This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I know that we are missing really good tools for responsive design in article layout, but I think there are probably some tweaks that could be made to the Signpost's markup that would help make viewing on a small screen a nicer reading experience. I'm hopeful that
RfC: Allow styling in templates will eventually provide easier solutions for CSS that includes @media
variations, but until then it may be worth giving up some of the precise layout control used for large viewport devices in favor of layout that degrades more gracefully for small viewports. --
BDavis (WMF) (
talk)
16:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@media
selectors added to the site css like was done for the .mw-tpl-portal-*
styles on Wikitech. Just fixing Common.css is also not enough due to the
Mobile Frontend extension. It ignores Common.css and instead introduces
Mobile.css which is bottom loaded and thus causes a
FOUC before the mobile specific CSS is applied. --
BDavis (WMF) (
talk)
15:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Very glad to see this under discussion. I'm not too knowledgeable about CSS, but this is one of several interrelated issues that are high on my priority list to find a way to improve in 2017. One note, actually the current production model involves an almost entirely manual process that usually takes a couple hours and yields mistakes and oversights. The script is, as I understand it, far too broken to use (and my understanding is that the main culprit is the evolution of MediaWiki over time). We're also trying to figure out stuff like getting listed on Google News, improving SEO, updating the way attribution is handled in stories, making sure we have a good RSS feed, etc. The discussions are a bit scattered as yet, but I'm hoping to get more organized about it, and ideally to get some good help in a new production manager(s), as I believe our current production manager has too many RL obligations at the moment.
A data point -- it's true that few people are accessing the SP via mobile, but not an insignificant number. And it could well be that people have learned that mobile SP reading is annoying, and avoid it for that reason...in which case, a low number would not be a good reason to ignore the problem! Yesterday, 536 people accessed the main page via desktop, while 26 accessed it via mobile app or browser. Our most widely read piece was Year In Review; 604 read it via Desktop, 37 via mobile. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 22:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
reflist
, this cost is negligible, but it would be very hard to justify carving a Signpost-specific clause in the globals (side note: the global is already full of junk that WMF personnel hacked in to get That One Specific Page working back in the bad old days). Besides, it wouldn't help, at least not the way the Signpost content is currently written.style="display:flex"
isn't allowed, right? Tough place to build a flexbox out of...what do you think of this reflist trick? It's devious, which means it might work.
Res
Mar
02:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Resident Mario, I discussed these issues with Kharkiv07 several months ago. Three significant pieces from our discussion:
I'll start a separate thread below to outline what those changes could/should be. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 22:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I have fixed the three column layout, as well as another bug with the series sidebar messing up styling in some cases in articles.. Most of all however.. article layout is a mess... People seem to throw around div's like they are newlines and someone broke the entire idea behind the templates at some point. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Right some questions:
I've also made a new preload template, that doesn't use raw divs and a new preload template to experiment with some more friendly mobile settings — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi - I've noticed the WikiProject report hasn't been updated in a few months. Will this be a continuing feature of the Signpost? If so, I'm interested in helping out as a contributing writer/interviewer. I tried to comment on the talk page of that desk but was redirected here... Funcrunch ( talk) 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Tony1, Milowent, and Pete Forsyth: Sorry for the late submission. I wonder if this can go in the next issue.
The main feature here is a video of three speakers from 15 January, including Katherine. To fill out an article I transcribed some excerpts from the talk. At the panel an entertainer introduced this talk, and to keep the news as light as the event I have some notes about that also.
I am polishing this a bit for the next 30 minutes but right now, if you can accept this, it is mostly done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there anyone interested in continuing the Top 25 Report/Traffic Report? Both Milowent and I are coming down with outside commitments and tackling the report every week is becoming a bit burdensome. There's a discussion about a possible replacement over at the Report's talk page. If anyone's interested, please let us know. Thanks! Serendi pod ous 07:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Evad37:: Merging the desks is a good idea, given their low levels of individual activity, however if I were you I would call the first of the two categories of submissions "special reports", not "news". The latter construes that only things that are new-sy are publishable, which is not true: well-written stories about "old" material and community commentary that isn't particularly newsy at all are all good submissions. Res Mar 17:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
If I see a capitalization error, grammatical error, spelling error, etc., can I fix it? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Check Wikipedia talk:News#POST RSS, please. Appears the signpost RSS is wrong.-- 200.223.199.146 ( talk) 14:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's a list of possible changes to the Signpost process. Let's first (say, by January 1) make sure we have a complete list; let's discuss the pros and cons of each in a separate section below; and then we can make a determination of which we'll actually move ahead with after that. Please feel free to add items to this list -- I'm sure I will, as I remember things I've forgotten.
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Any thoughts (detailed ones in a section below, please) or additions? The ed17 tony1 Arborrhythms tedder Tbayer (WMF) Gamaliel Jayen466 Rosiestep Evad37 Kaldari Michael Snow Ragesoss Go Phightins!
