What about inserting links to the previous/next issue? Already inserted in the "In the News" section, it allows easy short-term browsing. ptrf (talk) 09:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this would be good. However, there's currently no way to actually view previous front pages - just article lists, in the Archive. If anyone can find a way to do this, I'd be happy to help. PretzelsTalk! 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How often is this rewritten? AirplanePro 22:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand the question. This is an old discussion thread; the feature has since been set up. — PretzelsHii! 08:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
F&A: Bots
I'm not convinced that the section is particularly useful in its current form (list of names, essentially), but it does fit nicely with the layout of the page as a whole. It always strikes me that bots/tasks that are currently in discussion are missed out - so Signpost readers only hear about them when the deed is done. I'm not here to moan, of course, without providing a solution. I for one would be happy to weekly turn this:
You could then append a section talking about the bots still in discussion, but I haven't given that bit much thought yet. Admittedly, there might also be bias perceived in the selection of the "headline" acts, but most of the time its quite obvious. As I said before, I'd be more than happy to do this if it was felt a net benefit, or not, as the case may be. - Jarry1250(t, c)13:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be useful! Feel free to try it out; you'll probably want to coordinate with Seresin/Garden. We may need to start an F&A draft in the newsroom like the other sections. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos!
I seldom do much but bang out typo or MOS corrections (and occasionally read some discussions to remind myself why I'd rather work than debate), but I do really enjoy each issue of Signpost. This week's LGBTI Project article was educational, informative and much needed. I say that from the viewpoint of being white and straight. Thanks to all of you out there who create, debate, police and report. LilHelpa (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
/Holy Family Hospital
Hi
I've rewritten this article. Do you want me to paste it here so you can have a look or should I just repost?
The bot hasn't been sending the Signpost for the last 2 (including today) issues. Is there something wrong with the bot delivery? —MC10|Sign here! 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. We'll try make sure today's and last week's issues get delivered soon.--ragesoss (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date unlinking bot discussion
There is a community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates. Could you run something about this in the next Signpost? This issue has been rather heated in the past (including a very long arbitration case), but I hope we can gain consensus for this rather limited proposal. The discussion will be open for two weeks. The proposal is at Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot and the RFC is on the talk page. Thank you. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed gadgets
It would be quite helpful if the weekly discussion report would list ongoing discussions on Wikipedia:Gadget/proposals (and possibly one or two related pages), as decisions there can affect every logged-in user of Wikipedia (if they happen to hunt down the Gadgets section of their preferences), and the page currently gets very little traffic. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
Good Article Backlog
The backlog of articles waiting to be reviewed at Wikipedia:Good article nominations is now up to 323 articles, and some are up to two months old. Can we please include a line in the next Signpost encouraging editors to review these nominations? It's easy and there are topics for everyone. There are also plans for another backlog elimination drive. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 22:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
classifieds?
I thought I would make a suggestion to include a "classifieds" page once a month; and in the section include things editor's little projects and writing contests and things of this nature to help get the word out for those who may be looking for something to do outside on Wikipedia other than what they usually do. I grant this may seem a little odd, but it may help put wikipedias who need x in touch with those who have x, and it may also help boost your readership some. Just something to think about. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delivery
Although I am still on the subscriber list, I did not receive the July 13 edition. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiconference New York article
Um ... it appears that the July 27th issue has been published with our article on Wikiconference New York still in an ... unfinished condition. Like the part about my talk, for example ... it might be good if someone polished that a little bit. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting idea; hopefully it will suggest to some editors that they could be regular contributors.
But - and a very large but - a the Signpost is not a Wikipedia article, which is constantly being seen by an ever-changing group of readers. A newspaper is supposed to provide a snapshot of what happened of interest since the last issue. Readers of the Signpost don't expect to have to return to articles such as "News and notes" to see if they have been expanded.
So, a suggestion: Set a cut-off, say 48 hours after publication, for this idea, and then remove the invitations (on various pages) to readers to add information. (Perhaps the "From the editor" page could be changed to mention the cut-off.) -- John Broughton(♫♫) 13:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, that's a good idea. My own thought was to keep an eye on it for the next few days and make sure it reaches at least the level of (in)completion that a normal issue would before publication and get it up to that level. And after that add a thank-you and remove the explicit invitations. I changed the "from the editor" a bit along these lines.--ragesoss (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it stays in the historical record that I gave a half-hour keynote address singing Monty Python songs, then next year I'm going to do it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to call it done right now.--ragesoss (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brad, I think it's been published in a reliable source and is thus True, no? You're on for next year. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest that a DIY Signpost should link from the current article to the draft article for next week. I wouldn't mind writing a couple sentences on something that I see on Google news from time to time, but asking me to remember and wait until the article goes live to find time to put it in before the deadline is a bit inefficient. If done, I also wouldn't see much point for the tip line, as people would be expected to note their "tips" directly into the relevant recurring feature... - BanyanTree 12:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented something like this. Now the front page of the Signpost will link to the in-progress stories for the next week, and "news and notes" and "in the news" are linked to the coming issue (they always are as long as the page exists, but I'll make sure the pages get created early). Let me know if you have suggestions for how to make it easier and more intuitive.--ragesoss (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the forward link; I suggest that the not-yet-published page have something like "Under construction until publication date: You can help by adding to this page." -- John Broughton(♫♫) 16:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. I'm not sure how to make work with the template system. Someone who has strong template kung-fu will be needed to code something that checks the 'date of next issue' parameter and applies that notice only until the issue is actually published. I'll try to recruit someone.--ragesoss (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've always seen Signpost as the New York Times of Wikimedia; something I can rely on for up-to-date quality news. I personally dislike the new, "Build your own" edition and I'm hoping that this does not become commonplace. –blurpeace(talk) 04:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References
If more than one transcluded article has references it can create a mess. Please use the groups extention to avoid this. Alternatively, clickable references like this or this [1] can be used, but be consistent with any given edition of The Signpost. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll try to make sure that problem doesn't crop up again.--ragesoss (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Link needs fixing
On the News page of the current edition, the link at the bottom to "News and Notes" does not go where it should, namely Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-08-03/In_the_news. However, I don't know how to edit the page to fix this. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was wrong. THat link at the bottom of the page does not lead from "In the News" to "News and Notes", it goes from this week's "News and Notes" to next week's. Still confusing, as next week's issue has not been written yet :) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You!
