedian for Wikipedians in particular to inform people not following various other prject sites (or even being aware of them). Waiting for secondary coverage sounds more like a Wikinews approach. That aside external news are already writing about it as can be seen in Wikipedia:Press_coverage_2019#June.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you folks OK? The Signpost is not a daily publication. I think it's monthly or twice a month or something? It's easy to see that an article is being worked on. MPS1992 (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What we've got here is failure to communicate.[2] It appears that Kmhkmh and MPS1992 are talking about an article in The Signpost while Andy Dingley is talking about a Wikipedia article. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPS1992: Ah ok, but where can I actually see that?--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess you meant the suggestion section? I didn't see that before, I probably should have posted there rather than here (I'm not regular signpost reader), however I did not see an actual article in the works.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kmhkmh, the draft Signpost article on the Fram ban is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Discussion report. Voceditenore (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Voceditenore: Where to/why did it vanish now?--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The drafts disappear when they are published. Now in 06-30 issue. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Discussion reportBri (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A special report on this topic has now also vanished. Now you see it, now you don't. What is going on? MPS1992 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPS1992: See the section below.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kmhkmh: I am not sure what you are informing me of. My understanding is that the Signpost did indeed publish an article about this topic. Or several articles. Am I mistaken? MPS1992 (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

we have it here List of Wikipedia controversies#2019 --SharabSalam (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I !voted to put it there. Not sure why User:Kmhkmh is still confused. MPS1992 (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPS1992: Not sure whether or what I'm confused about. You seem to ask a question which I tried to answer ("report vanished [...] What's going on?"). I thought the section below (posting by Mjroots) somewhat answers your question or does it not?--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your insights. MPS1992 (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it is worth, I read the report before it was deleted due WP:BLP concerns and imho the deletion was a bad idea as I noticed no obvious WP:BLP issue requiring that. The deletion however increases the intransparaency of the whole affair and blocks other editors/readers from developing an informed opinion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Special Report

I have hidden the link to the special report, which was deleted due to WP:BLP concerns. The issue has also been raised at WP:ARC. This is an administrative action, and any reversal will be considered as wheel warring and dealt with as such. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly do want to revert to here anyhow? A red link?--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kmhkmh - What I did was to hide the redlink. I don't want that edit reverted unless the article is both restored and BLP compliant. Mjroots (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no issue with that. I'm just saying whether the red link is visible or not doesn't seem to cause WP:BLP issues in either case. What might cause WP:BLP issues would be recreatimg the deleted page.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should we make the various links to that page consistent -- all hidden or all visible? On Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Discussion report The link is indeed hidden as described above, but the exact same link (and links to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Disputed Signpost article and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report) is still on another part the page -- and on pretty much every current signpost page -- in the "In this issue" sidebar. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Do we really need not one, not two, but three articles about Fram? Signpost coming at it again with that journalistic integrity, throwing gasoline on an already heated issue. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 01:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Humbug.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it would seem there was at least one too many! Carrite (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2019-06-30 archive layout

Page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2019-06-30 transcludes Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30 through Template:Signpost archive with display format 2 of template Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Cover-item. Because it does not account for the extra comment * deleted ..., the layout on the archive subpage is broken. Namely, "*deleted" comment is in the middle of second column rather than near the red link it was intended for. Not sure what would be a good way to resolve this. Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Cover-item could be taught two new parameters: |strike=yes and |comment=additional text, so that page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30 would not need unsupported <s>...</s> and comment "*deleted" did not disrupt the archive page layout. I've only noticed it, because mini-subscription template {{Signpost-subscription-inline}} links to the Archives subpage. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC notification

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#End the Signpost. Please comment there not here. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Snow closed. Literally nobody agreed with Wumbolo. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Video game segment

This was proposed at the Video games Newsletter about having a page dedicated to the Video Game WikiProject. Like a monthly report about the project. Could that be something that could happen here in the future? GamerPro64 22:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd actually support broadening this concept to a section that includes all the current active newsletters, with each newsletter having a paragraph or two synopsis to be transcluded into an article (with links out to the full newsletters). could also be easily automated so that workload is minimal (suggestion at WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Template:Newsletters). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chuck Klostermann book profiled in TIME

Saw this reference to Wikipedia in popular fiction and thought I’d share. [[3]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add class attribute

More of a meta issue here. Can we wrap the page in a <div class="signpost"> or something to make it easier for custom user styles to target these pages? As an example, right now I have to resort to selectors like a[href*="Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost"] > span to target the article titles, which could instead be simplified to div.signpost a > span if the class is implemented. This would make it easier for styles like StylishThemes/Wikipedia-Dark to work as well. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 00:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have resigned as a Signpost editor, effective immediately. The Signpost, a publication I loved and wrote for decades, if irregularly, is simply too editor-hostile, and too against its core mission of providing a voice to the community it purports to serve, or against listening to new ideas. This is the straw that breaks the camel's back. The Signpost could be a welcoming environment open to bold ideas, but under the leadership of Smallbones, it sadly is little but a wall-garden, managed like a piece of critical software that would usher a global financial collapse if anything new is done with it.