Email addresses for team members at custom domain. However, a "group" email-list address like en-signpost-team@wikimedia.org might be helpful. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all for the in-depth thoughts and reflections. Resident Mario, it's especially valuable to know your thinking in more detail, with the data and experience you bring. As far as I'm concerned, formally moving to monthly publication is something we've considered and discussed, but we don't intend to make a definite decision right away. I'm not opposed to it, but if we move to monthly publication, I want it to result from a clear assessment of what we want to be (rooted in what our audience wants us to be), rather than what we feel capable of. I don't think the fortnightly schedule we've been aiming for (and missing) recently is out of reach; but it's possible that monthly is better anyway. (Of course, if we are successful in recruitment efforts, a monthly cycle could lead to truly enormous editions -- and that's one thing I'd like to keep in mind as we continue to mull this over.) Regardless -- it's nice to see the idea spelled out and endorsed here, outside our current echo chamber.
I see some possible thematic overlap between something Kurier-like and our suggestions page.
As for recruitment, it is our undisputed top priority, but it doesn't surprise me to learn that is rather invisible. We want to be cautious about running the kind of solicitations ResMar refers to above, which -- to the degree they are not effective -- can detract from and clutter our core function. We don't want to make a major push until we have confidence we can help new contributors feel welcome and productive quickly, if we are successful in drawing them in. Until we have some things in place, you will probably not see a broad push -- but we are reaching out to individuals from time to time, and trying to accommodate what does come our way as best we can.
Please keep the ideas and input coming. It's very gratifying to be reminded how much various people in the community care about this stuff -- it's both flattering and, frankly, a bit intimidating, as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with stewarding this publication. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 22:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour Signpost editors! Please note for future reference that wikilinks to content on subpages of the Signpost's dated edition turn into redlinks in the single-page edition. Please make sure to create redirects as appropriate. For this time, I did it for you after hunting down where the content was:
Thanks in advance! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
So, thanks to the discussion above and (and, especially, guidance from Resident Mario -- thanks!), I went off and read a bunch about the forthcoming Newsletter Extension, tested its current pre-release version a bit, and have asked a bunch of questions. I want to report back on my current thinking on how it will affect the Signpost, and see what others think. The extension is being actively worked on right now, and a release (as a MediaWiki extension) is imminent -- perhaps in a few weeks. (I'm not sure what the plan is for gaining buy-in and deploying it on English Wikipedia, but sooner or later that will happen.)
When it becomes available on English Wikipedia, things will get very messy for us, until such time as a decisive majority of our subscribers are happy with the web and email notification options, and we are willing to abandon talk page notification altogether. (Or more ideally, until something that reproduces the various benefits of talk page notification gets built into a future version of the extension; this is my hope, but I've had difficulty getting anybody to engage with that concept so far.)
The Newsletter Extension presents a fundamentally new framework for newsletter subscription and delivery (and impacts no other aspects of managing a newsletter). Here are the significant differences I see, from the current setup:
So, I'd imagine what we have coming is like this:
The only thing that's clear to me thus far is that both transitions -- that is, the beginning and the end of the blended testing phase -- will be pretty delicate, and we should be thoughtful about how we approach each of them. It's hard for me to guess at any of the dates:
...but I think the scale will be months or quarters, not weeks. I therefore don't think this particularly impacts bot efforts; we will need a bot that's capable of publishing to user talk pages for a long time, and I believe any needed hooks into the Newsletter extension will be pretty minimal.
Thoughts? - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 06:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
We will be running this poll in the next edition of the Signpost. Reproducing the questions here for future reference. (I'll post the results here as well.)
Signpost subscription & notification poll
|
---|
How should we deliver the Signpost? Signpost subscription poll; please submit answers by January 31, 2017
|
To any following this conversation (pinging: Qgil-WMF, Resident Mario, Quiddity), we just published the poll results and our analysis. TL;DR, we will not plan on using the extension in the foreseeable future, but will continue to monitor developments, and applaud the effort to build this new functionality. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 19:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is it that the Signpost articles have a narrow layout a few inches wide, with a foot or two of white space to the right (which sometimes holds an image), although the Brief notes romps across the page? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I tried to find it in the archives without success. I'm trying to find a Signpost story that mentioned how a journal enforcing a condition for publication upon paper acceptance is to ask authors to create (or add) content on Wikipedia that is directly related to the compound they used in the study. Can anyone recall or point to the story I'm referring to? OhanaUnited Talk page 15:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
After I added my name to the subscribe list, the page blanked. What did I do wrong? SGPolter ( talk) 13:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Next edition: May 15, 2017 or earlier
@ Armbrust: Guys, looks like we are going to hit 5000 FAs mark anytime this week. That deserves a report right? - The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORD my strength 17:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. The paper has been down since February. I am not aware of anyone having plans to do anything in response to this. I would call this a crisis. The Wikimedia community needs news now both because of the general news backlog and this week to get out a notice to vote in the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees election. I cannot be an editor for The Signpost, but editor is a fun job and perhaps others would step up to do that. A tedious aside to being editor is "publisher", or the performance of the technical process of making the issue go live.
Very soon, maybe tomorrow, I am going to give a go at grabbing whatever content has been submitted recently and publishing it. This will be publication without an editor. I do not want things this way and I know many others do not also, but as of now this is a crisis situation and to go forward we have to try anything plausible.
