![]() | 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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The no-longer-working state of Jarry's polling template got me thinking about whether or not this could be done entirely within Wikipedia, allowing the poll to update results in real time, as it were, instead of forcing us to ask questions far beforehand. After a lot of wrangling I'm surprised to say that the answer is, yes! It requires the creation of two subpages every time a poll is made but it can be done: a working mockup is here. Try voting: it's fun to watch the bar move.
The advantages over the old format is that because it handles all counting using Wikipedia parser functions the poll can be updated in real time by the votes of the users, and it further requires no further effort on the part of the pollster once the poll (requiring subpages be created to cache votes) is implemented. The striking visual nature of Jarry's effort can probably be reproduced once I play with some opacity triggers and image transparency: right now it's just a simple stacked bar chart. Visual ideas would be appreciated. Done.
The disadvantage is that this hinges on users not changing inputted text while voting. My hope is that an edit-notice will provide enough warning of the need for them not to mess with the format too much—the template relies on doing a hidden character count on vote collection pages and so will be really easy to break if someone decides they want to say, paste the opening chapter of Moby Dick in. A much more robust Lua function's been put into place which will be much, much harder to break.
A lot of work remains to be done. Res Mar 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Here, you can see various series from the Signpost archives.
Below is a list of every series that's had its own specific template made.
Below is an automatically generated list of index pages for the 64 most-used tags.
After the earlier discussion I finished a rewrite of the Series template which allows the creation and configuration of story-hiding breakpoints. You can see the code in my sandbox and a full working example at Sandbox; a fast example is at right. This template is a provisional update on the current Signpost series template with several modifications:
|breakpoint=n
to control the number of items to be hidden. This allows hiding stories in a series for display neatness: there has always been an unresolved problem with series expanding beyond the length that the original authors accommodated for and breaking accepted formatting in old articles. This fixes that problem.This is basically ready for immediate substitution. Res Mar 16:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Helo, I've found this. Good luck! -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, apologies for anyone who received the Signpost twice in successive sections ... not sure what happened.
Gamaliel? Was anything odd during publication? Anyway, the issue is so good, I suppose you'll just need to read it a second time
!
Go
Phightins
!
11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the White House tweet [2] and blog [3] about an "edit-a-thon" for Black History Month. According to Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/African Americans in STEM, the result of this were new articles for LaSalle D. Leffall Jr., Kimberly Bryant (technologist), Margaret S. Collins, Henry Aaron Hill, Leonard C. Bailey, and Thomas W. Talley (someone tagged this last one for speedy deletion). Also Ben Montgomery, St. Elmo Brady, Charles L. Reason, and Mary Eliza Mahoney were improved, and a new image loaded for Christine Darden. (I double-checked the participants' contributions and didn't see any others)
On one hand, yes, the White House called and people answered. But on the other ... this amount of effort is routinely matched by some of the more active Wikipedians on an individual basis. Whether or not a single person makes a difference in Washington, when it comes to Wikipedia -- one dedicated individual can match the output of a White House call for action. I find this surprising and ... oddly inspirational. Wnt ( talk) 03:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion from the newsroom to here. Let's please keep the newsroom relatively clean; suggestions for articles go here (or even better, to the suggestions page), the newsroom ought to be for internal discussions. Res Mar 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I really hope that The Signpost doesn't become openly political (in terms of real world politics.) There's already too much of wiki politics for my taste. The real world is already there for all of us. Speaking for myself, I don't want to see more of it here in the The Signpost. MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Missing archives
It should be noted that submissions have been deleted without having been archived - I think anything before November 2011. E.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion_desk&diff=445853458&oldid=440464071 edit summary: clear out old.
I understand that such maintenance is an extra workload - perhaps links could be given to old versions, as an easy way of doing it. I'd do something myself, but I'm not familiar with archiving conventions. And I need to get back to work... Thanks. -- Chriswaterguy talk 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Response to Brandon Harris' op-ed
Hi. I'd like to write a response to Brandon Harris' op-ed from August 6. Any thoughts on how best to do this? If I'm able to write something coherent by the weekend's end, could it be published in next week's issue? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
All right, fair enough. I started work on a draft here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20/Op-ed. It was originally titled /2012-08-13/, but that was a bit of a pipe-dream. These thoughts need more time to fester. I think Steven Zhang was wanting to approach you all about an op-ed for this next issue as well, so it's probably for the better in several ways. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Both of you warned me to not write a response, but the page is now titled " /Response" (without the piece even mentioning what it's supposed to be in response to). This needs to be re-thought. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 16:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Submission mechanism
Is there a way to make the mechanism more approachable for inexperienced editors? I just made a submission, but felt I had to be rather determined. I crafted it manually. Is there some form of guided submission mechanism that I missed? My grandmother never knew how to suck eggs, and I had no idea how to teach her either. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
newspaper?
Is the Signpost a newspaper in the true sense of the word? From Merriam Webster's definition, I think that the Signpost would qualify as something new altogether. (Unless we send out print copies). I see it as more of a on--wiki publication or periodical. Thanks, GChriss 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How about producing a PrintABLE version? Ajuk 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Where does the Signpost go from here?
What is the mission of The Wikipedia Signpost and what purposes ought it try to serve? What guidelines for content should the Signpost adhere to? Are opinion pieces or editorials desirable in the Signpost, and if so how should they be handled? What are the Signpost's relationships to the English Wikipedia community and the broader Wikimedia community, to the Wikimedia Foundation, and to the outside media that also cover Wikimedia issues?