Every time someone steps up and try to help, the Signpost shits on them and tell them they are unwelcomed. This was true of the past leadership, and sadly remains true under Smallbones. Good luck to those that still believe in the Signpost. I hope those that keep writing will have an easier time after my efforts to streamline the process and management. But there can't be too many of those around anymore. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry to lose you as a colleague, and I hate to be critical, but you are attacking people I respect and I want to respond.
If you move some place and find that all the neighbors are jerks, you may have been unlucky. If you move again and find the same, you may have been unlucky again. If you keep doing this, and the same thing happens, it's possible that the neighbors are not the problem.
I haven't found the source for this paraphrase, but it is not original to me. Sincerely, SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • +1 to asshollery. You can move all your life and be jerked around. Sharks smell blood in the water. Crocodiles don't eat for six months at a time, and they are extremely careful about being seen. SchreiberBike has basically said "Good riddance to anyone who admits they've failed!" and claimed their input is design to bolster another for no other reason than to fan their friends words. That's for social media. Fan your friends words on Wikipedia, but only if you've a good reason other than, "I really like fanning my friends words".
  • Calling someone a jerk is sort of racist. A jerk is a bartender for kids.
  • Let me tell you something about publications which stand the true tests of time. A column or a series is not forever. It's not even necessarily for a set time. It's either worth reading or it isn't. It goes on for as long as there is relevant information and space.
  • I thought the column is a good idea. Headbombs work on it seems to have been deleted by Smallbones in an arbitrary manner intended to double up as the message explaining the action. Such manner can spark aggression. ~ R.T.G 18:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RTG: The term jerk is not racist. You should apologize for throwing around a word like that so irresponsibly. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not the pitcher here. The term popularised in a place and time where that was the situation (worthless dispostion, ergo, like racism). Someone was unceremonious with an editor. The editor complained. They got an inventive insult for their trouble. When Bike says about paraphrasing, what they are saying is, look how cleverly I insulted you. It sat here for nearly two weeks now. If you want a better response to your issues, produce one. Headbomb is trying to educate people in an appropriate place. He got upside downed in the ice 2x. That hurts. And now it insults. I'd have been interested in the column. What I am sorry for is I haven't found the encouragement. My intention is to encourage the column. My option is to reply to insults. What I am sorry for is, my eyes came off the prize. I am cynical about a result. That's not facilitative. For this much I apologise, genuinely. ~ R.T.G 23:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It eats me up. I'd love to write stuff for the Signpost. I think the things I am interested in are interesting. But when this came up a couple month ago I said to myself, what is the most relevant thing they lack that you'd like to read up on your self. I reckoned public domain releases from last century and before. The theme of the day was humour. I found there was a loophole in old radio shows in the USA, that ones before a point in the sixties or seventies were branded public domain because they were aired without a recording and without an identifier. Wow I'm gonna do me up some Old Signpost Radio Shows or something. Carlins gonna be famous again (I love that stuff and it would really suit WP). Alas... find me one... Okay, find me ten, for every month, suitable for this purpose. Seemed like no. So if Headbomb is actually managing to come up with something new and relevant, I am saying from a sort of experience, do not give him a hard time.
I was not explaining that, because this is with the regulars here. You already know and operate in the knowledge it is not easy to come up with material. I've got nothing but love for youse, but if you are going to be calling each other jerks and stuff over the really simple stuff, over not being organised and trying to be inventive, well I might feel that you should get a reflection at least once. Plus to that is, when all that fighting was going on there and I was fool in the middle, I really really wanted you to get into your guidelines because they seemed in the right direction but not refined at all. Headbomb was trying to get into that with you. You need that. Goals and methods are like the written blood of any project on Wikipedia, I believe. And even if you can't manage that or don't wish to, insults will not suffice the rain check. It's not my place and I don't read you enough to make demands but THE READERS() are not making ANY demands as you well know. You are like these mysterious beings who all live... Who all live where the Signpost is. In the old day, the first requirement of this job would not be a penchant for writing, but a penchant for reading the endless discussion and requests your readers would send to you. It's a bright new day. The world is on fire. Uh, oh. ~ R.T.G 01:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not just that, it is the constant refusal to innovate out of fear and out of conservatism, and to shoot down anyone that brings anything new to the table.
  1. I update the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue page to help coordinate and preview the next issue of the Signpost. The response? This needs a tripartite technical reviews over weeks, and cutoff dates and what have you before being approved. There's nothing to approve. It's live. It works. No script makes use of the page. But because the regulars didn't think of it, it's was of course, deemed a bad idea that needed to be vetted by the regulars.
  2. A reader thought that the featured section was pretty big, especially on mobile, and it would be useful to get size warnings. I made a fully functional mock up. The response? Shooting the idea down before people even have a chance to comment, and trying to shut the discussion down after support was expressed for it, and technical feasibility was demonstrated.
  3. I write an op-ed outlining all the progress done at The Signpost to make it easier to get involved. The Signpost called for people to get involved for years. I did something about it. Not only did I get involved, I (alongside with many others) made it easier for everyone to get involved. The Signpost response? WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
  4. I write come up with a new type column, something sustainable and in demand, which I would have been more than willing to write on a regular basis. The Signpost response? WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Now on any individual pieces, you can probably disagree on matters of style or matters of focus and whatever. But the editor-in-chief of a publication which aims to be the voice of the community should give actionable feedback with the aim of actually publishing things from members of the community. Not have a default answer of "NO" to literally everything, or put barriers to collaboration at every possible step in the process. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a reader, I'd have liked this information--it would encourage me to do things more efficient than fixing them manually. It does seem a little long for the usual column, but it probably but be abbreviated slightly. Headbomb, please move it into WP space! DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll likely submit a reworked version of some kind to the WP:Facto Post, since the Signpost apparently no longer accepts original writing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ever since February it has been clear that the Signpost is being subjected to Wikipedia-space regulations anyway, so having its own editorial mechanism is starting to look redundant. Which leaves their main asset as eyeballs: they have a license to spam a lot of users. The question comes up then, can we develop a Signpost-independent way for newsletter writers to spam some mostly-willing participants? And surely the answer to that could be yes. We could have a Category:User newsletters by month with subcats for each month of each year, in one of which the user places a completed edition; a template/module might then parse the contents to find newsletters within a certain time delay (or maybe you'd have to do it manually; they crippled Lua a looong time ago and I never looked to see if they ever brought alternate functionality back that could do this). Anyway, some kind of ping or attention mechanism could be worked out; there should be various possibilities. Make it so anyone can be an Editor and have control of his own personal little letter and reference/transclude others he likes until it becomes a community newsletter. Wnt (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerning citation bot itself, I'll reply on your talk page. A Signpost article's talk page would have been great for this so more could benefit, but alas, heads in the sand and all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Doc James: "Do we have / need a voting process..." Our voting process was our election of Editor-in-Chief, which resulted in Smallbones taking over after our last EiC was unfairly run out by a reactionary crowd. Because this publication only occurs thanks to volunteer effort, we can't have drive-by good-idea mongers overruling our current leadership. BTW, please resign your bit as every other mop-swinger is doing. It's a political litmus test. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chris, I'm really not personally involved in this particular discussion, but I don't think it is at all appropriate to tell someone to resign so casually. I have been noticing that kind of thing lately, and while I hesitate to put a label on it, it usually looks like bullying to me. If you really think someone should resign, contact them privately first. If you don't, and you just want to be shocking/rude, please reconsider your words. If you volunteer to edit Wikipedia, and even more so if you volunteer with the Signpost, you should know that words matter. Prometheus720 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prometheus720: I have a great admiration for Doc James; I enthusiastically voted him back onto the Board after he was kicked out for revealing WMF shenanigans. Lines are being drawn and either he's with Jimbo, Katherine, and the WMF or he's with the editors. I think it would mean a lot for him to give up his mop in protest. How you didn't understand what I meant, I don't know. This has been a hot issue at WP:BN and discussed actively here. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Chris troutman my allegiances are to our mission. My position is that we will best succeed at achieving that mission by working together as equals. And I will do whatever is in my ability to help us get to that position. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reject that there is an US vs THEM situation. Seriously, this sounds like the Queen of Hearts yelling, "Off with their heads!" every time a character disagreed with her. The epitome of reactionary rhetoric. Quit if you want to but now is no time to tell others what they should be doing. It's a personal decision. Liz Read! Talk! 19:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And again, the Signpost being hostile to anyone that dares disagree with its Dear Leadership. Par for the course, really. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And because this bears repeating, not only were the words "drive-by good-idea mongers" written with a straight face, they were used as a negative and something the Signpost needs protection from. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Headbomb: At one time I advocated for you. I do not do so anymore. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't recall one time you ever 'advocated' for me. The first interaction I remember with you was you expressing hope that I "become disassociated with The Signpost and perhaps WIkipedia, as a whole.". In fact diminishing other people's contributions and belittling them, and calling for other people to leave/quit/resign Wikipedia/aspects of Wikipedia when they don't defer to your judgment and preferences is habit of yours. This is nothing new really. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please everyone, we are in dark times. I know fuses are exceedingly short right now. I respect everyone involved in this conversation. I like Headbomb's idea. I know that the Signpost is a massive amount of work and appreciate everyone who puts in the efforts to get it done. I also know everyone on the Signpost is working overtime on the current crises. I think we can leave further discuss of this to later. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Yeah it's definitely Jimbo's fault and the WMF cabal. Yeah Tips and Tricks could be a great supplement, but not so long as the, you know possibly failure to ZOMG cooties. ~ R.T.G 15:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go on let Headbomb do it. Let them fail. Let them succeed. Watch it happen. Learn. It's not going to break the sandbox this time it couldn't. I bet there wasn't a cross word before this. You didn't actually fault the work or the idea as far as I have seen. Can you really foresee a single complaint about a well presented Tips and Tricks section? No. Is it going to break whatever bit of coolness and interest youse have going on here? Doubtful... Come on you still didn't hash it out. Let the page fly. It doesn't have to be a regular edition. It will collect in the archives. It's actually a good idea. ~ R.T.G 15:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RTG:, that's clearly not going to happen, given Smallbones' unapologetic propensity to blank stuff even if it's in my own userspace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New emoji/icon in each link to full article

