Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: General discussion | Content | Features and layout | Feedback | Images and logos

Shortcut: WT:POST

Please discuss the layout of The Signpost page and other general or technical issues here. Discussion about news items and stories themselves should be directed to the Newsroom.

Userboxes:

{{User wikipedia/Signpost}}	{{User Signpost}}
This user writes for The Wikipedia Signpost. Do you?	This user reads The Wikipedia Signpost. Do you?

{{Signpost-subscription}}

Volume 3, Issue 14 — 2 April 2007 Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable" Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane" News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll Wikipedia in the news Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation Archives·Newsroom·Tip line·Single-page·Subscribe

Contents 1 Contributors welcome 2 Comments 3 Volumes? 4 Stories by the type 5 Question about article submission 6 January 9, 2006? 7 Wikisource News 8 Trouble with RSS feed 9 Will the Signpost be back this week? 10 RSS feed IS BROKEN 11 Unwikified headlines 12 Interactive M.A.N.I.A. 13 in-jokes 14 In light of other comments . . . 15 Laudatio 16 Something to do 17 100 x 1000 18 Milestones 19 HRE not covered 20 Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus 21 Problem yet again with RSS feed 22 Arbitration report formatting. 23 Single page view for archives possible? 24 Where's B.R.I.O.N.? 25 Signature disambig? 26 Latest Audio link 27 RSS MIA YA 28 Suggestion: listserv reports 29 Next issue 30 Italian Wiki article 31 Lets drop the "Good Article" mentions, eh? 32 Missing: Wikipedia in the news 33 WP:POST 34 1.0 Assessment 35 Permalink suggestion for the single-page version 36 Wikipedia Signpost on the front page? 37 interwiki template 38 Wikipedia:Spotlight 39 Telugu and Marathi error 40 Single-page view 41 Tech report 42 Library Thing 43 Sign up 44 Material cited by Wikisource News 45 Disambig up the top of the page... 46 Change to signpost main page 47 Statistics 48 Re: Section on Other Language Editions (Spamlist) 49 WikiWorld by Greg Williams 50 In the news 51 After 18 nominations, they finally got it. 52 Language milestone 53 From the editor 54 For next time... 55 Wikipedia in Dutch news 56 Signpost Distribution 57 "Litigation" 58 What exactly does this mean? 59 Note about minor change on page 60 WikiInterview Idea 61 broken mailing list link 62 DiPTAC 63 Microsoft "tried to doctor Wikipedia" article 64 WikiCast: Signpost - Volunteers needed. 65 My approval... 66 Delivery 67 About edits by governments... 68 BREAKING NEWS !!! 69 One page 70 RSS feed now available 71 Planet Wikimedia 72 WikiWorld comics suggestion 73 Slow news week? 74 Weekly publishing day 75 Format (show/hide) 76 Audio Version- 77 Delivery page

[edit] Contributors welcome

If you're interested in writing about community news for The Wikipedia Signpost, please contact me (on my talk page or via email, however you prefer) so we can coordinate our efforts. As editor, I would at the very least need to have an idea of what topic(s) you're covering. If you use the wiki to write drafts of a news story, please do this in your user space. --Michael Snow 09:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Do you want article-specific comments on their respective talk pages, on an issue-specific talk page, or here? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

On their talk pages is great, I do watch the articles for the week until they get archived. This page can be for discussion about the newspaper in general. --Michael Snow 07:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Volumes?

So far, we are at volume I issue V. How large will the volumes be, out of curiosity (OK yes, I am really bored ATM) - Lucky13pjn 04:24, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Presumably the volume will change with the year. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stories by the type

I was just reading the substubs article and thought that it might be useful (or failing that, look neat) if the stories were divided by their content under headings or a background colour scheme or both. Say one section for "Wikipedia style, policy and guidelines" one for "Wikipedia in the press" one for T.R.O.L.L. articles etc. Or maybe I think too much, heh. - Lucky13pjn 20:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think we may head that direction in the future, when there are more articles up at any given time. Then having different groupings, like the sections of a newspaper, will be more useful to guide readers to what they're most interested in. For the time being, I don't think it's that hard to glance at the page and find what you want to read. Also, waiting to take this step will give us a better idea of how to divide up the sections. --Michael Snow 04:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there any chance of a sport section any time soon? smoddy 18:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sport section? Meaning a section on articles and projects related to sports? Or dealing with what one might call WikiSports (the sort of stuff at the Wikipedia:Department of Fun)? --Michael Snow 19:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question about article submission

Can anybody just submit an article to this newspaper? Or, what's the submission process? Can one write about themself, if they use the third person? (And is good gramma 'n speeling a pre-wreck-squizit?) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Joe D (t) 12:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A better link might be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#In progress Reporters: note here what items you are working on ... editing each other's work is encouraged. In short, yes, anyone can submit an article (either simply suggest a topic or actually write the text themselves). This is a wiki - it will all be "edited mercilessly", of course! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] January 9, 2006?

AAAAAH! Am I missing something? —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be published shortly, if that's what you mean. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-09/RSS readers be deleted? Nothing links to it. dbenbenn | talk 16:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It's for those who are using the RSS feeds, I presume. æle ✆ 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah; I occasionally create pages like that specifically for RSS readers when appropriate. Ral315 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource News

Wikisource very recently created Wikisource News, the local variant of the Wikipedia Signpost. Many of the stories, such as email confirmation, are likely to apply equally well to both wikis. I'd like to occasionally use content from the Signpost in WN stories, with appropriate credit. Signpost editors are free to use WN content, though the relationship would no doubt favour the more undermanned Wikisource. Would do you think? // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 06:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think collaboration would be good; also note Wikizine, a news source more focused on meta and issues surrounded all Wikimedia projects, not a specific language or project. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, certainly. You're certainly welcome to use any of our articles under the terms of the GFDL. I'd appreciate a note on this page when you borrow content. Ral315 (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A section from Wikipedia in the news, "Interesting mentions", prompted the Wikisource News story "New database to identify public domain works". Thanks. :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 12:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You might want to mention this new development at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think it's necessary there. Ral315 (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trouble with RSS feed

The following email was sent to Jimbo Wales and forwarded to the Wikipedia information team. I think it would be more likely to be addressed on this page.

// Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 18:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the German Wikinews feed, not the Signpost feed. æle ✆ 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will the Signpost be back this week?

After skipping last week? Osomec 00:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost for Volume 2, Issue 10, dated 6 March ... -- ALoan (Talk) 01:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this may have been regarding the RSS feed, which hasn't been updated in a while. It's something that seems to get easily forgotten. I apologize. Ral315 (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And I've had trouble with SSHing to the server recently. Probably human error on my part; I'll see what I can do. Ral315 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The last issue available through RSS is vol 2 issue 9. Is there some kind of problem? I hate to complain, since this is all a volunteer effort, but the RSS feed would seem to be useless at this point. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now my laptop, which had all my stuff for connecting to the server, is basically dead. I should get my new laptop Tuesday or Wednesday; then, I'll work on getting the RSS feed back up. My apologies on this. Ral315 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's crummy news! I hate it when that happens :-( Anyway, your efforts are greatly appreciated. I'm wondering, why isn't this automated? I was very surprised to hear that a human was responsible for updating the feed. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 03:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the process for sending out the RSS feed? +sj + 19:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RSS feed IS BROKEN

I just tried adding it to Firefox and found it had very little. I checked things out, look at the URL myself and...
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~ral315/signpost.rss has not updated itself since February, despite it stating "This feed will update itself weekly".

