Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 9

Archive 5 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 14


The RSS version seems to be broken. Please, fix.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2015; 14:42 (UTC)

@Ezhiki: I sent Yuvipanda a message. ResMar 15:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks; appreciated. I wasn't sure if there was anyone who I could bug directly. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 10, 2015; 15:59 (UTC)
Might as well @YuviPanda (WMF) and Yuvipanda: too. ResMar 18:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any news? The link now works, but continues to display an outdated issue.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 21, 2015; 19:22 (UTC)

Single page view link in mailing lists

Hi. In the last couple of issues, in the mailing list version, the link for the "Single page view" has been broken because of a missing underscore: -- However, I can't figure out how that even got there, given that the automated output (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination#Mailing list output for this issue) just links to the redirect...?? (fwiw, I do appreciate having the exact-issue link, instead of the redirect, for when I occasionally get backlogged and want to read back-issues.) Hope that helps! Quiddity (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Quiddity: It's a known issue. Jarry wrote the automated tool back when and hasn't updated it to fix this issue. ResMar 21:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Did I spotted a disruption in the signpost at featured content portal? -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 17:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Banner has been returned to the page, with noinclude this time to fix the erroneous transclusion. ResMar 17:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And is it still our editor emeritus doing this? Is there, then, something wrong with bot's summary or is it ed himself initiating it? -The Herald the joy of the LORDmy strength 18:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Gamaliel published this week. The bot is not maintained so the message has not been updated to reflect that. ResMar 20:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing issues

As you know, I'm categorizing the Signpost articles and archives and Issue #6 and #7 are missing from this list (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2015). Can some intrepid staffer post the contents of those two issues? Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, and issue #12 and issue #17 are also missing so I'd appreciate it if they could be added as well. Liz Read! Talk! 21:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added all of them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:12, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Ed! I've now caught up to April 2015. When I get more energy, I'll go back to the beginning or update the links to WikiProjects articles, Category:WikiProjects featured in The Signpost which Ottawahitech used to work on but she is taking a wikibreak right now. Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Single page version is broken

The newly posted single page version is broken. Can someone who knows how to set it up please have a look: I see red links and a template loop error. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single is not much better.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 22:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, both seem fixed now (though I had to purge Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single for it to pick up whatever had been changed). Thanks to whoever saw to it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We frequently find we have to purge the cache for the same reason. Something to do with the publishing bot, I think. Gamaliel (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gamaliel: Purge#Theory is a Wikimedia-wide problem... I don't think we can fairly blame the bot for this. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love this thing!

This thing is the best! User page Contributions 14:06 5-13-15 (UTC)

Hi Writer freak. I assume you're talking about the Signpost as the thing you love, and we are so happy to hear that! If you ever want to take a crack at contributing, you can always check out the newsroom to dive in. Thanks! Go Phightins! 03:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweaked sidebar

I've tweaked your sidebar, creating a proposed change in a sandbox:


Any preferences or comments? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how this one is any better than the one we have now. It makes a conscious effort to re-expose all of the items in the sidebar, whereas the point of the design is that it hides as much as possible, for compactness and obstructiveness, while still making it available on click-through. ResMar 14:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK I'll leave it as it is if that is the consensus from you folks. I guess it's a question of compactness versus obviousness, I'm not a great fan of hidden text without obvious "show" or "hide". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, this is my first time to have been envolved with the Signpost (I've written four in-briefs in the "in the news"-section). I hope I haven't destroyed anything. It was pretty hard to understand ho I could help contribute, I got the the "/Newsroom"-page and was..."where do I click to help out" or something like that...:P But I wanted to say hi, and thank you all for your great work with the 'post! (tJosve05a (c) 22:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Josve05a: You should have seen it back in the day! The current look is the result of work on my part to make things more readable for non-regulars. There is so much information to acquisse to that it's difficult to direct people to it neatly. If you want to contribute here is where you should go first. ResMar 19:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Linking editors' names

  • What, pray tell, is this about? Why would Gamaliel remove the link to Hafspajen's user page? I get that this most recent edition was a rush job, but that doesn't excuse removing a link where it already exists, especially when the remover and the removed have had disagreements in the past. Has Signpost really changed so much since I handled FC for a year +?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're not going to link to a page that hosts attacks against Signpost contributors. Gamaliel (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So you are being vindictive. If anyone actually apologized to the editor (Haf was right about Pilot's copyvios, after all), then I'd expect you'd find those "attacks" removed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Vindictive? You obviously have no idea what that word means. Gamaliel (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Vindictive: "having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge." Haf said things you don't like, so you stir the pot and don't link their name, then revert someone who fixes the error. Don't see how that isn't vindictive. Especially when your reason, "We're not going to link to a page that hosts attacks against Signpost contributors.", is laughably false; Hafs user page hasn't even existed on the English Wikipedia since 27 April. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you want to you can pretend that a user page and a user talk page are just two random pages that have no relationship to one another, but don't come in here pretending it's the smoking gun Perry Mason just used to disprove the district attorney's case. Not using the Signpost to link to attacks on Signpost contributors, regardless of who those contributors are, is a simple principle, but one that, like the definition of vindictive, some people apparently are having a difficult time comprehending. I don't know what it is about FC that causes all of you to abandon AGF, sling around outrageous and transparently false accusations at the drop of a hat, and lose your collective minds to drama. Gamaliel (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've reinstated the link. Credit is due where credit is due. The matter of the "attacks" should be dealt with in another venue. (Also I believe the Signpost editors requested specifics on just these issues, so I do not personally regard them as attacks but rather as clarification, but as I say - that does not affect the issue that the Signpost should give credit.) Yngvadottir (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A side note: the linked page (Hafspajen) doesn't even mention the Signpost. It says simply "Je Suis Hafspajen", a sign that the editor feels persecuted, but nothing explicitly linked to this publication or any of its editors. There is discourse on the user's talk page, but we're not linking that, and (as Yngvadottir said) it's mostly clarificatory in nature, though the ill will between both sides is fairly obvious. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gamaliel, if you want this to go away, don't do it by blanking. A bit of common sense would work. The particular user/talk page is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, an attack page. I'm seriously getting a bit tired of this stuff. Drmies (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's three distinct editors who have stated that they don't consider the comments to be attacks. Perhaps now would be time for an introspective?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gamaliel appears to have accepted in hindsight that the revert was reasonable. Frankly, we'd all be pleased to move on from the messy series of incidents involving Haf and Pilot. Let's do so. Tony (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That is my intent as well, and before this incident I had assumed that everyone was trying to do so. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured content

Could someone please set up the FC page? I don't mind doing the rest of the content, but the setup's beyond me at the moment. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks like Juliancolton has set it up properly today. Gamaliel (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical notes on importing blog posts / web pages

ResMar asked in the Newsroom:

maybe you can help me. How difficult do you think it'd be to reverse the wikicode-to-html script you've made? Ae. writing something for the opposite process. At the moment it's a mass of doldrums find&replace operations that rather reduce our desire to republish WM Blog content at all.

Off the top of my head I would suggest two options for you to convert these blog posts with reasonable effort:

  1. Copypaste the blog post from your browser into LibreOffice Writer and export it from there as wikitext using the "Wiki Publisher" extension (see here for some more detail, although you likely won't need step 4 and the Python script there). It will still need some manual fixes (e.g. for images), but should save a lot of time by preserving links and most formatting.
  2. Or just try to find the original draft wiki page that the post was generated from, at m:Wikimedia Blog/Drafts#Archived drafts. The problem with that option is that while the blog team tries to do most editing on that kind of public draft page, there may occasionally still be differences to the finalized version published on the blog. You could either ask the blog admin who published that post (currently most likely Andrew) if there were such edits, or simply compare the text side-by-side.

There are various other possibilities; you can find some pointers here and here.