What does "📥︎" mean? It looks like a download link, but the link goes to content displayed in the browser window rather than initiating a file download. DMacks (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your feedback DMacks! See #Page size estimates above. I think it's supposed to convey "X size if downloaded" ... in previous issues it was effectively disabled by commenting out a template parameter, but for technical reasons we manually published this one and left the parameter in. If other people think it's distracting, I'l go back and comment it out manually. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the icon is confusing, it'd be simpler to just suppress the icon, or replace it with something else. It could be that "~0.4 MB" is clear enough alone, but I felt "~0.4 MB 📥︎" was clearer on mobile. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apropos mobile view ( ): It lacks the titles for each section (only the blurbs are showing), does anyone know why? Regard, HaeB (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HaeB: Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet wraps the title in a <span> element with class=nomobile. Not entirely sure why, but it's been that way since 2015 [4] - Evad37 [talk] 03:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't use mobile so I don't know if that icon is standard in the mobile world or if the download-vs-display distinction makes sense. It's definitely not standard in the Wikipedia for links to wiki content to have icons at all. If it's wanted for mobile, there might be a CSS way to limit the display to that platform. The file size is also given, which doesn't bother me one way or the other. DMacks (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I would prefer not to see the "on mobile" things at all. MPS1992 (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Download size apply to non-mobile as well. Whether the information is useful to you or not mostly depend on how wealthy you are, or if you have a data cap or not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @DMacks, Bri, Headbomb, MPS1992, HaeB, and Evad37:In the old day of paperwork in an office, part of a stereotyping of an office, often for humour but also for symbols like this, there would be a two plastic trays. One would be for paperwork in, which is symbolised by the above symbol, and the other would be paperwork out, symbolised by the arrow pointing upward. Now, I don't know if that's the intention of this symbol by the creator and loading up the lists of mobile symbols and their meanings on WP sort of fails on my comp (those lists are actually the largest articles on WP recently so understandable). Hope that doesn't put you off using it for whatever you were using it for if it fits! ~ R.T.G 00:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

100 crore?

Hi @DuncanHill: thanks for the note on the undo. @Chris troutman: is the call out "WMF grants program changes position on funding random individuals globally and 100 crore people in one region" intended to refer to 109 people (perhaps purposefully exaggerated)? Came off a bit odd to me as the first blurb. Thanks! — xaosflux Talk 18:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The population of India is rather more than 100 crore. I think the reference is to the WMF pulling the plug on Wikimedia India. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, learned a new word today :D — xaosflux Talk 18:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I made it a wikilink to crore for those unfamiliar with the term. Should it be added to List of unusual units of measurement? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not unusual, over a billion people in the largest democracy in the world are familiar with it. Do we have a List of units of measurement unfamiliar to systemically-biased encyclopaedias? DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a very unusual unit anywhere outside of India. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as the Cord (unit) is a very unusual unit anywhere outside of the United States and Canada. And it is listed at List of unusual units of measurement. Perhaps we should have a List of units of measurement demonstrating that not everything is an example of systemic bias? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
List of units of measurement that people can't be bothered to type into search gets my vote. It always amazes me how many Wikipedia readers and editors do not appear to have access to the internet and its vast resources. Anyway, if you think it should be on that list then either be bold and add it yourself, or propose it on the article talk page. I wouldn't regard cords as unusual either, or indeed confined to Canada and the USA. DuncanHill (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a unit of measurement, just a number. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's safe to say it is an unusual unit of measurement outside of Indian English, which the rest of the page doesn't appear to be written in. No problems with it being used, but linking may help readers such as me better understand the message! Side note, went to List of dialects of English and was hoping to find a table of dialects by population of primary users - anyone know if we have one? — xaosflux Talk 19:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think filelakeshoe's point was that it's a numerical value rather than a unit of measurement ("a standardised quantity of a physical property"), for the same reason a "milliard" or a hundred isn't a unit of measurement; it's just the Indian English word for "10 million". —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point by filelakeshoe and Nizolan. On the other hand, List of unusual units of measurement already has several numerical values, such as Encyclopædia Britannica ("the size of Wikipedia is X Encyclopædia Britannicas") and List of obsolete units of measurement includes the Dimi (Metric prefix#dimi). That doesn't imply that crore should be added of course. Perhaps those should be removed as being numerical prefixes/suffixes rather than units of measurement. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As described in the article, Encyclopædia Britannica is a dimensioned quantity of a number of characters. (I haven't looked closely enough at the article to comment on any other possibly dimensionless numbers.) isaacl (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(ec) The Encyclopaedia Britannica is a unit of data volume, not a number. It means "300 million characters", not "300 million". One can have a crore of rupees, or people, or mosquitoes, one cannot have an Encyclopaedia Britannica of any of those things. DuncanHill (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

xaosflux I know this word from my working trips to India, but normal numbers are also used. What needs to be decided is: Should the en.Wiki be written in international English that everyone understands, or should it be accepted that by sheer numbers, the en.Wiki is now practically the South Asia Wikipedia in English - in which case all articles about S.Asia should be forked off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kudpung: I don't see this as being enough of an issue to fork, but if there was going to be a dialect fork from English Wikipedia to say the "Indian English Wikipedia", I'd suspect all articles would need to be forked to best present to Indian English readers and that the content of the article wouldn't really matter. As far as articles here go, WP:ENGVAR guidance should be fine - but just like with other measurements (e.g. meters/feet , degrees F/C) a units of measure conversion notation may be the best way to accommodate the most readers. — xaosflux Talk 11:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xaosflux:, I didn't mean a dialect fork. I meant a regional/cultural fork. Already due to sheer numbers that the traditional angloshphere cannot compete with, cultural dichotomies between out contributors are beginning to make themselves felt. Obviously as a European, living these past 20 years in Asia, and a 40-year career in applied linguistics, I see a real potential for a new WikiMedia project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2019

I want the {pp} template to go on there. Mr. Juicyfun (Obliterator time!) 18:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr. Juicyfun:   DoneMJLTalk 18:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile view has no titles

On mobile, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost shows article blurbs only; no titles. E.g.:

 But they aren't entirely sure they see it

Plus a few celebrities. 

I'm guessing this isn't how it's supposed to be. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-snippet set a "nomoblie" class on the title. Not entirely sure why, but edit summaries in the page history suggest that, at least circa 2015, the titles couldn't be made to work on mobile. - Evad37 [talk] 00:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The pageviews tool says over 10% of the traffic to the web page is from mobile, so this should be considered significant. It's unfortunate that a rendering error could make the reader question the content itself. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed that class from the sandbox version and it seem to work just fine on some testcases (both on desktop, and with mobile website/device). Whatever the problem was in 2015, it doesn't seem to be a problem anymore. - Evad37 [talk] 05:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed from the live template [5]. Titles are now showing on mobile. - Evad37 [talk] 05:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks right to me with Chrome on my Android device now. Great work, Evad.
Still, it makes me wonder why this went on so long without any reader feedback. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia

according to WMF staff. Make of this what you will but there is possibly an article lurking for The Signpost, especially in conjunction with this new WMF project. More of it here Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read through that discussion ( now here), and it seems the claim "WMF staff says Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopedia" is false; it came from a diversity working group, and they did not use those words. Jimbo Wales said that idea was "just wrong" and it's going nowhere. It seems like it's just a poorly articulated comment someone made in a meeting that got recorded in minutes. There's no story here. -- Beland (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a story here. The story is that a working group organized by the WMF was able to create a proposal posted by the WMF staffer who was advising them and published on a special page on meta without any sort of disclaimer explaining that this wasn't a WMF proposal. Combine this with the fact that certain previous proposals hidden away in obscure corners of meta and never commented on ended up turning into giant shitstorms when they were implemented and it suddenly becomes a reasonable course of action to publicize and vigorously oppose all such proposals, and to ignore the well-meaning voices calling for us to ignore the proposals. If the WMF doesn't want us to take such proposals seriously, they should either have someone review them for sanity before publication or publish them with a disclaimer. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Guy Macon: That's just plain false. The recommendation page has a big notice in 17pt font at the top that says "Note: Working Group draft recommendations are not proposals from the Wikimedia Foundation." This draft proposal was posted to meta specifically so it could be reviewed and commented on by the rest of the community rather than acted on unilaterally. If you want to throw stones, throw them at the people who created the recommendation. Kaldari (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You appear to believe that "A WMF Proposal" and "A proposal from the WMF" are the same thing. That's not how I read it. I think that "A proposal from the WMF" is something that the WMF proposes and is publishing so it can be discussed, whereas "A WMF Proposal" is is something that someone else proposes and which the WMF is publishing on a WMF-controlled page by someone with (WMF) in their username so it can be discussed.
If, as you claim, this is just a random proposal that is essentially the same as a proposal you or I can create, please tell me how I can create a working group and have my working group's proposal published along with this one. Then explain why the description at meta:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups says things like "These Working Groups are at the center of this process; they are the agents of change." and "April-June 2020: Movement endorsement: Endorsement of recommendations; commitment for the implementation. April-June 2020: Process evaluation. May-June 2020: Core team handover and transition to implementation structure" doesn't sound like some random proposal that the WMF is planning on ignoring, does it? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's as dumb as the claim the WMF made at Wikimania in Haifa that every established user began their Wiki career as a vandal. There really are some stupid people employed by the Foundation, and those work groups, BTW, also get free food, flights, and fancy accommodation. 17:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
I think that "Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia" is not really what was meant in diversity working group recommendation 2. In the context of the rest of the discussion, it looked more like it was saying that the "classical notion" of an encyclopedia needed to be discard (indeed as Wikipedia has done since its inceptions due to it unique scope and method of creation). The focus of discussion seems to have been that people have erroneously interpreted the "classical notion of an encyclopedia and universal knowledge" to encompass a biased subset of topics, which is pretty well-documented at this point. Wikipedia has clearly already moved far beyond the scope scope of classical encyclopedias, but still has systemic biases (in each language version) on a variety of topics.
Although I understand the worries about reimbursement for working group's food and flight expenses, I think it would have been far more exclusionary for only people who can afford such things to have been able to contribute. I think that people in the working groups are acting in good faith in trying to form a strategy in a way different to how the Gang of Four would do so, and much more lead by similar efforts by e.g. Mozilla. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 07:31, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evolution and evolvability, I'll stand corrected, but I'll think you'll find that many of the people specially selected to be part of those work groups could have afforded to attend the meetings on their own steam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll judge for myself, if Wikipedia is or isn't an encylopedia :) GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

31 October issue of The Signpost not received on WikimediaAnnounce-l or Wikimedia-l

@Smallbones: the email announcement has not been received on the mailing lists. Do you know who is in charge of the email publication for this issue? ↠Pine () 23:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pine: I've noticed it takes a couple of days sometimes - but I only get a summary of one of those mailing lists. I do remember the March (?) issue was seemingly left off on purpose and asked at WMF Comms and they put it on, so I'll try that (but they may be gone for the weekend). I can't think of anything in this issue that might have offended anybody at the WMF.

BTW, I mentioned at the Newsroom talk about the 6,000,000th article coming up. You did something amazing I rember for the 5,000,000th. Anything you can think of this time? Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pine and Smallbones: Entirely my fault; I forgot to send it out Thursday. I took care of it just now. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Smallbones: OK. Regarding creating a new video for the 6 million article milestone, unfortunately unless someone offers me a large stack of cash, that's not going to happen. I believe that the 5 million article milestone video took me about 80 hours of work. Now that I have more experience and better tools I could create another video in less time, but I don't have a free 40 to 60 hours to give away this month. So, I appreciate the thought, but I'm not going to create another video for the 6 million article milestone. --↠Pine () 01:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Pine:, no I certainly wasn't expecting that again. Great effort that I still remember off the top of my head after 4 years. But any ideas for the Signpost would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is great. Can we keep it moving forward at the Newsroom? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/About#The Signpost team and the enwp article The Signpost do not agree on whether the Editor-in-Chief position is filled. Compare [6] and [7]Bri (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should The Signpost be mentioned at Template:Newsletters

There's a discussion going on at Template talk:Newsletters, please opine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pre-consultation on a global Code of Conduct

Did I overlook where this has been discussed at English Wikipedia? The Foundation is currently conducting a pre-consultation on a Universal Code of Conduct that is planned to be initiated in the coming months. Community feedback at Meta is minimal so far (and seems to come from German Wikipedia only). --Martina Nolte talk 04:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’ve mentioned it here yesterday, but I'm not aware of some official thing neither here nor an Wikimedia-I. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content guidance updates?

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance doesn't really match The Signpost as of its June, 2017 re-launch. Just off the top of my head we have some new columns and some style stuff that could be updated in.

  • Is the Traffic report forward-chronological or reverse?
  • New regular or semi-regular columns On the bright side, Tips and tricks
  • Featured content report is defunct and lately was not "generated on a weekly basis via script"
  • Humour appears to have been abandoned or editor driven off

If I think of more, I'll add here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bri, think of the new columns I introduced during my tenure as E-in-C. None of them were controversial, but they took time, effort, and enthusiam to write and/or research. Most of the contentious talk surrounding The Signpost happened after my time, but while I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular (most of the shit stirring came from known detractors of the magazine), it seems logical that fewer and fewer people are inclined to contribute to it (also a bit like RfA candidates in a way) for fear of reprisal, at least until it gets hosted elsewhere and hence better controlled. How about a '2019 - Year in Review' feature for next month's issue? There's plenty of grist for that mill... I'd come back to contributing, but I'm not exactly a bugger for punishment from <names redacted> who look for any opportunity to have a go at admins. The overall community climate on en.Wiki has been on rather a low ebb this year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Broken RSS links

The RSS links provided in the "subscribe" page are broken (both of them). Hope this is a good place to flag this bug :) Tarkowski (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello and thanks for all the good work. Can I make a small suggestion for a pre-publication check? DabLinks will find any links to disambiguation pages, such as Gladiator (film) which could be changed to Gladiator (2000 film). It can also help fix them, though that is a little more complicated as they're on transcluded subpages. I'd do this myself but I'm not sure whether I should be tinkering with the published text at this late stage. Hope that helps, Certes (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's even easier than that. Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets has a check-box to "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:10, 27 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for both comments. I'll check to see if those orange links show up. They do! Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signpost and In The News

Hello, should WPITN not link to Signpost? ~ R.T.G 15:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RTG: WP:ITN is a separate WikiProject that puts content on the Main Page. The Signpost is entirely different. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not even in the same category... or is it..? It may be a separate project, but should it be completely separate? Isn't the Signpost being pipped for a popularity competition it can't compete with? Yes, it most certainly is. In fact, WPITN is robbing you of your readership, to a wall of complaints that something is missing from it, there. ~ R.T.G 15:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RTG: Signpost is news about Wikipedia, written by and mainly for Wikipedia editors. It would make no sense on any website other than Wikipedia. ITN lists notable topics which have received news coverage in the media. Apart from the handy wikilinks, it could easily form the front page of a general news website not associated with Wikipedia. They may both be winners, but in different competitions. Certes (talk) 16:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You exemplify my point. This is not another site. We have an agenda here. Signpost reports that agenda. There should be a link below ITN, promoting what this site stands for, and c'est la vie to all the rest. ~ R.T.G 17:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, you have a gripe with ITN's coverage. We are not your lever against ITN. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a relevant issue. This is not an arena. It's a talkpage, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 18:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New userbox for you

Hey, look at this. I made a new Signpost userbox, useful for subscription purposes.