Just wanted to thank everyone who works on Signpost, I do enjoy reading it. I'm missing the project interviews, though. I would like to see more interviews, one each week. They wouldn't have to be about projects. They could be notable Wikipedians or even random people that have, say, a thousand edits under their belt. It might be interesting just to get "the man in the street's" view. You could even try interviewing some vandals!... although I guess that might cause problems: perhaps best not to feed them the oxygen of publicity. Or the oxygen of oxygen, as Linda Smith would have it. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea!—well apart from the last bit(!) --candle•wicke 20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worth covering monthly and linking to or summarizing in between? FT2(Talk | email) 09:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. Thanks for the reminder. It's been our intention to highlight the updates each month, but it often falls off the radar.--ragesoss (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drew Smith account apparently not compromised
Two independent checkusers were run on the Drew Smith account, and both determined that it is highly unlikely that anyone besides the primary account holder has used it. See his talk page for a discussion and evidence. Thought you should know, since the Signpost is still reporting otherwise. Toodles. --Jayron32 02:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction. Can you point us to the checkuser reports?--ragesoss (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Versageek and I ran them, there were no formal SPIs filed... see [2] (look for my sig) and User_talk:Lar#Email (which will get archived at some point. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles on Amazon
The story seems incomplete. Perhaps you could add a little more information on Wikipedia's reaction to this fraudulent selling of Wikipedia articles?--Edge3 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they've commented, mainly because it's not fraudulent; that's why we license things the way we do. Shoddy, but not illegal. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 19:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't claiming to be the author of the articles illegal?--Edge3 (talk) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would hang on you definition of claiming authorship I would think. - Jarry1250[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there enough notability to warrant a new article? I think I might want to write one... :) --Edge3 (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost and the Manual of Style
I've got a bit of flak from someone because I've posted their comments, per the manual of style, as a quotation and therefore have to "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation." What's the general opinion on that sort of thing? Do we cut fellow Wikipedians a bit of slack, or are we to follow the Manual of Style and preserve the text? One way of going at it is perhaps to tidy the quote and then quote it, but then that has implications if you change the feel of the text. I could ask the authors, but if I'm close to the deadline I may not have time. Thoughts? HidingT 08:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use the manual of style. If you're going to be quoting someone, you can't change their typos no matter how embarassed they are or how much they want to rant on your talk page. I think the way you're working now is just fine; however, if you insist on a compromise, perhaps you could just put a single "[sic]" at the end of the quote rather than after each individual typo. Nutiketaiel (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Internal links
Wherever possible please use internal links in articles, such as for mailing lists. It looks a lot neater than having the whole link there. Thanks, Majorlytalk 12:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
moving wikipediaweeekly template during wikimania
Just to inform everyone,
I've moved the WikipediaWeekly template on the Community portal *above* the Signpost template. This is, as per tradition, done during wikimania as there is a lot of new content coming out from Wikimania from the podcast. This is our big event of the year at which we record daily episodes and interviews.
This will be reversed to the norm at the end of the conference (the next time the signpost publishes an edition).
Would it be possible to append an article's talkpage to the bottom of the page, for example
{{hat|reason=Comments|2=These comments have been [[transcluded]] from this article's [[Wikipedia talk:{{PAGENAME}}|talkpage]]- please add your comments there!}} {{Wikipedia talk:{{PAGENAME}}}} {{hab}} Which is similar to the layout on various news sites (those with a comment system, at least)?
Or is this not the proper place to ask this? --KingÖomie 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like this idea and would be happy to implement it into the template if others are in support. The "Also in this issue" section could be adjusted to run as a sidebar to the comments. PretzelsTalk! 20:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good idea, but would it work on the single page view? HidingT 11:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. I'd suggest adding a disclaimer at the bottom specifically mentioning the transposition transclusion from the talkpage as well, lest users used to other systems try to add comments directly to the page. --KingÖomie 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit- I've updated the code above, and added it (activated, minus the actual transclusion, because we're already ON this page) below-
Comments
These comments have been transcluded from this article's talkpage- please add your comments there!
Test test test!
Inline comments design by Pretzels I've created a mockup of what inline discussion could look like if used in the Signpost (pictured right). It matches the existing design for consistency, and uses part of the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series template. I really like it, and would appreciate some feedback as to whether there is consensus to implement such a feature. PretzelsTalk! 23:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's now coded into a template, and you can see it in action on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-09-21/In_the_news (as an example). If I don't hear back from anyone I'll add that to new articles in time for the next issue; it requires no extra parameters and is a one-word change from the existing template. PretzelsTalk! 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it! I think one of the "add a comment" links should be removed, though. Preferably the second one.--ragesoss (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! You have a fair point, I removed the second link. PretzelsTalk! 19:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn! Way cooler than my suggestion. Nice! --KingÖomie 04:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, seems last weeks' edition wasn't fully completed in time. However, this week's report covers the last two weeks. --PretzelsTalk! 15:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's missed this week, but...
...The Onion has commented on the male/female ratio. Here [3]Darrenhusted (talk) 17:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this normal?
The latest issue I've received is the August 31 one, so I got suspicious and checked the Signpost's page. Turns out I've missed the last 2 issues. Is this normal? Thanks, Airplanemantalk 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to inquire about this. The last issue I received was the August 24 issue. Is this a problem with the bot or what? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for this. The normal delivery bot stopped halfway through on a few deliveries and hasn't done the last two at all. I'll try to recruit some more delivery bot operators and get talk page deliveries back to normal.--ragesoss (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I don't know a thing about the bot languages, but I could run one for the Signpost if you guys want. Airplanemantalk 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are several existing bots that could do this task. I believe Ragesoss is planning the check on that. If for some reason they are inadequate or unable to do the job, let me know. A message delivery bot is a pretty simple coding bot & as such I could write one if needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This week's Case Notes on Radio 4 [4] had a section talking about the accuracy of mediical pages on WP. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Date autoformatting
Just to say, I've adapted all the templates I can find to support auto date formatting; dates should now format themselves according to the setting you've made in Preferences. If you find anywhere this doesn't happen, let me know. Thanks! PretzelsTalk! 22:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not supposed to do date auto-formatting any more. And in this instance it's particularly a problem because people may expect to click on the date and come to the current issue of the Signpost. Certainly that's what I do, because the Signpost header isn't obviously clickable. Can you change it so the date goes to the current Signpost, please? Rd232talk 08:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the formatdate function, not wikilinking, to autoformat. This is the proper method of doing this. Where are you referring to with the date link? --PretzelsTalk! 14:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions
[Discussion moved from old Planning room]
I like the idea of having opinion pieces; I think if we get some that are written well, they will be a very good addition. My question is how the decision to run them will be made. Is this an editor-in-chief thing, or is it anyone-who-wants-to may provide input? Second question is a minor style point. When referring to editors, should it be written [[User:Foo]], or [[User:Foo|Foo]]? My preference is the former, and without doing any significant checking, I seem to recall that being the format used traditionally. The latter seems to be used often lately, though. ÷seresin 22:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful for this kind of thing to be collated in a brief style guide? PretzelsTalk! 21:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the decision of what to run, the "anyone-who-wants-to may provide input" model seems the most appropriate to me. The way I imagined it working would be to use the opinion desk as a holding pen for non-time-sensitive pieces to give feedback and try to find ways to improve and polish them (and to collect sets of related pieces), and publish pieces or sets once they are mature. I think the "White Barbarian" essay would be a good way to start it off this week. There are some other submissions that are strong, but most of them I think could use some feedback and polishing.