The RSS feed is broken, does anyone have the technical knowledge to fix it or set up a new, working one? --Col. Hauler 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

A RSS to HTML parser, or manual? Computerjoe's talk 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

See above; we've had issues with the RSS feed for a while now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be handled by the Wikipedia servers and not rely on individuals having to update it manually on laptops? That would be a much better way of running things. I'm surprised such a large organization can find it so hard to set up something as simple as a working RSS feed. --Col. Hauler 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Erm... Wikipedia Signpost is run by Wikipedians, not the Wikimedia Foundation. — Edward Z. Yang^(Talk) 23:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Well they could at least help us. I mean, they provide the server for Wikipedia. --Col. Hauler 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By "they" you are referring to one of the three full-time Foundation employees. One is responsible for dealing with complaints and legal threats from the irate public and the other two upgrade software and try to keep the site running on a budget that's laughable considering Wikipedia's prominence. I consider all these activities significantly more important than an RSS feed of the newsletter of one of the project editions that most readers appear to access through the template anyway. So, you see, there is no "large organization" - just servers, a few people to keep the essentials going and a lot of people who volunteer their time, skills and occasionally server bandwidth. You have posted notification that you cannot access the RSS to a large number of prominent pages. The combined tone is, to me, one of insistence that it be fixed, which may be counterproductive considering that you are in effect asking for someone with the relevant skills to volunteer their time. - BanyanTree 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can do something. You might or might not hear something from me about this. Bryan 14:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It is back up! Well, sort of... I am quite busy now, so I don't have time to finish all, but there need to be some things done. I neeed to find a server so it can autoupdate, and have the bot account approved. Also there are some things that need to be updated in the feed. But so far :) Bryan 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The feed has not been updated recently. Does anybody object to completely removing the button from the page until the feed is restored? It is not currently useful, with or without the 'broken' notice. -SCEhardT 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've commented it out for the time being. Sorry, as most of us operate more using wikis and watchlists, we're not that heavily focused on RSS. If somebody wants to take the time to bring this back up, it looks like that would certainly be welcome, though. --Michael Snow 17:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Working on this. Hopefully by this issue. Ral315 (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just waiting on a developer on the toolserver to process my new key, so I can FTP to the server again. At that point, the RSS feed will be updated. Ral315 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For the time being, I have some sort of backup RSS :) [1] Bryan 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've created a new feed that you can subscribe to at http://feeds.feedburner.com/WikipediaSignpost. Feedback is extremely welcome. --dantheox 02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwikified headlines

Is there any particular reason why the headlines have not been wikified? Rfrisbie^talk 22:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

They have been wikified. What you did was to change the capitalization style, which does not always follow the same conventions as article titles in the encyclopedia. --Michael Snow 05:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is your documentation of this? Some of the capitalization, e.g., "Of," doesn't even follow most standard styles in the not-wiki world. Please cite your rationale and support in guidelines or wherever you have it. Rfrisbie^talk 11:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why would we need documentation? It has been ever thus.

• Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages is MANIA
• Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News is BRION
• The Report On Lengthy Litigation is TROLL.

I'm not entirely sure why News ("in the News") or Notes ("...and Notes:...") are capitalised, though. But if you are going to change the capitalisation, you could at least ensure that redirects are in place so you don't create redlinks. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I did look at the links. Everything I changed was a "pipe" that actually changed the capitalization of the source page in some cases. Acronyms typically refer to proper nouns. These hardly seems to qualify. Here's a citation for removing the acronym caps: Acronyms and initialisms. For such a high-profile page, I would think you would not resist citing your justification for ignoring common usage. Rfrisbie^talk 11:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - mea culpa - you only changed the name of the link after the pipe. I should not have edited my original reply :x)

But, as BanyanTree says, your citation is part of the manual of style, which is of course just a guide to making articles more consistent. Even it is is applicable to the Wikipedia namespace (for the same of consistency), it is not holy writ. As I said, the capitalisation on WP:POST is just the way it has always been done; it may be slightly inconsistent with usual practice, but that is deliberate. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You have linked the Manual of Style (WP:MOS). The MOS states in the box at the top "Wikipedia articles should heed these rules." The Signpost is not an article. It is a newsletter in the project namespace. Please provide the link for acronym use for internal volunteer-written newsletters of the Wikimedia projects. Thanks! - BanyanTree 12:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, you all have your own idiosyncratic and inconsistently applied "the way it's always been done" manual of style for "internal volunteer-written newsletters of the Wikimedia projects." It certainly reflects well on your project. Keep up the good work. Rfrisbie^talk 13:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's common usage to capitalize the letters that make up the initialism (and not the ones that don't) when spelling out an initialism. That's exactly what the page does. Anyway, this minor issue doesn't require a "manual of style", and it certainly doesn't require hostility and sarcasm. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid your citation to the Manual of Style misunderstands what that section is referring to. It's talking about a situation where both the acronym and the full phrase that is the source of the acronym are provided, such as MOS (Manual of Style). In the Signpost's headlines, only the full text is given, not the acronym, so we capitalize the letters to emphasize the fact that they create an acronym. --Michael Snow 17:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interactive M.A.N.I.A.

This week's dose of M.A.N.I.A. is currently interactive. Is there any reason not to do this? I turned off the __NOEDITSECTION__ and asked readers to contribute; since the point of the column is to highlight conversations suggested for Wikimania 2006, and note that the list is dynamic and open to change. Next week will be back to normal, for better or for worse. +sj + 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem for me. Ral315 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] in-jokes

I don't find the vaguely humorous but very contrived acronyms (such as T.R.O.L.L.) on the contents page to be particularly helpful. In the interest of wider accessibility, it would be better to scrap the in-jokes and rename the titles to the names of the pages to which they point (such as Arbitration Report). This is particularly because the contents list, as it appears in Wikipedia:Community Portal, is one click away from the main page, so ought to be more outsider-friendly. Thanks. Arbitrary username 21:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's been some previous discussion on this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there was, but I have to say that I agree with Arbitrary username. It isn't particularly funny and it looks unprofessional. Rebecca 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the acronyms are very contrived. But that's what makes it fun. I'm not personally trying to make this the Wall Street Journal or The Times. It's a community in-joke that's been around for nearly a year and a half, and one that most people gloss over without recognizing its significance. I guess I don't see how someone recognizing an acronym as "TROLL" (if they did) could be unfriendly. Ral315 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I used "outsider-friendly" in the context of accessibility. I don't of course think the acronyms are "unfriendly" in the sense of hostile, but they are less helpful than more descriptive titles would be. Arbitrary username 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the fact they've been around for a year and a half could also be interpreted to mean that the joke is getting kind of stale, although I'm certainly flattered by having everyone imitate my original model. What I'm inclined to suggest is that we continue the acronyms through this year's Wikimania, so as not to disrupt their use for that particular series, and then gracefully retire them. I'm sure we can still find ways to inject a little fun into the Signpost. --Michael Snow 16:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

T.R.O.L.L. doesn't seem notably unprofessional when taken in the context of WP's different nature from conservative publications like the Wall Street Journal. There seems to be utility in it's humourous and light-hearted approach to an often heated area, and it is consistent with the general views of WP readers and editors.--Nectar 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Arbitrary username and User:Rebecca that the acronyms are contrived and unprofessional. Also, I was not aware at first that they were acronyms, and I changed the capitalization [2] only to be reverted and told that they were acronyms. Well, in that case, they should be explicitly shown as such, and I made this change instead [3], only to be reverted again. I don't understand the reasoning behind this. If editors support the use of the acronyms, then why try to hide them, making the capitalization look extremely odd and unprofessional to viewers of the Signpost who are not aware of the acronyms? And if my change was reverted because explicitly noting the acronyms makes the Signpost look unprofessional, then does that not raise questions about whether we should be using the acronyms at all in the first place? —Lowellian (reply) 11:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why you would think that an internal newsletter for the enjoyment and enlightenment of contributors to Wikipedia should need to look "professional". This is not the sort of road down which we want to start travelling, because the next thing will be edit-wars between groups of people with their own ideas about what constitutes "professional". This is not the place for enforcing strict nomenclature, it's supposed to be fun and informative. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Phil. I don't see what's wrong with in-jokes, considering this is a publication for in-house consumption. It's like suggesting the company newsletter shouldn't make references to internal terminology that an outsider wouldn't get. (Of course, this newsletter is unabashedly public, but nevertheless, its first audience is the editors of Wikipedia.) If we want to change the acronyms, then we should find a better reason to (e.g., better titles?) than just them being in-jokes or self-references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Keep the titles they are fine. The signpost is not press releases nor is it wikinews, so in-jokes are prefectly fine. I remeber getting a chuckle when I figured out the title was B.R.I.O.N and Brion Vibber is one of the main developers. -Ravedave 14:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's supposed to be fun and informative, how about coming up with something that is either a) fun or b) informative? These are just irritating. Rebecca 06:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the Signpost a lot. It's generally well-written, and I greatly appreciate the work of those who contribute to it. It plays a invaluable role in keeping the most-involved Wikipedia editors well-informed, but it is more than that: it is also a newspaper for the larger Wikipedia community of casual editors, and is increasingly extending beyond that, to the point that occasional viewers of Wikipedia read over it and outside bloggers and media/news agencies use it as a reference and a source of information. As such, I want it to be as good as possible. Of course it should look professional! Otherwise, let's just throw good grammar and spelling out the window as well. —Lowellian (reply) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In light of other comments . . .

I just wanted to drop you guys a note and say that, generally, I think you all do a very good job with this thing. People tend to focus on the problems with this free, non-paying, Wikipedia newsletter instead of on the interesting stories that are put out weekly by this free, non-paying, Wikipedia newsletter. Anyway, that's it, keep up the good work :) - Jersyko·talk 13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laudatio

• 1: You do a great job!
• 2: Thanks for mentioning the two logo contests I initiated, I hope we'll get more input soon now. =]

—Nightstallion (?) 06:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'd like to add my praise. TWS is a really good idea. - Heartofgoldfish 16:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support Wikipedia Signpost is an excellent way to keep the community informed! --Donar Reiskoffer 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• 100% agree - fantastic job, signposters :-) Required reading for myself every Tuesday, I very much look forward to it! Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something to do

I'll cover something or do something. Just leave a message on my talk page. GangstaEB EA 00:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 100 x 1000

This week's News and notes, um, notes:

The most recent Wikipedia to reach 1,000 articles was the Wikipedia in Northern Sami.