(template link: Template:User Signpost-subscription-scroll)

It's a modification of {{User Signpost-subscription}} with a scrollbar. Enjoy! Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 02:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC) (altered by me on 02:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]

User:I'm Aya Syameimaru! thank you so much for this. It took me awhile to figure it out. If it was just one line taller and said "Scroll down" it would be easier to figure out. But that's just a quibble. Thanks again. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Smallbones you're welcome. Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 00:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hide broken resources

I used html comments to hide a few broken resources. I wasn't sure if we should work to revive the resources or just remove the links. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image alignment

May I suggest left aligning this template: WikipediaWikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Templates/Filler_image-v2 it looks terrible on mobile. thanks fgnievinski (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


My Wikipedia page is not found NaveenJeevi official 45 (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you mean that your user page does not show up in search results, this is deliberate. Most searches are limited to articles rather than user pages. If you mean that there is no article about you, perhaps editors have not considered your activities sufficiently notable yet (and writing an autobiography is strongly discouraged). I hope that you still wish to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of other topics. Certes (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signpost talkpage alignment

It appears that the body (actual talk sections) of Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost is indented. In tracing the templates, I see a two pieces of of mangled HTML in Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/header

  1. There is a dangling open <div...> in the first line that causes indenting. Towards the end of the page is a matching <div style=text-align:left></div> with no content (what's it do?) but then no later </div> for the one starting on the first line.
  2. In the {{Archive banner}} block there is '''Pre-2010 discussions by category'''</center>. Where is the opening <center> that matches it?

DMacks (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ping User:Headbomb who worked on that template last year. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@DMacks: The editors of the Signpost have made it abundantly clear that external help is unwelcomed, and so they can sort this out between themselves. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried to look into it an issue or two ago, but because the components of the Signpost are sliced and diced in different ways for its different formats, the task of testing was too daunting for me. isaacl (talk) 16:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think this has already been fixed. There is a different Linter issue with unclosed tags in new and old issues of the Signpost, but unfortunately, when I tried to fix it in the new issues, it broke old issues, or vice versa, I don't remember. It requires more investigation and a template fork, maybe. Happily, the issues render fine for now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Philoserf made a change to the header today so hopefully it works OK across the different formats of the publication. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isaacl, This particular template was not widely used. Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/header —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies if I caused any confusion. The page that was broken and is now fixed was a subpage of this page. The remaining Linter errors exist in The Signpost itself, but are not a big deal. We'll figure it out someday. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks User:Philoserf, looks good now. DMacks (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is The Signpost a reliable source?

This was discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 290#Is The Signpost a RS?. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just came across the use of {{CURRENTVERSION}} at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/Technology report - that magic variable shows the version as of whenever the page is loaded, not the version at the time of writing, and should have been substituted. Not sure how widely its used currently for tech reports, but at some point it would be a project to go back and fix the historical uses to reflect the version intended at the time. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


No article on the current struggle over rebranding with the community and wmf apparently at odds again?--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nah. We just wait until they rename themselves Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia is an attempt to get more donations, then they buy new letterheads and redo all of the domain names, then multiple admins and maybe a few board and arbcom members resign in protest over them making money off of our good name, then they apologize and undo everything. Nothing else will have any effect. It's the Wikimedia Foundation Way. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm talking about a news article here to inform Wikipedians on the current state of affairs and not about speculations what wmf might or might not do.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good idea. The Signpost loves to cover every phase of the latest example of the WMF attempting to do something without consulting anyone, the shit hitting the fan on Wikipedia, and the WMF backing down. It's the Signpost way. (And that's a Good Thing!) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S.: After a straw poll in the past and the current flawed surveyby the WMF, there is now an open letter to the board:

--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiproject Square Enix

Has no Stubs, no Lists, no Starts, and a majority of our articles are now Good Articles and Featured Articles and Featured Lists. I don’t know of any other wiki project that has ever accomplished this. This could definitely be a good profile and a “good news” feature. Not all is dark on Wikipedia, and great things are still being accomplished! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes @Guy Macon:, those are articles from our project, three B level articles I can see. But we will have accomplished all the things I listed above, and it has been seven years since our project was last highlighted, and in light of our tremendous accomplishments, it seems fitting that a profile/interview piece be done on the project, don’t you think? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe a topic for the WikiProject Report? —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Larry Sanger: Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead

I wonder if anybody has the courage to summarize this perspective that will draw the ire of the activists swarming on this site for the past years. 2601:602:9200:1310:59AF:2871:B4E0:1D8A (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We're gonna get absolutely dogpiled, but I agree. Although I take a dim view of pseudoscience I agree Wikipedia has become left-biased. PrussianOwl (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How so? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science" -- so if we're going to balance opinionated sources, we can start with his and just say that Sanger is acting like a Trumper (if it's not a simple case of sour grapes). Ian.thomson (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, I don’t like Sanger, but saying abortion isn’t one of the safest medical procedures makes him a “Trumper”? Or decrying the hagiography of Barack Obama, which mentions none of his scandals, which isn’t NPOV. Unfortunately, Sanger is right, and it’s embarrassing how much Wikipedia doesn’t even hide, just flaunts its liberal agenda and disregards it’s own NPOV. An article should definitely be written up about how NPOV has been abandoned. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Wow, I don’t like Sanger, but saying abortion isn’t one of the safest medical procedures makes him a “Trumper”?" I wouldn't use that terminology, but yes, actually. No medical procedure is safe. The only reason to single out abortion is politics. 3nk1namshub (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could point out about 1 or 2 areas on Wikipedia, where NPOV isn't accepted. But, I'm not interested in being reported to ANI or Arbcom. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sanger is promoting his latest attempt to compete with wikipedia, and one should assume that when and if it starts it will try to differentiate itself from Wikipedia on the issue of neutrality and where it lies. Given the surprisingly long duration of Conservapedia, which I think has outlived Citizendium and all Sanger's other projects, I can see the marketing logic in going for a more rightwing ethos as his way of differentiating from us. However re his comment "their notion of what is credible does, in fact, bias them against conservatism, traditional religiosity, and minority perspectives on science and medicine" we are biased towards academic sources, haven't we always been? Wasn't that part of our DNA even when Sanger was here? That means that our articles on religions are not written from the perspective of those religions; Our coverage of alternative health is not from the perspective of those who reject modern medicine, and I dread to think where he is going re minority opinions on science, but I suspect his new project could have very different articles on climate change, evolution and one wonders what else. One problem he is going to have is that once you move away from wikipedia's NPOV how do you limit that? Minority perspectives on science and Medicine from within academia are one thing, there are areas where serious scientists disagree, and Wikipedia's articles can and should reflect that. Minority perspectives on science and medicine from outside academia would range from anti vaxxers and climate change deniers to flat Earthers and Moon Landing deniers. I will be interested to see where Sanger draws the line on that one, and how he does so without having his new site spiralling into fruitloopery - surely we all have some "minority perspective" that we wouldn't want to be associated with. As for those who take his charge seriously, yes Wikipedia has imperfections, but are they as great as they were in the past? ϢereSpielChequers 15:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Related: CZ is shutting down. – SJ + 08:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He lost me at "Obamagate." Muttnick (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem I see is the attempts to lump together wackos who are anti-vaccination and moon landing deniers with people who are of a right with perspective in general, so trumps article gets filled with hate, Obama’s with love, and they claim it’s “balanced”. GW Bushs article mentions his drunk driving, Obama’s presidencies many scandals (as all presidencies have) are not even mentioned and it’s a Featured Article. And on climate change, anything that goes against consensus is treated as witchcraft, not even to be considered. Wikipedia needs to realize that to the general public, as this is supposed to be a general purpose encyclopedia, mainstream right wing, Christian, and new climate change research is not the same as holocaust deniers and flat earthers, and should get equal treatment in articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imagine using CNN or secondary sources with links to CNN? GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do we differentiate between Flat Earthers and climate change deniers? I'm in the UK, so where I am "mainstream right wing" is not the same as in the USA or Saudi Arabia. "Traditional religiosity" also varies a lot around the world. We do get problems with religious conservatives who resent our having pictures of Muhammed in the article Muhammad, even though those pictures are centuries old pictures by muslims. Even if we narrowed "Traditional religiosity" to Christianity as per Judgesurreal, there are huge differences among Christians. Even sayings like "love thy neighbour", "turn the other cheek", "blessed are the peacemakers" and "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the gates of heaven" that Christianity attributes to Jesus Christ are not at the heart of some forms of Christianity. I get that many religious people would want Wikipedia to cover their religion from that religion's perspective, but would they be so comfortable extending that favour to other religions? Wikipedia is a General Interest Encyclopaedia, that means we write for a general audience, but we are writing an encyclopaedia, and that means we write what is verifiable in reliable sources, not what is popularly believed. ϢereSpielChequers 20:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that’s the big joke, it’s all written from an American Liberalism perspective, and it’s so dominant and pervasive in places like this that you don’t even realize there is a climate change debate at all, there’s just “The Truth” and “Truth Deniers” like it’s a religion. There are no new discoveries or policy developments from flat earthers, but there is certainly a climate change debate that is going on all over the world. How much will it change? How quickly? How much is mankind contributing? But you would never know there was any alternate hypothesis or science going on here! And if you do deny what others have declared “The Truth”, your a “denier”, like any religious fundamentalist would do. And that’s not science. And it’s just one of many examples of how Wikipedia has been overrun by people so ideological they don’t even realize their are biased. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? Climate change? We should reject the views of 97% of climate scientists in favour of "neutrality"? Wikipedia sticks to the science. The reason science has a left wing bias is because to be right wing these days you have to reject it. Serendipodous 21:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Science is not a popularity contest, it wouldn’t be any less true or false if 100% stated their opinions either way. And this is another example of how the science is not discussed or respected, it’s a kind of oppressive groupthink. You disagree? You’re not a person with another opinion, you’re a “non thinker” who has “rejected science”. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When rigorous scientific analysis has determined something to be true, and you refuse to believe it anyway, you are indeed "rejecting science." -- Euryalus (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, science is very much a popularity contest. It deliberately makes going against the mainstream opinion VERY VERY HARD, so that, should you push an idea that the mainstream doesn't accept, you must provide a mountain of evidence to support it, and have it survive peer review again and again, thus ensuring that no single cranks wet dreams make it into serious discourse. Serendipodous 21:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I see that the Sanger piece will be sent down the memory hole, and I am not going to keep preaching to deaf ears. Everyone in leadership at the Foundation is already a part of the Progressive Movement, and that won’t change either. I will end with this one thought: you can either be propagandists for the progressive movement, or be an Encyclopedia, you cannot be both. And if you look at the Big American States, the Boy Scouts, and the NFL, you would know that everything this movement touches dies with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm. Apparently Jimmy Wales, a self-confessed Ayn Randian objectivist, is a progressive. Who knew? Serendipodous 22:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Serendipodous, as you say, it boggles the mind. I don't know what Sanger's politics are, but he has become a promoter of conspiracy theories (a deep state/COVID truther) so perhaps less is more. – SJ + 07:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Wikipedia's other founder once said, "What Wikipedia won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't."pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is this ok?

