Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Requested move 1 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus against this move. The majority of people who have weighed in suggest that the (potential) downsides are greater than the upsides. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost → Wikipedia:Signpost – The name of the newspaper has long been changed, from Wikipedia Signpost to The Signpost. The second "Wikipedia" is also an annoying follow-up of Wikipedia. I don't see any reason why the latter must be strongly kept. GeraldWL 09:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Gerald Waldo Luis and Armbrust: queried move requests Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Due to the large number of subpages, this move shouldn't be done without discussion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• It has at least hundreds of subpages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Page information says 7,664 subpages. I know this is a pure OTHERSTUFF whinge, but I'd rather see DYK move out of Template space first, which would actually be useful for tracking errors, and I gave up on that a long time ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not to be confused with the hundreds of existing publications called "The Signpost":

• The Signpost: Weber State University in Ogden, Utah [1][2] Here is a 1937 edition:[3]
• The Signpost: Etching and poem by Jan Luiken (1649-1712) [4]
• The Signpost: Washington Trails Association (1966) [5]
• The Signpost: Owmby Group of Parishes. [6]
• The Signpost: Travel blog [7]
• The Signpost: Peak & Northern Footpaths Society [8]
• The Signpost: Feature in The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal [9]
• The Signpost: St Nicolas' Church for the local community [10]
• The Signpost: Ivybridge [11]
• The Signpost: Some sort of medical magazine [12]
• The Signpost: Ruskington Parish Council [13]
• The Signpost: Little Somerford Parish Council [14]
• The Signpost: St Michael and All Angels Houghton-le-Spring [15]
• The Signpost: Monthly magazine for the villages of Little and Great Somerford, Startley, Seagry, Rodbourne and Corston [16]

--Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

The rename from "Wikipedia Signpost" to "The Signpost" already took place over a decade ago, see also the article The Signpost in a certain free encyclopedia. This discussion is just about the URLs. But thanks for the effort to collect all this data to show us conclusively that it is possible for many news publications to successfully coexist under such a name. (Or did you mean to imply that our 2010 rename has since caused pain and suffering to the good people in Little Somerford?) Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Definitely the former. We must accept re-use of the name or risk a civil war between Owmby and Little Somerford (smile). Seriously though, my opinion is the same as that found at Cool URIs don't change. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:TITLE does not apply to the Wikipedia namespace. If it did, WP:N would be called That thing we mean by notability but absolutely no one else means by that word. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Support provided that (per Armbrust) there is some planning beforehand to check for possible technical issues. It would be good to rip off this band-aid. This was already the consensus back in 2010 after the rename, it's just that nobody got around to it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I would expect technical issues with the large number of templates, and the publishing script. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Moral support per HaeB. This has been something needing to be done for a while, note, for instance that the article is at The Signpost. However, I have no clue about the feasibility of moving thousands of subpages, and it would certainly be a hassle on people's watchlists. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Support only with careful planning and consideration given to people's watch-lists. I recommend planning it, double-checking everything, announcing it in the next signpost, then executing it between editions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support as long overdue, assuming the technical complications can be worked through. The watchlist concern would be a one-time inconvenience for the relatively limited number of people who have a bunch of Signpost pages listed. All this said, I'd be curious as to what EIC Smallbones thinks. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • To add to what I said above, I support Smallbones' position. The technical complications may be a high hurdle. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost

The Signpost
2024-11-18
Volume 20, Issue 16

• News and notes: Open letter to WMF about court case breaks one thousand signatures, big arb case declined, U4C begins accepting cases

• In the media: Summons issued for Wikipedia editors by Indian court, "Gaza genocide" RfC close in news, old admin Gwern now big AI guy, and a "spectrum of reluctance" over Australian place names

• Recent research: SPINACH: AI help for asking Wikidata "challenging real-world questions"

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Endowment audit reports: FY 2023–2024

• Traffic report: Well, let us share with you our knowledge, about the electoral college

Comment It would be a meaningless change. 1st the disruption caused by *not* making this "logical" change would be roughly the same as the lack of making the change has over the last 10 years - essentially zero. I can see lots of disruption caused by making a change. Start with @Jonesey95:'s estimate of 7,664 subpages - that's about the right number for just the articles in the archives (start with say 12 years of 50 issues per year at 12 articles per issue plus 4 years of 12 issues at 15 articles per issue = 7920) but there must be lots of supporting pages that have changed over time and may be more or less forgotten, e.g. the newsroom pages, unpublished drafts, "work" pages, etc. So if you do this make sure you've got *all* the subpages. Redoing all the templates involved in publication would be a major hassle - would anybody commit to working out all this? But most importantly there are about 5 ways to subscribe via, e.g. transcluded(?) info boxes, I'll see if I can find some examples. The subscriptions are our lifeblood. Who's going to make sure all those work properly? So unless somebody can promise to fix and check all of the above, or show any major benefit I'll say Oppose, or at least hold off for a year while we figure out what would be needed to make this change smoothly. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the aggregate detrimental effect of our very cumbersome URLs is "essentially zero", even if it might appear so subjectively to longtime regulars like you and me who have long ago gotten used to them.

Regarding the technical issues, it's good to map these out, but I think there are answers to all of these. For example, the subscription template would continue to work after the move via the redirect generated during the move.