I need the support of others. @ Evolution and evolvability, Kaldari, Milowent, Armbrust, The Herald, Samwalton9, The ed17, Montanabw, Tony1, Go Phightins!, and Peteforsyth:, you all have recent engagement with The Signpost. Here is what I request of you at this time -
I appreciate whatever anyone else can contribute. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm interested in helping and I see the Signpost needs help. Can I help? I made a short submission yesterday. 68.233.214.74 ( talk) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
...how long does it take to get this out to the people? Its been 8 weeks already, I've already gotten 2 editions of the Bugle, and Milhist publishes those monthly. Is there some reason why this hasn't shipped out in over two months, or is it just another sign of the slow death of Wikipedia as whole? TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost skipped the whole month, March 2017, for the first time. Response? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Clearly the current editor is too busy. That is unfortunate, but it is time to move on. (And it is one of the foreseeable problems with a single person left in charge since the previous co-editor resigned last November and was not replaced - without the one person, we have a single point of failure, and everything falls apart.)
Is there anyone else with the time and the inclination, willing to step up to the plate and help make the Signpost happen again? One or two of the regular authors perhaps? Or of the previous editors? No need for perfection here - something would be better than nothing for two months. There must be someone who wants to continue the 12 year tradition of weekly fortnightly monthly regular periodical community journalism. (I expect someone will tell me to do it. Sorry, not happening.)
If not, if everyone is just too exhausted to carry on, perhaps we should just mark this project as historical and close it down. A shame, but to everything there is a season: a time to be born, and a time to die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.27 ( talk) 11:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I've posted over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Perhaps that might elicit some attention if the current editorial and writing teams are exhausted..
Hello all,
I'm sorry for the extended lapse in Signpost publication. I've been in communication with Tony1 about how to move forward, and I have been the bottleneck in making a statement.
I'm pleased to see that many community members have expressed an interest in what needs to be done to get back on track. To be perfectly honest, I don't see a clear path forward, but I'd like to find one soon. Both Tony and I have been buried in off-wiki responsibilities, and the simple fact is that in recent months, the two of us have been the core of the team that produces each edition. Many excellent contributors have done a great deal, but in terms of writing, soliciting, and editing the main news content, it has mostly fallen to the two of us.
At this point, I am pretty out of touch with what's needed in the short term to resume publication, though I believe I have a clear view of what's needed in the longer term. I'd like to get back on track in some form as soon as possible, even if it's at a somewhat reduced quantity and/or frequency of coverage. But to do so will require substantial help. In the next few days, I plan to put some time into planning out what that will look like, and figuring out how to incorporate any assistance that's offered. I'll start by reviewing and responding to the many kind and helpful messages that have come in.
Best, - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 03:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
My previous response should have been to JoeHebda, it was about publishing shorter and more frequent editions. To Gestumblindi, I agree there is value in such an approach, which English Wikipedians have maybe encountered at the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group, sites like Wikipedia Review and offwiki.org, and even the Wikimedia-L email list.
If something like that is set up on Wikipedia, that might be a very worthwhile thing. But it would bear little resemblance to the Signpost, and I see no reason to use the same name, or to think of it as a replacement or competitor. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we should try to get another issue out by the end of the month. If we were to return to a fortnightly schedule, that would make the next publication date 23 June. - Evad37 [ talk 02:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I see you're working on the Tech report, Evad37. May you please summarize the RfC discussion ( repeated summary)? That is, which projects are included and which others are excluded from the search results? Thanks. George Ho ( talk) 00:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The next issue is looking good. (Maybe combine WikiCup w/ N&N if it remains just a para?) A regular schedule (with whatever depth of coverage is possible at that rate) is good -- particularly helpful for synchronizing w writers who have dedicated audiences elsewhere / do most work outside of this newsroom. Even on weeks when the signpost only provides an additional regular outlet for tech+research+summary reports, runs the update script, and sends out email, it's still providing a key service to long-time readers.
Is there an reminder script that can ping recent active editors to say "come copyedit, deadline in 2 days"? I think there's a way to ping all members of a group. At least { Ping project} works on WikiData, and could be copied from there.
Also, @ Barbara (WVS):, if not a humor-only essay, perhaps you'd be interested in helping w the Comics wikiproject report? :) – SJ + 07:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@
Bri,
Evad37,
Sj,
Josve05a,
Hexatekin, and
Altercari: I am done editing to go to sleep for now. I will not be up until after the deadline. You've all done great work, and I'm excited to see what will await me when I wake up. Great work, and I look forward to whatever will happen. Good Night (in NY).
Eddie891 (
talk)
00:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems like one of the primary issues with running the Signpost, and in getting it running again by interested editors, is that it's a huge amount of work. Perhaps - in the interests of getting issues out again - it would be best to trim out the unnecessary sections, simplify processes where possible, and then slowly add them back in at a later date. For what it's worth, I'd love to help but really don't have the time for at least another couple of months. Sam Walton ( talk) 11:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I know some of the funniest places on Wikipedia. Is there a place for a short humorous essay once in a while?
I hereby propose: That once/month article be authored by a cadre of editors who believe that there is still humor in wikipedia (And I don't mean scary clown movies). I volunteer to write and will attempt to recruit more editors to my cause. I know one very skilled, prolific, and genteel editor that likes to do stand up, or so they claim. So how does one go about putting this idea into action?