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

I'm really not gonna bother much with markup here. Sorry, I'm too tired to care.

This is over a year old, but it still has unanswered relevant questions.

Why was this ever published in the first place?

Why was it blanked, but not nuked?

Why were there no punishments for the editors who published it, or the editor of The Signpost who allowed it? Surely it constitutes a personal attack on every single trans editor here. If I were to go onto any cis person's page here and start talking about how I hate cis people and think they're subhuman """SJWs""", I would get a block.

What is Wikipedia doing to ensure that content like this never makes it to The Signpost again?

What is Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia Foundation) doing to challenge the environment they created, that clearly encourages and condones transphobia? An environment where "don't treat trans people like subhumans" is seen as censorship?

Apologies if this isn't the right place, but I have no idea where else to post this.

Wikipedia clearly has a problem with transphobia, and nothing is being done about it. Why? Is everything okay if I call it "comedy"? Hurt is hurt, abuse is abuse. It doesn't matter if you find it funny, being a shithead is still being a shithead.

Also, apologies for not being more "well-spoken". I have no energy and I just can't bring myself to care anymore. I've only been paying attention here for about a week and it's clear the transphobia issue here is terrible. Y'all claim you want a more diverse editing population, but do nothing to foster an environment that allows that.

You have created the world's biggest repository of information. It is your responsibility to make sure people are safe here.

Finally, I do not care about the vote to delete it. As I said, you have fostered an environment of transphobia. Of course it isn't gonna get deleted if you take a vote, the people here are biased whether they admit it or not. It should never have been published, and that alone should be enough of a case for a nuking. The entire "don't delete" argument is "muh censorship". If you think it's censorship to treat people with basic human dignity, boy howdy do I have news for you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JzG: Sorry for the ping, but I know if I don't ping anyone, this will never get answered. I chose ANI because this was a question for all the admins here, not for singpost discussion. Would you be able to answer my questions or point me to someone I can ping who will? 3nk1namshub (talk) 00:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The consensus of a very long discussion was "keep and blank". Wikipedia runs on consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you are not going to read what I wrote, please do not respond, thank you. 3nk1namshub (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Twas funneh. I suppose I’m a shithead though :( – 2.O.Boxing 01:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What was funny? It was a transphobic tired. If I called you a worthless subhuman cissy, you'd go straight to ANI about it. You are exactly the reason this place is trash. @Jonesey95: You want an example? Here you fuckin' go, family man. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3nk1namshub, you asked a question ("Why was it blanked, but not nuked?"), you got an answer, and you responded with a totally uncalled for snarky comment. You give the appearance of being someone who is trying to pick a fight about your favorite hobbyhorse.
Here is my answer to your questions. Don't like it? Don't ask questions if you don't want answers.
Unless you are tied to a chair with your head in a clamp, your eyes taped open, a self-refreshing Wikipedia feed on a monitor, and the Wikipedia Song blaring into your ears, nobody is forcing you to read and respond to Wikipedia Signpost articles, and especially nobody is forcing you to dig through the history to read and respond to deleted Wikipedia Signpost articles. If you are offended or feel that your time is being wasted, you only have yourself to blame.
If you are tied to a chair, etc., let me address your captors: First, keep up the good work. Second, please take away their keyboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I asked several questions, actually. Additionally, would you expect stormfront to vote to stop being racist? I don't think being upset at transphobia is at all uncalled form. I don't believe I'm to blame that people are being transphobic here with no repercussions. If I told you you were subhuman scum, I'd get a block at the very least.
I'd like to ask you to stay away from me from now on. Thanks. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3nk1namshub, I read every word of what you wrote before I responded. You found a project page (not an article) that had been written by one person and edited for internal publication to insider WP nerds by a very small group of editors. When that page was published, Wikipedia responded vigorously to object to its content as unrepresentative of the consensus views and attitudes here at Wikipedia. If you are making claims that Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation are transphobic, you're going to need to pick a better example.
As a counter-example to your claim that Wikipedia is biased against transgender people, I can point you to this MOS:BIO discussion, where I asked a question about gender pronouns and was given (one unhelpful and) multiple helpful, nuanced responses. I understand that you are upset about the essay, and I know that Wikipedia needs help with expanding its recommendations about writing about gender. There is some helpful (but incomplete!), neutral, consensus guidance about changed names at MOS:DEADNAME, at MOS:BIO, and at MOS:GNL. If you have a proposal to modify Wikipedia's guidelines around gender and pronouns, I recommend that you make such a proposal after you have taken some time to let your understandable ire settle. As you can see from my question about pronouns for drag queens, we need help and more guidance! This is your chance to educate editors who may not know or care as much as you about gender issues and gendered language. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't... I don't know where to even begin with this. I don't care if this was published internally or externally, it was still published, with no repercussions. I read the thread, nothing about that response was "vigorous". If it is unrepresentative of WP, it should have been nuked. Drag queens are not trans and it's fucking laughable you would use that as an example of not being transphobic. Let me guess, "I love RuPaul, so I can't hate tranni- sorry, the transgendereds".
You absolutely cannot ask trans people to fix your transphobic environment, and it's insulting you would even ask that. What you need to do (and what you are currently refusing to do) is invite trans people to talk about why they dislike Wikipedia, and then create an environment where we are not treated like shit and deadnamed.
If you would like me to educate you, my rate is $20/hour and I will gladly send you my cashapp. Otherwise, you can listen to the trans people who have criticized your environment for almost two decades now. 3nk1namshub (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@3nk1namshub: Apparently, we do not share your values. The piece was published because the handful of people that looked at it did not have a problem with it. We come from a society that lets others say things whether or not we like what's being said. We don't enforce a neo-fascist speech code. There was never any intention for hatred towards anyone; it was a humorous piece about grammar that unfortunately was taken by some to be offensive. Comedy explores ideas that not everyone finds amusing. The Signpost shall not be "educated" or threatened by partisans who, feeling froggy, think their moment has come; it has not. I am a sorry for any offense you took from the piece; there was no malice, I assure you. It was an inelegant mistake. If I recall correctly, the editor-in-chief involved was forced out because of this, so you cannot claim there were no consequences. I find your demands unreasonable and I insist you cease before you discover what liberty comes packaged with journalism. Maybe you should read other websites, instead. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here we go again with the screeching about how "not allowing me to be hateful is fascism". Sure, family guy. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonesey95: more proof, my guy. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe that we are being trolled by an anti-LGBT activist playing a role in order to discredit supporters of equality. I can't think of another reasonable explanation for the disruptive behavior we are seeing. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every fucking time cishets are asked to change, they claim we're trolls. Amazing. I asked a question, that's all. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In case we're not: Jonesey didn't say that drag queens = transgendered people, they used that as an example about gendered language. Consensus can change, and you could try to gain consensus for deleting a Signpost article from over a year ago without ascribing motives to other people. But I think it's best if you step away from this now. The Moose 04:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never said they did, Moose. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Drag queens are not trans and it's fucking laughable you would use that as an example of not being transphobic." Is what you said above. The Moose 04:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct, because they were being used as an example of not being transphobic. I don't give a shit anymore. You want trans editors? Tell people to stop treating us like shit and silencing us when we complain. Just blank all my contributions already. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3nk1namshub, I'd like to note that I am trans, and a longtime editor. The Signpost thread wasn't funny then, and isn't funny now. It was very problematic. But the community responded in a mature way, and took the material down. I think the contributors of the signpost learned a valuable lesson, and I can't imagine this would happen again. As a note: you ask why the folks involved weren't punished. Well, punishment isn't a thing here. We don't block people to punish them, we block folks to stop disruption. In this case, the disruption was stopped, and folks learned their lessons. I disliked that post a lot. But I also don't think it represents the majority of viewpoints here, and it was a wakeup call to many of us. If you want to help change Wikipedia's culture, become a productive editor, edit LGBTQ topics, participate in policy discussions, especially around queer issues. But aggression isn't going to get you anywhere. If you want change, you have to help make it happen. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You cannot ask trans people to fix the transphobia you created, and then block them when they call out that transphobia. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3nk1namshub, No one has been blocked. Would you like to actually be productive and help build our encyclopedia? If so, I can point out a number of topics and projects that might be of interest to you. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yet. Today I've been called a fascist for not liking transphobia. I've been accused of being a SPA for caring about trans people. Sorry I'm not a polymath. 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Guy Macon: What do you want me to do, dude? You yell at me for having multiple threads open, and then get mad when I close them. What do you want? 3nk1namshub (talk) 04:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3nk1namshub, Having multiple threads is a problem, yes. But having zero threads is not a solution either. You removed all the threads, and thus the conversation was erased. Now it exists here, so that all conversation on the topic is centralized. Nothing further needs be done regarding threading. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 04:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3nk1namshub: For someone who claims to be knowledgeable and concerned about gender issues, you sure are casual about referring to people whose gender you do not know as "man", "guy", and "dude". I will let your other comments above, in response to good faith engagement, speak for themselves. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest you read Family Man. But either way, apparently transphobia is not seen as an issue here. IDGAF, right? Now, which good faith engagements are you talking about, the one that wished harm on me, or the one that called me a fascist? 3nk1namshub (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dealing with Trolls