As for referring to editors, the convention that I've been using lately is "[[User:Foo|Foo's Real Name]] (User:Foo)" for users who identify themselves by their real names on their userpages, and "[[User:Foo|Foo]]" for those who don't. But I'm not wedded to that, it just seemed like a good combination of naturalness and transparency. I think a Signpost style guide would be useful.--ragesoss (talk) 00:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using [[User:Foo]] and then Foo for later instances in the article. HidingT 10:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technology report (B.R.I.O.N.)
With the impending depature of Brion Vibber, will the age-old technology report need a new headline? Or, do we keep Bugs, Reports, and Internal Operational News in tribute? --PretzelsTalk! 15:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say tribute! what do others think? -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been a particular fan of these pseudo-acronyms, since some of them are rather insulting; but this one is pretty innocuous. Kirill[talk][pf] 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t mind this one. I don't like TROLL or DRAMA. I don't mind keeping this one as a tribute, but I'd support a move to retitle the other two. HidingT 10:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TROLL and DRAMA should have been changed long ago. They always were belittling. Tisane (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Until now I never noticed these. ^_^ Keep 'em! Paradoctor (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
250th Issue
If I've calculated correctly, the issue dated December 7th 2009 will be our 250th issue. Does anyone have any ideas regarding this? Bumper issue? Save up some extra pieces? Get a short opinion piece from Michael Snow, or Ral315? I think it would be nice to do something. PretzelsTalk! 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They seem like good ideas. That's nearly five years then, isn't it? HidingT 10:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for doing something special for the 250th issue. I'll do a "from the editor" in the November 30 issue to try to attract some interest. Something from Michael Snow and/or Ral315 is also a nice idea; I'll send them an email about it.--ragesoss (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OpenStreetMap
Several months ago you did an article on OpenStreetMap. Can you give me a link to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link to it at the top of the Feedback page... although I agree we may need another. The footer gets cluttered though - do you think we could add a stinger sort of thing in the article footer, by the comments? --PretzelsTalk! 14:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's a stinger sort of thing? HidingT 15:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like, an advert of sorts - a note saying "Got something for the Signpost?" or similar. PretzelsTalk! 15:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes. Whatever people think works best. HidingT 15:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user is deceased in real life. Can you please stop the sign posts building up on the talk page. Thanks. (Reminds me of the fact my house still gets mail for its previous owner who has been dead for four years) --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Templarion won't be getting Signpost deliveries any more. Thanks for bringing this up.--ragesoss (talk) 22:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Summary Templates and transclusion into signpost
So I have an idea. Would it be a worthwhile to propose a requirement that all closed arbitrations, RfCs, RfAs, etc be added to a Template page that was automatically transcluded into the Signpost? Mention would be very brief, just a one-sentence blurb for each. We Signposters could take care of creating the transclusion mechanics and the subst: template or whatever, but in the future the onus would be on closing admins to add mention to the centralized template.
It seems to me that the Signpost is an ideal place to centralize information on many important but widely scattered projects. This vision could make the Signpost a powerful tool for keeping abreast of all the mechanics of WP. - Draeco (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interview
So when do I exactly get to interview people? Please respond on my talkpage ASAP. Secret Saturdays (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are being coordinated by User:phoebe at the Interviews desk, but that page looks to be dormant at the moment. I expect you are welcome to contact staff and interview them for the Signpost whenever you see fit. --PretzelsTalk! 14:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions?
With the improved design of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom, it's no longer clear where members of the community should post material and other things that might be worth coverage in Signpost. Can this be better indicated - a clear section on that page or a separate page?
Also the redlink for "Add a summary directly into the next issue of the Signpost" here should never redlink. Can pages for the next issue be automatically created a week or 2 in advance, or when the current issue is closed to additions?