I hope this RfC will result in a refined "About" page for the Signpost and a clearer idea of whether or how the Signpost should foster discussion through opinion/editorial content about the big issues faced by the project and community.-- ragesoss ( talk) 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To me, the major purpose of Signpost is to unify the English Wikipedia community. It's a very broad community with hundreds of subprojects and vastly different activities going on: vandal fighting to preparing Wikipedia 1.0 to doing community outreach to chasing down references to researching Brazillian soccer players... Signpost is where the different communities can get a glimpse of what each other are doing, and how their activities all fit together to further one purpose. So I see the feature pieces about different projects as critical. Stevage 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A mission statement seems like a good idea. I'm going to propose something just to get the discussion started...not sure that this is even remotely right though! - Pete ( talk) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
How about just condensing Michael Snow's initial post?:
The Wikipedia Signpost mission is to be a worthwhile source of news for people interested in what is happening around the Wikipedia community. Published on a weekly basis, it is designed to resemble a newspaper. It will strive to maintain its objectivity as would be appropriate for an independent media organization elsewhere. The Signpost focuses strongly on the English Wikipedia and can spare people the effort of trying to be everywhere and read every community discussion. The subjects covered will be whatever community subjects interest the readers.
Questions: Is there anything here that is no longer true? Is there any other goals or characteristics that are not included that have proven to be as important for the Signpost since it was founded? - Banyan Tree 02:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my go at a mission statement and a scope outline:
The mission of The Wikipedia Signpost is:
- to be a worthwhile source of news for people interested in what is happening around English Wikipedia and throughout the Wikimedia community
- to keep the Wikimedia community informed, motivated, and engaged
- to serve as common ground for Wikimedians seeking to understand and guide the development of the Wikimedia projects
- to push for transparency and accountability on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation as well as the Wikimedia community itself
- to provide a point of contact between the Wikimedia community and the broader public sphere that discusses and analyzes what we do
The scope of The Wikipedia Signpost includes whatever subjects affecting the Wikimedia community and projects that readers are interested in and writers want to write about. These have included:
- Discussions and changes of policies, guidelines, and other rules and norms on English Wikipedia and other projects
- Trends and statistical data about the projects
- Project governance, including elections and arbitration
- Editorial processes and their results (including featured content and other quality assessment)
- Controversies and disputes, both internal and external, that have significant impact on Wikimedia projects and their reputations
- Technologies relevant to the projects, and their development
- Perspectives from individual volunteers and Wikimedia staff members
- The Wikimedia Foundation and its operations, staff and trustees
- External media coverage and its quality and impact
- Scholarly work that analyzes Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
- Book reviews
- Wikipedia- and Wikimedia-related entertainment and humor
It incorporates elements of the first two statements and adds some things are part of what I personally think the Signpost does or ought to do.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to have some more information about how we develop regarding tech stuff (growth in servers, bandwith used etc), an added benefit of covering this could possibly also be to give more credit to those who run the hardware we all depend on for our writing, and help raise more funds for these much needed machines. Amazing also that a mostly amateur site can be so fast, better than many of the professional sites, would also be interesting in some articles about this. Ulflarsen ( talk) 08:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Since it seems like most people who've commented think some sort of editorial/opinion content would be a useful addition, I think we should try it out. I'll put out a call for letters to the editor in the coming issue, and we can see how that works out.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
At least at the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål version of Wikipedia I believe there are quite a few that read and follow Wikipedia, same goes for contributors to the Estonian language Wikipedia. It's good if the Signpost cover the whole of language versions and not only the english language version of Wikipedia. Ulflarsen ( talk) 08:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Last time I was involved with a discussion like this (when Sage first took on editor-in-chief duties), I suggested syndicating Signpost content via blogs/RSS. I was really pleased to see http://www.wikipediasignpost.com/blog -- but what I had in mind was somewhat different. I was thinking the actual content, not just a directory, could be published on a blog. This would have three advantages: (1) it would be possible to actually read each story as a separate piece in an RSS reader, (2) it would be possible to republish selected pieces of Signpost content on other web sites (which might or might not be useful), and (3) it would be possible to discuss Signpost content in a centralized place (in the blog comments).
What do others think of this idea? It would take more work to maintain...though it might be possible to automate publication. Are these worthwhile goals? If so, are there other/better ways they could be accomplished? - Pete ( talk) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest making it a little more up to date looking, and I'd be glad to help. Honestly, I think it would get more views if it was just a bit (gasp!) tabloid looking, or at least cleaned up. I would be more than pleased to help with that, being an ad agency owner and a designer.-- Rob NS 02:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I shudder to think what might happen to the Signpost under the guise of jazzing it up. Frightful Flash videos, blink and marquee tags and animated gifs spring to mind. I strongly vote for leaving it as is. The Signpost has an admirable simplicity and clarity to it, both of which significantly contribute to its readability and accessibility. It is unencumbered by distracting and unnecessary images, templates or colours unlike much of the rest of the Wikipedia these days. The Signpost is not a tabloid, and I sincerely hope it never turns into one. + Hexagon1 ( t) 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't we have several 'skins' by transcluding sections, that way we have ye'olde, traditional, futuristic - whatever styles readers prefer ... L∴V 00:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
More prominance
Currently if I want to quickly catch up on whats happening I go main page, scroll down, click community portal, scroll fown, click the signpost. I believe the signpost should be accessible from the main page, it gives a alternative and succint view of current happenings and an insight into the inner workings of WP. Even if a first time reader might accidentally enter this domain, they would be given a better appreciation of what WP is about... L∴V 00:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Classified section
How about a 'classified section', I'm picturin a few categories with a selection of relevant or random snippets. Examples Rfcs, events, Help wanted ( a couple of projects in there), Help Offered, commendations (awards), commemmorations. L∴V 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Further areas of WP
Another bonus for me would be including a short summary of more areas of wiipedia , e.g. village pump proposals, reference desks. I am not sure really but I just know there are communities out the in WP doing lot's of hard work that isn't obvious to the community at large - say wikignomes, antivandals, admin stuff ... L∴V 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Not affiliated
Informational interview questions
Some of these questions might be useful to use in our interviews. Obviously, they're more geared toward seeking information to help one figure out whether a career would be a good fit, but some might be helpful. http://www.quintcareers.com/information_interview.html Tisane ( talk) 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Tips on effective interviewing?