Unfortunately, this isn't true. The Urdu Wikipedia reached 1,000 articles on June 19th, 9 days after Northern Sami (and a week before the date on the article). And by my reckoning, Northern Sami was only the 99th Wikipedia to reach 1,000. This is supported by the tables at Wikipedia:Milestone statistics (which I help maintain) and m:Wikimedia News#Wikipedias (which I mostly don't). (Note that the Venetian Wikipedia just broke 1,000... and 2,000 — it actually shot up from 150 to 3,500 articles in one day!) - dcljr (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Milestones

This section has gotten a bit large in the last months, so it would be kind of nice to break it up a bit. How about into article milestones, user milestones, etc? Ingoolemo ^talk 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On the matter of article milestones, and since I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, we're going to hit one and a quarter million articles in the next day or so... Shimgray | talk | 11:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HRE not covered

I was expecting to read the executive summary of the User:HolyRomanEmperor death scandal, which was probably a major event in the world of English and Serbian Wikipedia this week. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As usual, lack of coverage basically indicates that we could use more people helping out and writing stories. In this case, I'm guessing nobody who works on the Signpost can read Serbian, so that kind of inhibits us a bit. It also seems to be a particularly challenging incident in terms of sorting out what real facts can be reported. And given the appearances, it may be the sort of thing that responsible journalism would avoid covering unnecessarily, so as not to reward manipulative conduct with additional publicity. --Michael Snow 05:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate that this is difficult to report on, because it's difficult to separate facts from rumors. But given the massive response (mostly here on en:, in English), culminating in an OFFICE action by Danny, I thought a mention was obligatory. Of course this is a wiki, so your response is a good one; if I think it should be there, then I should write it. -lethe ^{talk +} 07:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about, and HRE's talk pages don't help very much - did the user (or an imposter) claim that they were dead? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Dont waste your time its not very interesting. I don't belive it should even be covered. Here's a summary (from what I understand): Person A posted info that person B was dead. Person B happened to be in the middle of a request for admin. Much confusion ensued, person B showed back up and claimed that his "cousin" was the one who said he was dead. High ranking wikiperson C blocked B and asked him to verify his identity, person B has not done so and his writing style has changed, so it is still belived that person B had their account stolen by the person A. -Ravedave 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And then person B oppened an account D and claims that his account B was stolen and that he had nothing to do with that. ;-) --Dijxtra 20:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back as User:HRE. Apparently his account had been hijacked. -lethe ^{talk +} 10:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria was amendment today, discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Fair use criteria/Amendment/Consensus. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem yet again with RSS feed

I posted a version of this to User talk:Ral315, but he hasn't responded yet, nor fixed the problem...

My RSS reader (Thunderbird) has been refusing to give me the Signpost for the last couple of weeks (Vol. 2, Issues 27 and 28), complaining that it's "not a valid RSS feed". I think the problem is the first line of the feed, which is:

h<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

I guess Thunderbird doesn't like that "h" as the first character. I can't believe I'm the first one to notice this. Am I wrong about the "h" being a problem?? - dcljr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a problem, I'm sure. I'll fix it later tonight after Michael publishes, but there's no reason to fix it right before an issue comes out. Ral315 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Still hasn't been fixed. - dcljr (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Ral315, for fixing the feed. - dcljr (talk) 04:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes - thx !!!

Apologies for the delay; I was on vacation and was unable to connect to the internet for a little while. I'm currently working on a way to streamline the updating of everything, including the RSS feed. In time, Michael and others will have the ability to directly change the RSS feed; again, that's still in progress. Ral315 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration report formatting.

Numbered lists (#) instead of bullets (*), and less repitition and clearly indicating what pages link to?

1. Request involving user His excellency on Islam-related talk pages.
2. Request involving editors and administrators on Allegations of Israeli apartheid (formerly at Israeli apartheid) being repeatadly moved during a poll about the article's naming.

instead of

• His excellency: A case involving the actions of His excellency. The case involves the actions of His excellency on Islam-related talk pages.

• Israeli apartheid: A case involving the actions of editors and administrators on Allegations of Israeli apartheid (formerly at Israeli apartheid). The article was the site of a move war during a poll to determine the article's naming.

-- Jeandré, 2006-07-18t16:32z

The reason I don't, and won't use numbered lists is because there's no rhyme or reason to the numbering. What makes case #6 come before case #5? The answer is nothing; they're ordered as shown on the ArbCom page, where the ordering is newest cases first. But that doesn't mean anything, and would confuse someone looking at next week's reports, trying to find case #6, which is now case #8.

As far as the page links, I personally like the way it's done now, because it uses the case name (something that isn't always present in the write-up, and is important for keeping the report similar to the ArbCom page). Also, it makes the page longer, but I like a longer write-up because it's easier to read as compared to one-sentence statements. That's just my opinion; I don't know if there's a better way to handle that. Ral315 (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I now understand the lack of numbering, but I still don't like "His excellency: A case involving the actions of His excellency. The case involves the actions of His excellency on Islam-related talk pages.". Which user is it again?

How about "Arbitration report" to replace "[...] Lengthy Litigation"? -- Jeandré, 2006-07-25t12:48z

It simply uses the subpage's name, whatever it might (for clarity, I'd say), which is usually how the entire arbitration case is also named, even though it might end up taking actions against another user than the one named. Circeus 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single page view for archives possible?

It's convenient and enjoyable for me to read/skim through all articles for an issue on the single-page view, rather than clicking back and forth for each headline. I'd like to have that option for the archived issues as well. Presently the dates for each issue go only to the day and year articles. Does anyone mind if this is an option, and how can this be accomplished? TransUtopian 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd really enjoy a single-page subscription option. Currently, I just keep WP:POST on my watchlist, and then click-through when they're published. Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Just look at the single-page view page every week. Ral315 (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To TransUtopian: I'll look at doing it. Ral315 (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Ral315! TransUtopian 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's B.R.I.O.N.?

There hasn't been a B.R.I.O.N. for two issues now… I miss it… Jon Harald Søby 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. -Ravedave 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On this topic, I'm working on it, but Rob Church, who used to give me write-ups on software changes, left last month, so it's tough to do. Ral315 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried diffing the release notes every week? If you download a Subversion client, you should be able to do that, and since every nontrivial change is supposed to be added to the release notes, you should get a reasonable list of things changed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone try emailing him for how he assembled it? -Ravedave 01:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a *LOT* of information floating around from the hacking days. Raul654 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can ask Brion Vibber, or Tim Starling if they will give you any software info. Carmelapple 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems you don't need an SVN client after all. Here's a link to changes made to the release notes since July 17. Is that useful? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

To some extent. The only thing is it's not weekly. Someone bugged JeLuF about this a day or two ago; if nothing happens, I'll poke Brion or Tim. Ral315 (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can make it weekly. Just go here (takes a long time to load), find the version prior to the one you want the earliest changes from (namely, the latest change that was included in the previous BRION), click "select for diffs" next to it, wait a while for the page to reload, find the top revision, and click "diff to selected #####". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature disambig?

• WP:POST comes here, obviously. ;) Can an {{Otheruses4}} be added here to include a link to WP:SIG to help people find their way to that page, a la "sign (verb) your comment"? — MrDolomite | Talk 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think so, seems very much in the Wiki spirit. But I fancy there are many who would disagree, since it will break the pretty formatting. I wonder if the template could be added to the bottom of the page? -- Visviva 16:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd like it to be displayed at the top; I think a few times I have accidentally directed people here as opposed to WP:SIG. Whoops. But if it breaks the formatting, then I suppose we could have it at the bottom. Eh, I could go either way. Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't break it and it's a good idea, so I've added it. -Splash - tk 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't like the look of it now, but I'd be open to a different way of displaying it. Ral315 (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • So far the disambig at the bottom seems the best option. Still noticable, but not disruptive of the formatting. — MrDolomite | Talk 13:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Audio link

I have recorded an audio version of the Signpost for the Wikicast project still in alpha development, and I am curious as to why the link was removed (edit: nm -- just now saw header and contacted Ral315). I can understand if people might think of a better position for the link, but I think it made sense placed between the RSS feed and single-page version as an alternative means of receiving the Signpost. I intend to update the audio feed weekly to reflect the Signpost's latest content. I have also done work for Spoken Wikipedia, and I was hoping that even while Wikicast is still in development, people can still benefit from an audio version of the Signpost as a standalone offering. --Omaryak 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, but if we use it, we should use something like the audio icon, because there are a lot of links already. On another note, I originally placed that note because the way I'm trying to get Ralbot going, I'll revert any changes accidentally I update. Please don't revert for the sake of reverting. Ral315 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RSS MIA YA