My idea is to make a userscript rather than a bot. Its a bit hard to future-proof anything, other than not relying on anything currently marked as deprecated – but the advantage of a script rather than a bot is that any admin can edit it, rather than just the bot operator. And should it need to be adjusted in the future, there's tech-savy people at WP:VPT that can help with fixing scripts when there are breaking changes. I've started working on such a script at User:Evad37/SPS.js. There is quite a bit that the script needs to do (almost everything that is currently done manually)... I would guess that coding and testing it would be on the order of weeks, based on how long it took to code my last big scripting project. - Evad37 [ talk 07:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Just noting here that the script has been completed: User:Evad37/SPS.js. I did let Pete know on his talk page, but he hasn't been active on-wiki since. - Evad37 [ talk 02:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks good. Thanks so much, Evad. – SJ + 05:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Just got my delivery – all red links. (As you probably all know) the talk page issue transcludes Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-09, in which you'll see all the links are broken. I'm going to see if I can figure out what's wrong with the markup, but I thought I'd post a note here first; maybe someone more familiar with the coding can fix it faster.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fixes Mz7 and Quiddity – I did try to sort it out myself but wasn't quick enough, and got an edit conflict. - Evad37 [ talk 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
How are these sent out? That's how I used to get pinged about new issues. Is there also a script that sends out off-wiki social notifications? – SJ + 05:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Has there been any issues since March? I have only received today's edition and no other editions since March. Simply south .... .. time, department skies for just 11 years 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
If we as a movement want a Signpost, it appears someone is going to need to take the bull by the horns to revive it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm incredibly grateful for Evad37's response to help. I haven't contributed to the Signpost but I've read it a lot, if anyone needs me to play editor give me a ping, I have editorial experience off-wiki. ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's ask for help right away, in the current update [or before, if help is needed getting it out]. Most interested contributors don't know of the need; I only realized once I went looking. Here's a 1st pass:
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
A very brief letter from the editors, inviting help, would be nice. Something like:
Please edit mercilessly. – SJ + 22:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I was pinged about writing a short paragraph as part of "From the editors". The above passage asks an encouragement to write stuff regularly. However, the delay has been three to four months, indicating that Signpost may slowly losing its regularity anymore. Also, like Wikipedia, Signpost is voluntary, but even something so voluntary serves readers of English Wikipedia. Here's my rough draft:
My writing above might not be up to par, but this represents how we should be respectful to others' wishes. George Ho ( talk) 23:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the letter looks ready for final review. – SJ + 19:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I would get just as much joy out of a Signpost that mainly syndicated + summarized specialized reports from around the projects, with only two regular unique sections: News + Notes and Op-eds. The rest could be largely covered by
Syndicated articles would only go out in the Signpost when they had been published elsewhere. Automated reports could be published with minimal intervention, if noone had time to curate a summary [readers could improve a sparse summary if they desired]. Op-eds would appear when evailable, and could be queued up if too many arrived at once. This would guarantee a much lower minimal workload to publish an issue, while allowing for as many special items or series as desired.
I welcome the suggestions about general changes to the Signpost, and I'd like to continue those discussions; but in the immediate future, I think producing a new edition more or less in the mold of what we've been doing is the first priority. I am happy to work on that later this week (and could personally put some work in Thursday through Sunday, and could commit to publishing on Monday or perhaps earlier). Given the WMF board election schedule, earlier would be desirable, if we can publish something valuable and informative about the election.
With that in mind, can I solicit some perspectives on what the next edition should look like? Which of the various ideas and submissions that have come in over the past 2+ months are still worth pursuing, and which have become less relevant? What's the most important angle of the election to cover, and is there anyone willing to take a central role in assembling the needed information?
Let's use this section for specific suggestions (lists of sections to publish, links to worthwhile proposed/submitted content, offers to take on a story or a project, etc.). No problem with continuing more general discussions in other sections. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 05:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: the Board of Trustees elections are over. Let's await results then. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @ Evad37:! The sections all look ready to publish, even if the research update is short; I've marked them as such. I think just one thing remains to be written: A two-paragraph summary of Global elections: A Board update and a reminder about the FDC. @ George Ho: any interest in writing a short summary? It might be good to add a one-para "From the editors" inviting help? And @ ProgrammingGeek: your help in general would be most welcome -- readers becoming contributors is how the Signpost has persisted. --– SJ +.
(Joe, can we add the Signpost to the queue for the activity-bot?),
making sure enough people know how these systems work. It might be worth having a small permanent section here for technical & automation requests.