And by the way, in the big picture, this problem (going from wikitext to HTML and back) is exactly what Parsoid has been solving in the last few years, as a prerequisite for VisualEditor (i.e. for editing in HTML instead of wikitext). It's not that difficult in most situations, but there is a long tail of rare tricky special cases - especially for certain templates - and sometimes the roundtrip wikitext -> HTML -> wikitext conversion arrives back at a slightly different version of the original source. These are the "dirty diffs" which have caused some of the editor frustration when VE was first rolled out as beta in 2013. To keep grips on that, the developers are constantly running new versions of the Parsoid code against a huge test database of more than 100,000 articles. Anyway, I digress, but the point is that the cleanest solution for the problem you describe ("reverse the wikicode-to-html script") would likely involve first rewriting the script to use Parsoid HTML output, i.e. the kind of HTML that can be converted back 1:1, and then rely on Parsoid to obtain the wikitext back if someone wants to syndicate a blog post on-wiki. I've actually considered doing the former, and chatted a bit about it with some Parsoid engineers, but it's not quite on top of my list currently, as the current version works well enough for its present purpose.

Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 06:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having VisualEditor enabled in Wikipedia namespace might make option two quite a bit easier, but then that will probably open up a whole different set of unrelated issues. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes (I think you mean option 1), VE is a great way to import HTML formatting too, and it's enabled in user space, so you can try importing blog posts right now by copypasting them into your sandbox. But unfortunately it doesn't import HTML links currently, which is why I didn't mention this option above. It might be a good alternative for posts with few or no links, though. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't even think about the sandbox, thank you! I'll try that with my next blog import. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing issue?

I never recived my issue of the signpost this week. Where did it go? Did my dog eat it while I was outor something? (tJosve05a (c) 00:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't delivered to my talk page either and I checked to see if I was on the mailing list and, yep!, I'm there. Liz Read! Talk! 14:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A spot-check on the subscriptions page shows that the bot seems to have only delivered the issue ~50% of the time. I know not why. ResMar 14:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion report

Feel free to delete or scrap Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-05-27/Discussion report if it does not live up to standards, or if it just isn't wanted. (tJosve05a (c) 08:17, 27 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good to me, for what that's worth. Where is the rest of this week's report? No, I don't feel worthy of contributing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I see it's ready. I'll have time to read Monday.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delivery Dilemma

Hello Signpost readers, I just wanted to drop a note to let you all know that we are aware of some inconsistency with the delivery bot, and that some of you have missed talk page delivery for at least one recent issue. We are aware that there is a problem, and are working to rectify it. Thank you for your patience. Go Phightins! 03:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WA programmatic efforts

I'm very supportive of the efforts of Western Australian Wikimedians in designing and conducting a few creative activities. Tony (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured content

I'm on 'oliday next week- probably won't have internet access. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do enjoy your 'liday, though. ResMar 15:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help plan a new software feature for easy subscription to newsletters

We are developing a MediaWiki extension that will enable users to subscribe to community newsletters much more easily. We are very excited to hear your feedback on the features we have planned. Feel free to share your thoughts here. - Tinaj1234 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responded on Phab. ResMar 15:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Issue problems

I have noticed that the Signpost often does not come out until Sunday or Monday. Why don't you fix this problem?--Moran25004 (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not published until Friday often, unfortunate but not a game breaker. The deliverance issues are not limited to us and have to do with a bug in the software: Special:MassMessage isn't quite working like it ought to. No word yet on a fix. ResMar 13:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a Phabricator ticket for that bug? Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe so, but am not certain. ResMar 01:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content Translation is now live

It might be worthwhile following up on the op-ed from the previous edition, the Content Translation tool is now indeed live on en.wp. People can access it by going to "beta" and selecting "content translation" - the system is then available as a dropdown in "contributions". You can follow the new articles that are created by filtering Recent Changes for the "Content Translation" tag:

The first mainspace creations for En.wp with the tool were published simultaniously:

Machine translation exists for new English articles when the source language is: Catalan, Welsh, Spanish, Basque, Galician, or Serbo-Croatian (sh). New source-language Machine Translation options can potentially be added if people want to help develop the (open source) Apertium system

For those interested in the ongoing development of the system, a prototype of now the next version of the CT "dashboard" might look is here - Sincerely, Wittylama 12:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is mentioned in tech report, probably will be in N&N, in brief. ResMar 13:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


From 'Featured articles':

' alcoholic beverage made from rice and wood called "Budweiser".'

I think not. It may well taste that way, but our article on the beverage says that it is made with "up to 30% rice in addition to hops and barley malt", which seems more plausible. You may want to take a look at the supposed prizes for the Budweiser Shootout too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

…and "matured over beechwood". The beechwood is boiled in bicarbonate of soda first. Beer yeast doesn't normally ferment rice, so there must be some kind of process to convert the rice starch to fermentable sugars. It appears that American six-row barley has a higher percentage of protein (which causes protein haze) and the substitution of adjuncts such as rice reduces the difficulty of clearing the wort. The "beechwood" bit is ostensibly to remove yeast from the liquor. I seem to remember that high-volume production of lager beers uses a column process, where the wort is pumped in at the base and travels upward, but I can't find any reference to that- it supposedly took four hours to make a batch. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 06:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would I just be bragging if

I just celebrated my 50th birthday by traveling to New York City to visit articles that I have created. I don't know if this has ever been done before. I don't know if it would be a good interview subject or a good op-ed piece. I arrived in NYC on June 23 and departed on June 29. On June 23 before my birthday, I visited Ground Zero (I'll upload some pictures soon), which I have not been involved in editorially. On Wednesday June 24th I commenced my celebration by attending a 2PM matinee at the Metropolitan Opera at Lincoln Center which featured Misty Copeland ( ,  , page creator). That evening, I attended The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time ( , page creator), starring Alex Sharp (DYK nominee, page creator). On Friday June 26, I attended the Museum of Modern Art to visit Drowning Girl ( ,  ,  , page creator) see here, Girl with Ball ( ,  , page creator) and Campbell's Soup Cans ( ,  , page creator) see here. On Saturday June 27, I attended Kinky Boots ( ,  ,  , page creator). On Sunday June 28, I attended the inaugural exhibition at the newly located Whitney Museum of American Art, which houses Little Big Painting ( , page creator). I apologize that I have not spent any editorial time on the New York culinary delicacies that made up my June 25th evening. Is there a signpost article in this story?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Ah! I live in New York City, so if you'd mentioned that you're here a few days ago we could have done an in-person interview (meeting other Wikipedians is personally interesting to me). ResMar 14:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have facetime and we can always talk, chat or ping back and forth.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely you should have mentioned beforehand so some of us from Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC could meet, talk shop, visit some of those places together, share dinner, or whatever. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TonyTheTiger this sounds like it could be the next travelogue article for the Signpost. I'm no longer in charge here, but I like your suggestion and hope that the authorities will agree. --Pine 16:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pine, I am not familiar with the travelogue feature, but I believe that would be suitable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps. An issue of manpower is the biggest blocker (and, I'll be honest, I don't like travelogues). ResMar 13:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pine, any chance that you would do this as a one-off travelogue article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TonyTheTiger I'm afraid I'm too busy with other priorities to write this myself, but I have an idea. How about discussing this with Ed_Erhart (WMF) for a possible entry in the Wikimedia Blog? Ed is the former editor-in-chief of the Signpost. Perhaps you two can work something out. I believe that WMF Communications likes having community content be published in the blog. --Pine 21:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pine, do you have a suggestion on how to communicate with Ed_Erhart (WMF)? He neither responds to his User talk page nor to his listed email address.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll see if I can get someone for you from WMF Communications. --Pine 06:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TonyTheTiger: Not sure how I completely missed this for a month, my apologies. We will absolutely cover something like that in some format. If you would prefer, we can setup an interview on-wiki, or if you would like to write an op-ed focusing on where you visited, what you learned, how it motivates you to keep contributing to Wikipedia, etc., that is a good option too. Let me know what you think. Thanks! Go Phightins! 12:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC) (SP EIC)Reply[reply]

  • Go Phightins!, although I have been getting distracted from WP by RL, this trip reinvigorated my interest in filling in redlinks. I think a directed interview is most likely to be something useful. My issue is that I was interacting with the primary source by visiting and we on WP are a tertiary source. Hearing individual secondary commentary was quite exhilarating although almost none of the secondary commentary that I experienced was from reliable sources. People who love Misty Copeland, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Kinky Boots or one of the artworks made me feel proud. Seeing the long queues for the various WP article subjects reminds me that people continue to want to see all of these things. I am not sure what I couild do with an op-ed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I missed the ping (my bad; I saw it and meant to reply) but haven't gotten an email from you, sorry. I think this is something more suitable for the Signpost if they want it. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The face of indifference?