Not to sound like a broken record, but the RSS feed is broken again. (Issue 32 was the last one that worked.) - dcljr (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll investigate; I thought I successfully FTP'ed it this week. Ral315 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Uploading it somehow failed, the file was there, but completely empty. In any event, it's fixed now, and sorry for all the troubles :) Ral315 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I see. - dcljr (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that's really, really weird. I uploaded it again, and even checked it after uploading it to double check that the file was there. I'll investigate in the morning, but I have no idea why it wouldn't be working. Ral315 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ral315, I am still seeing issue 32 - are you uploading as Feed.rss, feed.RSS or some other capitalization? thx in adv --Trödel 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble uploading the feed- it's being uploaded, but the content is immediately removed from the file. I'm talking to my provider. Ral315 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Good luck --Trödel 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: listserv reports

I'm not sure if this would be appropriate for the Signpost or not, but I think many readers would greatly appreciate some sort of report/summary of the more significant discussions of problems and policy from the wikien-l listserv. There's definitely plenty of content for a regular slot, but it may be too personality-based for widespread consumption.--ragesoss 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This should most likely go to the suggestion page. Thanks. ForestH2 t/c 23:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to post it here. The problem I've found with listserv discussions is they too often are glorified IRC banter (coming from someone who uses IRC regularly and reads listserv on a semi-regular basis). When and if they lead to things on-wiki, we cover them (and you'll note that many of our articles on major events contain a link to a relevant listserv posting). But it's hard to say what's relevant and what's just people saying "that's a great idea!" and then never implementing it. If someone can come up with a decent-looking mockup of what an article would look like, I'll consider the issue, but it just seems to hard to decipher the content. Ral315 (talk) 01:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next issue

Is everything OK with the Signpost? When is the next issue due? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ral's yet to log on yet; and if he doesn't log on in the next few hours some one may have to cover him. All stuff has been proofread, and moved for publication, it's just that he's yet to log on to finish his articles and do finishing touches to aritcles. Issue should be out by 03:00, if Ral's not one. Should Ral log on before that he'll publish. Several stories that can be seen at the newsroom have not been finished such as wikicharts etc. ForestH2 t/h/c 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Published. ForestH2 t/h/c 02:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A bumper issue: well worth the wait! Great work folks. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Italian Wiki article

I think it needs a bit of copyediting. How can this be done? Anchoress 17:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to some help, I figured out how to do it. Anchoress 20:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets drop the "Good Article" mentions, eh?

Almost every single report on foreign Wikis has mentioned that they do not have an equivelant of our or deWiki's Good Articles. It's obvious that almost everyone has some form of Featured Article standard, but almost no-one has anything like GAs. So, why continue to mention it unless they do? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A good point, though I think the point was partially to emphasize that the GA standard is in its infancy in that it hasn't yet been adopted by many languages. I fully expect it to take hold on many other wikis in the next 3-6 months. Ral315 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It could also illustrate that GA was never a good idea and was simply ignored by the other 200 wikis... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing: Wikipedia in the news

Why is this section missing from this edition? Did nobody write a new article about us this week?? Or do we need more volunteer-power for the 'post?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

More volunteers are always helpful. This week, nobody else took it and I was unable to get it, so we published without it. We haven't had anyone really doing it on a week-to-week basis since July, so if someone wants to handle it, that's great. Ral315 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to chip in as I consider that section to be one of the most interesting and valuable :) Any templates, tips (Google News:Wikipedia?) etc. for info where to look for new stories?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Trödel actually just volunteered to do that this week. Feel free to help him on that, or if you see an article worth a full story (I think the Jimbo/Chinese censorship stories in the news this week would merit a full article, for one thing), go ahead and chip in there.

As to where to find stories, we've mostly used Google News and such in the past. Let me know if you have any other questions. Ral315 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, a just a note, there wasn't many stories in the news last week; so it wasn't really worth of an article. If you remember we published 9/6 so there was only a couple days for an ITN story, and nothing really big came out. Sugarpine^t 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tnx for the info. Where is the draft article being prepeared?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people collect articles at Wikipedia:Press coverage, if you need a list. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Trodel's doing this one at here. User talk:Sugarpine 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I dropped out of doing this one; I was getting a bit burned out on it and then had a busy summer full of paying work... when I was doing it regularly, I found it helpful to subscribe to Google alerts (search Google News for "wikipedia", then look for "News Alerts" in the sidebar - you can set up separate alerts for "according to Wikipedia" or "Jimmy Wales" or anything else that suits your fancy. Then you get a digest email every day there's a news story concerning us, and if you're smart you can collect a little each day for "In the news" instead of scrambling the night/morning before deadline.  :) Also makes it easy to watch for duplicate stories (many stories are syndicated or reprinted), and you get a sense of what the BIG stories are. There are some non-notable sources cataloged by Google; we don't have to report it all. And remember that Google doesn't get everything; I always tried to do a quick search at Yahoo News or the like as well before wrapping up. BBC News is also good for catching non-US stories. I also kept Wikipedia:Village pump (news), Wikipedia:Press coverage and Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2006 (and pages linked in sidebar) on my watchlist to catch stuff noted by other Wikipedians. Hope that helps — Catherine\^talk 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions --Trödel 03:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POST

I find the note

WP:POST redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.

at the bottom of the signpost to be rather distracting. I understand the need for having notes of disambiguation in articles, but having a note about a shortcut disambig (no less!) in the official Wikipedia newletter strikes me as rather poor taste. I would suggest removing it or embedding it as a comment (even at the risk that some people looking for Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages would end up here). Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; I had meant to bring this up when the note was first added, but it slipped my mind. Perhaps changing the link of "shortcut" to a new subpage of tools with a small note there? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, helping people find what they're looking for is more important than teh pretty. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-23t18:40z

Yeah, you are right, on principle. But that disambig note is not that useful, really. And the signpost being the main news publication on Wikipedia, one should consider really carefully the placement of any text in there. It is like visiting the New York Times page, and in a very proeminent place seeing the note:

Typing "times" may have brought you here, for the Times jounal, see www.timesonline.co.uk.

That statement would be distracting enough to the vast majority of visitors, that it would not be worth putting it for the very few which may get confused. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

That analogy is not quite correct, as Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages is not another newsletter in competition with WP:POSTPOST. The more correct analogy would be if you followed a shortcut link to the New York Times and read a note saying "TIMES redirects here, for the current times around the world, see this page." I agree the dab hatnote is distracting though - see my suggestion below. Carcharoth 14:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Depending on how many pages link to WP:POST, the ideal solution might be to make WP:POST a disambiguation shortcut that gives people the option of clicking onwards to either Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost or Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. To be honest, if I am directing people to the Signpost, I wouldn't think of the shortcut WP:POST (just as I wouldn't say "have you read the Sign this week?"), rather, I would direct people to WP:POSTPOST (hopefully that shortcut works). Maybe WP:WP-SIGN might also work. Once the disambig has been set up at WP:POST, people should hopefully, after seeing it a few times, start to use the correct shortcut themselves, and, slowly but surely, people will learn the new shortcuts (it really shouldn't take long) - though there may be a bit of an outcry at first. Carcharoth 14:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I would agree with a disambig page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I always use WP:POST as a shortcut for the Signpost - it is the one that is publicised on the Signpost front page!

Do we need any disambiguation? How many people use WP:POST when they mean WP:SIG? As for WP:SIGH... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I've said before, I've directed anons and other users to WP:POST before, without catching my mistake. I thought WP:POST and WP:SIG were the same (shoulda thought that one through), before I started writing for the Signpost. WP:POSTPOST would be an appropriate redirect, IMO. Then again, I might be the minority (the minority who is dumb enough to think that WP:POST and WP:SIG are the same :P). If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

What about this:

• Change the official redirect from WP:POST to WP:POST (and allow subredirects like WP:POST/N to remain alongside WP:POST/N)
• Remove the disambig notice from the main page
• Change WP:POST from a redirect to a page transcluding the main Signpost page, with the disambig notice intact.