we could just turn the 'feedback' link into 'suggestions' and have it link to the suggestions page, with a top notice on where to leave feedback -- rather than the other way around as it is currently. More people seem to leave suggestions than feedback. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be useful/interesting to conduct an interview with people associated with the EOL? I know it's not a Wikimedia project, but it could be nice to see what other wikis are doing and to talk about crossovers and Wikispecies. --Danger (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think an interview with someone from EOL would be great.--ragesoss (talk) 17:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a contact; I can prepare an interview perhaps by late December.--Danger (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Style
Okay, what gives? I want to use a talk page to post comments to the authors of a Signpost piece while it is being written. However, I find that the talk page has been transcluded into the article. That strikes me as a really awkward change. I don't want my comments being read by every editor that reads the resulting article; that's unnecessary. If one is going to have a transcluded comment section for every article, could you please use something other than the talk page? Talk pages, by convention, are for discussing the appropriate content of it's associated page. By turning it into a generic comment section, you violate that convention (using it to discuss the topic of the article, rather than the article's content), and deprive people like me of any natural space for discussing article content. Dragons flight (talk) 08:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I had been doing when there was significant discussion related to the writing was to blank the page upon publication. How about wrapping your comments in noinclude tags? And then we'll try to make sure that happens with all the stuff about the writing process. That seems to me a simpler solution that subpages for comments, since to some extent the talk pages have long been used for post-publication commentary (as well as discussion of the writing before publication).--ragesoss (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason the bottom section couldn't link to /Comments rather than to Talk:? It seems like it would accomplish exactly the same purpose and function just as well without destroying the availability of the Talk page for content discussions? Dragons flight (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as Signpost articles are not bound by the same guidelines as regular mainspace ones, the talk pages hold a different purpose. Most stories do not require pre-publication discussion, but readers frequently like to comment and discuss on published articles. As the article does not need to appear finished until publication (unlike a mainspace article), I would recommend just adding any fragments to the main article, perhaps with a note requesting expansion or comment. — PretzelsHii! 18:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback on style, typos, etc... are all welcomed. I'm thinking this could be ready for the 30 November edition (what section, you tell me), but it could also be published another week if that's too short notice (or that some problem remained to be solved). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. It would most likely fit as an item in News and Notes. Somebody will pick it up nearer the publication date. — PretzelsHii! 00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
International talk page delivery
In 2006–2007 there was a time when the Signpost was delivered to talk pages on other projects than the English Wikipedia. It was, however, turned off because it was too much work to maintain. But since then we have had SUL and global bots, and I imagine it would be a lot simpler now to have a bot deliver the Signpost notification on other Wikimedia projects as well. Could someone look into that? :-)Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds good. The latter alternative was the one used back in 2006, and to be human-readable (=working links, as opposed to the @xxwiki redlinks) that would be nice, but the format is not that important. It wouldn't need to be on Meta though – the Signpost is an enwiki publication, so I imagine splitting the maintenance page for teh bot to a different project would be slightly confusing. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Report on prompt litigation
Is it time yet to drop the "lengthy" bit? It may have been inserted originally with tongue in cheek, but in view of complaints about tardy hearings (like five and half months), I think the title has unfortunate overtones. IMO, the generic title "Arbitration report" is just fine. Tony(talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But that wouldn't spell T.R.O.L.L.! T.R.O.P.L.?! — PretzelsHii! 02:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we believe in accuracy in reporting around here. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 06:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MOTD
Would i be allowed to as Signpost to invite people to the Motto of the Day project or insert an add? @Simply south (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
William Connolley & report of alleged Wikipedia manipulation in the Financial Post of 19 Dec 2009
I was shocked to recently see this news report about purported large scale POV pushing by Climate change scientists. It sounds really fantastic and ominous to me, an (relatively) uninformed editor.
I could not find any reference to this issue on Wikipedia. I have posted a request in the Village Pump for more information.
Since such allegations are detrimental to the confidence and morale of editors, could a
balanced response be given in the next issue for the information of the community?
In case this is a dead horse being flogged yet again, my apologies. AshLin (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Solomon article suffers from serious problems, chief among them being that he gets the facts all wrong. Been discussed various places including Talk:William_Connolley#Solomon_op-ed.
Which facts are wrong? I can't find any wrong facts mentioned at that talk page. Badagnani (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your responses. Perhaps the issue is not as important as I first thought. AshLin (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add a short summary to the Discussion report.--ragesoss (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too where sorry? Gnevin (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Full-date unlinking bot.
...has finished it's task. And the process that it went through may be worth a note in the next SP. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template loop
The single page issue has problems, there is a "template loop detected" message, and this talkpage is transcluded at the bottom. Paradoctor (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a missing <noinclude> in the Arbitration report.[5]Anomie⚔ 05:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't unsuitable, but no one finished the discussion report either -- so it didn't go to press. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 20:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why removing them would be a problem. Many of the subscribed users are likely blocked, dormant or have left the project. — PretzelsHii! 23:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What algorithm would be used for finding out? (Also I don't think being indefinitely blocked is in itself a criterion - you might still want to know what's going on around Wikipedia, even if you're not currently permitted to edit.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine one could just look at each user's block log. And I rather doubt indef-banned users care to read the Signpost. If they're that interested, they can just get a new account... --Gwern (contribs) 17:41 23 January 2010 (GMT)
Don't know if they're allowed to do that (or even able to, if their IP is blocked). But I meant more what algorithm should be used to identify users who are dormant or who have left the project.--Kotniski (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dormancy could be ascertained by checking the date of the last edit in the user's contributions history (but, as I noted below, I am reluctant to remove users from the list on the basis of dormancy) and block status by checking the block log for the user. –Black Falcon(talk) 21:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little hesitant to remove users on the basis of dormancy or having left the project since it is not uncommon for users to take extended wiki-breaks, to edit in periods that are many months apart, or to return after having left. –Black Falcon(talk) 21:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this is really a problem, but if we want to avoid jamming up user talk pages with a growing number of unread signpost deliveries (I've seen such pages), we could just have the bot leave a note on the pages of subscribers who haven't edited for X months, saying that deliveries have been suspended, and giving them a link they can always follow to the current edition (and a link to resubscribe).--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or better yet, the bot could make a null edit - triggering the talk warning - and leave the link in the edit summary. Links in edit summary become hyperlinks, so it'd work as well. --Gwern (contribs) 16:19 24 January 2010 (GMT)
I think that either of those options would work. Is there a single bot that currently handles Signpost deliveries? There is a list of bots at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe, but it seems to be out-of-date; for example, the most recent run was performed by EdwardsBot, which is not on the list. If there is just one bot, contacting the operator should be all that's needed to implement a change. -- Black Falcon(talk) 08:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcBride maintains EdwardsBot, but it's a set up to be operable by others; I set up new bot runs for each issue. It's pretty much become the default, because it doesn't require tracking down a free bot operator for each run. But yeah, I'd say feel free to remove users from the delivery list if you know they won't be returning. I don't see a particular problem with delivering to users who are long inactive, although it also wouldn't be a big deal to remove them.--ragesoss (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's definitely a good idea to clean this list of inactive users. Maybe after 1 year of inactivity they get a note that they've been removed from the subscriber list? (and let them know to re-subscribe at any time) –xenotalk 18:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the politest way possible: I don't care at all. :-) Remove inactive accounts, remove accounts starting with vowels, remove all the accounts. I don't even get the Signpost delivered to my talk page!
I will note, though, that EdwardsBot does follow redirects. So sometimes people will redirect their user talk pages to their user pages and end up getting deliveries there. There isn't a very good "fix" to this, as it follows redirects to catch the much more common case of user talk pages redirecting to other user talk pages (user names, like whoa).