I wouldn't have thought I'd be quoted or referenced at Signpost. But, I have been. GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death spiral flattening?

I've started a page at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-08-26/Increase_in_active_editors not sure if it will be ready per the deadline for this week. But it has begun. ϢereSpielChequers 16:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Direct further discussion at the ticket. ResMar 16:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A couple of corrections on the current draft

From this draft page: it's GILBEY, not Gibley. And Philippe Beaudette has remained a community member and administrator throughout the time that he has been a WMF employee; it's not quite right to say that "[b]efore that he had served as an administrator on the English Wikipedia" because he always has done so. Risker (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I've fixed both items. Gamaliel (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for the typo, as for the latter case I did not mean ttho imply that he lost admin rights on joining e WMF, though I can see how it would read that way. ResMar 16:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, ResMar, that's the whole idea behind collaborative editing, that together we make things better. Risker (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(from a public terminal) And I shouldn't edit Wikipedia before coffee (look at those typos!). (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of WP

I used to be an active user. Most active around 2006,7. Back then we had a pretty fun inclusionist/deletionist battle. I think it would be fun to have a segment where "famous" deletionists and inclustionists recount that time. It would be a time capsule of that history saved for posterity. What do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like this idea. I wonder if you could find a way to contact some long dormant editors like kappa who were active in those debates. Gamaliel (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before publishing this week

Gamaliel, Go Phightins!, and Resident Mario please note:

--Pine 06:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has there been an outcome to the WLM debate? It seems to be ongoing AFAIK. ResMar 11:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I updated the Discussion Report prior to publication. The Report (Josve05a did a great job there I think) took a strident tone, so I thought the title should mirror the tone.
  • Resident Mario has done an impossible amount of work for the Signpost lately. We are hoping to lessen the weekly burden on him but we hope he will be able to continue contributing in an area where he has a particular strength, covering internal WMF issues. Gamaliel (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry. I was planning on writing about the RfC regarding the WLM-thing, but got swamped with school work and could not follow it to the best of my abilities, and for this, I thank Gamaliel! (tJosve05a (c) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correct section for notification update

I'm sure many of you have noticed by now that the notifications change was reversed. More at [1] I'm wondering what the correct section to cover this is, given it was in the latest issue. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanting to help

Hi, I'm interested in helping out. I'm not great at copy editing, but could learn if taught. Not sure where else you're needing help, but would be happy most places. Jerod Lycett (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Jerodlycett: Yes actually, we need another lead News and notes writer. To read up on what that entails see here and here. To learn how to use Signpost style see here. When you're ready you can jump into the resources and start digging here. ResMar 14:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Resident Mario: I'm really not sure where to begin on this as it's currently a blank page. Is there anything specific anyone is focusing on? I'd rather not work on the same thing as someone else, it'd be a waste of time. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Jerodlycett: What I recommend is going to the resources page and then hitting some of the links there. Read what you find. What are the stories that stick out to you the most? What are the discussions that you think are most interesting or most important? Single those out for writing about, either as lead sections or as notes "in brief". It's definitely intimidating at first but you will get the hang of it quickly. ResMar 04:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perishable statistics

Please don't forget that your pages remain accessible for a great deal of time after the "publication date". When including status updates or statistics, please consider noting the "as of" date or that the data is dynamically updated. I just read the article on wikiwork, and found myself constantly wondering how much of what I was reading is now outdated and how much is current. Thank you for your consideration. ~ MD Otley (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, what happened to the Traffic Report?

Got the update ready to go, can't access the page. Serendipodous 17:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I fixed the link in the newsroom. Seems to be an issue with the template, I'll see if I can fix it permanently. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ran into the same issue when I was trying to submit the last report, i had to edit the page to add a missing "=" sign [2] before I could submit it.--Milowenthasspoken 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added the = to the template that generates the next issue grid in the newsroom so we shouldn't have that problem again. Gamaliel (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured pictures

Thank you so much for making the newly featured pictures section a photo gallery rather than a text list. It's much better as a gallery because it enables readers to quickly see all the images without having to click through, and the gallery format is superior to a stack of images on the side. Keep up the good work! --Albany NY (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would anyone object if I fiddle a little with the FP section this week int he name of experimentation? I'd like to try something and see what the community thinks about it. (Also, if you reply here, please ping me as this is not a page that I have watch listed.) TomStar81 (Talk) 22:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TomStar81: go for it! Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gamaliel: Sweet. Ok, first question: are all the FPs for the upcoming publication present in the Featured Content section? I ask so I can determine if the current FPs there are all I should expect or if there will be more incoming. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TomStar81: We have a script that imports them all simultaneously. Everything should be there. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

single page not working

The single page isn’t working: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-10-21. It has the correct syntax but is empty, possibly as it is in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. Oddly Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single looks OK, so I don’t know where the problem lies.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello The Signpost. We previously did an interview with you two years ago, and we have just commenced a discussion about whether to do another one, considering how far we have evolved over that time. Please weigh in at that discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Our old Signpost interview. While you're there, why not vote on some of the TAFI nominations, contribute to other discussions on the talk page, or edit the current TAFI: comedy horror. :)--Coin945 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible typo

Where it says "You can subscribe via template by placing a [X} or [X] template anywhere where you want to keep up with Signpost publications—nominally, your userpage" I think perhaps "nominally" is supposed to say "normally." Marquardtika (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, I went ahead and made the change. Marquardtika (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pull-quotes and the WP:MOS

[[Pull quotes]] are for blocking text that is already somewhere else in the article. Can we please stop ab-using them? Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this example, a pull quote is centered between two columns. The text has been "pulled" from the bottom of the first column

A pull quote (also known as a lift-out pull quote) is a key phrase, quotation, or excerpt that has been pulled from an article and used as a graphic element, serving to entice readers into the article or to highlight a key topic. It is typically placed in a larger or distinctive typeface and on the same page. The term is principally used in journalism and publishing.[1]

Placement of a pull quote on a page may be defined in a publication's or website's style guide. Such a typographic device may or may not be aligned with a column on the page. Some designers, for example, choose not to align the quote. In that case, the quotation cuts into two or more columns, as in the example shown. Because the pull quote invites the reader to read about the highlighted material, the pull quote should appear before the text it cites and, generally, fairly close to it.[2]

Pull quotes need not be a verbatim copy of the text being quoted; depending on a publication's house style, pull quotes may be abbreviated for space and/or paraphrased for clarity, with or without indication.


  1. ^ Ilene Strizver. "Pull-quotes". Archived from the original on 17 July 2010. Retrieved 2012-07-09.
  2. ^ "Designing a Magazine Layout".

Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost, like the journalism copy that created this convention, follows its own, distinct style guidelines. ResMar 14:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Main page image overlapping text

For the latest issue (4 November 2015), the image is overlapping the text on my 1280px screen. Opencooper (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 1280px? Do you have a screenshot? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 08:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1280px meaning that the screen is 1,280 pixels wide. Here is a screenshot. Opencooper (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red print

Have we discussed using light pink rather than bright red for non-existent links? Many of these are names of people or corporations that don't deserve the prominence of the red ink, but may even prefer it.Jzsj (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What does this have to do with the Signpost, specifically? ResMar 18:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next issue

I am ready to submit the next Traffic Report, but last weeks' articles are still on the editing board in the Newsroom, if we can get a clean slate. Cheers. --Milowenthasspoken 14:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost is the American Top 40! --Allygggggg (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Traffic Report formatting

Can someone review the comments on the formatting of the Traffic Report from User:Jacklee at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-11/Traffic_report. I don't know if I someone (like me!) added something wrong to this one, or if this is an ongoing issue, and how it might be addressed. Cheers!--Milowenthasspoken 14:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You failed Bassel

He is a Wikipedian who has been sentenced to death. Arguably he is one of us, arguably he embodies our ideals and notably he is absent from where it counts. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New traffic report ready

Can't refresh the page to post the new one yet. Serendipodous 13:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia and thirst for knowledge