Anyone viewing the page by visiting WP:POST will see the disambig notice, and anyone viewing otherwise won't see the disambig notice. It's still a little unsightly, but it narrows the audience affected by this. Comments? Ral315 (talk) 01:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Great suggestion! WP:POST is a better shortcut to start with. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll have to remember to use WP:POST now, though... ;-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, we won't be removing any redirects. But WP:POST won't be our official redirect, and will be the only page to carry the disambig notice. I'd like to deprecate it, but there's no way to remove its usage completely after nearly two years of publication. Ral315 (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another note - someone objected to having WP:POST be anything but a redirect since it is in the main article space. I created Wikipedia:SIGN and WP:POST now redirects to it(Wikipedia:SIGN) - that way the transclusion can occur on that page rather than the main page. --Trödel 03:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I messed it up before checking this talk page. But I'm still a bit wtf? I don't see the need in a mirror of the Signpost at Wikipedia:SIGN, and sent WP:POST straight back to the proper Signpost. Why not just have WP:POST point to the Sign your posts page, and have a dab there saying "Use WP:POST if you want the Signpost!!!" It might annoy some, but they'd get over it. - Hahnchen 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, one of the reasons we didn't do that (not that it's not a possibility) is that WP:POST has been used as the redirect for nearly 2 years and has a multitude of links already that wouldn't be worth depopulating. Because the vast majority of the links refer to the Signpost, it should go here first, in my opinion. Ral's suggestion was great - it included a dab notice, will start emphasizing a new redirect, and keeps the main page clean. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the next edition of the Wikipedia Signpost, I think it'd be good to highlight the new redirect for the signpost as WP:POST, and then to retire WP:POST. Anyone who doesn't catch the message won't really be a reader anyway. - Hahnchen 01:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What does "retire" mean? It's already been replaced with WP:POST at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, and there's no reason to delete WP:POST since we can't find all the places it's been linked from by clicking "What links here" because it may have been linked to from outside sites. -- Jeandré, 2006-09-29t17:59z

---

Why can't we fix all those links? I mean, the switch in shortcut simply gives rise to a disambiguation, if I am understanding this, and there are plenty of ways to handle disambiguations, like bots and popups. -- Gwern (contribs) 20:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The concern is about regular internet links - there really is no reason to delete the location altogether but leave it as a redirect or a disambig --Trödel 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What I'm suggesting is that the switch from WP:POST to WP:POST should be announced as a seperate news item in the next edition of the Post. This would make sure everyone who reads it knows about it. Then redirect WP:POST to Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, and leave a dab link to the signpost there. This would save the need for a mirror of the signpost at Wikipedia:SIGN. - Hahnchen 03:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe the shortcut shift is important enough to be announced as news in the SIGNPPOST. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 Assessment

On the 20 Sept Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment passed the 100,000 article mark for assessed articles.[4] It seems this might be a milestone worth reporting. --Salix alba (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Permalink suggestion for the single-page version

I suggest something such as this ready-made code to be added at the bottom of each article:

<INCLUDEONLY><DIV ALIGN=RIGHT><SMALL>— [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Permalink]]</SMALL></DIV></INCLUDEONLY>

This would make the single-page version (and whoever else include Signpost articles elsewhere) display a permalink at the bottom-right of each article, like this:

I just had the need a few minutes ago: I usually read the single-page version, but I needed a direct and permanent link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-02/More_CSD for reference on the VPP -- no permalink available on the single-page version, and the latest Signpost wasn't listed in the Archives, so I had to go back to the old version to find one.

I've checked the basic code above seem to work, but it may need some tweaks, I'm not a specialist of variables and subst. 62.147.86.81 01:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Signpost on the front page?

I've proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Wikipedia Signpost on the front page? that the signpost have more visibility on the front page to advertise the presence of a Wikipedia community. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks --  Netsnipe  ►  12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit internal/community/behind the scenes for the Main Page? There is already a prominent link on Wikipedia:Community Portal. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the Signpost box is much more dynamic than a static Wikipedia:Community Portal link. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The dynamic box appears on the Wikipedia:Community Portal right near the top - have a look. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

While I can't say I oppose us being added to the main page, I question whether the Signpost is relevant; my worry is that newbies get too fine-grained a look into the community, too early. Someone had the Signpost on the main page during the redesign phase, but it was eventually removed. I'd certainly entertain a discussion to do so. Ral315 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki template

At one point there was an interwiki template (this one Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Templates/Interwiki_Report I belive) does anyone know why it was removed? It would be nice to be able to get to any interwiki report from any other one.-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Spotlight

Covered yet? -- Zanimum 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! For future reference, though, suggestions and tips are more appropriate on the suggestions page, as this makes it easier on all of us. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Telugu and Marathi error

The news/notes claims that Telugu (21,000) is the first to go 20+ for an Indian subcontinent language. The same page says that Marathi language is now at 35k - so there is a contradiction. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's 21,000 Telugu articles and 35,000 Marathi edits. - BanyanTree 13:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Marathi is 35,000 edits, meaning saved changes, and Telugu is counting articles. In other words, two different, but equally worthy, milestones. Thanks for pointing this out, though. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Single-page view

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost still has the link to Single page view, but it has misteriously disappeared in my spamlist version from the October 9th edition. October 2nd: Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View October 9th: Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line Who decided and why to remove link to Single-Page View? I want it back >_< Shinhan 21:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it was added accidentally a few months back, and I reverted to my original layout. I'll add it back next week. Ral315 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Btw. Single page view is usefull b/c then you need to load the page only once. Shinhan 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tech report

Just wondering why the Tech report is no longer a regular beat. Not enough notable stuff? - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

More like nobody with the time and talent to write it. We'd love to resurrect it if somebody capable wants to step up and volunteer. --Michael Snow 06:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Library Thing

As german Signpost de:Wikipedia:Kurier wrote, there is a increasing number of german wikipedians who share their books on the LibraryThing group "Wikipedia-Bibliothek" (Wikipedia-Library). The group was created on Sept 27., and wikipedians added more than 2000 books yet, mostly german reference books and specialiced books. Purpose of the group is to give others fast access to information and references they need for their articles. How about creating an english "Wikipedia-Library" group? There are quite a few wikipedians who librarything [5] -- 172.178.30.251 21:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

While the group was created in german, it is accessible from the english version of LT: http://www.librarything.com/groups/wikipediabibliothek. Unlike Wikipedia, LT does not segregate between its language versions. Circeus 00:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sign up

How do we sign up for the Wikipedia Signpost? •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 05:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be looking for the instructions on Template:Signpost-subscription. --Michael Snow 06:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Material cited by Wikisource News

Hello. The article "Wales resigns chair position as reorganization in progress" was cited in the Wikisource News article "Jimbo Wales resigns amidst restructuring". In a previous discussion, Ral315 suggested a note here when we used Signpost content. Thank you. —[admin] Pathoschild 06:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig up the top of the page...

... Can we make this somewhat smaller? Currently it looks awful under Internet Explorer 7. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Heres an answer. Get Mozilla Firefox 2. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 07:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is for it to look big. Use the shortcut "WP:POST"; it doesn't have the disambig, if you want to avoid it. Ral315 (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks to Ral315 for pointing me in the right direction. Culverin, I would use Firefox 2, but short of changing the HTTP referrer variables to disguise it as Internet Explorer, I can't use it on our corporate network due to lock down policies. It's not helpful to recommend another browser, especially as Wikipedia is meant to be pretty much browser agnostic. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[Modify Headers], [User Agent Switcher]; you can also do this through about:config I've heard. --Gwern (contribs) 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change to signpost main page

I've added the code

style="background:none"

on each of the three tables so that on my user page it appears transparent. Harryboyles 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

A few weeks ago I found my way to a page listing the number of featured pictures, lists and articles etc plus the number of defeatured pictures, lists and articles, and I think it was something to do with signpost. Can anyone point me towards it? Thanks, RHB 21:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably a past edition of Features and admins (current edition). Circeus 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia:Featured article statistics? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats the one, thanks Aloan and Circeus. Is there any way to access that from the main signpost? RHB 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Section on Other Language Editions (Spamlist)

Only after I subscribed did somebody bother to change the spamlist from where I posted myself to receive 2 copies of Signpost, one in English, and one in what I thought would be Icelandic. It doesnt matter, it was just a case of reading whichever one I logged into first. 'Now, someone has changed the page informing people that when you sign there, you get a copy of the English language signpost sent to whichever wiki you register to. So now I am getting 2 copies of signpost both in English. Any chance things could be made a little clearer for people please? I wanted signpost in English and Signpost in Icelandic. Guess that's not gonna happen, is it? Thor Malmjursson 13:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Signpost is in English everywhere. The spamlist for other languages is there if you want to be notified on your talk page on that language, instead of here. Jon Harald Søby 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, anyone is welcome to translate into other languages if they feel like doing so. We don't have that as a regular service, partly because it was envisioned as primarily an English Wikipedia newspaper. But we're happy if people from other languages find it useful. --Michael Snow 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it should have been obvious to me, but what threw me was in that section, it started Other Language Editions, and then people were putting underneath their names, and then (I thought) the language they wanted it in afterwards. As for example with Jon Harald Søby, I saw his name, then (Norwegian) listed afterwards. What I assumed was that it meant He was requesting a copy in Norwegian, not a copy to go to the Norwegian Wiki... :) Guess we all make mistakes (I know, cause with me, that's frequent!) Thor Malmjursson 11:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I can see why it wasn't obvious, I've tried to straighten out the message there to make it more clear. --Michael Snow 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiWorld by Greg Williams