Or, as others have said, the watchlist inconvenience should be manageable too. We already have a precedent for such a large-scale change affecting the entire Signpost archive, namely the categorization (example) that Liz conducted a while ago. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree only if moving will bring everything with. If it only moves the page itself but redirects subpages to the original page, it'd be pointless. JMVR1 🗪 🖉 📫 03:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Smallbones above. This seems to be a case of WP:AINT. -- Calidum 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support, its the new common name. It seems there wouldn't be many technical issues, so why not? --JackFromReedsburg (talk | contribs) 23:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Although I don't necessarily oppose a change at some point in the future, if it is carefully planned out and executed effectively, I also don't see a lot of benefit for the effort. I imagine the vast majority of new readers find the Signpost by following a link, and then follow one of the documented subscription methods, if they choose to subscribe. The actual page name doesn't really affect the user experience in practice. isaacl (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The existing title is fine and nothing would be gained. AGK ■ 08:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose General Wikipedia editors should have no role in deciding this sort of thing. The present state of affairs is acceptable and the present Wikipedia:Signpost redirect is entirely sufficient. If the people responsible for producing Signpost want to make changes they should be allowed to do so without interference. Thincat (talk) 12:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Another comment - I see roughly three equal positions above "Support", "moral support" and "oppose". Before going to support or even moral support, I'd like to see a clear explanation of all the benefits of making the move. And I'd like to point out that staff ofThe Signpost probably don't have the time or abilities to do this all by ourselves: there are only 6-12 people involved in each issue and most of those signed up just for writing - an article or a series of articles. I don't know how we would do it. *BUT* if somebody were to help us and do this in stages, I'll suggest stage 1) doing the archives first - this is the bulk of the renames and redirects - but if it's offline for a few days people might not notice at all. Once the archive is completely done, the only change needed will be to change the templates that link to it (see, e.g. above right hand side Signpost box). I'd think 3 or 4 changes in templates would be the last step needed for the archives. At that point we could do step 2) change all the publishing templates, right after an issue, so that we'd have a full month to make sure these work before the next issue is due to come out. Then step 3) check to make sure all the work areas, old drafts, and everything else that don't directly affect the publishing of the next issue are taken care of. This would probably take some time and be the least important, until something unexpected shows up. Like I said, a lot of work and I don't think we have the staff to do it! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Weak oppose because it's hard and not worth doing. I moved Portal:Contents (and subpages) to Wikipedia:Contents (and subpages) once and it was the most annoying time of my life. The redirects work fine and the energy spent moving all the subpages and fixing broken things would be better spent doing literally anything else. That said, if someone does want to do it, it's not a bad move just...not something I'd recommend. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Minuscule benefit, high effort and high risk something would break. Some historical artifacts are best accepted and left alone. No such user (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Change title with no move WP:DISPLAYTITLE..Template:DISPLAYTITLE.--Moxy 🍁 14:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  @Moxy:: only limited modifications can be made [...] DISPLAYTITLE allows changing an initial letter to lower case; adding initial colons; changing spaces to underscores; adding a space after a namespace prefix; and adding formatting such as italics, bolding, superscripts, subscripts, etc. No such user (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I see perhaps someone could make a version of Template:Hidden title to make it work in a fashion we need in this case ...just a though?--Moxy 🍁 14:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wug. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose and say we go with suggestion by Moxy 🍁. Here's the code that works:
  • {{DISPLAYTITLE:Wikipedia:<span style="color:white;width:0;font-size:0;" class="hidden_title hidden-title">Wikipedia </span>''Signpost''}}

The existing {{italic title}} near the bottom of the page will have to be removed. Since the redirect, Wikipedia:Signpost, targets this page, editors will still be able to link to this page via the redirect. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 19:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose on the technicality that if we do move, it should be to "Wikipedia:The Signpost". See The Washington Post and The New York Times. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Preliminary oppose - I agree that the move should happen eventually, but only if the nominator (or someone else) puts together a plan that specifies the technical details of how to implement the move. It may be helpful to have both versions of the page run in parallel. Once a plan is proposed and reviewed by technical experts, I would support. Edge3 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Seems like a high-risk venture for very little benefit. Not only is there the huge volume of subpages, plus categories, but there is also a complex web of templates that support much of the project automation that would need to be carefully reviewed and edited. It might also break the RSS feeds, since I don't think the tool that generates them supports category redirects. Plus the publication script would need to be be changed in a bunch of places, possibly multiple times if the move is carried out in a few phases - and if it broke than at least one issue might have to be published through the painful and time-consuming manual process (which itself might have outdated instructions if things have started to be moved). In short, a huge potential for disruption and/or breakage... so oppose in favour of the displaytitle method, a simpler low-risk way to get rid of the annoying follow-up of Wikipedia. - Evad37 [talk] 00:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mailing list announcements

The last two issues seem to have failed to reach the WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list (which also forwards to Wikimedia-l). The September edition was the last one to go through. This is pretty important, as these lists presumably still represent a large audience. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the holdup on this? (The "This Month in GLAM" newsletter seems to be going through fine.)

Is it about the sharing the credentials for the wikipediasignpost Gmail address? In that case, someone could post the December issue from their personal email address instead, as a stopgap measure until that's sorted out. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue is this: as the interim publication manager, I am running the on-wiki publication activities only. There is no one currently handling either the mail list or the off-wiki social media. The position is vacant, hint hint. See Smallbones if interested. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies if it felt like I was calling you out - of course we are all volunteers here and you are already running much of the show, which is absolutely appreciated!

I'm not sure about job titles, but if someone shares the Gmail credentials with me, I could commit to sending out the mailing list announcements at least for the next couple of months. (I've done it many times before, back when I was EiC - it's just copypasting the pre-generated text and subject line into an email and sending it off.)