"I see it everyday with my kid and his unending stream of questions. It’s not that he is particularly gifted or special. The reason he can even ask about quantum computing is a direct effect of Wikipedia’s beneficial feedback loop. Unfettered access to knowledge makes him more inquisitive, and not the other way around. He asks increasingly complex questions precisely because he asked about regular, binary computing beforehand and got a response from me (which I culled from Wikipedia)." [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mobile view not great

The mobile view of e.g. this is too wide, at least on some browsers (e.g. Android Samsung Galaxy). Seems okay on iPhone, not sure. I realise that mobile and cross-browser support is bloody annoying stuff, but I thought I'd just mention this here in case someone with great CSSfu comes along and knows how to fix it. Thanks! —Sam Wilson 23:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Samwilson: Old editor-in-chief here. The Signpost on mobile devices has looked terrible for years, and there's no great way around it, so we've traditionally focused on desktop (which is where almost all of our readership [read: editors] is located). That said, Yuvipanda will hopefully be able to fix the app he built at some point (please!). :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, oh well :-) you're quite right of course, the other day was the first time ever I'd tried to read Signpost on my phone over my wheatbix... normally it looks lovely (on the desktop). The easiest solution is for me to constrain my perusal to the dozy hours after lunch at work! ;) Sam Wilson 10:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks terrible on a 10inch android tablet as well. Unfortunately in mobile view all it does is scale up the problems. At least on the tablet I can switch to full desktop however. But it shouldnt be that hard to fix surely? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Samwilson and Only in death: It's surely possible to fix, but it would require someone very knowledgeable (which we have in Resident Mario) and a time-consuming redesign (time he doesn't have). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well for me it tends to be scale issues of individual sections - certain parts tend to push other sections too wide/narrow etc, and it seems fairly consistant, so I assumed it was a formatting issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Samwilson, Only in death, The ed17, and Resident Mario: One thing that could conceivably be a quick-fix is the current CSS formatting of the main page, which attempts to fit 3 columns onto a mobile screen. Just re-flowing columns to a single stack on mobiles would be an immediate (and I think simple?) improvement (e.g. see {{col-begin}}). Sorry I can't more directly help, but I'm not really familiar with where/how LivingBot stores the template it uses to create the signpost page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 00:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another old editor-in-chief here ;) To confirm Ed's hunch above that the Signpost is still most often read on desktop, I ran a quick query over recent pageview data. Indeed, mobile only accounts for 9% of the Signpost's views. That said, recalling the overall pageview numbers from ResMar's recent investigation, these 9% still translate into several hundred mobile views per week. Also, there might of course be more mobile readers if the Signpost's templates were updated to work better on mobile.

query details
hive (default)> SELECT SUM(IF(access_method <> 'desktop', view_count, 0))/SUM(view_count) AS percent_mobile FROM wmf.pageview_hourly WHERE year = 2016 AND project = 'en.wikipedia' AND SUBSTRING(page_title, 0, 28) = 'Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost' AND agent_type ='user';



Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Tbayer (WMF). The metrics are flawed. Readers are viewing the Signpost on their SmartPhones but they are doing it via the Desktop View. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:18, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the discussion above, and the metrics I gave, "mobile" refers to the mobile site (; alongside app views which don't play a large role yet). How many people view the desktop site on their phones is a separate question. Agree that numbers on that would be interesting too, do you have any? Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

unsubscribing blocked users

Is there a way to unsubscribe blocked users? There's no point cluttering up their talk page; the most important thing to see is the block notice, and that will get buried over time if the newsletter keeps getting posted to the user talk page. Case in point is User talk:Angry Bald English Villian Man. Schwede66 23:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You probably meant indefinitely blocked and banned users? - üser:Altenmann >t 05:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. Schwede66 08:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean our free advertising space? ;) There's no automated way of dealing with this and setting something up just flat out doesn't warrant the time. In the long-term there's a newsletter extension in the works which is supposed to make talk-page deliveries redundant anyway. ResMar 06:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2 blocked, 4 retried, 32 renamesDispenser 17:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Defamation case in Uruguay

Uruguay vicepresident Raúl Sendic has opened a defamation case for vandalism of the Spanish Wikipedia article on him (link). -- (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great edition

I was really impressed with this week's (2016-01-13) edition, it had a large amount of content and I thought each article was engaging. Thanks to the writers and editors who I suspect don't always get the kudos they deserve. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support the above. I mean, I agree! ;-) I have been an infrequent Signpost reader, but is this a new format for the content page? If so, I really think it's an improvement. Jm (talk | contribs) 17:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ditto. Really great work. I was so impressed by The Signpost that I decided to translate the (digest of the) Jan 6 and Jan 13 issues into Russian (both should be published tomorrow). --SSneg (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jenks24, Jsharpminor, and SSneg: On behalf of the editorial team, can I thank you for taking the time to write to us with your thanks :) Also glad to hear we have a influence outside the English world. We hope to be able to keep the good work up. Mdann52 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the news

I sympathize with The Signpost staff about the news. Not any particular news, but just the amount of it, and how there is pressure obligating volunteer news staff to coordinate something.

Interesting news is fun, and I hope you like reporting it, but I know it is also a lot of work to get stories in print. I hope that soon a week will happen with no events to give you all a break. Thanks for the awesome newspaper. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha. Indeed, it is a lot of work and we're all busy, but it is great to work with such a great team to be able to put these issues together. On any given week, a different one of us may take the lead, but the background collaboration is really what enables us to share with the community. Thanks for your message. All the best, Go Phightins! 03:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newsroom - WikiProject desk

Greetings, I had noticed that the WikiProject desk section was missing from the Newsroom page so I created this new section. If there are any Approve/Deny comments, they are welcome here. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  23:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimania to become biennial?

Grants:IdeaLab/Towards a New Wikimania/Outcomes --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDF fails rendering

I created a book so that the PDF view would work, but after fixing a few minor things and adding the op-ed, rendering fails. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can help fix the problem? --Slashme (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings Slashme – The Village pump-technical should have the experts to help with the issue. They have helped me in the past with various problems. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  15:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks JoeHebda, I've posted there. --Slashme (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello signpost members, I have a problem, How to join Wikipedia Signpost(I want to join!)! If this is the right place then I have a request to join this(Signpost) please! Regards BOTFIGHTER (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, BOTFIGHTER. Are you interested in receiving the Signpost on your talk page, or contributing to its compilation? Go Phightins! 18:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes!!!BOTFIGHTER (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BOTFIGHTER: To subscribe to receive new issues of the Signpost, please visit Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe. If you're interested in writing topics for the Signpost, I suggest you post your ideas at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. GoingBatty (talk) 01:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much!BOTFIGHTER (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding dates to bylines

@Gamaliel, Go Phightins!, Tony1, and Jayen466: I wonder whether the Signpost would consider adding dates to bylines. The articles about the Knowledge Engine are important, particularly regarding how the information emerged, but it's confusing when they're based on documents that became available after the stated publication date of the Signpost.

I added a publication date today to one of Andreas's bylines. Should that be done from now on, do you think? SarahSV (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, Sarah. We should note the actual publication date somewhere. Andreas JN466 00:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We are in the process of discussion improvements to our publication bot. We'll add this to the list of proposed changes, but we won't be making any changes in publication style before the bot revamp. Gamaliel (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks, Andreas and Gamaliel. SarahSV (talk) 03:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graph of PageViews

Greetings, Over at WP:VPT I found this & suggest it might be helpful to add a bottom of The Signpost main page. See Wikipedia:Village_pump (technical)#Page Views graph now available.

Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  00:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Asking for discussion - Subpage: Call for interviews

Today, I created a subpage for the Wikiproject Desk with the following, and am asking for discussion and consensus prior to posting at Signpost Wikiproject Desk. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  19:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Call for interviews

From the WikiProject desk at The Signpost

  1.  –
  2.  –
  3.  –
  4.  –

Going forward, each participant receives a wikilink to the interview workspace questions about the project's work, problems and achievements.