The bot is controlled by User:EdwardsBot/Spam (there are Instructions there, I think). It appears to have gained supremacy in the Signpost delivery game. Python + cron, ftw. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, there seems to be one bug or another with the new issue (March 1): at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost there is currently the old Feb 22 issue (even after a purge so it's a not a cache issue), but its "next issue" link is blue and goes to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2010-03-01 where the new one is sitting. As I see it:
if the new issue is ready, it should have been moved live
if the new issue isn't ready, it shouldn't have been archived yet (triggering that odd link from the old issue's page)
As it stands now, the current delivery and Display of the signpost is a ripe target for vandalism, all it takes is one edit to severely disrupt thousands of pages, while an easy rectified fix, there's still the issues of cached vandalized copies that will be served to an unknown number of users. QTC 07:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of potential solutions:
Protect (or semi-protect) each new signpost as part of the publishing process.
There was an article in the last few months about how new editors have their contributions reverted often when they are well-intended and encyclopedic. Where is it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I got a personal email from such a user and want to refresh my memory on the findings.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to see renamed ArbCom section: now let's complete the job
I suggested last year that "Report on lengthy litigation" was an extremely unfortunate title, since ArbCom was subject to criticism (justifiable in my view) for its tardy judgements.
If one title can be changed, why can't another? "Dispatches" is a non-title: it says nothing to the reader of what on Earth it contains. The fact that it appears only intermittently is more reason to announce its theme in the title. Why is it plural, anyway?
Please consider "Dispatch", or better, something substantive, such as "Featured and good content". "Featured content" would be a much nicer title wording if GAs could be considered to be part of that category. Tony(talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS Oh, I see the "lengthy" title is still appearing on my talk-page notification, even though it is thankfully absent from the page itself. Why? Tony(talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly because those who wish to see the title change are in quite minority? (count me in the majority BTW) Circéus (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too enjoy the current title. --Gwern (contribs) 17:16 19 March 2010 (GMT)
Why you would "enjoy" such a title is beyond me. It fails on three counts: first, it is confusing (when I first saw it, I wondered what on earth it was). Second, if it is meant to be ironic or humorous, that is unclear. A joke that is unclear is not much of a joke. Third, it treats lightly a serious matter of tardiness and bloat in ArbCom process; some people may not be pleased that this is being treated with the misplaced triviality given the pain and upset they have endured in the incompetent running of a case. Tony(talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How to start another language edition of Signpost?
I would like to know specific steps needed to publish similar newszine in another language wikipedia? Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone responded to this user's request? Tony(talk) 15:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I'd say this is a) too vague (which language?) and b) not exactly the right place to ask... I mean, you'd think a page on other project would be a better place to ask! Circéus (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear. I would like to start in Telugu language. I want to know how the articles are protected and comments are allowed, where the draft articles are created and consolidated. Are any scripts/ templates need to be ported to new language. Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most community news projects in other languages use much simpler systems, e.g., a single page that is continuous updated. The weekly format with many separate articles is probably only appropriate for very large Wikipedias; even most of the other large projects don't use this format, because the overhead and complexity isn't worth it. But if you do want to try to use something like the templates the Signpost uses, you'll just have to go through the different pages to see which ones are useful; it's not well-documented, and different parts were created and updated at different times, so it's pretty confusing even for most of the people who work with them. The comments template is one that might be useful though, if modified appropriately for a simpler format: Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-end.--ragesoss (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. It is very much useful. May be I will start with a single page for now and explore how comments could be added. Arjunaraoc (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are not nice things being said ("unencyclopedic", etc), and general disparagement. I'm surprised. Tony(talk) 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deliver the Signpost to email?
Is there a possibility that the Wikipedia Signpost will ever be able to be delivered by email? If so, would we have to use the EmailUser feature? A p3rson ‽ 01:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, however, you could do this now with some tool...--mono 23:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this is only a list of the articles. I would want something like the single-page version sent to my inbox. A p3rson ‽ 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current issue requests Wikipedians to cover strategy issues. Normal journalistic standards would bar me from doing so because I actually am involved in a few aspects of strategic planning such as museum relations. Would there be a way to work around that for Signpost purposes? How frequently are you seeking reports? (Monthly? Weekly?) Durova409 21:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Eekim wants to write a weekly column himself, with help from others on strategy wiki, but I think separate coverage in a more journalistic mode would be a good complement. I don't see a problem with you doing reports (at whatever frequency you think appropriate); Signpost reporting has traditionally often relied on people involved with the related area (especially, for example, the featured content dispatches, but also arbitration reports have at times been done by clerks).--ragesoss (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(smiling) Yes, consultants writing coverage of their progress is bit problematic, journalistically. Proofreader77(interact) 21:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Eekim's columns to be opinion pieces, of the type we've occasionally been running in recent months. Basically, a chance for the strategy people to ask for help from Signpost readers or share their perspectives, rather than act as reporters on their own progress.--ragesoss (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify slightly, amidst my smiling snarkiness ... the facilitator (initiator/orchestrator) of the "strategy" discussion should clearly be given much leeway in framing what they're doing ... and while there are (as always) many provocative questions which might be posed [which I will refrain from posing here to avoid provocation^;^] ... but before I begin laughing too hard to type [yes, I've got myself stitches], let me wrap back around to an earlier question I raised elsewhere: What it the role of Signpost in the strategy conversation — something which is unprecedented in this form: a consultancy-orchestrated discussion (design process, to use my favored keywords).
Semi-suggestion - Observing the BLP RfC, it should relatively clear that, 1,000 people cannot participate meaningfully in purely dialogic conversation ... and so, I will posit the idea that something like secure-poll preference indication could be used to "steer the conversation" ... and that if Signpost was the vehicle of such a thing (in some way), that would be a useful thing for it to do. AND Signpost could then "cover" what the community thought about it all.
Yes, I may seem I've leaped off-topic with the above, but what I'm trying to address is the problem of covering something which few will care much about unless it is somehow paddled from its quiet cove into the middle of the community lake. etc.[And yes, I will seek more carefully pondered metaphors in future.]Proofreader77(interact) 19:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments not visible in Single version
Comments are not visible at all(!) in the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single page version. That have to be corrected as soon as possible, because: 1) if nonsense are accidentaly published, only typos are allowed to correct; 2) it is demotivating for writing of comments if users know, that nobody will read their comments. --Snek01 (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any suggestions of how to incorporate the comments to the Single page version? --— PretzelsHii! 12:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no any specific suggestions. I have expected, that they will be included in the same way as in "separate articles" version. --Snek01 (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, we would need to remove the "noinclude" tags around {{Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-comments-en...}} in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story.