"What really influences trolling behaviour is the social pleasure derived from knowing that others are annoyed by it. The more negative social impact the troll has, the more their behaviour is reinforced.
Happily, this discovery suggests an easy way to deal with trolls: ignore them, rather than giving them the satisfaction of an angry reaction.
Individuals seeking a negative social reward may still engage in trolling. But if they don’t receive that negative social reward, then their motivation to engage in this behaviour will likely diminish.
So it appears that the classic internet adage really does hold true: don’t feed the trolls. Deny them the pleasure of an angry reaction, and they’ll probably leave you alone." --Source: "Don’t feed the trolls" really is good advice – here’s the evidence

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

What is "grossly offensive"?

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

@The C of E: @Jasper Deng: @Jonesey95: So, what constitutes "grossly offensive"? To me, the people I have sent screenshots to, and every autistic person I've talked to, using a person's autism to patronize, dehumanize, and remove agency (whether or not the intent behind it is pure) is grossly offensive.

Let's discuss, shall we? 3nk1namshub (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't understand. I was asked to come to a consensus before editing, what do you want? 3nk1namshub (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is a discussion at WP:ANI, let's continue it there so we get broader consensus from the admins. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia's least favorite website is taking a stab at Wikipedia

  • breitbart[dot]com/tech/2020/07/22/wikipedia-discourages-editors-from-using-fox-news-as-a-source-on-contentious-content/

Going past the fact that it's blacklisted, the "opinion" presented there is probably still relevant to coverage in the Signpost. 2601:602:9200:1310:28C6:21DD:5792:96D7 (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accessibility on The Signpost

As always, thanks for your work in making a readable and generally good-looking publication; I know that takes a lot of effort. Unfortunately, I have seen some unacceptable practices when it comes to accessibility here and I hope that I can provide some constructive feedback. To use Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-06-28/Arbitration report as an example, I edited this page to add some semantics to the table (note that I am not even clear on what are rows here... this should probably not be a table at all or just reconfigured entirely), removed misapplications of <small>...</small> (this is for "fine print", not just making some text smaller--if you want to do that, please use {{small}}), and frankly, the most egregious I changed the color on the poll to be more readable. I genuinely liked the monochrome gradient that it made but that was far too little contrast. I'm not an expert and I make errors myself, but I really try to prioritize accessibility in my edits. I propose that Singpost editors please take a day or two to ping someone who is knowledgeable on this topic to review your work before it goes out to print, e.g. via posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility or WT:ACCESSIBLE. Since I want this paper to have a broad audience, I also want it to be accessible to that audience. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 00:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I fully agree with making The Signpost more accessible, and without expressing any opinion on whether the particular issues you list are actual accessibility issues, we should make all pages accessible. not just The Signpost.
Please bring your concerns up at Help talk:HTML in wikitext. That page currently says "{{small}} is recommended over <small> since not all browsers render small text the same" with no mention of accessibility.
Then please go to Wikipedia talk:HTML 5 and propose a section on writing HTML for increased accessibility.
Finally, please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia and ask if they can do something to make it so that those of us who do the checking do a better job of catching and fixing accessibility errors. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guy Macon, Done. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Koavf, having written for this publication for over 2 years now, I can say that we appreciate help from anyone willing to offer it. You're always welcome to check the articles before they're published and fix accessibility issues. The page I linked also has a countdown clock which shows the writing deadline day and expected publication date. Generally, everything should be ready to do accessibility checks on when the writing clock is at 0 and the publishing clock is at 1, unless it's by me, in which case it will inevitably be submitted in a 90% finished form within hours of publication. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
pythoncoder, I'm happy to do a once-over if you will ping me. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...Could Koavf get those notifications automatically by simply watching a list of pahes where Signpost articles are assembled prior to publication? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feature request: ping a named group, like @newsroom or @copyeditors or @columnists ☆ Bri (talk) 04:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bri: {{Ping project}}? --Yair rand (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guy Macon, I could but there is no way that I can keep up with the flood of edits that goes into making these. The best I can do is a once-over a few days before publication. This has to be more of a pull than a push on my part. I've tried to work with The Signpost in a more deliberate way in the past but got overextended and just failed. If someone here is willing to put forth the effort, I'll be happy to be included in the publication's workflow. And again, there's no reason this has to be personality-based: anyone could do this but I am just a little more knowledgeable than most and explicitly offering my services. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can someone ping me when the next issue is ~24 to press so I can do a once-over? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 08:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up from a previous story on Citizendium shuttering