* Discussion  – Note: content changes should be made at the subpage.  JoeHebda (talk)  22:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is nice JoeHebda. Now we need a WikiProject Editor to coordinate the WikiProject Desk. :) --Rosiestep (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rosiestep – 1) Wondering if a modified version of this Call for interviews would be a useful tool for the other SP Desks?    2) Being somewhat of a technocrat, I don't know that I would be able to handle the Editor spot. What all is involved? I understand about finding contributors & and have seen the interview templates.    3) I could dig out from the archives, 10-20 or more WikiProjects to queue up during 2016. Cheers,  JoeHebda (talk)  14:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosiestep and JoeHebda: is this the template I'm to use going forward? I'm trying to get familiar with the process. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Megalibrarygirl (and Rosiestep) – Since this template was just added recently, you would be the first person to try it out. Earlier today, at Newsroom, WikiProject Desk, I added an Instructions subsection to help clarify the Call for interviews process. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia (April 2014). While working on Tip-of-the-day I added a TOTD invitation & thought something like this could be used to help find editors for WikiProject Desk interviews. There is no requirement to use the template, but it would be great if you would. Regards,  JoeHebda (talk)  20:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JoeHebda, ok, super. I'm glad I'm on the right track. I'll use the template once I'm ready. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Megalibrarygirl – Is there some specific WikiProject that you're interested in? Just wondering...  JoeHebda (talk)  20:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JoeHebda, I was thinking about WikiProject Nigeria, but I haven't checked yet to see if it was ever done. There was a Wiki loves Nigeria push this month, so I thought it might be a good start. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swearing in headlines and articles

There is a good deal of discussion about this topic at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-02-17/Op-ed. Gamaliel has made it clear that the decision to use this kind of language was considered by Signpost editors before it was done. I think it's better to have a discussion about a general editorial decision here (if at all) than on the article. My opinions:

  • I personally enjoyed Keilana's brash style as an engaging break from the usual. I doubt I'd want to read it in that kind of language every week, but it was a nice diversion, especially considering that the substance (i.e., the work she reported on) was so strong. A writer should have license to use whatever the **** language she wants, and if a publication chooses to print it, any criticism should go to the publication. Keilana certainly doesn't owe it to everybody to live up to their standards, but she lived up to mine (and I'm sure a few others). Kudos.
  • I think the Signpost's choice to run such a high concentration of strong language, suddenly, was a bold one. Ordinarily I would not mind that at all, we could discuss it and consider it and move on. But right now, many of us are feeling very tense about what's going on with the Wikimedia Foundation. I suspect this topic may have served as a lightning rod for a tense community. That's tough to predict in advance, so I don't blame anybody. But in hindsight, it would have been nice to not have this issue come up right now.
  • In spite of my somewhat contrarian opinion above, this is not a big deal. The editors of the Signpost are so very fully entitled to make their own judgments. This is a do-ocracy. The Signpost's volunteer editors choose to take time out of their lives to bring us the news. If anybody finds, in general, that they don't like the way the news is presented, they are free to start their own publication. That would be excellent. Time for WP:Gazette or WP:Tribune, perhaps? Or WP:CleanLanguageTimes? Go crazy with it! More news would be awesome. -Pete (talk) 08:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please allow me to strongly disagree. Artistic license does not have to involve alienating a good deal of editors. Many female contributors complain foul language spoiling the atmosphere cooperation. Now if she objects a pipshit writing "fuck you!" he will rebut "Read the fucking Signpost, learn that wikipedia is not censored, so shut your muzzle!" - üser:Altenmann >t 15:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm fascinated by the question of "What Is Civility?". Every subculture has its taboos and sacred symbols. What happens, particularly in a multicultural society, when these collide? Who "wins", if anyone? Obviously they all can't follow all of the rules, that gets unwieldy at best (and impossible at worst). But it's very common for each one to stridently insist all others should follow its rules, but simultaneously be derisive about the rules of those others. This is a case of adherents of a "liberal" code conflicting with those who have a "conservative" code (for lack of better terms - i.e. are you more scandalized by an "-ist" comment, or an "F-bomb"?). Note I don't think it goes very far to make arguments along the lines of "My code is X and I believe it is the one true way because Y". This seems to convince other people at about the same rate as literal religious arguments. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • It is not the question of which subculture is right or wrong. It is a matter of respect of other subcultures. And a matter of choosing a proper language in a particular venue. Can you imagine a biography of Isadora Duncan or even Bill Clinton full of fuck and shit? [redacted] Civility in human society is for a reason. Even if you fuck civility. Which in our context means fuck all these feeble crybaby damsels, wikipedia is the playground for fucking macho nerds. - üser:Altenmann >t 17:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seth Finkelstein, I agree that shrill finger-wagging is not a productive tactic, regardless of what outcome someone is trying to reach. Altenmann, I have no idea what you're trying to say, or even on which point you think we disagree. -Pete (talk) 18:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not the question of which subculture is right or wrong. It is a matter of respect of other subcultures. And a matter of choosing a proper language in a particular venue.. Please explain what is unclear in my answer to Seth. I may believe that my command of English is insufficient. The rest is a (probably poor) collection of examples of improper usage of f*words in certain contexts. Since Signpost belongs to wikipedia community, you have to admit that "shrill finger-wagging" means dissatisfaction from the part of the community, which, of course, you are free to ignore, in best traditions of wikipedia of mutual disrespect regardless wp:AGF, WP:civil, etc., etc. Personally, I think that the descriptor "shrill finger-wagging" is more insulting than "fucking bullshit", but I would like to notice that this op-ed stirred less interest in the articles about women than in its choice of words. Was this the purpose of the op-ed? - üser:Altenmann >t 18:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion about whether or not this sort of thing should appear in the Signpost frequently. But I do trust the Signpost editors to consider the pros and cons, and learn from experiences and feedback. I don't think it makes sense to draw strong conclusions about the Signpost from a single article. They produce many articles every week. So in that sense, Altenmann, I am not seeing the "strong disagreement" you claim between you and me. Your position seems reasonable enough. I think it's perfectly fine to have a discussion like this here, and I will probably not engage so much as I read and listen. I do not think it's fine to have a discussion like this on the article itself, to the point that it drowns out discussion of the article's substance. -Pete (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't blame readers; the author asked for it, unwittingly or on purpose. - üser:Altenmann >t 01:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blame? I am not blaming anybody. I am highly confident that everybody in this discussion has been motivated by good faith. -Pete (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have very mixed feelings about the approach taken in that article ... but I know that both Keilana and the Signpost editors understand that the value of strong language as an intensifier is lost if it is used frequently rather than exceptionally. So I don't think that we are likely to see this sort of thing again for awhile, and hence I don't see the need for a lengthy, divisive argument about whether it's right to include such language in future headlines or articles or not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I figure the best use of such decorations is when the opinion being offered is bullshit, thus not worth my fuckin' time. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to Newyorkbrad. -Pete (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
re: I don't see the need for a lengthy, divisive argument - I hope we were not discussing yet another policy, about Signpost signs and posts. Opinions were expressed, yes, polarized, and it is up to the future authors to consider them. And this "considering" just as well may mean pushing more of "strong language" which some understand only as "foul language". "Desensitization therapy". :-) - üser:Altenmann >t 01:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I personally detest strong language when is used as filler, as was the case for its usage the article. I'm not going to condemn The Signpost for printing the article, but I found that the language detracted from the story. There's nothing particularly comedic about the use of bad language when you're older than thirteen. If, say, Keilana used such language in one sentence, or in a few choice spots to voice her frustrations about the gender gap on Wikipedia, while I personally do not use such language, I could understand the purpose. The way that Keilana bad language was used in the article, however, just seemed empty and to no purpose. I'm not unsubscribing or anything, I'm just voicing my personal feelings about the article. I can see why editors would be upset about it's use in the headline, though. It's one thing to find it in the article text, and another to find it displayed on your talk page as part of the headline. Wikipedia isn't censored, but that doesn't mean that we can't be courteous. And the argument "well, anything can be offensive to somebody" doesn't fly, because Keilana used the language she did precisely because it was provocative. I guess I'm saying that, while I personally highly dislike the use of profanity, it's usage is up to the discretion of the author, even if it does detract from their article. However, I think The Signpost editorial staff could've been more discrete regarding the article's title - they could've even done something tongue-in-cheek like "The following might offend some people. Oh well.", with the real article title revealed when an editor clicked on it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My difficulty with the use of language in this article was that it seemed so strongly to clash with the ethos of the Signpost. The general tone is a fairly professional one, which reflects the priorities set out in the statement of purpose. The language used in this article would never have appeared in any professional, quality publication that I am familiar with. The use of profanity to make a point would be wholly appropriate in, for instance, a blog post, but it is out of place in this newspaper. Relentlessly (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Big fuss about nothing afaic, but I would like somebody to check the Isadora Duncan talk page please? -Roxy the dog™ woof 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Personally, though I would have written it differently, I consider the tone and language permissible and perhaps even appropriate. I find it curious that people complain about it in relation to this particular subject, for it will certainly confirm the view of those who find male chauvinism and anti-female subject bias at Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My complaint is precisely because of the subject - I felt the language was completely gratuitous and detracted from something that very much needs to be highlighted - the lack of coverage of women on Wikipedia. I understand that everyone does not feel the way that I do, but I think don't getting upset because an author used language that is by its very meaning, and intended use, upsetting counts as male chauvinism. Other editors might very well be reacting out of male chauvinism, I can't speak for them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an update to my earlier comment a few days ago, I think I can understand what Keilana was trying to do with the use of profanity in the article. I voiced some of my personal feelings about such language, and those I abide by. But I'm also willing to move outside my comfort zone and work with other people who might not share my convictions. So, I think the point I was trying to get at, but has only now clarified itself in my mind is this: With Wikipedia not being censored, anybody can say anything they like. But some things may offend many members of the community. I personally think that in this case, at least the headline, which shows up in users talk pages, could have shown more consideration for editors who wouldn't like that kind of language on their talk page (personally, I tolerate it, but there might be other people who feel more strongly about it). I think to overcome things like systemic bias, we should do more than simply reverse the paradigm, but reject it and introduce a new one. I feel that using profanity only reverse the us vs. them paradigm ("well, you're trying to suppress me, well see how you like that!) I think to overcome that, we need to show consideration toward others, and compromise. I think even just alerting readers that a certain piece was written to provoke could help in this manner.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you to the editors