Everyone Knows Everything: Wikipedia and the Globalization of Knowledge, by Marshall T. Poe
I'd be really interested in reviewing this one. I can't say I have specific expertise in epistemology but I have spent some time discussing the very topic of this book. In real life, I'm a university professor. I first got involved on Wikipedia (under my main account but I'd rather keep anonymity in this case) because I used it to find quick info on fairly technical subjects in my field. When reading such articles, I know enough to tell the difference between solid information and low-quality or even incorrect/misleading content but I often see that my students fail to treat Wikipedia as a potentially flawed source. I also have discussed with colleagues the gap between our expectations of Wikipedia as a reliable hub for globalized knowledge and our reluctance to put efforts into contributing to highly specialized topics. Ragesoss, I can send you my email and postal address if I can have the privilege of doing the review. Pichpich ( talk) 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia, by Robert E. Cummings
Frankly, the concept of teaching writing in the age of Wikipedia is of great interest to me. Cummings seems a sensible man, and I'm interested in hearing about his opinions on the matter while bringing substantial Wikipedia experience to bear as I review the book. Rageoss, I'd be happy to send you my postal address etc. via e-mail if I have the opportunity to read his work.– Thomas H. Larsen 06:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Focus on Wikipedia?
I think we should clarify that (if...?) we are focused on Wikipedia, and clearly state whether we will review books that don't mention the word Wikipedia (or at least any project of Wikimedia Foundation of the foundation itself...). Also, what about reviews of academic articles? I don't think this is centralized now. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Against the Machine: How the Web Is Reshaping Culture and Commerce -- and Why It Matters, by Lee Siegel
I'm willing to review this book. Actually, it would really interest me because one of my current MET courses is called Curriculum Issues in Cultural and New Media Studies so I would be very interested to read Siegel's take on the cultural aspect in particular. The course text I am currently reading is called Culture & Technology and it's informative but rather dry--I am guessing Siegel's book would balance out my readings nicely. If you have a review copy, I can email my address to you, let me know... If not, I'll grab a copy from Amazon. κaτaʟaveno T C 02:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Done - needs updating
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Review_desk#The_World_and_Wikipedia:_How_We_are_Editing_Reality.2C_by_Andrew_Dalby is done - just read it in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-03/Book review :) Also, I am wondering - are Signpost articles categorized - can we see the "Signpost book reviews" category? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 21:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Book reviews inactive?
It looks like this section of Signpost has been inactive since 2010. I love reading book reviews, especially on communal projects (like WP), social media and how technology is impacting culture. Any chances you might revive this area? Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Sort Archives by Subject
I have a suggestion: could we have an archive of Signpost articles based on the arcticles' subject? I'll get working on that if anyone else thinks its a good idea. JaredW! 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Tutorials TOC
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Tutorial. — Markles 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Search link?
{{ Google custom}} can search the Signpost and its archives:
{| class="wikitable" <!-- ! width=280px | Type this !! width=130px | To get this !! What it produces, or searches for --> ! Type this !! To get this !! What it produces, or searches for |- | <tt>{{google custom|en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost||Search Wikipedia Signpost}}</tt> || {{google custom|en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost||Search Wikipedia Signpost}} || Blank form to search the [[WP:SIGNPOST|Wikipedia Signpost]] |- |}I suggested adding a search link to {{ SignpostNavigation}}. Perhaps a search link on the archive page would be helpful too. -- Teratornis ( talk) 05:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Editor discussions
Please don't stuff creepy beans up your nose; it's not healthy for you, or the the encyclopedia :) again, people should determine length on a case by case basis. Res Mar 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
and I had to do something with the page ^^ Res Mar 01:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Series
Should the Wikimania 2006 series go here? I'd like to call it the "Wikimania 2006 series" on the page itself, but M.A.N.I.A. (Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages) in the footer. +sj + 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Movement roles
I'd been planning a series of overviews of serious movement roles - from those the MR working group is tackling this summer to those that were raised during the strategy discussions and have yet to be revisited. Hopefully this will have two outcomes:
HaeB has been bugging me to do this for some time (thank you!); I'd love to have a coauthor for the series who isn't otherwise involved in those discussions to ensure the result is engaging and useful. – SJ + 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Idea for the first 10 issues in the series:
Almost impossible to find discussion
I have Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue on my watchlist. When I go there I see no links to discussion of the Signpost articles. When I go to the single-page edition I still see no links to discussion of the articles. When I go to Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20 I still see no links to discussion of the articles.