To avoid confusion between articles and comments, we could still wrap something like <div style="font-size:80%; background:#E8E8E8">.. around the transcluded comments page, maybe also an "overflow: auto;" so that long discussions would be displayed with a scroll bar and not dwarf the actual articles.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you add Droid Serif font along with these Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman?
It has a large x-height such as Georgia & renders the numbers better than the irregular way Georgia does. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice font, but I'm not sure it's worth tracking down every font-family parameter seeing as it's not (yet?) widely used. — PretzelsHii! 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which could then be read as a PDFs, or be printed out for offline reading. I could make the botreq for this if there is interest. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, all previous signpost editions now have a book edition of them (See Book:Wikipedia Signpost) for a full list. I've updated all archive templates and the front page, but {{Signpost archives}} could probably use some extra attention. It would probably make a good Signpost story too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if there are structural problems (missing articles, etc...) please report them to User talk:Signpost Book Bot. If there are rendering issues for some editions, use Book talk:Wikipedia Signpost (instead of a specific issues' talk page). This will make is much easier to keep track of things. Thanks Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideas for reforming "The Signpost"
Rebranding. It's not that I mind the very black olde-worlde script that currently appears at the top of each page; I guess it draws on the style of masthead used by the hard-copy broadsheets that are rapidly dying off. But is there any feeling that a re-branding of The Signpost is in order? Something a bit more identifiable, unique, memorable? Possibly the use of colour? An icon? There's also the redundant clutter above the masthead; for example, the unfortunate "Wikipedia:Wikipedia"—in fact, just about everything appears twice or three times. Talk about zippy, not.
Front page. This is one aspect of hard-copy broadsheets that could be taken on: the conflation of "News and notes" and "In the news" into a single, high-profile, newsy front page. A sense of front page would give the publication a centre of gravity. The Signpost seems over-structured at the moment. My preference would be to aim for an image on the front page, where relevant, free and not overtly gratuitous.
Interwiki potential. Most Wikipedias have no Signpost or equivalent—I wonder whether there is any chance of exploring the possibility of an international edition, either in English or through prompt translations of the weekly front page—or of a monthly aggregated version. Most or all of the information in "News and notes" and "In the news" is of interest to all Wikipedians. A subscription system would need to be offered on the relevant WPs, and contributions encouraged from non-English-speaking editors. Tony(talk) 06:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are all good ideas, if not particularly easy to implement. I think a new masthead is worth exploring--one that is a little more distinctive stylistically and points to the Signpost as a wiki news source. Moving the main page to Wikipedia:Signpost also makes good sense to me, if it can be done in a way that doesn't disrupt the way people normally get to it; we could start by just mirroring the content at both places and replace the most prominent links to point to the new preferred page.
Combining "News and notes" and "In the news" is worth thinking about, although when both are well-stocked they sometimes serve distinct purposes (and yet, sometimes they mostly overlap); sometimes outside coverage is of little interest except to note, oh, look what this source is writing about us, but sometimes it actually substantive stuff that intersects with issues of more immediate concern to the community. So I'm torn.
Localization is of course a great goal, but not one I've figured out how to accomplish. Cross-wiki subscription and delivery via bot might be a step in the right direction: first readers on other wikis, then translators and contributors.--ragesoss (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Ragesoss. On one point, the conflation of "In the news" and "News and notes", the mere noting of outside coverage could be relegated to a section called "Outside coverage" or the like, at or towards to bottom of a front page. Tony(talk) 03:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The international equivalent of the Signpost, in a manner of speaking, is Wikizine. Graham87 05:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well ... not to be rude, since I'm sure the contributors are well-meaning, but ... take a look. Wikizine needs to be rethought, put to death in the kindest possible way and revamped, preferably in collaboration with the newsy part of this publication and a trajectory towards more international participation. The Signpost is five steps up the ladder, but it's my firm belief that there remain easy opportunities—low-hanging fruit—by which to engage readers more and increase the readership, both inside the wiki community and further afield, where PR really matters. I guess both The Signpost and Wikizine started with a model of being merely a centrally produced and regular newsletter to an inner core of wiki adherents. The result is horribly grey for Wikizine (geeky, really—sorry), and a bit grey still for The Signpost, which can easily and naturally evolve to be a vehicle for all WPs' public image, a sign that there's actually a community behind the product. WP can easily be attacked from outside, and is often the subject of ill-informed and POV comment in the international media; this publication is an important anchor for public image.
Images. On occasions where there's no obvious free, relevant image to go on the front page with the newsy items (but I can think of a few for this week's edition), I wonder why a thumb of one of the newly promoted featured pictures couldn't be showcased adjacent to the top section, with a caption announcing it as such: "Bosch's The Garden of Earthly Delights (1480–1505) is among the newly promoted featured images this week." This is just a move to use our resources to become more reader-oriented, I think. [[:Tony(talk) 07:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of offering a joint version of The Signpost either weekly or (more realistically perhaps) monthly. This could be done several ways. One way would be a special version could be written monthly in English that covered topics about all Wikipedias and then translated to other languages as interested people wanted to do it. This could spark other Wikipedia's to create their own articles for their own Wikipedia in their own language. All of the local articles most likely would not be included in the international version but only in their translated version. This might be a way to get The Signpost started on smaller wikis that do not have enough people to write a complete version every month. And for the wikis that have no interest in creating their own version then, the local users would have access to the international English version that could be offered by subscription.
I don't see this as a competition with other communication tools (such as other publications or announcement list) but rather a supplemental way for users to gain information about matter of interest to wiki contributors. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support updating the Signpost's style, and moving to Wikipedia:Signpost, but an international edition may be very difficult - especially when most major Wikipedias already have equivalents like the French Wikimag, Italian Wikipediano, Portugese Correio da Wikipédia and Hebrew he:ויקיפדיה:הטילדה הרביעית. Perhaps it would be interesting to set up a cross-wiki collaboration to include some brief headlines from each language Wikipedia in News and notes?
Something I noticed when exploring the international Wiki newspapers is that they tend to be on one page - but their reports are much shorter and less in depth; I don't think this format would work for the English Signpost. Does anyone else have any thoughts on that?