The recent editions of the Signpost are some of the best laid-out and best written news I read. You cover even themes I am familiar with in far more depth than I knew. Thank you for all of your hard work, and for keeping the 'post timely, incisive, and thorough. – SJ + 23:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Me too, thanks for the commitment. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2016 Strategy consultation report

Hello, the report has been released last Friday. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of The Signpost (Wikipedia) for deletion


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Signpost (Wikipedia) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Signpost (Wikipedia) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Cirt (talk) 03:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Update: Deletion discussion was closed as Snowball keep. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 04:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Loves Africa

Did I mention how pleased I was to see the WLA contest featured in the SP ? I am VERY pleased and thankful :) Anthere (talk) 17:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome coverage

Just wanted to say how much I've appreciated the last few issues - the coverage of the WMF turmoils has been exceptional. Looking forward to the next ones. Stevage 05:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New traffic report ready to go

So can you please clear last week's from the list? Serendipodous 19:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emily Temple-Wood

In light of the current issue, I suggest you rename "Signpost" to "The Emily Temple-Wood Times".

3 huge sections - "The Blog", "In the media", and "Systemic bias", are all entirely about the activities and opinions of that one single Wikipedia editor. Over a quarter of all the words in the entire newsletter. (talk) 04:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emily does more than over a quarter of Wikipedia editors, so I'd say that's about right. Gamaliel (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To the IP editor who posted here: Perhaps you too could get featured as much if you did the same amount of work with the same media coverage.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I noticed the same which makes me wonder whether the Signpost is becoming a "one-woman show". It may well be that she is doing more than most of other English Wikipedia editors (which would be bad news for the project's health, though), but in that case I should be no more attracted to reading the Signpost regularly, because it is the diversity of opinions and professional coverage of various topics of global interest that I have appreciated it for (and would jump here every week from my home non-English Wikipedia to read). With all respect to Emily, her topics and views are not of my interest and I wish that the Signpost in the future again manages to attract more contributors on other topics as well. --Blahma (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huh, interesting. Did you note that there were nine sections this week, only three of which were related to Emily? And that even in the systemic bias column, most of those profiled were not authored by Emily? Or did you consider the possibility that having three sections is entirely appropriate in a week where she was the largest Wikipedia-related story in the media? (making clear: this is a volunteer edit) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blahma We would love more and different contributors. We regularly ask for contributions from anyone on any Wikimedia project. But what we can actually publish is limited to what people actually contribute. Gamaliel (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, Gamaliel. Most of Czech Wikipedia's contributors have even never heard of the Signpost and topics which you cover are either linked to the English Wikipedia community or the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole, so I and my colleagues feel rather like outsiders with little chance of being able to provide meaningful contribution. At the same time, the Signpost clearly has coverage and impact that exceeds the limits of the English Wikipedia editor community. I wish you good luck in attracting more editors and if I ever find a way of helping you recruit some new contributors or stories, I will definitely make sure not to miss that chance. --Blahma (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong numbering?

Previous ten issues were all numbered as "Volume 12, Issue 01/02/03...09/10". All of a sudden, this issue is "Volume 13, Issue 10". Is this correct? Shouldn't it be "Volume 12, Issue 11"? --SSneg (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, SSneg. I screwed it up, and will fix it. :) Kharkiv07 (T) 12:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Talk page delivery

"The most direct way to subscribe to the Signpost is to add your name to our MAILING LIST; we will send you your weekly copy of the Signpost to the user-talk page of your choice as soon as it's published. Interested? To subscribe to or unsubscribe from direct talk-page delivery use the FORM below."- what mailing list what form? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8108:30bf:b168:31a9:8d35:46ca:cf46 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist is actually the proper page. Add your user talk page with the "Add pages" form. Strange how Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe doesn't include the form—perhaps the latter page should be redirected to the former? Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Fixed Kharkiv07 (T) 15:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

are the two entries for BLOG identical?

On the project page there are two links for BLOG that look identical to me? Are they? Should one of them be removed? RJFJR (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Newsroom? it's a quirk in the template we haven't figured out yet. They both link to the same article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topviews Analysis live

Pinging Serendipodous as I see you're the one who compiles WP:TOP25 every week.

I wanted to let you all know about the new Topviews Analysis tool is up and running. It utilizes WMF's pageviews API which we are told is considerably more accurate (99.9 something percent) than the data dumps used, which is what User:West.andrew.g/Popular pages goes off of.

However there is one caveat compared to WP:5000: The pageviews API only gives us the top 1000 pages on any given day. So the way the tool works by simply querying each day and summing the results. Consequently, a given page is only accounted for the days it was within the top 1000. For instance, see last week's data on Topviews Analysis. Let's compare Donald Trump and Garry Shandling. Trump got 1,458,009 views according to Topviews Analysis, and this can be confirmed by viewing the same range on Pageviews Anaylsis, which does an exact per-day count. However you'll see Shandling got 1,243,635 views on Topviews, but around 2,000 more views according to Pageviews. That's simply because at some point during that date range, Shandling wasn't in the top 1,000. I believe WP:5000 suffers from the same problem, only it's a full 5000 instead of 1000.

So overall for our purposes (weekly reports), you're still going to get a good summary. For days that a page is not in the top 1000, the inaccuracy is going to be comparatively trivial if it managed to make the top 1000 at all for that week. You can also verify accuracy by clicking on the number of views on Topviews Analysis (right side of each entry), which will open up that page in Pageviews for the same range. I guess you could do this, cross-referencing with WP:5000, and ultimately end up with an accurate WP:TOP25 with API-provided data. It certainly would make the job a little harder, whether it's worthwhile to you all I'm not sure. I thought I'd share it nonetheless.