Only when I click on a specific article from the Signpost do I see discussion. There needs to be an explanation of how to find the individual article discussion on the entry page, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue, and on the single-page edition, and on the book edition ( Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20). -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Pages to be calculated at run-time
Any page that transcludes any of these pages needs to be purged when the bot is run, but only if the page listed below has been modified since the last purge:
I would have put this on the project page, but that page looks like it's meant to be input to a bot. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Snipped during archiving.
Res
Mar
19:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I did actually read your message. In going through the list above, and as Ed says, the only really 'in need of purge' pages seem to be the base Signpost and /Single. Have you seen anything else? —
Theo
polisme
00:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Purge frequency
I would recommend purging every hour for a day or two after the new Signpost is posted, then every 6-24 hours after that to pick up late changes and changes to things like templates that might happen at any time. I also recommend a method to kick of a purge "on demand" and/or "delayed on demand," that is, schedule a purge within 1 hour if an editor requests it. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Consider semi-protection
Just a query and suggestion here. Whenever I get the delivery on my talk page, I normally go to read the issue through the "Single-page" link. However, that link has been red for a long as a day after publication lately. When it's still a redlink, I just plain don't read the issue, and I've forgotten to read issues right away as a result. Whatever has changed recently, can you un-change it so that the "single-page" version of The Signpost is a valid page at the time of delivery? Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
.Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. While I'm very sure that it was unintentional (really, I can't stress enough that I'm not blaming or mad at you or anything like that), I don't feel that it should be in a description. Is that alright?
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
13:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I move this discussion to Signpost talk. And if you remove this once more I remove all the enrty and leave nothing but: Jane Digby (created by William Charles Ross, nominated by Alborzagros ) This miniature by the artist William Charles Ross portrays the fascinating Jane Digby. - That is what I have to say. Hafspajen ( talk) 17:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
go ahead. Hafspajen ( talk) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict) *Firstly, let me thank Hafspajen for all the work undertaken - I'm sure that was also "laborious and time consuming". Please explain how the comment can be perceived to be "sexist" and by whom? As a British female I just cannot see it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC) And it does come across as Hafspajen being accused as being sexist. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
−
− −
−
− −
(conversation moved from
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions)
I was going to propose an MfD for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Set, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deadline/core and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Colour as it seems like they haven't been regularly used in several years. Alternatively, you could mark them {{historic}} if you wanted to retain them for their page history. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Even if those work pages were not currently being used by Signpost editors, it would be apppropriate to mark them as "historical" using Template:Historical, i.e {{ Historical}}. I suspect MFD and other deletions have been used sometimes when stuff should be saved. WikiProjects and other Wikipedia-space material should often be kept this way, else we lose our own history of how Wikipedia was built. Workpages and their edit history provide the records of good work done by many editors, keeping them retains our/their ability to document what they did and credit them. So, Liz, if you come across other workpages not being used, don't think they must be deleted. -- do ncr am 05:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement of facts:
If we wish to argue about the issue of communication within the Signpost we can commence it here. Res Mar 05:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree with the vulgar comments made by Adam in this week's FC. Wikipedia is not censored, but does it mean that you can say of scro*** of John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore and the like. - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 16:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Some useless stuff on some thing called continentalism/culture of no use which very few could understand. Come on guys..Its April fool..-
The Herald
the joy of the LORD
my strength
12:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
(After yet more edit conflicts) I doubt you will want to hear my opinion - yourself and your "co-editors" have ensured (doubtless via Skype/off wiki discussions) that the only POV included is your own; you all caused great hurt and distress, which you have still not acknowledged or apologised for, but continue to consistently "close" any discussions that are not following a path of your choosing while still happily slinging accusations of "sexist" or "racist" as it suits you - of course, you also selectively block/deny talk page access to suit your own agenda ... but, naturally, you all consider your opinion is all that matters - perhaps you should consider asking the opinion of British females about the supposed "gender gap" instead of always deferring to the vocal/vociferous Americans? And, by the way, my husband is Scottish, so ridiculing the kilt is insulting. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
SignPost carried a piece recently which resulted in Gamaliel instigating an arbitration request against Eric Corbett ... "give us specificity, and then we'll talk on level terms." - joke? There is absolutely no point in trying to discuss these matters with yourselves, you have closed minds and are selective in what you want to hear.
SagaciousPhil -
Chat
23:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
|
I mean, it's done, it's right there. Serendi pod ous 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi subscribers, if you've come here to ask why the Signpost was delivered two to three times in the last three hours, we're as mystified as you are. I've left a question at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders#Multiple sends. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The SVG images used in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance should be redone to sync the names with the rows in the graphics. The way they are being done now relies entirely on users' font settings not being very different from those of the editor who added (or last changed) these images. In my browser, the last names are slightly off in the editor-in-chief image and completely off in the regular-features image. Alternative images containing the names exist at File:Signpost Head Editor Timeline.svg and File:Signpost Articles Timeline.svg, but I suppose the font was judged too small to be readable. In that case, perhaps the SVGs with names could be simply converted to PNGs and the names replaced with larger versions. - dcljr ( talk) 01:15, 5 April 2015 (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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
The no-longer-working state of Jarry's polling template got me thinking about whether or not this could be done entirely within Wikipedia, allowing the poll to update results in real time, as it were, instead of forcing us to ask questions far beforehand. After a lot of wrangling I'm surprised to say that the answer is, yes! It requires the creation of two subpages every time a poll is made but it can be done: a working mockup is here. Try voting: it's fun to watch the bar move.