I think it would also be good to continue moving away from editors picking from a Suggestions page and encouraging people to edit the upcoming issue itself, wiki-style... this should be considered in any redesign. — PretzelsHii! 18:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pretzels, thanks for your ideas. It would be a good first move if the foreign-language equivalents to The Signpost could be listed down the left side, as they are for articles. I guess there's no complete list, but these four you mentioned would be a good start. I can tell you, I'd be looking them up regularly and google translating them to survey what's on offer throughout the WPs. How does one look for them, I wonder?
When you say, "it would also be good to continue moving away from editors picking from a Suggestions page and encouraging people to edit the upcoming issue itself, wiki-style", do you mean regular Signpost contributors should build up their own networks and methods instead? Sorry, I'm a bit out of the loop.
Just to kick off on the visual rebranding issue, this image and a whole class of related ones is on the Commons. I'm not saying it's suitable, but maybe we should run a competition in the community to find a good one and think about fonts, or nose around the Commons ourselves, to get ideas for a new-look masthead. But it's just a thought. The advantage of a competition would be some nice exposure for The Signpost. Tony(talk) 13:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tony. Actually, the interwiki newspapers are linked on the Signpost homepage - on Vector skin, click Langauges on the left to unfold the list. It's roughly an even split between mature, "proper" projects, and some more irregular or abandoned ones. They're sometimes based on the Signpost's design. I can't say I'm a big fan of that image as a logo, either aesthetically or conceptually, but I'd love to have a go at a fresh, modern redesign.
In terms of the editing issue, I meant that the Signpost isn't entirely wiki-like at the moment. For the most part, users post to a Suggestions page, and an editor will take those ideas and write an article entirely by themself, or with perhaps a few others. Wouldn't it be better and more in spirit of the project if we didn't even need a Suggestions page, and anyone felt able to just add items straight into the article? Of course, they could then be reiterated by other editors until publication date. — PretzelsHii! 14:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the image is a bit like Dr Who meets Edward Teller. I think The Signpost is a special genre all of its own. Yes, there may be space for wider editorial contribution to some of the pages ("anyone can edit"), but it's a very public and published-all-at-once-for-a-week-only genre: these are very different from the conditions pertaining to WP articles. And it's hard to get enough contributors as it is. There needs to be stronger editorial management given the deadlines and public expectations of The Signpost than for other WP pages. And occasionally the publication hosts interviews and book reviews that are likely to be written by one or more distinct, named editors. Please have a go at a redesign. Tony(talk) 15:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a simple newspaper logo made of puzzle pieces would be good? Although again, that remains quite Wikipedia-oriented. I agree getting enough contributors to achieve a deadline is a difficult task on this wiki! I think our extended reports, book reviews and interviews are some of our best content. — PretzelsHii! 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the masthead and design of the post; while I wouldn't raise a fuss if it were changed, I wouldn't particularly support it. I don't think N&N and ITN should be merged—they are two distinct pages with two distinct purposes that only occasionally overlap. They are also usually the most substantive pages we have; if we merged them, I think it would drown out everything else. I speak no other language fluently so I have nothing particularly to contribute to a discussion about international efforts. Also, I don't agree with Pretzels's idea about making the Post more wiki-like. Ragesoss did that with the Commons deletion page, and I myself thought it didn't go well at all. This model has worked for years, and I see only detriment and no benefit to making it more wiki-like. Just my thoughts. ÷seresin 20:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with Pretzels that there are many people which should be encouraged to contribute more directly, there will always be those who have news to contribute but don't have the time to do a proper write-up or are unsure if and in which form their information might be appropriate for the Signpost. For them, the Suggestions page is a good thing. Many suggestions end up as stories with minimal editing (e.g. [6]). I myself used to contribute suggestions only for a long time; seeing their text getting adapted for the Signpost frequently was in fact what encouraged me to contribute stories directly.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the signpost needs to be modernized. I was thinking about changing the logo/header a bit (if needed, there could be a few people to come up with a new one), definitely moving the page, and some others:
Delivery to email
Internationalization
Contests
More content than just recent changes and ArbCom findings
More user-created
Those are just a few to start off with. A p3rson ‽ 20:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just chipping in because there were talks of internationalization. Some mentioned Wikizine and the french version of the Signpost (or something close to it). The Germans also have their thing (Der Kurier). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the internationalisation issue, FloNight has suggested it might be entered into the Strategic planning wikiCall for proposals, which is looking for well-defined proposals with a based of supporting editors. Tony(talk) 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be helpful if I advertised this discussion more widely? — PretzelsHii! 14:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be most helpful. Tony(talk) 14:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posted to the Community Portal, and added to the Signpost footer. Is it worth advertising somewhere on other wikis? — PretzelsHii! 18:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Posting on other wikis would be useful. However, English wikis only. Also, how hard would it be to sell things like ad space (or put in wiki ads) for the new version? Would we have to ask a higher up in the Wikimedia Foundation, or will just some admins do? A p3rson ‽ 22:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to say this, but Wikizine's logo is unappealing and looks like a byproduct of DOSOhanaUnitedTalk page 11:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got here from a post in the Wiktionary Beer Parlour saying that the contributors to the Signpost community newspaper are discussing "expanding the project to cover more news from Wikipedia's sister projects". How much sister project news are we talking about here? Major events only? (I notice that the Signpost didn't have anything about WT's enabling of the LiquidThreads extension a few weeks ago...) Policy changes? Or the same kind of thing the Signpost covers for Wikipedia (New policy stuff, technical things, new admins, bots, etc.)? --Yair rand (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, just got here from the enwikt Beer parlour. As a Wiktionarian, I appreciate that the Signpost is looking to include news from the other projects. But is there any reason to believe that the Signpost audience wants it?—msh210℠ 17:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more content, the better. People who don't want to read it can just not click on a link... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen anyone complain about too much content in the Signpost. The limiting factor has always been people to write coverage, especially for sister projects.--ragesoss (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and some kind of updating "ticker" (see [[7]])? mono 02:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would move the discussion to a sidebar where it would encourage discussion. mono 02:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About internationalization: I think a lot (not all) of the Signpost's content is of interest to readers from other projects and languages. The problem is how to make a translation effort sustainable.
Wikizine used to have versions in Spanish, Indonesian and German, but they all seem to have petered out even before the English original (even though its telegram style presumably made translation easier than it would be for the Signpost).