Regarding social media: If time allows, I'm also happy to sometimes send out the monthly post from the Signpost Facebook or Twitter account, but I won't be able to serve as the main social media person. (Yesterday I had actually already posted the current issue in the widely read Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group from my personal account. It was reasonably worthwhile, generating 16 Likes and one reshare up to now.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

So who can provide the credentials for the wikisignpost Gmail address - Smallbones? We keep missing a large audience there. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones I can't help with mailing list or off-wiki social media, but for onwiki publishing if you need a new publication manager I should be able to do it (i.e. have mass message and pagemover rights here and mass message on meta). Or is that not helpful because it should be a single person for both onwiki and offwiki? DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bri and HaeB: I'll be sending an email to both of you within an hour. I'm somewhere between a rock and a hard place right now, so I'll be leaving a lot on this matter to you two for the time being ("two" assumes Bri is available). It looks like Eddie891 and DannyS712 are volunteering for parts of what needs to be done. More later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why has the Twitter account been unused since several months?

Apokrif (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm Back!

Hello Smallbones. I am currently interested in writing for this issue's Humour section. I was wondering if you would be all right with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlowerPetals (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Single-page edition doesn't work

I don't see content at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2021-01-31 (the page linked as "Single-page edition" on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost), even after purging the page's cache. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single looks fine though, as does Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2020-12-28. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea how it's supposed to work normally, but I temporarily redirected it to make it work. Shushugah (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not the answer yet, but perhaps a clue. If you go edit the initial revision of the latest single-page edition and preview it, you see this error: Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.. Could it be because this issue has 13 sections?? Last month was 12; the two issues before that each had 11. I've posted a call for help at WP:VPT. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not the number of sections, though roughly correlated; it's simply that there is too much packaged into each transcluded page, which is moreover transcluded a second time onto this page. That counts double against the transclusion limit (bug/feature is long noted).

Part of that is because the templates are a little heavy with the styles. I was looking at improving that issue separately, but I wasn't sure if there were templates which are substituted versus not in the batch. (If you can let me know, that'd be great.) --Izno (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That gave me the idea to try this; I substed the template. Seems to work but admittedly it is crappy. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That's usually the second part of the solution. --Izno (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have made a solution [17] you may want to document somewhere for future cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Evad37:, does the publishing script need to be modified to accommodate this labeled section transclusion change for future issues? ☆ Bri (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I checked the 2020 editions. Several use around 90% of the allowed limit. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2020-04-26 uses 1978424/2097152 = 94%. My version would reduce it to 79%. Old editions could break if the used templates are changed. If you like my solution then you could use it on old editions for safety. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Evad37:, I believe the required change is in User:Evad37/SPS.js makeSingle to produce three lines of output like Special:Permalink/1004161228 (with the publishing date variable of course). Hopefully this saves you a little bit of work ingesting this whole conversation. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not going to work long-term as the header section (including the list of articles) will dynamically update when the next issue is published, rather than staying in sync with the transcluded articles for that issue - Evad37 [talk] 23:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Using {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single|issuedate=2021-01-31}} (example) brings the post-expand include size down to 1,779,891/2,097,152 bytes = 85% and will keep the header in sync with the contents - Evad37 [talk] 23:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a lot of code to duplicate for each edition and maybe having to maintain if something changes. Help:Labeled section transclusion#Functions summary says section transclusion cannot pass the issuedate parameter to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single in [18]. If the header part of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single was instead moved to its own page like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/Header then the editions could use normal transclusion and say {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/Header|issuedate=...}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: That could work... as long as it doesn't break any old single page editions. I.e. if there are some close to the limits already, wouldn't they now have Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single (which the old single-page editions transclude) also now having to transclude the new /Header subpage? - Evad37 [talk] 07:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Evad37: Yes, but it only adds around 5 kB. That's 0.25% of the limit, and the fix would be easy:

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/Header|issuedate=date}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/date|4}}
{{#section:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single|footer}}

If we do this for the header then maybe we should also do it for the footer:

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/Header|issuedate=date}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/date|4}}
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/Footer|issuedate=date}}

If a page is within 0.25% of the limit then it may break at any moment anyway, if something changes in a transcluded page. The fix reduces it by around 15%. The category can be checked with a search [19]. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2018-08-30 is there right now and doesn't render. I don't know how much it goes over the limit but the fix would currently reduce it to 87% of the limit. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Saw this and thought it might interest the community. It needs to be viewed on a desktop browser. [[20]] TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate mass message for April 25 edition

That wads my fault, sorry everyone. See User_talk:Evad37#Mass_messaging and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#MassMessage failure. - Evad37 [talk] 04:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah alright, I thought I'd managed to subscribe myself twice! — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Book version

Between 2005 and 2016 each issue of the signpost also had a book version. This was useful back when books were actually supported by the WMF but now they are just a list of links to all articles in each issue just like the main page. I propose to remove links to these book versions from templates linking to them referring to the single page version or just article list instead. Does this sound sensible? Didn't feel like touching signpost stuff without checking here first. --Trialpears (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you guys care just as much as I expected.  Done --Trialpears (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI: good article reassessment of The Signpost

See this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Remove inactive editors from the subscription list?

Hello all, I often stumble on the talk pages of inactive editors who have a trailing list of many signposts plopped on their talk page (see e.g. User:Kadane). Would there be any consensus in using something like User:Yapperbot's pruner function (User:Yapperbot/Pruner) to automatically remove inactive or indeffed editors from the list after a timeframe (e.g. 3 years of inactivity)?