The advantages over the old format is that because it handles all counting using Wikipedia parser functions the poll can be updated in real time by the votes of the users, and it further requires no further effort on the part of the pollster once the poll (requiring subpages be created to cache votes) is implemented. The striking visual nature of Jarry's effort can probably be reproduced once I play with some opacity triggers and image transparency: right now it's just a simple stacked bar chart. Visual ideas would be appreciated. Done.
The disadvantage is that this hinges on users not changing inputted text while voting. My hope is that an edit-notice will provide enough warning of the need for them not to mess with the format too much—the template relies on doing a hidden character count on vote collection pages and so will be really easy to break if someone decides they want to say, paste the opening chapter of Moby Dick in. A much more robust Lua function's been put into place which will be much, much harder to break.
A lot of work remains to be done. Res Mar 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Here, you can see various series from the Signpost archives.
Below is a list of every series that's had its own specific template made.
Below is an automatically generated list of index pages for the 64 most-used tags.
After the earlier discussion I finished a rewrite of the Series template which allows the creation and configuration of story-hiding breakpoints. You can see the code in my sandbox and a full working example at Sandbox; a fast example is at right. This template is a provisional update on the current Signpost series template with several modifications:
|breakpoint=n
to control the number of items to be hidden. This allows hiding stories in a series for display neatness: there has always been an unresolved problem with series expanding beyond the length that the original authors accommodated for and breaking accepted formatting in old articles. This fixes that problem.This is basically ready for immediate substitution. Res Mar 16:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Helo, I've found this. Good luck! -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, apologies for anyone who received the Signpost twice in successive sections ... not sure what happened.
Gamaliel? Was anything odd during publication? Anyway, the issue is so good, I suppose you'll just need to read it a second time
!
Go
Phightins
!
11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I was surprised to see the White House tweet [2] and blog [3] about an "edit-a-thon" for Black History Month. According to Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/African Americans in STEM, the result of this were new articles for LaSalle D. Leffall Jr., Kimberly Bryant (technologist), Margaret S. Collins, Henry Aaron Hill, Leonard C. Bailey, and Thomas W. Talley (someone tagged this last one for speedy deletion). Also Ben Montgomery, St. Elmo Brady, Charles L. Reason, and Mary Eliza Mahoney were improved, and a new image loaded for Christine Darden. (I double-checked the participants' contributions and didn't see any others)
On one hand, yes, the White House called and people answered. But on the other ... this amount of effort is routinely matched by some of the more active Wikipedians on an individual basis. Whether or not a single person makes a difference in Washington, when it comes to Wikipedia -- one dedicated individual can match the output of a White House call for action. I find this surprising and ... oddly inspirational. Wnt ( talk) 03:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion from the newsroom to here. Let's please keep the newsroom relatively clean; suggestions for articles go here (or even better, to the suggestions page), the newsroom ought to be for internal discussions. Res Mar 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I really hope that The Signpost doesn't become openly political (in terms of real world politics.) There's already too much of wiki politics for my taste. The real world is already there for all of us. Speaking for myself, I don't want to see more of it here in the The Signpost. MathewTownsend ( talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Missing archives
It should be noted that submissions have been deleted without having been archived - I think anything before November 2011. E.g. see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Opinion_desk&diff=445853458&oldid=440464071 edit summary: clear out old.
I understand that such maintenance is an extra workload - perhaps links could be given to old versions, as an easy way of doing it. I'd do something myself, but I'm not familiar with archiving conventions. And I need to get back to work... Thanks. -- Chriswaterguy talk 03:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Response to Brandon Harris' op-ed
Hi. I'd like to write a response to Brandon Harris' op-ed from August 6. Any thoughts on how best to do this? If I'm able to write something coherent by the weekend's end, could it be published in next week's issue? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
All right, fair enough. I started work on a draft here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20/Op-ed. It was originally titled /2012-08-13/, but that was a bit of a pipe-dream. These thoughts need more time to fester. I think Steven Zhang was wanting to approach you all about an op-ed for this next issue as well, so it's probably for the better in several ways. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 22:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Both of you warned me to not write a response, but the page is now titled " /Response" (without the piece even mentioning what it's supposed to be in response to). This needs to be re-thought. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 16:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Submission mechanism
Is there a way to make the mechanism more approachable for inexperienced editors? I just made a submission, but felt I had to be rather determined. I crafted it manually. Is there some form of guided submission mechanism that I missed? My grandmother never knew how to suck eggs, and I had no idea how to teach her either. Fiddle Faddle ( talk) 09:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
newspaper?
Is the Signpost a newspaper in the true sense of the word? From Merriam Webster's definition, I think that the Signpost would qualify as something new altogether. (Unless we send out print copies). I see it as more of a on--wiki publication or periodical. Thanks, GChriss 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
How about producing a PrintABLE version? Ajuk 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Where does the Signpost go from here?
What is the mission of The Wikipedia Signpost and what purposes ought it try to serve? What guidelines for content should the Signpost adhere to? Are opinion pieces or editorials desirable in the Signpost, and if so how should they be handled? What are the Signpost's relationships to the English Wikipedia community and the broader Wikimedia community, to the Wikimedia Foundation, and to the outside media that also cover Wikimedia issues?