Links to all articles for the next issue:
What about Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration report, summarizing two cases of this year? The last update was 26 March. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC); Pinging GamerPro64. 13:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) --Yes! Added. – SJ +
Publication time is at or about 02:00 UTC. Any final, last minute changes should be made now. - Evad37 [ talk 23:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
I know that we are missing really good tools for responsive design in article layout, but I think there are probably some tweaks that could be made to the Signpost's markup that would help make viewing on a small screen a nicer reading experience. I'm hopeful that
RfC: Allow styling in templates will eventually provide easier solutions for CSS that includes @media
variations, but until then it may be worth giving up some of the precise layout control used for large viewport devices in favor of layout that degrades more gracefully for small viewports. --
BDavis (WMF) (
talk)
16:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@media
selectors added to the site css like was done for the .mw-tpl-portal-*
styles on Wikitech. Just fixing Common.css is also not enough due to the
Mobile Frontend extension. It ignores Common.css and instead introduces
Mobile.css which is bottom loaded and thus causes a
FOUC before the mobile specific CSS is applied. --
BDavis (WMF) (
talk)
15:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Very glad to see this under discussion. I'm not too knowledgeable about CSS, but this is one of several interrelated issues that are high on my priority list to find a way to improve in 2017. One note, actually the current production model involves an almost entirely manual process that usually takes a couple hours and yields mistakes and oversights. The script is, as I understand it, far too broken to use (and my understanding is that the main culprit is the evolution of MediaWiki over time). We're also trying to figure out stuff like getting listed on Google News, improving SEO, updating the way attribution is handled in stories, making sure we have a good RSS feed, etc. The discussions are a bit scattered as yet, but I'm hoping to get more organized about it, and ideally to get some good help in a new production manager(s), as I believe our current production manager has too many RL obligations at the moment.
A data point -- it's true that few people are accessing the SP via mobile, but not an insignificant number. And it could well be that people have learned that mobile SP reading is annoying, and avoid it for that reason...in which case, a low number would not be a good reason to ignore the problem! Yesterday, 536 people accessed the main page via desktop, while 26 accessed it via mobile app or browser. Our most widely read piece was Year In Review; 604 read it via Desktop, 37 via mobile. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 22:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
reflist
, this cost is negligible, but it would be very hard to justify carving a Signpost-specific clause in the globals (side note: the global is already full of junk that WMF personnel hacked in to get That One Specific Page working back in the bad old days). Besides, it wouldn't help, at least not the way the Signpost content is currently written.style="display:flex"
isn't allowed, right? Tough place to build a flexbox out of...what do you think of this reflist trick? It's devious, which means it might work.
Res
Mar
02:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Resident Mario, I discussed these issues with Kharkiv07 several months ago. Three significant pieces from our discussion:
I'll start a separate thread below to outline what those changes could/should be. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 22:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I have fixed the three column layout, as well as another bug with the series sidebar messing up styling in some cases in articles.. Most of all however.. article layout is a mess... People seem to throw around div's like they are newlines and someone broke the entire idea behind the templates at some point. — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Right some questions:
I've also made a new preload template, that doesn't use raw divs and a new preload template to experiment with some more friendly mobile settings — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi - I've noticed the WikiProject report hasn't been updated in a few months. Will this be a continuing feature of the Signpost? If so, I'm interested in helping out as a contributing writer/interviewer. I tried to comment on the talk page of that desk but was redirected here... Funcrunch ( talk) 21:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Tony1, Milowent, and Pete Forsyth: Sorry for the late submission. I wonder if this can go in the next issue.
The main feature here is a video of three speakers from 15 January, including Katherine. To fill out an article I transcribed some excerpts from the talk. At the panel an entertainer introduced this talk, and to keep the news as light as the event I have some notes about that also.
I am polishing this a bit for the next 30 minutes but right now, if you can accept this, it is mostly done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Is there anyone interested in continuing the Top 25 Report/Traffic Report? Both Milowent and I are coming down with outside commitments and tackling the report every week is becoming a bit burdensome. There's a discussion about a possible replacement over at the Report's talk page. If anyone's interested, please let us know. Thanks! Serendi pod ous 07:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Evad37:: Merging the desks is a good idea, given their low levels of individual activity, however if I were you I would call the first of the two categories of submissions "special reports", not "news". The latter construes that only things that are new-sy are publishable, which is not true: well-written stories about "old" material and community commentary that isn't particularly newsy at all are all good submissions. Res Mar 17:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
If I see a capitalization error, grammatical error, spelling error, etc., can I fix it? RileyBugz Yell at me | Edits 21:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Check Wikipedia talk:News#POST RSS, please. Appears the signpost RSS is wrong.-- 200.223.199.146 ( talk) 14:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's a list of possible changes to the Signpost process. Let's first (say, by January 1) make sure we have a complete list; let's discuss the pros and cons of each in a separate section below; and then we can make a determination of which we'll actually move ahead with after that. Please feel free to add items to this list -- I'm sure I will, as I remember things I've forgotten.
- Pete Forsyth ( talk) 02:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Any thoughts (detailed ones in a section below, please) or additions? The ed17 tony1 Arborrhythms tedder Tbayer (WMF) Gamaliel Jayen466 Rosiestep Evad37 Kaldari Michael Snow Ragesoss Go Phightins!