I propose this because it reduces our internal spam, and also editors returning to wikipedia are highly likely to miss messages from actual editors because they may be lost in amongst tens of signpost deliveries. I am sure this would have been covered before but thought I may ask in case it hasn't. Any thoughts about this? Tom (LT) (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think if we do this, we should send a message to the talk pages of inactive editors saying that they will stop getting the Signpost due to inactivity (and provide a link for if they want to stay subscribed). —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. Have a look at the link I provided and that's already one of the bot's functions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Also post a note on the subscription page explaining that the list is pruned periodically based on whatever criteria are chosen. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ping to esteemed editor Smallbones Tom (LT) (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support the idea in principle, but note that the bot Tom (LT) refers to doesn't support pages with the mass message list content model, so couldn't be used here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Pppery oh bugger. Do you know of any way to do this without using PrunerBot? Refactoring the entire page seems like a bit of an effort... Tom (LT) (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Larry Sandler: Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead

Someone should probably cover this. 2601:602:9200:1310:9D7E:8EB2:518B:1AAF (talk) 09:38, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

It was covered a year ago. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject report

Hi all, I quite miss reading the WikiProject report. I realise we have a bigger problem of an overall editor at the moment, but I was wondering if anybody minds if I take a stab at conducting an interview (I was thinking with Wikipedia:WikiProject Rocketry as it seems to be the most recent request for one)? Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 04:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I have started up one with the interesting Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies and will see how we go.Tom (LT) (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Does anybody object if I simplify some of the instructions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk and/or make them a bit less cold/impersonal? Not wanting to upset the applecart, Tom (LT) (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"..., Johnson gives a photo printed from Wikipedia"

OK, here's one for In the media:

• Fung, Katherine (2021-06-11). "Joe Biden gifts Boris Johnson $6k bike, Johnson gives a photo printed from Wikipedia". Newsweek. Retrieved 2021-06-12.

Peaceray (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to become a member of the Signpost team!

Hey there! I've always been an avid reader of the Signpost. Recently, I've noticed that the Signpost has somewhat slowed down, and I'd like to join the team! I'm not sure of the meaning of TBD (does that mean candidates for this role are being selected from a list? what's the difference between TBD and vacant?), but if it's possible, I'd love to become a publication manager for the Signpost. Later, I may decide to take on whatever's on my mind in terms of article creation here, but I'm focusing on one thing at a time right now. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 03:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Careful! One benign expression of interest in taking on a small role can lead the modern equivalent of The ed17 to sign you up to be EIC! But seriously, always wonderful for the Signpost to have new contributors! I'm no longer involved, but I believe Smallbones' latest note from the editor signaled he would be stepping back, so there's plenty of room for people to step up, I'd think. Go Phightins! 07:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

We'll take whatever help we can get!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

You can email Smallbones, the current EIC: Special:EmailUser/Smallbones--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: Yes, please do send me an email. It might be helpful to include 2-3 paragraphs on what you think you can do best on The Signpost, what role do you think we can play within the community, *any* journalism experience you have. There are no right answers of course - just to see better where you would best fit in. Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Sanger interview in a mainstream publication: "Nobody should trust Wikipedia, says man who invented Wikipedia"

"there's a complex game being played to make an article say what somebody wants it to say"

""if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that."

"seems to assume that there is only one legitimate defensible version of the truth on any controversial question. That's not how Wikipedia used to be."

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html

These quotes seem pretty accurate. Have fun covering this story in the Signpost. 2601:602:9200:1310:7C4E:6991:8967:7322 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that will be a quick summary and write-up. Paid editing and how to combat it is indeed a complex problem and The Signpost has been reporting on the discussions about it for a while.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Sanger is stretching his 15 minutes of early Wikipedia fame beyond its limits, when he seems to endorse Alternative facts... AnonMoos (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

These allegations were covered in the Signpost in February 2021. Unless he has something new to say, with new evidence, this new article may not be worthy of coverage. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I hope we have time to cover this in some detail beyond In the media. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Signpost promo video

• https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/437291485

I am an amateur at video production but I gave a go at doing a promo for The Signpost. I am not sure if I ever shared this here, I have been sitting on it for a while.

If anyone has feedback on this version then share with me, and I might do another version. I thought to make this because people ask what the newspaper is and how they can support, and I wanted to have some kind of promotion to help. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Great idea! We are such a text centric culture, I didn’t even think of a video outreach. Where do you think would be a good place to get this, or a future revision, seen? ☆ Bri (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Another Larry Sanger article

Larry Sanger was interviewed in this article published in The Sunday Times on August 1. Should this be added to the next in the news? X-Editor (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like Sanger is the only person willing to criticize the present state of wikipedia: The website can no longer be trusted, according to the site’s co-founder, insisting it’s now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment”.[21] I wonder how many editors on this site dare to look in the mirror. 82.137.47.215 (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Is he saying anything new? He was covered in the most recent issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Inform ?

What if you misinform? How to disacuss/correct a text published in 2019 and readalready by many people? How to collect the feathers [22] ?Xx236 (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Hallo!!! Xx236 (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Responsible editors all want to avoid lashon hara, even if they don’t know the term. But first we need to know what the problem is. If it is an error in The Signpost, the editor in chief can issue retractions or corrections. If the error is elsewhere in English Wikipedia, we may be able to raise it to the attention of the community. ☆ Bri (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to email me. I won't be able to get to it until Monday. In the interests of Truth and reconciliation, the first email will be confidential. E-i-C. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

"How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit": You have not proven that authors acted for "fun or profit". I find words "Only high quality sources may be used" absurd. Do they mean that Wikipedia allows low and middle quality sources in general? There is a discussion about the article, but I assume that 'The Signpost' is happy with the article.