I hope this RfC will result in a refined "About" page for the Signpost and a clearer idea of whether or how the Signpost should foster discussion through opinion/editorial content about the big issues faced by the project and community.-- ragesoss ( talk) 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To me, the major purpose of Signpost is to unify the English Wikipedia community. It's a very broad community with hundreds of subprojects and vastly different activities going on: vandal fighting to preparing Wikipedia 1.0 to doing community outreach to chasing down references to researching Brazillian soccer players... Signpost is where the different communities can get a glimpse of what each other are doing, and how their activities all fit together to further one purpose. So I see the feature pieces about different projects as critical. Stevage 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A mission statement seems like a good idea. I'm going to propose something just to get the discussion started...not sure that this is even remotely right though! - Pete ( talk) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
How about just condensing Michael Snow's initial post?:
The Wikipedia Signpost mission is to be a worthwhile source of news for people interested in what is happening around the Wikipedia community. Published on a weekly basis, it is designed to resemble a newspaper. It will strive to maintain its objectivity as would be appropriate for an independent media organization elsewhere. The Signpost focuses strongly on the English Wikipedia and can spare people the effort of trying to be everywhere and read every community discussion. The subjects covered will be whatever community subjects interest the readers.
Questions: Is there anything here that is no longer true? Is there any other goals or characteristics that are not included that have proven to be as important for the Signpost since it was founded? - Banyan Tree 02:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's my go at a mission statement and a scope outline:
The mission of The Wikipedia Signpost is:
- to be a worthwhile source of news for people interested in what is happening around English Wikipedia and throughout the Wikimedia community
- to keep the Wikimedia community informed, motivated, and engaged
- to serve as common ground for Wikimedians seeking to understand and guide the development of the Wikimedia projects
- to push for transparency and accountability on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation as well as the Wikimedia community itself
- to provide a point of contact between the Wikimedia community and the broader public sphere that discusses and analyzes what we do
The scope of The Wikipedia Signpost includes whatever subjects affecting the Wikimedia community and projects that readers are interested in and writers want to write about. These have included:
- Discussions and changes of policies, guidelines, and other rules and norms on English Wikipedia and other projects
- Trends and statistical data about the projects
- Project governance, including elections and arbitration
- Editorial processes and their results (including featured content and other quality assessment)
- Controversies and disputes, both internal and external, that have significant impact on Wikimedia projects and their reputations
- Technologies relevant to the projects, and their development
- Perspectives from individual volunteers and Wikimedia staff members
- The Wikimedia Foundation and its operations, staff and trustees
- External media coverage and its quality and impact
- Scholarly work that analyzes Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects
- Book reviews
- Wikipedia- and Wikimedia-related entertainment and humor
It incorporates elements of the first two statements and adds some things are part of what I personally think the Signpost does or ought to do.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to have some more information about how we develop regarding tech stuff (growth in servers, bandwith used etc), an added benefit of covering this could possibly also be to give more credit to those who run the hardware we all depend on for our writing, and help raise more funds for these much needed machines. Amazing also that a mostly amateur site can be so fast, better than many of the professional sites, would also be interesting in some articles about this. Ulflarsen ( talk) 08:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Since it seems like most people who've commented think some sort of editorial/opinion content would be a useful addition, I think we should try it out. I'll put out a call for letters to the editor in the coming issue, and we can see how that works out.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
At least at the Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål version of Wikipedia I believe there are quite a few that read and follow Wikipedia, same goes for contributors to the Estonian language Wikipedia. It's good if the Signpost cover the whole of language versions and not only the english language version of Wikipedia. Ulflarsen ( talk) 08:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Last time I was involved with a discussion like this (when Sage first took on editor-in-chief duties), I suggested syndicating Signpost content via blogs/RSS. I was really pleased to see http://www.wikipediasignpost.com/blog -- but what I had in mind was somewhat different. I was thinking the actual content, not just a directory, could be published on a blog. This would have three advantages: (1) it would be possible to actually read each story as a separate piece in an RSS reader, (2) it would be possible to republish selected pieces of Signpost content on other web sites (which might or might not be useful), and (3) it would be possible to discuss Signpost content in a centralized place (in the blog comments).
What do others think of this idea? It would take more work to maintain...though it might be possible to automate publication. Are these worthwhile goals? If so, are there other/better ways they could be accomplished? - Pete ( talk) 15:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest making it a little more up to date looking, and I'd be glad to help. Honestly, I think it would get more views if it was just a bit (gasp!) tabloid looking, or at least cleaned up. I would be more than pleased to help with that, being an ad agency owner and a designer.-- Rob NS 02:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I shudder to think what might happen to the Signpost under the guise of jazzing it up. Frightful Flash videos, blink and marquee tags and animated gifs spring to mind. I strongly vote for leaving it as is. The Signpost has an admirable simplicity and clarity to it, both of which significantly contribute to its readability and accessibility. It is unencumbered by distracting and unnecessary images, templates or colours unlike much of the rest of the Wikipedia these days. The Signpost is not a tabloid, and I sincerely hope it never turns into one. + Hexagon1 ( t) 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't we have several 'skins' by transcluding sections, that way we have ye'olde, traditional, futuristic - whatever styles readers prefer ... L∴V 00:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
More prominance
Currently if I want to quickly catch up on whats happening I go main page, scroll down, click community portal, scroll fown, click the signpost. I believe the signpost should be accessible from the main page, it gives a alternative and succint view of current happenings and an insight into the inner workings of WP. Even if a first time reader might accidentally enter this domain, they would be given a better appreciation of what WP is about... L∴V 00:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Classified section
How about a 'classified section', I'm picturin a few categories with a selection of relevant or random snippets. Examples Rfcs, events, Help wanted ( a couple of projects in there), Help Offered, commendations (awards), commemmorations. L∴V 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Further areas of WP
Another bonus for me would be including a short summary of more areas of wiipedia , e.g. village pump proposals, reference desks. I am not sure really but I just know there are communities out the in WP doing lot's of hard work that isn't obvious to the community at large - say wikignomes, antivandals, admin stuff ... L∴V 00:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Not affiliated
Informational interview questions
Some of these questions might be useful to use in our interviews. Obviously, they're more geared toward seeking information to help one figure out whether a career would be a good fit, but some might be helpful. http://www.quintcareers.com/information_interview.html Tisane ( talk) 14:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Tips on effective interviewing?