I'll let you know if WMF allows querying top views within a precise range (currently it's either a single day or an entire month), in which case Topviews will become reliably accurate. I also plan to add more features, such as fetching the article classification and +/- ranking change from the week prior. I hope the tool will still serve useful to some. Feedback very much welcomed. Best MusikAnimal talk 02:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am just going to respond to some of the technical aspects here. First, I'll note that the numbers in my weekly top-5000 reports are comprehensive. That is, regardless of whether an article is in the top-5000 every day during the week, I am able to faithfully include the number of hits received. I parse, store, and aggregate daily traffic to every article (even non-articles, thus my ability to produce my red-links report). It wouldn't really be a challenge for me to produce the "top 1 million" report every week -- except for the fact I couldn't distribute it as a wiki page because it would be too darn big and parsing it might break the software or browsers.
I understand the "pagecounts-all-sites" data I use is about to be deprecated per [4] and that there is a new "pageviews" definition and a new hourly stats dump in that format. I haven't researched this thoroughly, but it seems I will need to switch over to the new data source if I want my report to survive. It is my intention to get to that as real life permits. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well to be clear, I'm not out to shove WP:5000 out of the picture, just wanted to let you know about the new tool. As I said, in the meantime you could cross-reference WP:5000 and Topviews in order to get accurate numbers, if you feel the added effort is worth it. It seems most of the time the differences are negligible MusikAnimal talk 15:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • MusikAnimal, thanks for the heads up about the TopViews report! I suppose the "caveat" means we can't really trust the rankings of the lower portion of the 1000 as a true weekly ranking, but this looks very helpful for top entries. ALSO, this tool appears to work for other language wikipedias as well, is that correct? E.g., on the latest WP:TOP25, the South Korean TV show Descendants of the Sun is #23 on (a very high ranking for an article on a non-English pop culture topic), but on the Chinese wikipedia link (where the show is incredibly popular), it had 422K views, ranking #4 for the week on that chart (#2 if we exclude the zh main page (#1) and search page (#3) - Though #1 is the Chinese version of Harry S. Truman, I find this unlikely!? - (ETA: yes, that was 100% desktop views on April 2, not legit...). (Note that the links when I pull up the zh chart seem to try to link to en articles, perhaps that needs updating?) The ability to compare relative popularity of different language wikipedia articles over identical time periods has always been difficult before now, so I am quite excited about this!--Milowenthasspoken 21:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes you should be able to run queries against any WMF project. I just fixed the wikilink issue, thanks for pointing that out MusikAnimal talk 22:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, it works! -- I created a bonus report of the Chinese Wikipedia Top 10 for last week at Wikipedia:Top 25 Report/March 27 to April 2, 2016 China.--Milowenthasspoken 14:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Layout again

  1. The broad left margin, added to indent for the actual article, and the left toolstrip, places the start of the text almost half way across my screen.
  2. This combined with the custom template to position images results in a thin hard-to-read column of text to the left of images, e.g.:
paper[1]is a
example of
how to write
articles for
field. The

In a case where a word is too long for the gap, inches of white space precede the resumption of full width text. It might be simpler just to float the image right, with a standard width.

  1. The text flows across the right side of the screen, forcing one to use the scroll-bar to view it. This means the WP look-and-feel is lost.
  2. The Discuss this story section is penned in on the left by the white space mentioned above (although not the same extent), and of course, comment indentation, and on the right by the "In this issue" box. This results in another multi-page thin column of text.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC).Reply[reply]

April 1st / April Fool's Edition

Hey folks, it would be really great if you took down the April 1st / April Fool's Edition after April 1 is done. Your publication is way too visible and important to have a joke page be up for longer than a day. Even if it's the prior week's content, that would be better than this. Sorry I'm grumpy but I hate seeing Trump stuff anywhere I like. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I liked the bit that said that the next edition would be published on 8 April. That was very subtle. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Its part of our weekly humor. And I think the next edition is being scoured to avoid anything that could offend anyone.--Milowenthasspoken 13:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date mishap

The bot stuck the week's signpost at 2016-04-14, but all the articles at 2016-04-13, so all of the "other articles in this edition" links, etc. on all the pages don't work. --PresN 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is the link to that page? I couldn't remember how to see the last one, and when I went to the one place I thought I could go, it took me back to April 1.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, found it. There's a link under each weekly feature. I have an idea about how to deal with the archive problem.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Turned out it was easier than I thought. Is the April 13 or 14 edition listed correctly in the archives?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiKafkian humour

"Czech Republic to be renamed Kafkia, seeks Wikipedia editors to rename articles" [5] :D --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • LOL. "I need the support of more senior 'Wikipedians' to whom I am sending emails, but I'm having problems with my router, forcing me to spend hours on the phone with a technician ..."--Milowenthasspoken 15:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donation campaing in Uruguay

Hi, folks! I'm listening to a Uruguayan radio talk show (mixcloud dot com/Los_Informantes_Radio/los-informantes-radio-programa-55-29-04-16/). It's usually humorous, but this time they are discussing a Uruguayan enterpreneur who founded an electronic payment service that is used in Wikimedia Foundation's fundraising campaign. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two weeks!

We've been without it for two weeks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signpost move off of the English Wikipedia

Have there been any thoughts for an article or discussion of the pros and cons of moving the Signpost off of the English Wikipedia? --Bamyers99 (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I certainly think it would be a worthwhile move. wikiquote:Freedom of the press is full of commentary about the importance of independence. But you're right, there should probably be a fully fleshed out discussion before any decision is made. I'm not aware of any. -Pete (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any reason The Signpost should move from its current location so long as WMF doesn't interfere with publication. Isn't it logical to find analysis of Wikipedia on Wikipedia? This is where the readership can be found. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately in the last few months Signpost has moved on from 'analysis of wikipedia' to 'political opinion pushing'. For further details see the Gamaliel arbitration case where almost the entire editorial staff (past and present) indicated they should be able to publish their half-baked political shenanigans with no interference from *wikipedia* - not the WMF - under some mistaken notion freedom of the press and free speech are applicable on wikipedia (they are not). Were signpost to restrict itself to just reporting wikipedia's goings on instead of trying to push various agendas, this would not be an issue. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nonsense. --Andreas JN466 12:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which particular part is nonsense? Opinion pushing evidenced by the recent expletive laden and political smearing editorials? Or the easily evidenced discussions at Gamaliels arbitration case where current and past editorial staff have made their opinions known on what they think they should be allowed to do? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An independent news source would be pleasant. However, thus far the outside websites that concentrate on Wikipedia tend to vituperation, which is more tedious than informative. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They don't need to make that call until the case is closed. Let's wait and see if the Arbitration Committee rules that The Signpost may not mock or express a negative opinion of a politician. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Odd subpages

One of you might want to take a look at Moredecai, who's creating a series of bizarre subpages to the Signpost (1, 2, 3). I don't know if this is a good-faith attempt to write articles and just misunderstanding how the process works (in which case someone ought to explain the correct procedures and gently point out that—I assume—this isn't the kind of thing you want) or if it's some particularly surreal form of vandalism, but either way someone ought to keep an eye on him> ‑ Iridescent 14:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's bizarre. Tony (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greetings Iridescent and Tony1 – Yes, I've recently seen similar updates at the Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk so for now, assuming good-faith. I have posted this at Mordecai talk page. In addition this user has done disruptive edits to both the Schedule wikitable and to the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Call for interviews template page. I have Moredecai on my watchlist along with the SP WikiProject desk pages. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "single page" link for the last issue is not working.

Apokrif (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global Edition of the Signpost was not sent for June 5th

As the title says, it appears no one on the global list got a copy of the June 5th edition of the Signpost. Davidbuddy9Talk 00:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

still pointing to last issue?

The links seem to still be pointing to last issue instead of having been cleared for this issue. What's happening? RJFJR (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latest issue was published manually, instead with a bot (which moves the pages without leaving a redirect). Armbrust The Homunculus 20:54, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Who is managing the Signpost?