So 'fun or profit'? Xx236 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I think the headline on the column refers to the "In brief" items, especially Ronan Farrow, NRA editing, plagiarism, etc. not the death camp hoax. The title appeared immediately above another #1 subtopic concerning politicization of Chinese content until this edit moved it into its own article. Is a re-titling in order? It does seem like a poor juxtaposition at this point in time. - Bri.public (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bri and Xx236: I can't tell you how sick I am of the "Fake death camp" story, even after all this time. My email and talk page and Signpost pages were inundated with pleas and accusations and counter pleas and counter-accusation for months, and nobody made any sense. I don't think that everybody involved was acting in bad faith, but nobody was trying to calmly communicate with me. I don't think "use or abuse for fun or profit" insults anybody in the case - it describes a wide range of possibilities and great uncertainty. I frankly cannot admit any fault here that I am aware of. If anybody ever brings up the subject to me ever again, I'll just say "I don't deal with that story any more," and perhaps pass it along to another Signposter. If Bri wants to change that headline to "This headline has been changed to prevent even the appearance of offence" he may. I'm done with this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Volunteering at the Signpost

It is unclear to me how to volunteer at this project other than as a contributing writer. The project states it's looking for editorial, publishing, and outreach help, too, but I can't seem to find out how to get involved in those capacities. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Pyrrho the Skeptic: maybe start here then jump in with both feet! Good luck! — WILDSTAR^talk 22:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! Editors are encouraged to begin those tasks as they see fit, with no additional process, then? I've looked that page over a few times and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any place to "sign up", add name to list, or anything. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk • contribs) 00:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Subscribe for a page outside of EnWiki

Hello! How can I subscribe for my user talk page in another language project? Is that possible? - Klein Muçi (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is a global distribution list. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Vulnerability of English Wikipedia

An editor has been blocked. Now he attacks the English Wikipedia using traditional media and sockpuppeting. The Wikipedia persecutes weak editors using unacceptable geographical and national discriminations, but is unable to defend against a smart politically correct invider. Xx236 (talk) 08:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Font attributes need a class

Hello all, the font attributes need to have a specified class across all specified fonts among related pages of Signpost to allow us to change them with custom CSS like an example I did at a related page.

I requested the edit from the user MusikAnimal who referred me to the Wikipedia:edit requests page and here. I understand that at this point I still do not need to add the template {{edit template-protected}}. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Subscription doesn't work from the mobile Web interface

I think there is a bug and subscription doesn't work from the mobile Web interface. PAC2 (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Can confirm, didn't work on Opera 3.2.7 - tried again in desktop mode and subscription to talk page got added. Frdp (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

So... How'd you like an article about my frustration with how Media Viewer has been stripping my attribution from my images for seven years, and the coders assigned to it don't see it as a problem?

I care deeply about Wikipedia, and consider it more important that things get out there. But, really, seven years. It's been an open bug for that long, and the coders just talk vaguely about "structured data" might fix it in future, because it'd "Look ugly" to just include everything in the Author field of the image file.

It's a fucking ridiculous travesty. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.5% of all FPs} 05:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I would love a well researched, neutral article on long-standing bugs reported by the volunteer community of editors, especially bugs that cause volunteers to repeatedly fix problems on pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 @Adam Cuerden Phabricator has an absurd backlog, of which Adam's ticket is unfortunately but one of many examples. The coverage of the Wishlist this issue didn't talk about the community's concerns over just how few items on it get taken up, but I think when the Wishlist closes, it might be a good point to take stock of "wow, look at how many urgent technical issues the community wants fixed, and look at how slow progress has been". That's definitely a story. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm working on the Technology Report for the February issue, and I am planning to add some mentions regarding slow progress. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Published. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 21:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Media item on an external site...

This missed the publication deadline but felt I should mention it here.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/wikipedia-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-edits-kyiv-kiev.html

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In ITM. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 17:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

My thanks to the editors and regular contributors for all your good work in providing us with Signpost. Please rest assured that many Wikipedians quietly read, enjoy and are informed by each month's issue, even if we rarely bother to show our appreciation. Certes (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

+1. Let me use this opportunity to remind readers that they can thank the contributors to Signpost on the history tab. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sidebar image-caption text-size

The images that appear to the right on each article seem to have a different text-size for their caption than usual. It's not a lot in the default skin I use, but it looks jarring to my eye and might be more different for others depending on various style settings. The caption has hard-coded styling via Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Filler image-v2 whereas[[File:...]] (WP:EIS) coding gives formatting via sitewide CSS classes. Before I look into adjusting it, I'd like to know if there are any reasons for a Signpost-specific formatting of what seems like a WP-standard type of context, and in particular the basis for font-size:0.85em; color:#4D4D4D; (normal captions for me are 94²% and black). DMacks (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @DMacks, I think that it's for style and formatting reasons. The Signpost has styling conventions that are a bit different than other projects or article-space. If the size is an accessibility reason, I would be compelled to change it, but I wouldn't recommend editing the color (if it's WCAG compliant). Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 18:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth: Image captions at the current edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single appear in three different sizes, AFAICT: 85%, 88.4%, and 94%. All of those are compliant with MOS:FONTSIZE. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Signpost welcome

