Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-07-05

Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-07-05. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Features and admins: This week's highlights (5,193 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-07-05

Discuss this story

I like the new format very much, and I appreciate all your excellent hard work, but I'm not sure I like the "choice of the week" paragraphs. Keep It Simple. There is already too much competitiveness on Wikipedia, and we don't need subjective commentary on why X's FA is better than Y's. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Ssilvers. Concerning "subjective comment", I wanted to bring out the human element of these rich and competitive processes—the fact that real people have opinions there—as well as printing those interesting comments by nominators. The "Choices of the week" are clearly marked as opinions, and The Signpost has the journalistic capacity to give light to good-faith opinions. The message, I guess, is: hey, what do you, the reader, think? Go have a look at these excellent articles, lists, images, and see if you agree or disagree with those opinions. Tony (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to applaud the editors involved for the overhaul; introducing attribution, blurbs and critical commentary has made what used to be a dull, brief list into a must-read. Contrary to Ssilvers, I think an injection of a modicum of competitve spirit is a positive development, and the choices of the week will be understood by all to be somewhat subjective in any case. Commendations, all. Skomorokh 18:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work, Tony! I especially enjoyed the sentence or two summarizing the new Featured Articles. However, I found myself clicking on the links to all the new Featured Pictures, and I really did like the format used until last week in which all of them were included. Perhaps the new format with only one featured picture is less cluttered, but I really enjoyed seeing all the new FPs on this page. They are all such beautiful images! Thanks again and keep up the good work! TFCforever (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I also really like the brief attributed blurbs and critical commentary, especially when it's unintentional (and therefore hilarious) damning with faint praise. - BanyanTree 02:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ta, but perhaps you'll email me or talk-page me as to which one has been thus damned? I thought the array of featured contect was superb. Tony (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Ah, Banyan says it's the "rather interesting" comment by the nominator that is quoted here. Tony (talk) 04:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Love the modifications to this, though if I may ask, will the other featured areas (i.e. portals, topics, etc.) be included as well in future issues? Granted, that may make this more time-consuming, though those naturally have fewer or none in a week to note. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to all who've said nice things here; and yes, they are only modifications to the structure that seresin has developed over the years. Portals and topics (and sounds) should be covered if there are any changes, and oops, there was movement in topics, I see now. I'd be inclined to shift the emphasis away from the main-page appearances (they've just had their day of glory) and to cover portals, topics and sounds. My glitch; it was all done in a hurry because of RL work deadline just before the SP deadline. I'm adding mention now, but I'd have delved more into them if I'd done this properly. Tony (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please maintain the comment saying that no featured articles were delisted? I had to go and check, to make sure, because the report didn't say anything about FA delistings. 203.217.95.11 (talk) 11:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It's up to User:seresin. But to be consistent, it means you'd have to say that for all categories of featured content in which there are no delistings in a a particular week—which is usually most in most weeks. I thought it could be the default not to mention if there have been none. But to tell you the truth, I neglected to check. I'll add a note now about FA demotions. Thx. Tony (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News (3,124 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-07-05

Discuss this story

• As the lead developer of Peachy, I disagree with the idea that bot operators are required to use it. I believe that everyone should have an option as to what framework to use. Peachy may be the best in some people's eyes, and in other eyes, it may be far too bloated for the purposes and they may want a small, barebones class. (X! · talk)  · @976  ·  22:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Whoops, disregard that. I read "PHP bot operators are required to put it through the paces" to mean that all PHP bot operators must change to Peachy, not that testers comprised of PHP bot operators are needed to assist in testing. (X! · talk)  · @978  ·  22:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• "[T]he namesake of this report"? This is "Technology report", not "Brion Vibber report"... OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • See the initials of "Bugs, repairs, and internal operational news". --seav (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • :O My mind is blown. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 18:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

      I'm still sad that "The Report On Lengthy Litigation" feature got renamed to "Arbitration Report". - BanyanTree 02:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

      • But we can still cling to DRAMA Discussion report... no, wait, the title of that is no longer a clever acronym either :'(. Have no fear people, BRION is going to remain BRION until... well, someone changes it I guess! - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

←Was it indeed renamed "Arbitration report"? If so, thank the gods for it. The irony was lost on many readers ... :-) Tony (talk) 16:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How did I never notice any of these for five years? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's actually pretty subtle. I didn't realize it myself a few years ago until it was pointed out. Check out the comments on the BRION report the week Brion resigned for an assurance that this report will remain at this title: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-09-28/Technology report :-) --seav (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk (1,167 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-07-05

Discuss this story

I'd like to repeat here the perennial request that would people please either transcribe or take notes of all Wikimedia presentations, & then upload them? In most cases, not even as much as the presenter's abstract of the talk is published. Not all Wikimedians can attend these conferences for one or more reasons (e..g, money, time, other commitments), but we are still interested in a number of these presentations & are very interested in knowing what was said. Thanks in advance -- llywrch (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. It would be nice if they could just tape them or something. extransit (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

All talks were streamed online in real time, and they will all be uploaded to Commons, as last year. guillom 10:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikimania Madness sounds a lot like madness! extransit (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature (1,560 bytes · 💬)

← Back to 2010-07-05

Discuss this story

Based on some comments from last week, I attempted to incorporate more direct quotes. More feedback is appreciated! —mono 01:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• I do like this style, which keeps the reader from having to see each participant's answer, many of which may be similar, but highlights the overall answers of the group while mentioning any differing opinions. Good work! PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 14:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. Nice work. BTW, I wrote or expanded a couple of articles on children's authors. There appear to be many well-known children's authors who have no article yet, so I agree that it would be a great project for young students and their teachers to collaborate on an article about an author whose books they have recently read. Then students will get a chance not only to explore why they like a book and its author, but who the author is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)