Email addresses for team members at custom domain. However, a "group" email-list address like en-signpost-team@wikimedia.org might be helpful. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 05:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you all for the in-depth thoughts and reflections. Resident Mario, it's especially valuable to know your thinking in more detail, with the data and experience you bring. As far as I'm concerned, formally moving to monthly publication is something we've considered and discussed, but we don't intend to make a definite decision right away. I'm not opposed to it, but if we move to monthly publication, I want it to result from a clear assessment of what we want to be (rooted in what our audience wants us to be), rather than what we feel capable of. I don't think the fortnightly schedule we've been aiming for (and missing) recently is out of reach; but it's possible that monthly is better anyway. (Of course, if we are successful in recruitment efforts, a monthly cycle could lead to truly enormous editions -- and that's one thing I'd like to keep in mind as we continue to mull this over.) Regardless -- it's nice to see the idea spelled out and endorsed here, outside our current echo chamber.
I see some possible thematic overlap between something Kurier-like and our suggestions page.
As for recruitment, it is our undisputed top priority, but it doesn't surprise me to learn that is rather invisible. We want to be cautious about running the kind of solicitations ResMar refers to above, which -- to the degree they are not effective -- can detract from and clutter our core function. We don't want to make a major push until we have confidence we can help new contributors feel welcome and productive quickly, if we are successful in drawing them in. Until we have some things in place, you will probably not see a broad push -- but we are reaching out to individuals from time to time, and trying to accommodate what does come our way as best we can.
Please keep the ideas and input coming. It's very gratifying to be reminded how much various people in the community care about this stuff -- it's both flattering and, frankly, a bit intimidating, as a reminder of the responsibility that comes with stewarding this publication. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 22:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Bonjour Signpost editors! Please note for future reference that wikilinks to content on subpages of the Signpost's dated edition turn into redlinks in the single-page edition. Please make sure to create redirects as appropriate. For this time, I did it for you after hunting down where the content was:
Thanks in advance! :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
So, thanks to the discussion above and (and, especially, guidance from Resident Mario -- thanks!), I went off and read a bunch about the forthcoming Newsletter Extension, tested its current pre-release version a bit, and have asked a bunch of questions. I want to report back on my current thinking on how it will affect the Signpost, and see what others think. The extension is being actively worked on right now, and a release (as a MediaWiki extension) is imminent -- perhaps in a few weeks. (I'm not sure what the plan is for gaining buy-in and deploying it on English Wikipedia, but sooner or later that will happen.)
When it becomes available on English Wikipedia, things will get very messy for us, until such time as a decisive majority of our subscribers are happy with the web and email notification options, and we are willing to abandon talk page notification altogether. (Or more ideally, until something that reproduces the various benefits of talk page notification gets built into a future version of the extension; this is my hope, but I've had difficulty getting anybody to engage with that concept so far.)
The Newsletter Extension presents a fundamentally new framework for newsletter subscription and delivery (and impacts no other aspects of managing a newsletter). Here are the significant differences I see, from the current setup:
So, I'd imagine what we have coming is like this:
The only thing that's clear to me thus far is that both transitions -- that is, the beginning and the end of the blended testing phase -- will be pretty delicate, and we should be thoughtful about how we approach each of them. It's hard for me to guess at any of the dates:
...but I think the scale will be months or quarters, not weeks. I therefore don't think this particularly impacts bot efforts; we will need a bot that's capable of publishing to user talk pages for a long time, and I believe any needed hooks into the Newsletter extension will be pretty minimal.
Thoughts? - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 06:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
We will be running this poll in the next edition of the Signpost. Reproducing the questions here for future reference. (I'll post the results here as well.)
Signpost subscription & notification poll
|
---|
How should we deliver the Signpost? Signpost subscription poll; please submit answers by January 31, 2017
|
To any following this conversation (pinging: Qgil-WMF, Resident Mario, Quiddity), we just published the poll results and our analysis. TL;DR, we will not plan on using the extension in the foreseeable future, but will continue to monitor developments, and applaud the effort to build this new functionality. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 19:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is it that the Signpost articles have a narrow layout a few inches wide, with a foot or two of white space to the right (which sometimes holds an image), although the Brief notes romps across the page? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 20:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I tried to find it in the archives without success. I'm trying to find a Signpost story that mentioned how a journal enforcing a condition for publication upon paper acceptance is to ask authors to create (or add) content on Wikipedia that is directly related to the compound they used in the study. Can anyone recall or point to the story I'm referring to? OhanaUnited Talk page 15:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
After I added my name to the subscribe list, the page blanked. What did I do wrong? SGPolter ( talk) 13:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Next edition: May 15, 2017 or earlier
@ Armbrust: Guys, looks like we are going to hit 5000 FAs mark anytime this week. That deserves a report right? - The Herald (Benison) • the joy of the LORD my strength 17:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. The paper has been down since February. I am not aware of anyone having plans to do anything in response to this. I would call this a crisis. The Wikimedia community needs news now both because of the general news backlog and this week to get out a notice to vote in the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees election. I cannot be an editor for The Signpost, but editor is a fun job and perhaps others would step up to do that. A tedious aside to being editor is "publisher", or the performance of the technical process of making the issue go live.
Very soon, maybe tomorrow, I am going to give a go at grabbing whatever content has been submitted recently and publishing it. This will be publication without an editor. I do not want things this way and I know many others do not also, but as of now this is a crisis situation and to go forward we have to try anything plausible.