Template:Signpost welcome has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signpost/Template:Cover-item § ifexist

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Signpost/Template:Cover-item § ifexist. Qwerfjkltalk 16:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

VPM thread

I started the vpm thread hoping the community could get past the pissfighting and see if we could dispel widely-held contradicting opinions on the SP's role as well as identify nuanced issues which had not been discussed but could improve the SP if solved. It is clear to me that such a discussion cannot happen at this point unless certain editors on both sides recuse themselves as they will definitely railroad the thread into user conduct discussions. I'm sad that I didn't wait long enough for the shitshow to settle (still got much to learn here on wiki), and apologize that not much benefit for the publication was gained from my thread. I hope in the future the community could have a good conversation on the SP. Sorry for all the stress, and hope y'all have a good weekend! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 07:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Editing difficulties on Russian Wikipedia clarification

@Smallbones: In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-04-24/In focus there is this text: On February 24, Roskomnadzor, the Russian media regulator, demanded that the Russian media provide information about the "special military operation" only from official Russian sources. In response, the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Wikipedia limited the use of sources that follow this requirement: it was forbidden to describe events related to Ukraine using these sources; only statements by Russian officials can be quoted. For like half an hour, I thought ruwiki banned non-government sources because I read "that" as "to". Everything took on a different meaning. Replacing "that follow this requirement" with "which follow this requirement" should make it harder to misread this and (imho) improves the text flow slightly. Also please link w:ru:Арбитраж:УКР 2022#Частичное решение to make it easier to verify the story. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I too read that as saying the Russian Wikipedia complied with the regulator's request. only statements by Russian officials can be quoted is still perplexing though. What is "only" excluding? I assume it's meant to say now editors of the Russian Wikipedia may only quote, and not state as fact, statements by Russian officials, but it can easily be read as prohibiting editors from quoting statements by parties other than Russian officials. In fact I think it's this part that cemented my initial misreading. Nardog (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Nardog, my guess would be that "only" excludes any statement from such sources that isn't a statement from a Russian official. So from the text A bridge in Kiev was bombed. A witness to the bombing said "holy shit!" and Russian official Vladimir Jerkovski stated "we all jacked off after we threw the bombs." only "we all jacked off after we threw the bombs" could be quoted on ruwiki. But I shouldn't have to guess, it's ambiguous. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Right, after reading (the machine-translated text of) the link you provided, I see that it's contrasting the act of quoting Russian officials with the act of describing events in general. The mismatches between "describe" and "quote" and between the tenses made it particularly prone to misinterpretation. I would change it to it was forbidden to describe events related to Ukraine, except to quote statements by Russian officials, using these sources (but I won't myself given it's published anonymously). Nardog (talk) 07:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Publication date

Hi. It would be very convenient to have the date of original publication listed at the top of each content page. Currently there are only the title and headings and it takes quite some work to figure it out. I'm accessing Wikipedia via the mobile app. TadejM ^{my talk} 21:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing the publication date at the top of each article page in both mobile and desktop view. For example, at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-04-24/News and notes, I see "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-04-24/News and notes" at the top of the page. Can you link to a page where the date is not shown? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I think they might mean the main page Wikipedia Signpost, where the header is marked in nomobile because the text is quite squished on mobile. We can try to take a look. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/17-horrifying-wikipedia-stories-just-003102856.html We’ve been mentioned here, although I do not know for sure if it’s worth noting in the post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B11E:5520:9C5D:7352:BE7F:45E2 (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

In ITM for next issue. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 03:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Broken mass message

The mass message that was sent broken. Everything but the video on how Qatar was blocked are broken links. On the Signpost homepage itself there is a similar effect. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the script decided to go apeshit -- it's being fixed now (some talk pages may need to be purged to make the correct version show up). Oopsie woopsie! jp×g 21:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was a misfire. Can we correct, please? — Maile (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Try it now. jp×g 21:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Missing articles

This version (which you see after clicking on "Back to contents") has 4 fewer articles than the homepage. Same issue with the single-page edition. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Paging @JPxG. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 04:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The last four articles are missing. The Qatar article is displayed, and then the following items are missing: Gallery: Diving under the sea for World Oceans Day; From the archives: The Onion and Wikipedia; Essay: How not to write a Wikipedia article; and Humour: A new crossword. I poked around to see if I could find some loop or counter that was hitting a limit, but I did not find anything useful. Here's what the end of the above page looks like in ExpandTemplates:

<div style="float:left; clear:left; width:49%; margin-bottom:15px; text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold; font-size:70%; color:#777;">News from the WMF</span><br />[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/News from the WMF|The EU Digital Services Act: What’s the Deal with the Deal?]]</div><span style="display:none;">[[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/News from the WMF]]</span>
<div style="float:right; clear:right; position:relative; right:-3%; width:49%; margin-bottom:15px; text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:bold; font-size:70%; color:#777;">Video</span><br />[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Video|How the entire country of Qatar was blocked from editing]]</div><span style="display:none;">[[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Video]]</span>
<span style="display:none;">[[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Gallery]]</span>
<span style="display:none;">[[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/From the archives]]</span>
<span style="display:none;">[[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Essay]]</span>
<span style="display:none;">[[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/Humour]]</span>
<div style="clear:both;"></div>