Would you consider running these cartoons weekly in Signpost? I think Greg is only going to keep contributing them if they are included or linked to from the English Wikipedia articles, so they might be in limited supply if things don't improve, but you can at least have six weeks worth in Signpost. -- Zanimum 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are great, I vote to include them. I think they should run on the Sunday editions of the signpost. :) -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If you'll write 8-10 stories for a Sunday edition, I'll do it; otherwise, you'll have to settle for Monday :) Ral315 (talk) 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe eventually we'll make it to publishing more than once a week, but we'd need a lot more people writing (hint, hint). In the meantime, good illustrations are welcome too. --Michael Snow 08:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I third the motion. Kaldari 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup, those are excellent. Let's hope he can keep producing at least one a week at that standard. Go for it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if they appear less frequently than once a week, it's worth having. I just wish we could come up with a way of getting wider circulation for them. As a way of inticing people to read articles they wouldn't usually consider, it's a sure-thing. We should look upon these in the same way that we look upon the "Did you know..." section on the front page. They serve a similar purpose but in a more elegant way. SteveBaker 12:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In the news

"Look Me Up Under 'Missing Link': On Wikipedia, Oblivion Looms for the Non-Notable"

• This article may be worth mentioning in the Signpost. Note that much of it is incorrect (e.g. it states we have 100 admins); it appears poorly researched. (Radiant) 09:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It says 1000 admins and 100 articles deleted per day - It forgets the prods and speedies. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't it already included in the Wikipedia in the news section? --Gwern (contribs) 18:22 8 December 2006 (GMT)

I believe this appeared already, yes. Ral315 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] After 18 nominations, they finally got it.

In one of the most disgusting acts I've seen on Wikipedia, consensus was overturned by an admin who closed the 18th GNAA deletion early (after two days!) and then deleted it. A lesson learned: if you want something deleted badly enough, keep pushing to have it deleted. After the 18th or 19th attempt, you will finally have it done. Pity we can't have a Signpost article about this issue. I'm actually seriously considering whether this project is worth my time any more. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"GNAA" meaning...? - dcljr (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America meltBanana 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank god. Finally some perspective. Rebecca 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right. Perspective. Jimbo informs me in an offhand manner that it should have been speedied some time ago, 100% disagree (not many issues I disagree with him on). I suppose that nothing can be done though. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Plenty could be done, but only if that includes finding coverage in reliable references for all the material that would be in the article. Failing that, then no. I can't figure out what's so hard about that, why it's worth getting so worked up over, or why it took so long for people to reallize enforcing content policies applies to AFD too. - Taxman ^Talk 20:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language milestone

Keep an eye on the Spanish Wikipedia at 178,000 articles. The Swedish one is at 198,000, and will be the ninth edition to break the 200K barrier; with the Spanish edition over 200K, that will make the nice round number 10. Cheers, and keep up the good work. Karl Dickman ^talk 11:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

At current growth rates that will be about the end of February for Spanish, and some time in March if the rate slows like many of the other larger projects have. The good people here at the Signpost rarely miss the milestones for the larger projects, but the heads up is always good. :) - Taxman ^Talk 20:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From the editor

Was just wondering, would it be possible to have an include for the From the editor section, that you could press "show" and it would pop out?

Like this:

<div style="border: none; clear:both;" class="NavFrame">
<div class="NavHead" style="-moz-border-radius: .25em; padding:5px 5px 5px 5px; background-color:#FFFEFE; text-align:left; border: 1px red solid; font-size:larger;">'''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-11/From the editor|From the editor:  New feature]]'''</div>
<div class="NavContent" style="text-align:left;">
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-11/From the editor}}
</div>
</div>
</div>

Where the date would change accordingly. Of course, in the actual From the editor page, the heading would have to be removed. ~ EdBoy^[p]\_[m]/^[c] 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That's somewhat similar to the single-page view section. I'm reluctant to make this page too crowded; I got a negative response when trying to change this page once before. Also, for what it's worth, the editor's note is a rare thing- though I'll be doing one next week, it's quite possible there won't be another one until February or March. Ral315 (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd vote for at least something that sets it out a bit more than the bold does...A bright color, perhaps? I know I would have totally missed it if I hadn't seen this section of the talk page pop up on my watchlist. Essjay (Talk) 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For next time...

...or not, I just found out that the fR WpA WILL NOT let you commit an edit without previewing it. 68.39.174.238 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; I've confirmed this. The edit page button is disabled until you hit "show preview". Of course, this may apply to anons and new users only (as I didn't log in). Simetrical or brion might know more about this. Ral315 (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just made an edit there (creating my user page), and did not use preview. The need for preview may only apply to anon editors. My account there is not a new one.-gadfium 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I also verified with a new account fr:Utilisateur:Trödel Test - which did not have email confirmation and one can commit an edit without preview. --Trödel 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so it definately seems to be IPs only. I can understand the reasons, but dislike it as I am used to whatever you call tab-navigation. I edit, type tab once, type a [lame] edit summary, hit tab twice and then space and that saves the page. With the save disabled, I would hit "Show changes" and lose out totally... 68.39.174.238 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More new info: Prevew and show changes both enable save. 68.39.174.238 22:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia in Dutch news

It seems that a Wikipedia in the News item was missed in the recent Signpost: the NOS, the Dutch public broadcaster, had a teletext article about Oscar (talk • contribs) and meta:User:Jan-Bart being appointed on the Board of Trustees: [6] (second bullet). Translation: "Two Dutchmen have joined the board of web encyclopedia Wikipedia. They will take care of financial matters and projects. Wikipedia is being made by volunteers from all over the world." Not much, but this is afaik the first time they've written about wikipedia. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 15:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bring that to my attention. For non-English ITN items - I can only include them if they are here since I only search in english for ITN. --Trödel 18:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on wikipedia in the Dutch media for you. If I come across another mention, where should I post it? Here, on your talk page or somewhere else? Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 22:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Here works great Sorry I am on a different page than I thought I was - leave suggestions for stories at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions- I always check there several times a week, and always do again right before I mark the complete for the week. --Trödel 01:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost Distribution

Hi, Has it been discussed to put the signpost on a particular page, and then post in template format on users pages the newsletter, rather than posting the news letter on the actual page...?

Surely that would be a better use of resources..?

Reedy Boy 19:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, users can see the Signpost on the main page, or put the Signpost template on their user or user talk page. But a lot of users seem to prefer having it posted to their talk pages. For me, it's not really a resource problem, since I use a bot account that automatically makes the posts. Ral315 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Litigation"

Is it possible to change the name of the "Litigation" article something in regards to Arbitration Committee? When I saw that I thought it was talking about real litigation and somebody had sued Wikipedia... Just H 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a somewhat humorous (depending on the person judging) acronym. Arbitration is, in practice, roughly equivalent to litigation, actually, though it's not referred to as such. Ral315 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What exactly does this mean?

In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-12-26/In the news, under "Jimmy Wales and New Projects", what exactly does "factually-riddled" mean? 68.39.174.238 17:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a strange phrasing, but I think it was meant to be an indication that the media coverage of that "project" has been riddled with inaccuracies and misleading hype. Wikia people say they aren't planning a major search initiative that would compete at the level of Google or Yahoo, and while they have tinkered with community-based ideas for search, "Wikiasari" is an old name that doesn't apply to any effort they might eventually make along those lines. --Michael Snow 17:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note about minor change on page

As requested on the comment:

I fixed a small typo (Experanza -> Esperanza) which pointed to a redirect. --cesarb 15:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, although the page was intended to be left at Experanza. Ral315 (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiInterview Idea

Good morning (GMT time); I am a regular reader of the Signpost (I read it on Community Portal), and firstly let me say what a good job you guys are doing here!

However - I have an idea. I would like to start up a fortnightly or monthly "WikiInterview" to be posted on the Signpost. The idea is to interview a key member of the Wikimedia foundation - perhaps we could start with Mr.Wales? Perhaps I could ask him six or seven questions regarding ongoing current events on Wikipedia - e.g. his view on the ArbCom nominations, or his view on Esperanza being disbanded. I say "he" as an example of using Mr.Wales as the first interviewee, but next time it might be someone else!