Who is reviewing op-ed proposals and managing the Signpost's publication? Gamaliel is retired, and Go Phightins! doesn't appear to be very active. Biblio (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The signpost is dead, it seems. -- (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not "dead". However, we are very short of active editors to write the news stories (volunteers are most welcome). Jayen466 and Go Phigtins! are our co-editors in chief. Tony (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll help. What do you need?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Content, particularly for some of the regular features like In The News and In The Media. Needs people who can burrow through reports about Wikipedia and do short blurbs on them. We also need longer articles, but it's the week-to-week grind that is where we need more worker bees. Ping Tony1 or Jayen466 for details. Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tony1 - I'd be willing to help out with In the News. I might need some coaching and time to develop, but I'd be interested in doing In the Media. (I've been trying to do a WikiProject Report on WikiProject Science/Year of Science, but so far I've had zero response).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@3family6: Help with In the media (as well as News and notes) is very welcome. As for coaching, the main hints I can give you are these:
  1. To find Wikipedia stories, do Google News searches for the relevant time period (i.e. from a day or two before the last Signpost publication to now), or check the Wikipedia news bot at [6]. There is also a page on Meta that has been useful in the past, but is currently dormant: [7].
  2. Add the date for each news report (for formating, see any of the recent ITM segments).
  3. To start work on an ITM segment for a new issue, check Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status. If ITM shows as red/Not started, click "Start Article" to start it; that will pre-load a number of templates (for general formating and to see what goes where, again check any of the recent ITM segments). If ITM shows as "In progress" in the Newsroom, just click on the "In the media" blue link itself.
With that, you should be well on your way. Welcome! --Andreas JN466 14:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Change archive links

I made this bold edit so the "link" for the July 4, 2016 Signpost now goes to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2016-07-04 instead of Volume 12, Issue 21. I also added a link to the single-page edition.

The section title now reads

===[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2016-07-04|Volume 12, Issue 21]] ([[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2016-07-04|Single page]]), 04 July 2016===

I recommend changing the bot so it does this going forward. @Jarry1250: (owner of LivingBot) as you may be asked to change the bot if this gains support. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFAICT, KarBot, run by @Kharkiv07:, is now used? - Jarry1250 [Vacation needed] 18:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deep Learning in the red

The Deep Learning article in the most recent issue of SP is missing.. red link. -- GreenC 12:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red links

Why are there red links in the July 4 issue?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Vchimpanzee, thanks for checking. I'm new to the Editorial Board, and not fully familiar with the production process yet; but we're in the process of publishing the next issue. I'm sure it'll get sorted out in the next day or so. -Pete (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I see the "latest issue" is now the 21st, not the 4th. And the problem seems to be solved.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 13:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobel and Wikipedia humour

Swedish Academy gives Nobel Prize to a Belarusian journalist that we had to search on Wikipedia. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk)

Timestamp for archiving. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Should "registered uses" be "registered users" in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-08-18/Technology report? Apokrif (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since fixed! Thanks. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reposting a copyright-related blog

Hi @Peteforsyth: and other friends at the Signpost,

I wrote an article on about copyright tips for students and educators. The article is based on the discussions during a training program Frederico Morando (CC Italia) and I conducted at Wikimania this year which was proposed initially by User:Jim Carter. I personally feel that it makes sense to repost the article on the Signpost as the article elaborates on sources for finding CC-licensed works, ways around avoiding potential copyright violations that will be useful to students, scholars and educators in our community and in the larger reader community of the Signpost.

Do let me know your ideas about reposting this article on with some editorial edits with attribution if needed. --Psubhashish (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, we will take a look. For future reference, the better place to post story tips is WP:POST/S. But not to worry -- this one got through! -Pete (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Pete, also more for the comments on the article. I will reach out on WP:POST/S for the future - thanks for the suggestion. --Psubhashish (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Peteforsyth:, do let me know if you need anything more from me. Thanks. --Psubhashish (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like they put it in "In the media." :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, thanks @The ed17:. Thanks @Peteforsyth: for sharing this. --Psubhashish (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Transclude talk pages for "Single" version

Would it possible to start transcluding all of the talk pages in a particular edition to the associated talk page of the Single edition? I dislike needing to open several tabs to review what others are commenting on in the articles (which is also why I read the "single" edition!). --Izno (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll look into it for next issue, thanks for the idea! Kharkiv07 (T) 00:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent issues missing from archives

On Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2016 both Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2016-07-21 and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2016-08-04 are missing. DuncanHill (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you DuncanHill. We're aware of this, but trying to figure out why our bot is having trouble with this. If you're able to help us keep it up to date manually, that would be most welcome -- we're stretched a bit thin at the moment. -Pete (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not really sure how the rest of the archive system works, but I recently amended the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-header/Normal template to automatically add articles to the year- and month-based archive categories (such as Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives 2016-08). That still leaves the year-based archive categories to be created by hand, but I think I caught all of them. —Sam Wilson 01:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your enhancement introduced a bug which I tracked down after seeing several Signpost-related pages populating Category:Pages with parser function time errors.
For example, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk there is a blue "Create new op-ed draft" button. If I fill in the box with "Fixing parser function errors" and click the button, it creates the file Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk/Proposals/Fixing parser function errors and preloads that page with the contents of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion desk/Preload. The preloaded text includes
{{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header|||}} and Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-header in turn transcludes the default
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-header/Normal|{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}}}, which I found recently edited to use the #time function.
It's only after draft pages are moved to publication, e.g. (diff) Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent researchWikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-08-04/Recent research, that we can categorize these pages.
The #time conversion fails on Newsroom, so I modified the code to only attempt #time conversions on pages whose title begins Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/20. This should work until the year 2100, as long as we don't have any Signpost subpages that begin with "20" and are not following the naming convention for dated Signpost pages. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In notes for September 11 attacks "The fifteenth anniversary of the world terrorist attack in world history..." is first "world" meant to be worst? JennyOz (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch. It's been fixed. Thanks! -Pete (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Delivery to Non-English talk pages seems broken

In case you hadn't noticed it already, pls. cf. [8]. – Thx.--Aschmidt (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the info. Any ideas, kharkiv07? -Pete (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't look like it was sent via meta/global message delivery, see [9] Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aschmidt, Peteforsyth, and The ed17: Ed is correct, my bad. I sent it. Kharkiv07 (T) 16:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI, it's still not working…--Aschmidt (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weird.Thank you for the notification, Aschmidt. This time, The ed17 did it manually per instructions...I watched him do it. Ed, any idea what went wrong -Pete (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Peteforsyth: I thought you were going to hit the button and send it. My bad. :-) Just sent it out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply] no mystery this time, just a miscommunication. Thanks The ed17! -Pete (talk) 05:57, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The message has arrived on my talk page on German Wikipedia. Thanks for digging! :) --Aschmidt (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions page archiving

The auto-archiving code currently on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions doesn't work, because the archive location Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s is within the Wikipedia_talk: namespace (and so isn't a direct subpage). Fixing this requires either obtaining a secret key from the bot operator (per User:Lowercase_sigmabot_III/Archive_HowTo#Parameters_explained), or making the archive location a direct subpage (i.e. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s for date-based archives, or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions/Archive %(counter)d for incremental archives). Otherwise the archiving will have to be done manually. - Evad37 [talk] 02:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for diagnosing that, Evad37. I tried to set up the archiver a month or so back, and got frustrated. Good to have some info to go on; I'll get back to it soon. (Or if you want to fiddle with it, feel free. I'm fine with it being a direct subpage, in fact that is what I thought I'd done -- so if you are inspired to adjust accordingly, go ahead.) -Pete (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done - Evad37 [talk] 05:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To the Moon message

At the metawiki page for Wikipedia to the Moon, they have created a message that will be included on the disc that will be sent to the moon. The message is meant to be translated into as many languages as possible, buts its only been translated into five languages. Is there any way to add a brief note to the next issue of the signpost about this so any potentially interested editors will know about this? Any translations need to be completed by the end of the month. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User talk:Wikipedia Signpost

If anyone is in control of the user User:Wikipedia Signpost or getting the emails that are sent to it, please let me know. See also Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#Inactive_bots_with_inactive_editors_to_mark_as_retired. — xaosflux Talk 17:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red links

I don't know if it's wanted, but titles are red in Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-11-26/Blog --Framawiki (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not any more, after a purge. This sometimes happens when new pages are created, and pages linking to them do not immediately notice. A purge fixes it by forcing it to update.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has been my experience that if I add a red link and create a redirect (or a stub if there is guaranteed notability), going back to the page where I put the link will result in a different shade of red appearing.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Different shade" because you have visited the target, so it has a different style than a non-visited one? DMacks (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has it really been a month?

It's fine with me if it's monthly, but please do something.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vchimpanzee Yes...trying to get our edition out tomorrow. Nice to know we're missed...but my apologies for the delay. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vchimpanzee: I'm sure they could use more hands, if you have the time and interest in helping out with the news. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just don't feel qualified, and lately I don't have the time either.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@The ed17: Is there a wp:todo list for the Signpost somewhere? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)please ping meReply[reply]