Everyone Knows Everything: Wikipedia and the Globalization of Knowledge, by Marshall T. Poe
I'd be really interested in reviewing this one. I can't say I have specific expertise in epistemology but I have spent some time discussing the very topic of this book. In real life, I'm a university professor. I first got involved on Wikipedia (under my main account but I'd rather keep anonymity in this case) because I used it to find quick info on fairly technical subjects in my field. When reading such articles, I know enough to tell the difference between solid information and low-quality or even incorrect/misleading content but I often see that my students fail to treat Wikipedia as a potentially flawed source. I also have discussed with colleagues the gap between our expectations of Wikipedia as a reliable hub for globalized knowledge and our reluctance to put efforts into contributing to highly specialized topics. Ragesoss, I can send you my email and postal address if I can have the privilege of doing the review. Pichpich ( talk) 19:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia, by Robert E. Cummings
Frankly, the concept of teaching writing in the age of Wikipedia is of great interest to me. Cummings seems a sensible man, and I'm interested in hearing about his opinions on the matter while bringing substantial Wikipedia experience to bear as I review the book. Rageoss, I'd be happy to send you my postal address etc. via e-mail if I have the opportunity to read his work.– Thomas H. Larsen 06:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Focus on Wikipedia?
I think we should clarify that (if...?) we are focused on Wikipedia, and clearly state whether we will review books that don't mention the word Wikipedia (or at least any project of Wikimedia Foundation of the foundation itself...). Also, what about reviews of academic articles? I don't think this is centralized now. --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 17:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Against the Machine: How the Web Is Reshaping Culture and Commerce -- and Why It Matters, by Lee Siegel
I'm willing to review this book. Actually, it would really interest me because one of my current MET courses is called Curriculum Issues in Cultural and New Media Studies so I would be very interested to read Siegel's take on the cultural aspect in particular. The course text I am currently reading is called Culture & Technology and it's informative but rather dry--I am guessing Siegel's book would balance out my readings nicely. If you have a review copy, I can email my address to you, let me know... If not, I'll grab a copy from Amazon. κaτaʟaveno T C 02:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Done - needs updating
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Review_desk#The_World_and_Wikipedia:_How_We_are_Editing_Reality.2C_by_Andrew_Dalby is done - just read it in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-03/Book review :) Also, I am wondering - are Signpost articles categorized - can we see the "Signpost book reviews" category? --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<span style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </span>]]</span></sub> 21:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Book reviews inactive?
It looks like this section of Signpost has been inactive since 2010. I love reading book reviews, especially on communal projects (like WP), social media and how technology is impacting culture. Any chances you might revive this area? Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Sort Archives by Subject
I have a suggestion: could we have an archive of Signpost articles based on the arcticles' subject? I'll get working on that if anyone else thinks its a good idea. JaredW! 20:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Tutorials TOC
See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/Tutorial. — Markles 22:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Search link?
{{ Google custom}} can search the Signpost and its archives:
{| class="wikitable" <!-- ! width=280px | Type this !! width=130px | To get this !! What it produces, or searches for --> ! Type this !! To get this !! What it produces, or searches for |- | <tt>{{google custom|en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost||Search Wikipedia Signpost}}</tt> || {{google custom|en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost||Search Wikipedia Signpost}} || Blank form to search the [[WP:SIGNPOST|Wikipedia Signpost]] |- |}I suggested adding a search link to {{ SignpostNavigation}}. Perhaps a search link on the archive page would be helpful too. -- Teratornis ( talk) 05:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Editor discussions
Please don't stuff creepy beans up your nose; it's not healthy for you, or the the encyclopedia :) again, people should determine length on a case by case basis. Res Mar 00:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
and I had to do something with the page ^^ Res Mar 01:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Series
Should the Wikimania 2006 series go here? I'd like to call it the "Wikimania 2006 series" on the page itself, but M.A.N.I.A. (Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages) in the footer. +sj + 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Movement roles
I'd been planning a series of overviews of serious movement roles - from those the MR working group is tackling this summer to those that were raised during the strategy discussions and have yet to be revisited. Hopefully this will have two outcomes:
HaeB has been bugging me to do this for some time (thank you!); I'd love to have a coauthor for the series who isn't otherwise involved in those discussions to ensure the result is engaging and useful. – SJ + 01:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Idea for the first 10 issues in the series:
Almost impossible to find discussion
I have Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue on my watchlist. When I go there I see no links to discussion of the Signpost articles. When I go to the single-page edition I still see no links to discussion of the articles. When I go to Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20 I still see no links to discussion of the articles.