A post I started on Citizendium a few months back suggested that that project close. It was mentioned by the Signpost (I had nothing to do with the reportage here) and in the ensuing few months, the conversation has escalated. It's probably too late for press time but I figured I'd update that the community there has a serious proposal to wind down the project: (koavf)TCM 08:36, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reading that page the latest seems to be that Larry has handed the domain over to a community member, and they are going to try and keep it running after all. [8] the wub "?!" 18:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Entirely OR but just before blocking me on twitter Larry tweeted that the project is "moving forward". Not that this actually means anything... Glen 18:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a brief note in News a d Notes for this now. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I might write something about CZ for the next issue. I and a few other people have been writing regular updates about Citizendium on RationalWiki's "What Nothing is going on at Citizendium" page, so I've been following this story for the past few months. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:15, 1 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In previous years I linked from Simple to CZ articles that were written competently a long time ago on topics that wouldn't go out of date. Not any more; like others I gave up hope. Could there be a home for the soon to be orphaned content on Wikisource, or cheaper hosting on Fandom? Jim.henderson (talk) 01:05, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, I wanted to share a review of Neurocracy, a mystery videogame set in 2049 whose interface is a wiki encyclopedia, with edit wars and everything. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Printable Signpost Option

I recently discovered the Singpost and was eager to read it, but I was disappointed to find that there was no standardized offical print option.

What I mean by this is that it's possible to print out the Single Page Edition via the "Print this page" button, but the formatting becomes in disarray and it doesn't come out very cleanly. My suggestion is that there is an option to download a printer-friendly version of the Signpost and print it out. This could be done via a pdf that is pre-formatted rather than just printing the standard page.

Is there any way that this could happen? How could I go about formally requesting this? Squid45 (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you make a PDF of what you viewed, and upload it for us to see? Specific changes you’d like to see from the printed version would be helpful.
By the way, I suggest this link for printer-friendly rendition. It looks ok to me, which is why I asked for your input on what could be better. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the news: Wired on Fox News as unreliable (koavf)TCM 08:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Years ago, for some reason, I made a logo for the Arbitration Committee File:ArbCom logo beta.png that never got used...except in one 2012 Signpost article. Is it OK if I G7 the logo or do I need to keep it around for archive purposes? Raymie (tc) 19:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, we should move it from Commons to being hosted on the English Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate delivery?

Does anyone have any idea why the latest issue has been delivered to my talk page twice? As far as I can tell, I'm only on the subscription list once. stwalkerster (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, these slipups sometimes happen. You can't unring a bell or take back a sent message. Just delete the extra notice. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh, it's fine :) I was just wondering if it was some fixable mistake in configuration or something as easily explainable as human error. stwalkerster (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Human or bot error. It was sent out twice, six minutes apart. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Our apologies. Smallbones(smalltalk) 12:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I’m the one who kicked off the mass message notification as part of the publication process, but I don’t know why it got sent twice. Could it have happened if I accidentally revisited or reopened the browser tab where bot configuration was filled? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't get it delivered myself but I did notice that some other user talk pages I watch had the message delivered twice. On the only one I really looked into, the first message had been deleted before the second was sent. I don't know if that might have anything to do with it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bri: Did you manually send out messages from visiting Special:MassMessage? If so, you don't need to in future as the publication script does the notifications for you via the API (and that would explain why only the initial messages had the publication script's hidden note Sent via script ([[User:Evad37/SPS]])). - Evad37 [talk] 00:45, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evad might be onto something here, but such duplicates are a general issue with MassMessage. See the venerable bug phab:T93049, which has been open for more than half a decade already. User:Samwalton9 already reported this particular occurrence there earlier today. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh duh, yes I did do it manually (timestamps on script-driven SP page moves match the original mass message, mine was ~6 minutes later). I didn't think the script did it. Has that changed since I used to be the regular publisher? ☆ Bri (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate in Movement communications insights

Hi, we would like to invite The Signpost team to participate in Movement communications insights, a study that has just started. As one of the most relevant communications channel of our movement, we want to know your opinion about how could the Foundation best support you. We are also interested in hearing your thoughts about how could the Foundation best communicate with projects and affiliates, and what role you wish The Signpost would play in this process. Any other thoughts are welcome too, of course.

If you accept the invitation, you can choose the channel that suits you best for this conversation. You can sign up for a focus group (an invitation that we are extending to all volunteers in our movement), we could organize a meeting specifically for The Signpost, we could discuss in the Meta talk page or here... Whatever works better to ensure that the views of The Signpost's contributors are well captured in the study. Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Wikipedia Editors Have Been Purging Conservative Media Since Trump’s Election"

That who shall not be named here on Wikipedia has written an interesting, actually fairly neutral story on how wikipedia has systematically pushed away right-leaning media sources. If any established editor dares to put their weight on this sore thumb and risk attracting the attention of activispedians, have a go at this story.

archive[dot]is/OVhRh (talk) 05:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the curious: The link goes to a Breitbart article about en.WP's consensus decisions to deem The Daily Mail and similar publications as unreliable sources. Its byline says that it was written by a now-banned en.WP editor called "The Devil's Advocate". – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...Who has made a career out of selling articles trashing Wikipedia to unreliable sources that object to being called unreliable sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey IP. Once Biden assumes office (Jan 20, 2021), any criticism of Biden will be censured by most of MSM, under the reasoning that Trump may run again in 2024 & let's not risk helping Trump's return. GoodDay (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volunteering myself

I've been a semi-professional journalist before and would like to volunteer myself if you're looking for a writer/editor/whatever for Signpost. Let me know if I can be of any assistance! Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 03:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gwenhope: One good way to start is to write up some items for "In the media" or "News and notes" (I assume you may already be somewhat familiar with the basic format of both sections as a reader).
For ITM, check out Google News or other sources recommended on the newsroom resources page . A writeup can just be a one-sentence summary quoting the headline and publication. Or one can dial it up by including a fuller summary, compiling the most interesting bits from several different news article about the same topic, researching additional context from e.g. article revision histories and discussion pages etc,
For N&N, one might start by reviewing the suggestions page, or scour some of the other sources listed on the newsroom resources page.
Lastly, if you have an interest in reading and reviewing academic papers, check out our todo list for "Recent research". (I will update this in a few weeks with new items for the December issue; you will see various items tagged with e.g. [health] or [gender], these are earmarked for upcoming special issues - see here or here for past examples - but can also be covered in advance.)
Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gwenhope, you might want to check WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Quick Start, I created it for interested folks like you. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bri, I think that page could use some overhaul before recommending it to people. For starters, submitting entire stand-alone stories or opinion pieces doesn't seem to be the ideal newbie task, compared to contributing smaller items to ITM or N&N (which that page seems to reserve for more experienced "regular writers" - IMHO that's exactly backwards). It's also really outdated in some parts, e.g. it recommends the IRC channel as a primary means of coordinating among the team. I wish it was - I created it myself about a decade ago, and it worked for a while, but now it has been inactive for several years, with me being mostly the only human still present in the channel. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Estimated article size is NaN

In typical JS fashion, what I can only assume must be a bug somewhere in the publishing script's approxPageSize seems to have eaten the estimated article size normally displayed below each article's headline on the Signpost's main page and replaced it with NaN. I've taken a look, but I couldn't find any obvious cause, so I'm paging the exterminator. – Rummskartoffel (talk) 01:10, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I've patched the main page for now [9]. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure what happened there - that code worked fine for all previous editions since it was introduced - Evad37 [talk] 15:50, 4 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Evad37, still NaNs in 2020-11-29 issue. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should be fixed for next time - Evad37 [talk] 03:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]