From 2004 to 2005, there existed the Wikimedia Quarto (old issues) - nominally an international newsletter by the Foundation, but actually not so different from the Signpost in several aspects; it covered internal issues (among other things) and was contributed to and read by community members. Its end after just three quarterly issues might have had something to do with the huge translation efforts involved.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweak for book editions
Some old versions of the signpost aren't as well-formed as the new ones. I made a request to get these cleaned up for the print version. Nothing controversial about it (the online version of articles is unchanged, and the transclusion behavior of old Signposts is made consistent with newer Signposts), but the Bot Approval Group wants a thumbs up from this place. So if someone could drop by and give the thumbs up, it'd be nice.
Why not have a Wikimedia Signpost, and have local editions for each major wiki? A lot of news is Wikimedia-wide, such as new projects at MediaWiki.org that potentially impact all users of MediaWiki. But some is of much interest only to the users of a particular wiki, which can be addressed by having a section that differs by project (e.g. the "Local" section could have an enwiki edition, a Wikiquote edition, etc.). That would be similar to how most The Washington Post has a Metro section with a Prince William County, Virginia edition, a Fairfax County, Virginia edition, etc. Readers get the advantage of having the content that is of general interest to the whole region, as well as content tailored to their own subregions.
Also, I think it would make things more interesting if we would have more interviews of members of the community. E.g., we might interview someone and ask "What's it like to be a bureaucrat?" or "What made you decide to be a developer?" or whatnot. I think a lot of people get so involved in their niche on Wikipedia that they don't experience other roles, and this would be an opportunity to do so vicariously. I might be able to conduct some interviews, if you're looking for journalists... Tisane (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we're always looking for journalists. If you want to do interviews, that's fantastic; the interview desk is the starting point, although it's been neglected for a while.
As for a Wikimedia-wide paper, we try to include news from across the projects, not just Wikipedia. But local editions for different projects isn't something we've had quite the volume of coverage to justify, I think. Cross-wiki delivery is something possibly on the horizon, though.--ragesoss (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the Signpost already tries to include news from across the projects, and is trying to do so to a greater extent (per a discussion further up the page), then why is it housed at enWP rather than at meta? Should it be moved?—msh210℠ 17:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to write stuff about Wiktionary. Interview-style, maybe --Soleil levant (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, Soleil. The only bottom line is that it be interesting to our readers: why not present a proposal? We already have a "Sister projects" page.
On the location of The Signpost at en.WP, well, it is in English. And I think it would be easier to build it up to have more news and notes from other WPs here, with a medium-term objective of moving it to meta, if it develops in such a way that it's the logical thing to do.
I wonder whether there is sufficient support here to make tentative steps at other WPs, asking for regular information of certain types for the News and notes page. Possibly one might start by locating people who edit on both en.WP and another WP (there are even categories and userboxes in some cases); finding someone to feed in to The Signpost on a regular or occasional basis would be highly desirable, I think. Where there is an active equivalent to The Signpost, that would be the obvious port of call. There's the possibility of simply winding in such reports, or of creating a stand-alone section on the page called "News from other Wikipedias". I'm unsure. Tony(talk) 10:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a greater use of bullets, since on this page the information tends to be particalised;
the highlighting of one of the new featured pics at the top (this happened to present itself this week);
some trimming of wording, such as "this week", and the removal of the mentioning that no promotions were made for various featured categories; and
brief information about featured-content demotions, and a about the new admin appointed this week.
This was not intended to be prescriptive, of course. Each page needs presents different opportunities for change.
Comments, critical or otherwise, would be appreciated. Tony(talk) 15:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stepping down as Signpost editor
With the discussion about possible new directions for the Signpost, this seems like a good time to announce that I'm stepping down from the Signpost; I'm taking a job that isn't compatible with much Signpost involvement.
I'm not sure a specific "editor-in-chief" or "managing editor" is strictly necessary, but I do think that it's a role that can do a lot for the Signpost, especially if someone is willing to put a lot of time and energy into it. In addition to managing the publishing process and making decisions about whether individual pieces should be published, I've been running the @wikisignpost accounts on Twitter (with close to 800 followers) and Identi.ca, and I don't think we should let those fall by the wayside. Also, I've been publishing a table of content each week to wikisignpost.com/blog, which makes a convenient feed for alerting people to new issues (e.g., on the blog planets). Blog and microblog maintenance don't necessarily have to be the responsibility of an editor-in-chief, although they might be. So we should have a discussion about who, if anyone, ought to head the Signpost from here. --ragesoss (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's sad news. Thanks for doing a lot of excellent work as Signpost editor and writer. I hope that you will at least continue to contribute as a writer sometimes.
Other people might find more good candidates, but the first name that came to my mind is Phoebe. Without wanting to preclude other suggestions (and without being too optimistic that she will agree anyway), I am going to prod her if she might consider commiting to the job for a while. Collective editorship might also be an idea, although I think it is indispensable that each week exactly one person is designated responsible for the publication of that week's issue.
I've been subscribed to @wikisignpost for almost a year and agree it would be a shame to see it becoming abandoned. (@WikipediaNews is no replacement.) Before that happens, I would volunteer to contribute at least the weekly new issue (+highlights) tweet, and the odd news link.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great pity. Ragesoss is one of our best writers and has been an excellent managing editor. Congratulations on a job really well done, and thank you, thank you, thank you.
If there's to be a new managing editor, I hope that person will be predisposed towards supporting the recent noise being made about moving the publication away from its newsletter origins towards a more reader-friendly, dynamic publication. My agenda is to identify opportunities to make the publication more visually appealing, snappier, a little more journalistic in places, to provide more information in places, and to explore its potential for being a cohesive agent to bring together the WPs of different languages. We sit on a goldmine in that last respect, and FloNight, as an active participant on the interwiki project, would be a valuable source of advice and support. While I would be a shockingly bad managing editor (too self-opinionated, to start with), I am willing to contribute to the reform process, especially over the next few months, since that is when I will have the discretionary time. Tony(talk) 08:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is too bad, however I feel the Signpost can take this as an opportunity to adapt. mono 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, HaeB, for the offer to maintain the @wikisignpost accounts. It might be useful to have multiple people posting to them, since it benefits from being a sort of round-the-clock operation if possible. I'll email you the password, as a start.--ragesoss (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