Drop me a message on my talk page, and let me know what you think of me undertaking this.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like the idea; however, we'll probably run out of "key member[s] of the Wikimedia foundation" pretty quickly :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be for any Wikipedian who went through some "drama" over the past week? --Majorly (Talk) 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That does significantly increase the pool... :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, anyone who is an integral part of the community, and whose "problem" caused a lot of discussion, maybe... --Majorly (Talk) 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to make it a little less often (once a month, or less), and have it generally Foundation-only. I think doing regular interviews with just Wikipedians might cause problems, and having a set schedule (X times a month or year) leads us to do interviews because we feel we have to, not because they're relevant to current issues. But I definitely think more interviews of major people is a good thing. I would say this- since we've previously interviewed Jimbo, perhaps interviewing someone else on the Foundation might be appropriate? Mindspillage would be a good interview soon, as she'll be going to her first face-to-face board meeting this week or next. Anthere would also be a good one, given that she's sort of taken the lead on the current fundraiser.

Also, let me say this- things like Esperanza would not be appropriate questions. If we're interviewing Foundation members, let's ask Foundation questions. If anyone's interested, I'll try to set up an interview with Anthere next week. Ral315 (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Anthere was interviewed by Wikinews recently. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The interview has been organised; to view the current script, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Interview. For more information please contact Daniel.Bryant or myself. Cheers, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ral315, Mindspillage would be good, much like the Signpost ran an interview with Erik after he was elected. In fact, we have three new board members, each of whom would be worth interviewing. --Michael Snow 06:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; I really don't think a Jimbo interview would be relevant right now. Ral315 (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ral315 (and therefore Michael). Mindspillage is the most relevant person right now, given hisher (hey, it's late!) recent appointment. Any ideas on questions? Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Her recent appointment... ;) -- Longhair\^talk 12:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

XD. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Michael here. I actually was thinking about interviewing Kat, Oscar, and Jan after their appointments, but didn't get around to it because of logistics. Flcelloguy (A note?) 04:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I pull out, as I can't afford to spend more time compiling another 'Post section when I already do one. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How about interviewing average Wikipedia users also. We could see how normal users feel about Wikipedia--M W Johnson 12:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I like that idea a lot more than interviewing the 'big names'. How about picking a random Wikipedian each week and having one of the 'big names' interview them! SteveBaker 02:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How would you choose'em? I figure a random name from the top 1000 contributors, and the admins, (discarding choices which happen to "big names") would be a good source. --Gwern (contribs) 03:19 24 January 2007 (GMT)

Why even the top 1000? Why not anyone with an account who has done more than a handful of edits. Discovering the motives and experiences of new editors would be informative to people who've been here a long time. It would be interesting to do someone from the top 100 editors one week, then someone from the top 1000, then 10,000 then 100,000 - cycle it around so that we hear from a wide spectrum of editors. The tricky part is finding an interesting interviewer...and for that, we could pick from the most frequent contributors. SteveBaker 03:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested that particular group because I think they are more likely to respond, more likely to have interesting and idiosyncratic things to say, have done or participated in interesting things by virtue of their demonstrated longevity and activity, and are more likely to be grounded in some real knowledge of Wikipedia, as opposed to a newbie who is just learning the ropes and hasn't done much at all. --Gwern (contribs) 04:51 24 January 2007 (GMT)

I would oppose this idea; I think that this can only lead to "pick me, pick me", and become a badge of honor for users. Ral315 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an interview with someone who is doing something of particular interest? Perhaps interviewing new Arbitrators (*cough*Flcelloguy*cough*), or Walkerma, who is working on WP:1.0, which is close to releasing something, might be a good idea. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] broken mailing list link

The Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-02/More_CSD article includes a link [7] to a Foundation-l mailing list message from Brad Patrick urging more spam and COI reversion. Somehow in the past few days (definitely less than a week or so ago) that link started pointing to a different message, one about the Wikimedia Foundation logo. The original message described in the Signpost article is now at:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2006-September/024016.html

I'm not sure what if anything the Signpost should do about updating the archive. I suggest leaving the old link intact but insert an annotation giving the new link. It's also worrisome that these mailing list links are supposed to be persistent but aren't. I'd like to call that to the right people's attention but am not sure who they are or how to do it. 67.117.130.181 03:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the link now; the links to incorrect messages are a result of a recent migration (ironically, that message is also from a mailing list) of the mailing lists server, which apparantly caused all current links to point to a wrong message. The links should be stable now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked on wikitech-l and in hononr of the unstable archive I am quoting the message here rather than linking to it ;)

“

The short answer is that Mailman's archiving system sucks; we've had problems sometimes in the past when rebuilding archives and it's pretty annoying. Since it assigns URLs on the basis of a count of messages from the beginning of the list, a rebuild can change *every number after* some particular weird message which gets processed differently by a new version of the software. An example I encountered a couple years ago was forwarded messages; the embedded 'From' header got counted as a separate message in earlier versions of Mailman from our olden days, but not by newer versions (or something along those lines), breaking the numbering when the lists got rebuilt after a couple years. With a lot of tweaking and rebuilding, it is sometimes possible to restore the old numbering by removing or inserting fake messages. :P Not sure how worth it it is. (What I'd *prefer* to see is a stable archiving system which generates URLs based on internal properties of the message or an explicitly stored ID number at receive time, so they aren't dependent on what else is in the archive at rebuild time.) - -- brion vibber

”

Just so everyone know this apparently will be an ongoing issue whenever there is a rebuld.--69.150.82.250 22:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

==Diacritics, ongoing dispute== Since January 2006, there continues to be a dispute over usage of Diacritics on NHL Euro player aritlce titles. Recently a compromise was offered, but turned down (by pro-diacritic) editors. Pehaps this ongoing dispute can be reported. I hope someone (with better writing skills, then I) will add this to the Signpost. GoodDay 19:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DiPTAC

Here something to put in the signpost:

WP London Transport has launched DiPTAC. It is a new section dedicated to improving the accessibility of our articles. Today it has launched a competition to design a new logo for DiPTAC intended to bring our members closer together. I think this is great and I hope other projects do something like this aswell. It is called DiPTAC as it is the name of the original Bus interior layout intended to improve accessibility. Unisouth 19:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microsoft "tried to doctor Wikipedia" article

G'day all, once again. I saw this article in Australia's fairfax papers about Microsoft sponsored editing of Wikipedia, in case no-one's picked it up yet. Jpeob 01:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It was mentioned on Slashdot today also. [8] SteveBaker 01:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCast: Signpost - Volunteers needed.

Hi,

[Wikicast http://www.bitshuffle.org/wikicast/Main_Page]- the free content broadcast is considering an audio version of The Signpost to accompany the printed version here.

Are there any volunteers to assist wiki related journalism on radio/podcast as well in print?

ShakespeareFan00 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My approval...

...to whoever made the comment about the color of legal writing. 68.39.174.238 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This would be a reference to the recent article on court citations written by Michael Snow. I figured that, as a lawyer himself, he may have been having law school flashbacks and needed to work out some issues. :p - BanyanTree 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delivery

Is there any way I could get the signpost. I am the head of a wikia wiki. -My Talk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.2.135 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] About edits by governments...

...are your columns only interested in the tendentious ones, or all of them? 68.39.174.238 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a valid point. During the election season, I used checkuser on government ranges regularly (to prevent any electioneering on Wikipedia) and I would say 98+% of the edits coming from government ranges are totally legitimate. Raul654 01:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say we're interested in the newsworthy ones. That probably wouldn't be "all of them", but if there are some more worth mentioning, I'd love to know. I did point out some of this other activity when reporting on the congressional staff edits last year. --Michael Snow 03:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The example of NIDA is a interesting one...

(1) Edits such as those by NIDA happen at least as often with articles about corporations.

Out of curiosity, I have started going through the list of S&P 500 companies and picked out a few (not to single out these particular companies, these just happen to be near the beginning of the alphabet):

• Alcoa - these IPs, registered to Alcoa, combined are top contributor: 147.154.235.53, 147.154.235.52

• Allstate:- these IPs, coming from Allstate, combined are top contributor: 167.127.104.25, 167.127.104.11, 167.127.24.69, 167.127.107.11

• Ameriprise Financial - not the top, but substantial number of edits: 12.40.180.18, 12.40.180.17

• Autodesk - top contributor: 198.102.112.18

• Bank of America - 171.159.64.10, 171.159.192.10 - together these IPs would rank as the #2 contributor to this article.

• Bristol-Myers Squibb - 165.89.84.86 - #1 contributor, 165.89.84.88 - #3 contributor

Do I need to continue looking through articles in the List of S&P 500 companies?

Article statistics can be viewed using this tool: http://vs.aka-online.de/cgi-bin/wppagehiststat.pl

As Wikipedians, we need to do a much better job of watching over articles about both government agencies and corporations to watch for these kind of edits. Even with those IPs, we shouldn't "bite the newbies" Maybe those folks are not aware of WP:COI. After being informed of it, and they continue the behavior then it is a problem.

(2) The number of such WP:COI edits to articles about government agencies and corporations outnumber/outweigh the number of Wikipedians watching those articles. Many government agency articles (not just the U.S. government) are edited and watched so infrequently that problem edits like these can easily slip by and remain for too long. It's also easy for errorneous information, perhaps libelous information, and even vandalism to slip by the watchful eye of Wikipedians and remain for too long. I think these articles need to be treated like those about Living People and more attention paid to them.