Why are the last four set to display:none? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Severe "what da" moment. I can't see posts past those on either of those pages. jp×g 04:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I found the problem, but I can't fix it. I made this change, which made the last four articles appear on the list on the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2022-05-29 page, but then the single-page issue, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-05-29, was in Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded, which means it was just too big to render. There's not a good technical way around that problem. If I had to guess, I'd guess that your best bet may be republishing this issue as two smaller issues. Nasty. Make sure to make some notes in the editors' workflow about these limitations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Horrendous, but I hope there's some sort of workaround? We could code the single-page edition logic to just have a link to some articles when it's about to reach the limit. It wouldn't be a single page edition, then... 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• It seems to me like, okay -- this arrangement is extremely complicated. So, basically, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2022-05-29 contains naught but {{Signpost archive|2022-04-24|2022-05-29}} . When we look at {{Signpost archive}} with those parameters, we see that it does basically naught but transclude Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29 as {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/{{{2}}}|2}}. This, itself, contains naught but a bunch of lines like this: {{Signpost/item|{{{1}}}|0|2022-05-29|From the team|A changing of the guard|0.2 MB}}. Of course, for this, {{{1}}} is 2. When we finally drill down to Signpost/item, we get... the thing Jonesy95 mentioned above. It seems that, indeed, it's just not equipped for as many sections as we have. jp×g 23:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• A more detailed spelunking..... Signpost/item has an extremely weird bunch of switch statements in it. Okay, so, uh, if {{{1}}} is 2, it passes the first switch, since it's not 1, and then the enormous block of switch statements afterwards...... is actually nested within that switch? Well, I cannot edit TE-protected pages, so I guess there is no point to even trying to figure it out here. jp×g 23:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  TE requests! Or ask for it. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If you can make it work in a sandbox version of that template, I'm happy to implement it. As it stands now, you may want to split the 29 May issue into two issues. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that post-expand size includes stuff like template code that isn't displayed on the rendered page. If so, it seems like it'd be possible to just subst some templates into the single-page edition and manually remove enough dreck to get it to render. (i.e. if there's a huge {{#ifexist}} around something that doesn't exist, we can just remove the whole thing and decrease page size by that much). Other stuff, like template calls that use parser functions, could also be replaced with whatever they render as. It would be stupid, but it would work, and then in the future we could just set a hard limit of 15 articles per edition. jp×g 01:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It is also probably worth noting that we had this same problem last month, where the single-page issue exceeded the transclusion limit by a lot. It turned out that one of the essays was transcluding an impractically large navbox, and changing that to a wikilink fixed it (ironically, it was an essay on the obstacles posed by impractically large navboxes). So if the issue is transclusion limits, we may be able to do something like that. jp×g 01:02, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, well, I think I managed to make it work. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-05-29 was literally just transcluding Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single with a date parameter... and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single itself was rendering fine, so I just manually copy-pasted the code into the May 29 single-page page, and it seems to work fine. Of course, this may cause some bizarre ass-backwards problem in the future, but for now it renders okay. jp×g 01:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ping @Headbomb:, @Jonesey95: to give this a second look. It doesn't seem like any templates are failing to transclude on either page now, so this seems like it is perfectly fine. jp×g 01:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
    • It looks like whatever workaround you implemented this time worked enough to get through this event. I suspect that the root problem is all of those if/switch statements, which can be expensive. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

      I think we can undergo a thorough review of them and remove any unnecessary ones. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 05:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Note that the article limit was previously discussed here: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 1#Technical issues with the script, and suggestions for the future path of the publication jp×g 21:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Historical analysis (some more)

Count of articles per year, with year, number of articles, total sum of all articles' size, and average size of each article.

Year	#	Total	Average
2005	484	1781341	3680.45
2006	543	2463286	4536.43
2007	542	2234258	4122.24
2008	502	2027907	4039.65
2009	522	2693454	5159.87
2010	431	3044187	7063.07
2011	428	3841220	8974.81
2012	411	3928233	9557.74
2013	386	3566044	9238.4
2014	340	3324738	9778.64
2015	436	4696619	10772.06
2016	275	2671389	9714.14
2017	133	1785672	13426.10
2018	191	2176996	11397.88
2019	168	2001709	11914.93
2020	176	2530835	14379.74
2021	130	1714925	13191.73
2022	103	1173487	11393.07

jp×g 23:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Page layout, templates, confusion, happiness, life, the Universe, and everything

I am going through some of the templates for the Signpost and trying to figure out what's up -- for example, yesterday I did some revisions on Signpost/item (added comments, removed some dead code that didn't do anything, added span classes for the titles and blurbs). However, since I am still figuring it out, I reckon I ought to post here and see what the deal is on everything before making a lot of changes.

Here's one, to start -- why do the monthly archive pages not show the sub-headlines? The current month's page shows the department, headline, sub-heading and page size. The previous month's page only shows department and headline. Is there a reason for these to be formatted and displayed differently? And if so, is this an editorial reason or a technical reason? @HaeB: @Headbomb: @Smallbones: jp×g 21:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Another thing that occurs to me: this jumps out as really obvious when you look at a normal newspaper's website versus the Signpost. There are no bylines on the issue page, even though we have bylines on the article pages. How come? jp×g 21:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

A third thing: would it be possible to include lead images on the main issue page? That's the main thing that people see when they look up the Signpost. The front page of the publication ought to look good, so I think some images (not gigantic ones, of course) would improve its ability to get people to read the articles. jp×g 21:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Probably because it just was never done. It's also a TOC, and whether or not to include authors/bylines on a TOC is usually a matter of taste. Many publications do, many publications don't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• My attitude toward the added layer of programming The Signpost has (over plain old Wikipedia) was simply "how do I make this work?" or "programming for use". I had to insist that people stop reprogramming, without first having a discussion on why a certain feature or template, or sub-program was needed, while I learned what the various doo-dads were for. After that, not many proposals came in. But I do support JPxG cleaning out the Augean stables and trying to make the tech here useful, consistent and easy to learn. But please always remember that the tech is here to serve the journalism - not the other way around. Also remember KISS, and document it so that in 5 years when a low-tech journalist comes in as an emergency replacement E-I-C there will be a chance to have them understand what's required and what's bs. I'll divide the current Signpost tech into 4 categories
  • things that are useful and make sense
  • things that are useful but don't make sense (you just need to memorize how to use them)
  • things that are easy to ignore, and
  • curlicues trying to be barbecues.