I need the support of others. @ Evolution and evolvability, Kaldari, Milowent, Armbrust, The Herald, Samwalton9, The ed17, Montanabw, Tony1, Go Phightins!, and Peteforsyth:, you all have recent engagement with The Signpost. Here is what I request of you at this time -
I appreciate whatever anyone else can contribute. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm interested in helping and I see the Signpost needs help. Can I help? I made a short submission yesterday. 68.233.214.74 ( talk) 16:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
...how long does it take to get this out to the people? Its been 8 weeks already, I've already gotten 2 editions of the Bugle, and Milhist publishes those monthly. Is there some reason why this hasn't shipped out in over two months, or is it just another sign of the slow death of Wikipedia as whole? TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost skipped the whole month, March 2017, for the first time. Response? -- George Ho ( talk) 20:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Clearly the current editor is too busy. That is unfortunate, but it is time to move on. (And it is one of the foreseeable problems with a single person left in charge since the previous co-editor resigned last November and was not replaced - without the one person, we have a single point of failure, and everything falls apart.)
Is there anyone else with the time and the inclination, willing to step up to the plate and help make the Signpost happen again? One or two of the regular authors perhaps? Or of the previous editors? No need for perfection here - something would be better than nothing for two months. There must be someone who wants to continue the 12 year tradition of weekly fortnightly monthly regular periodical community journalism. (I expect someone will tell me to do it. Sorry, not happening.)
If not, if everyone is just too exhausted to carry on, perhaps we should just mark this project as historical and close it down. A shame, but to everything there is a season: a time to be born, and a time to die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.27 ( talk) 11:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I've posted over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Perhaps that might elicit some attention if the current editorial and writing teams are exhausted..
Hello all,
I'm sorry for the extended lapse in Signpost publication. I've been in communication with Tony1 about how to move forward, and I have been the bottleneck in making a statement.
I'm pleased to see that many community members have expressed an interest in what needs to be done to get back on track. To be perfectly honest, I don't see a clear path forward, but I'd like to find one soon. Both Tony and I have been buried in off-wiki responsibilities, and the simple fact is that in recent months, the two of us have been the core of the team that produces each edition. Many excellent contributors have done a great deal, but in terms of writing, soliciting, and editing the main news content, it has mostly fallen to the two of us.
At this point, I am pretty out of touch with what's needed in the short term to resume publication, though I believe I have a clear view of what's needed in the longer term. I'd like to get back on track in some form as soon as possible, even if it's at a somewhat reduced quantity and/or frequency of coverage. But to do so will require substantial help. In the next few days, I plan to put some time into planning out what that will look like, and figuring out how to incorporate any assistance that's offered. I'll start by reviewing and responding to the many kind and helpful messages that have come in.
Best, - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 03:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
My previous response should have been to JoeHebda, it was about publishing shorter and more frequent editions. To Gestumblindi, I agree there is value in such an approach, which English Wikipedians have maybe encountered at the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group, sites like Wikipedia Review and offwiki.org, and even the Wikimedia-L email list.
If something like that is set up on Wikipedia, that might be a very worthwhile thing. But it would bear little resemblance to the Signpost, and I see no reason to use the same name, or to think of it as a replacement or competitor. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 17:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we should try to get another issue out by the end of the month. If we were to return to a fortnightly schedule, that would make the next publication date 23 June. - Evad37 [ talk 02:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I see you're working on the Tech report, Evad37. May you please summarize the RfC discussion ( repeated summary)? That is, which projects are included and which others are excluded from the search results? Thanks. George Ho ( talk) 00:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The next issue is looking good. (Maybe combine WikiCup w/ N&N if it remains just a para?) A regular schedule (with whatever depth of coverage is possible at that rate) is good -- particularly helpful for synchronizing w writers who have dedicated audiences elsewhere / do most work outside of this newsroom. Even on weeks when the signpost only provides an additional regular outlet for tech+research+summary reports, runs the update script, and sends out email, it's still providing a key service to long-time readers.
Is there an reminder script that can ping recent active editors to say "come copyedit, deadline in 2 days"? I think there's a way to ping all members of a group. At least { Ping project} works on WikiData, and could be copied from there.
Also, @ Barbara (WVS):, if not a humor-only essay, perhaps you'd be interested in helping w the Comics wikiproject report? :) – SJ + 07:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@
Bri,
Evad37,
Sj,
Josve05a,
Hexatekin, and
Altercari: I am done editing to go to sleep for now. I will not be up until after the deadline. You've all done great work, and I'm excited to see what will await me when I wake up. Great work, and I look forward to whatever will happen. Good Night (in NY).
Eddie891 (
talk)
00:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems like one of the primary issues with running the Signpost, and in getting it running again by interested editors, is that it's a huge amount of work. Perhaps - in the interests of getting issues out again - it would be best to trim out the unnecessary sections, simplify processes where possible, and then slowly add them back in at a later date. For what it's worth, I'd love to help but really don't have the time for at least another couple of months. Sam Walton ( talk) 11:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I know some of the funniest places on Wikipedia. Is there a place for a short humorous essay once in a while?
I hereby propose: That once/month article be authored by a cadre of editors who believe that there is still humor in wikipedia (And I don't mean scary clown movies). I volunteer to write and will attempt to recruit more editors to my cause. I know one very skilled, prolific, and genteel editor that likes to do stand up, or so they claim. So how does one go about putting this idea into action?