Only when I click on a specific article from the Signpost do I see discussion. There needs to be an explanation of how to find the individual article discussion on the entry page, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue, and on the single-page edition, and on the book edition ( Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20). -- Timeshifter ( talk) 13:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Pages to be calculated at run-time
Any page that transcludes any of these pages needs to be purged when the bot is run, but only if the page listed below has been modified since the last purge:
I would have put this on the project page, but that page looks like it's meant to be input to a bot. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Snipped during archiving.
Res
Mar
19:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
In all seriousness, I did actually read your message. In going through the list above, and as Ed says, the only really 'in need of purge' pages seem to be the base Signpost and /Single. Have you seen anything else? —
Theo
polisme
00:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Purge frequency
I would recommend purging every hour for a day or two after the new Signpost is posted, then every 6-24 hours after that to pick up late changes and changes to things like templates that might happen at any time. I also recommend a method to kick of a purge "on demand" and/or "delayed on demand," that is, schedule a purge within 1 hour if an editor requests it. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 19:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Consider semi-protection
Just a query and suggestion here. Whenever I get the delivery on my talk page, I normally go to read the issue through the "Single-page" link. However, that link has been red for a long as a day after publication lately. When it's still a redlink, I just plain don't read the issue, and I've forgotten to read issues right away as a result. Whatever has changed recently, can you un-change it so that the "single-page" version of The Signpost is a valid page at the time of delivery? Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
.Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. While I'm very sure that it was unintentional (really, I can't stress enough that I'm not blaming or mad at you or anything like that), I don't feel that it should be in a description. Is that alright?
Ed
[talk]
[majestic titan]
13:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I move this discussion to Signpost talk. And if you remove this once more I remove all the enrty and leave nothing but: Jane Digby (created by William Charles Ross, nominated by Alborzagros ) This miniature by the artist William Charles Ross portrays the fascinating Jane Digby. - That is what I have to say. Hafspajen ( talk) 17:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
go ahead. Hafspajen ( talk) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict) *Firstly, let me thank Hafspajen for all the work undertaken - I'm sure that was also "laborious and time consuming". Please explain how the comment can be perceived to be "sexist" and by whom? As a British female I just cannot see it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC) And it does come across as Hafspajen being accused as being sexist. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
−
− −
−
− −
(conversation moved from
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions)
I was going to propose an MfD for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Set, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deadline/core and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Colour as it seems like they haven't been regularly used in several years. Alternatively, you could mark them {{historic}} if you wanted to retain them for their page history. What do you think? Liz Read! Talk! 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Even if those work pages were not currently being used by Signpost editors, it would be apppropriate to mark them as "historical" using Template:Historical, i.e {{ Historical}}. I suspect MFD and other deletions have been used sometimes when stuff should be saved. WikiProjects and other Wikipedia-space material should often be kept this way, else we lose our own history of how Wikipedia was built. Workpages and their edit history provide the records of good work done by many editors, keeping them retains our/their ability to document what they did and credit them. So, Liz, if you come across other workpages not being used, don't think they must be deleted. -- do ncr am 05:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement of facts:
If we wish to argue about the issue of communication within the Signpost we can commence it here. Res Mar 05:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I completely disagree with the vulgar comments made by Adam in this week's FC. Wikipedia is not censored, but does it mean that you can say of scro*** of John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore and the like. - The Herald the joy of the LORD my strength 16:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Some useless stuff on some thing called continentalism/culture of no use which very few could understand. Come on guys..Its April fool..-
The Herald
the joy of the LORD
my strength
12:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
(After yet more edit conflicts) I doubt you will want to hear my opinion - yourself and your "co-editors" have ensured (doubtless via Skype/off wiki discussions) that the only POV included is your own; you all caused great hurt and distress, which you have still not acknowledged or apologised for, but continue to consistently "close" any discussions that are not following a path of your choosing while still happily slinging accusations of "sexist" or "racist" as it suits you - of course, you also selectively block/deny talk page access to suit your own agenda ... but, naturally, you all consider your opinion is all that matters - perhaps you should consider asking the opinion of British females about the supposed "gender gap" instead of always deferring to the vocal/vociferous Americans? And, by the way, my husband is Scottish, so ridiculing the kilt is insulting. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
SignPost carried a piece recently which resulted in Gamaliel instigating an arbitration request against Eric Corbett ... "give us specificity, and then we'll talk on level terms." - joke? There is absolutely no point in trying to discuss these matters with yourselves, you have closed minds and are selective in what you want to hear.
SagaciousPhil -
Chat
23:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
|
I mean, it's done, it's right there. Serendi pod ous 15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi subscribers, if you've come here to ask why the Signpost was delivered two to three times in the last three hours, we're as mystified as you are. I've left a question at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders#Multiple sends. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The SVG images used in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance should be redone to sync the names with the rows in the graphics. The way they are being done now relies entirely on users' font settings not being very different from those of the editor who added (or last changed) these images. In my browser, the last names are slightly off in the editor-in-chief image and completely off in the regular-features image. Alternative images containing the names exist at File:Signpost Head Editor Timeline.svg and File:Signpost Articles Timeline.svg, but I suppose the font was judged too small to be readable. In that case, perhaps the SVGs with names could be simply converted to PNGs and the names replaced with larger versions. - dcljr ( talk) 01:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)