With the NIDA article, last edits before the NIDA IP edits occurred in March 2006. This material was added in April 2005 by User:Rad Racer who has since left the project and thus not watching the article. The next edits occurred between August 28 - September 29, 2006 by person(s) associated with NIDA, essentially stubbing the article and stripping out the controversy sections which was the bulk of the article. I assume good faith of Rad Racer, but don't know enough about NIDA to be able to judge how accurate or not the criticism section was or what (valid or not?) concerns NIDA had with it. I think should have been treated like Living people bios. They were never asked on their talk page about their edits, informed of WP:COI and other policies. After the NIDA edits in September, the next edits were not made until January 5, 2007, and deleted material restored on January 25. While the fact that NIDA blanked the article is regrettable, it's also regrettable that Wikipedians were not paying any attention to the article for so long and no one tried to work with that IP editor back when those edits occurred.

In this respect, I think the the Q-Clearance sitaution was handled better. It was noticed more promptly, and mentioned recently on the enwiki mailing list, I think by User:Georgewilliamherbert, who sought advice on how to handle this. He requested help from Brad Patrick and asked the IP editor to contact Brad about their concerns.

Apologies for lengthy comments, but IMHO these are bigger issues that need to be mentioned. --Aude (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Then they go on VP/AN, as noone'll see them here. Anyway, the one that I know of seems to be perfectly legitimate, so I wont bring it up here. 68.39.174.238 23:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BREAKING NEWS !!!

Someone up and enabled CAPTCHAs on THIS WIKI!!! They're of the "swirly/fuzzy image" type and, despite what Special:Captcha/help says, they do NOT require cookies. 68.39.174.238 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is apparently true. I asked on #wikipedia, and Raul654 and Ral315 confirmed it. Apparently the developers enabled it two days ago or something. I can't find any discussion though... --Gwern (contribs) 05:36 22 February 2007 (GMT)

I suppose that's the dark side of Wikipedia: Don't worry about performance. — Feezo (Talk) 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a fallback for vision-impaired users? For those browsing low-bandwidth or text-only? Did the developers address the issues raised in CAPTCHA#Accessibility? This obstacle to automated attacks seems appealing "at first glance", but less so on closer scrutiny. --KSmrq^T 09:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Vision-impaired users can visit Wikipedia:Request_an_account where an administrator will create the account for them - no password required - just a desired username and your email address. The password will be sent to your email address where you can change it after if you require. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Not only will the password be sent to your email address, so will an unending supply of junk mail; see the talk page. --KSmrq^T 08:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this; we're taking precautions. Anyone using this page would have to specifically target this page, hitting the history about once a day (since we're deleting history to remove e-mail addresses), and for such specific targeting, would receive about 5-10 addresses a day. Ral315 » 11:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One page

Can there be a one page setting. Not like the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Single page but has all the stories layed out on one page. with the sign post header up top? It is very close to what user:Primate/Signpost/Single is but is updateable and easily addable with a [{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Fullpage}] or some other name... --Darkest Hour ǁ 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really; we have too many settings as-is. Ral315 » 11:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RSS feed now available

I've created an RSS feed for the Signpost. You can subscribe to it with http://feeds.feedburner.com/WikipediaSignpost. Feedback is very welcome. Thanks, --dantheox 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't work. It links to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-03-05, which does not exist. Also, it would be nice to link to the individual articles, rather than the weekly archive index. Otherwise, it's easier just to use a regular bookmark, than RSS. --Nike 07:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess it should link to WP:POST until the archive page exists. I don't think it's that big a deal though... the page it would take you two is completely identical to what you're seeing in the RSS feed. The links to individual articles all work. I'll try and fix this by the next signpost... --dantheox 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's necessary, I'll make sure the archives are populated immediately upon publication from now on. Ral315 » 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be ideal if it's not too much trouble for you. --dantheox 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Instead of linking to the archive index pages, or to WP:POST, how about linking to the individual articles? So that the RSS feed is like most other RSS feed? Just linking to index pages is pretty useless. One would be better off with a simple browser bookmark to WP:POST than using RSS. For instance, SlashDot's RSS feed looks like this:

1. The Coevolution of Lice & Their Hosts
2. Brain/Computer Gaming Interface Coming in 2008
3. Bill Gates Speaks Out Against Immigration Policies
4. TrueDisc Error Correction for Disc Burning?
5. NASA Fires Astronaut
6. The Evolution of RPGs, Storytelling
7. Remote Control To Prevent Aircraft Hijacking

While the Signpost's feed is:

1. Volume 3, Issue 10 2007-03-05 (still a missing link!)
2. Volume 3, Issue 9 2007-02-26
3. Volume 3, Issue 8 2007-02-19
4. Volume 3, Issue 7 2007-02-12
5. Volume 3, Issue 6 2007-02-05
6. Volume 3, Issue 5 2007-01-29
7. Volume 3, Issue 4 2007-01-22

Do you see the difference? --Nike 22:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Wikimedia

Is there anyway to get Signpost articles into Planet Wikimedia, without creating a seperate blog to post them into? -- Zanimum 12:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the experimental Signpost RSS to User:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.ini, which means it'll show on http://open.wikiblogplanet.com/ soonish ... we'll see how it goes - David Gerard 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I've actually created a blog that should show up on Planet Wikimedia soon. Ral315 » 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiWorld comics suggestion

It would be nice to have a wikilink on the WikiWorld comic page to the article it is based on so if one wants to read more one doesn't need to copy and paste or type manually the title of the article. It might make the most sense after the paragraph about Greg Williams, just saying "This week's comic is based on [{Foo]]. JoshuaZ 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's actually linked in the byline. Ral315 » 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, for some reason I didn't notice that. Never mind. JoshuaZ 19:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

But what about a permalink to the revision being quoted? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi I want the signpost to be delivered to here i added the details in spamlist but i am not getting it. What is frequency of publictaion? Maharashtraexpress 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would include the text in a box, so it could be translated to other languages and I suggest include the comic trips in Wininews also. --Altermike 07:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow news week?

Was it a slow news week this week? I suppose the ongoing news stories of the past few weeks has led me to expect something in addition to the regular features every week. Oh well. At least it means I've caught up more quickly with my Signpost reading! Carcharoth 13:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it was. There's currently the spat over WP:ATT, and the verification thing is slowly rolling along, but honestly now that the Essjay thing has passed into the past tense, there doesn't seem to be too much shocking or headliner news. --Gwern (contribs) 16:36 22 March 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Weekly publishing day

The "about" section notes that the Signpost is published on Mondays. As we all have seen, it is almost always published on Tuesdays, UTC, to the point where it is already Wednesday in some places.

Why not say that the Signpost is published Wednesdays, and if the eds aim for Early Tuesday UTC, it'll never be late. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect they aim for Mondays, and slip to Tuesdays... :-) I've been involved in volunteer publishing before, and you really just have to be patient and wait until everything comes together. Carcharoth 12:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The other thing, if people say Wednesday, then regular contributors will just submit their (probably already late) stuff even later. Plus, people will turn up on Tuesday saying they have something urgent to put in the newsletter, and they will be told it's already gone to press. Carcharoth 12:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it be. I'm really pleased that it comes out so regularly and as close to its intended publication day as it does, given that it's a spare-time activity. Well done, Ral315 et al! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth has it about right, saying Monday is needed to keep on schedule at all. A transparently soft deadline is much less use than the public embarrassment of being late. If it's Wednesday somewhere at the time of publication, things have actually gone wrong—most of the time it really still is Monday where I'm located when the issue goes up (though not this week, my apologies). I would actually like it if all stories were ready by Sunday. --Michael Snow 18:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Format (show/hide)

Would it be possible to publish the Signpost with hideable/expandable sections? So that instead of having to click each link to read the relevant column, it would actually transclude that column then {{hide}} it? Stevage 06:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to do so because some people have browsers without JavaScript, but you might be interested in the single-page view, which shows all of them on one page. Ral315 » 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, if javascript is off, the text doesn't display at all, rather than not hiding. Stevage 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that's true. Regardless, I don't plan to do anything like that on the main page; the one thing people have pounded into my head throughout the time I've been editor is that they like the Signpost simple and nondescript. Ral315 » 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audio Version-

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:En-WPSignpost_2007_04_02.ogg

ShakespeareFan00 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Delivery page

On the delivery page substitution, there is a missing </small> tag following the date at the end. I've noticed this for some time, but it hasn't been an issue until recently, when the site apparently stopped automatically closing open tags. Now, anything on my talk page following the Signpost displays in small text. Is it possible that this could be fixed before the next Signpost is delivered? Thanks. --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)