My idea is to make a userscript rather than a bot. Its a bit hard to future-proof anything, other than not relying on anything currently marked as deprecated – but the advantage of a script rather than a bot is that any admin can edit it, rather than just the bot operator. And should it need to be adjusted in the future, there's tech-savy people at WP:VPT that can help with fixing scripts when there are breaking changes. I've started working on such a script at User:Evad37/SPS.js. There is quite a bit that the script needs to do (almost everything that is currently done manually)... I would guess that coding and testing it would be on the order of weeks, based on how long it took to code my last big scripting project. - Evad37 [ talk 07:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Just noting here that the script has been completed: User:Evad37/SPS.js. I did let Pete know on his talk page, but he hasn't been active on-wiki since. - Evad37 [ talk 02:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks good. Thanks so much, Evad. – SJ + 05:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Just got my delivery – all red links. (As you probably all know) the talk page issue transcludes Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-09, in which you'll see all the links are broken. I'm going to see if I can figure out what's wrong with the markup, but I thought I'd post a note here first; maybe someone more familiar with the coding can fix it faster.-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fixes Mz7 and Quiddity – I did try to sort it out myself but wasn't quick enough, and got an edit conflict. - Evad37 [ talk 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
How are these sent out? That's how I used to get pinged about new issues. Is there also a script that sends out off-wiki social notifications? – SJ + 05:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Has there been any issues since March? I have only received today's edition and no other editions since March. Simply south .... .. time, department skies for just 11 years 22:03, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
If we as a movement want a Signpost, it appears someone is going to need to take the bull by the horns to revive it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm incredibly grateful for Evad37's response to help. I haven't contributed to the Signpost but I've read it a lot, if anyone needs me to play editor give me a ping, I have editorial experience off-wiki. ProgrammingGeek talktome 14:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's ask for help right away, in the current update [or before, if help is needed getting it out]. Most interested contributors don't know of the need; I only realized once I went looking. Here's a 1st pass:
{{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
A very brief letter from the editors, inviting help, would be nice. Something like:
Please edit mercilessly. – SJ + 22:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I was pinged about writing a short paragraph as part of "From the editors". The above passage asks an encouragement to write stuff regularly. However, the delay has been three to four months, indicating that Signpost may slowly losing its regularity anymore. Also, like Wikipedia, Signpost is voluntary, but even something so voluntary serves readers of English Wikipedia. Here's my rough draft:
My writing above might not be up to par, but this represents how we should be respectful to others' wishes. George Ho ( talk) 23:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, the letter looks ready for final review. – SJ + 19:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I would get just as much joy out of a Signpost that mainly syndicated + summarized specialized reports from around the projects, with only two regular unique sections: News + Notes and Op-eds. The rest could be largely covered by
Syndicated articles would only go out in the Signpost when they had been published elsewhere. Automated reports could be published with minimal intervention, if noone had time to curate a summary [readers could improve a sparse summary if they desired]. Op-eds would appear when evailable, and could be queued up if too many arrived at once. This would guarantee a much lower minimal workload to publish an issue, while allowing for as many special items or series as desired.
I welcome the suggestions about general changes to the Signpost, and I'd like to continue those discussions; but in the immediate future, I think producing a new edition more or less in the mold of what we've been doing is the first priority. I am happy to work on that later this week (and could personally put some work in Thursday through Sunday, and could commit to publishing on Monday or perhaps earlier). Given the WMF board election schedule, earlier would be desirable, if we can publish something valuable and informative about the election.
With that in mind, can I solicit some perspectives on what the next edition should look like? Which of the various ideas and submissions that have come in over the past 2+ months are still worth pursuing, and which have become less relevant? What's the most important angle of the election to cover, and is there anyone willing to take a central role in assembling the needed information?
Let's use this section for specific suggestions (lists of sections to publish, links to worthwhile proposed/submitted content, offers to take on a story or a project, etc.). No problem with continuing more general discussions in other sections. - Pete Forsyth ( talk) 05:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Update: the Board of Trustees elections are over. Let's await results then. -- George Ho ( talk) 03:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @ Evad37:! The sections all look ready to publish, even if the research update is short; I've marked them as such. I think just one thing remains to be written: A two-paragraph summary of Global elections: A Board update and a reminder about the FDC. @ George Ho: any interest in writing a short summary? It might be good to add a one-para "From the editors" inviting help? And @ ProgrammingGeek: your help in general would be most welcome -- readers becoming contributors is how the Signpost has persisted. --– SJ +.
(Joe, can we add the Signpost to the queue for the activity-bot?),
making sure enough people know how these systems work. It might be worth having a small permanent section here for technical & automation requests.
Links to all articles for the next issue:
What about Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Arbitration report, summarizing two cases of this year? The last update was 26 March. -- George Ho ( talk) 04:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC); Pinging GamerPro64. 13:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC) --Yes! Added. – SJ +
Publication time is at or about 02:00 UTC. Any final, last minute changes should be made now. - Evad37 [ talk 23:36, 8 June 2017 (UTC)