I'm sure the programmers weren't trying to make it so difficult, but perhaps trying to make a quick fix, or taking on a job that turned out to be too big, or coming up with an innovative solution to 70% of the problem. Or maybe it's just too old and complicated to fix properly. Some quick advice

• • The largest SP issue in the last 3 years was about 18 articles. The tech caused some problems, but please remember that getting 18 quality articles is also a problem. It's not a problem to just say "We've got the resources to put out 12-17 good articles each month - let's stick to that."
  • I see nothing wrong with including bylines and/or photos in the main page

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, "The largest SP issue in the last 3 years was about 18 articles." - July's SP certainly broke new ground there. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8% of all FPs} 03:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Most edited articles

We had been trialling a list of the most editied pages in the traffic report. However, this was last done in the June edition. Is this because it was ruled out as a feature, or simply because no-one had done it. Because I don't mind composing the list, although I won't always have time to add all the comments. SSSB (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB: Probably best to ask on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. I suspect it's more to do with no-one having done it, and the July issue having a lot of content rushed at the last minute. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 20:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@SSSB and @Adam Cuerden, it's because of a lack of time and contributions to The Signpost. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Checkerboards?

Many of the illustrations on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost have a checkerboard background, indicating transparency, rather than the normal, better result of a transparent background. Sumpin' needs fixing. - R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Request To Add Entry For Upcoming Coolest Tool Award

Hello Team! I'd like to put in a request to announce the fourth edition of the Wikimedia Coolest Tool Award nominations. Who do I reach out to have this done? The text we want to use is: The fourth edition of the m:Coolest Tool Award is looking for nominations (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Coolest_Tool_Award/2022). Please submit your favorite tools by October 12, 2022. The awarded projects will be announced and showcased in a virtual ceremony in December. SSapaty (WMF) (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment

As a former Signpost writer (for half a decade or so) I'm really pleased to see what a good state it's in. Well done, editors. Tony (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @Tony1! It's been a bit of rough sailing for the publication this year. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Violation of attribution aspect of image licenses

Hello, it would appear that using |link= on some of the images currently used on the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost (Special:Permalink/1110950624) violates their license. For example, File:Wikipe-tan donations (colored).png is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, which requires attribution. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I assume we'll need to have an admin do some cv-revdel. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it's a copyright violation since the image is attributed at the file page. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@FormalDude: the terms of the license under which some of the images were published were violated, as far as conventions used on Wikipedia are concerned. It is not possible to go from this version of the Signpost front page to page File:Wikipe-tan donations (colored).png by clicking on the image, because wikitext |link=Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-08-31/News and notes was used – the link of the image was directed towards that issue's "News and notes". The attribution is on the file page, that's OK. But a reader has to be able to easily navigate to the file page.

As an example, Template:Resolved mark large uses an image Symbol confirmed.svg released to Public Domain, so it doesn't need to link to it—the image isn't a link on Template:Resolved mark large because of wikitext |link=. On the other hand, Template:Great uses image Thumbs-up-icon.svg licensed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, so the image on the page Template:Great is a link to the page File:Thumbs-up-icon.svg which has the attribution and licensing information. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Indeed, attribution for thumbnail images is a rather difficult issue. A couple months ago I experimented with a layout style that would allow attribution overlays -- currently I am working on some template fixes that will allow these to be done in a non-painstaking way for each issue. As for this specific issue, I don't know if we are in moral trouble here: Kasuga has generally leaned toward licensing his Wikipe-tan drawings permissively. As far as I can tell, what he actually said was: Every Wikipe-tan's illustrations by me can be used under the GFDL and CC. --Kasuga~enwiki 08:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC) so it's kind of ambiguous what this means. As for it being a derivative work (the coloring of an originally black-and-white image), I did that myself so I don't particularly give a damn about it and release that component into the public domain. jp×g 00:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

JPxG, I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear. File:Wikipe-tan donations (colored).png is just a single example out of all pictures in Special:Permalink/1110950624. Licenses of the following files were violated:

1. File:Wikipe-tan donations (colored).png
2. File:Down the Rabbit Hole (311526846) (cropped).jpg
3. File:Annie Rauwerda thumbs up (cropped).png
4. File:Vuilnis bij Essent Milieu (cropped).jpg
5. File:Fringe 2010 2150 (4876515074) (cropped).jpg
6. File:Oak blank (cropped).jpg
7. File:Ian Ramjohn, July 2021 (cropped).jpg
8. File:Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle (cropped).jpg
9. File:Monobook external link icon.svg

All being licensed under some version of CC-BY. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Minor text glitch

Currently, Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost has "I can has Kremlin sockfarms?" (for artickle From Russia with WikiLove). A ce would be nice towards the author. DePiep (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

It appears to be a deliberate reference to I Can Has Cheezburger? – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course :-) DePiep (talk) 18:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

2022-11-28 issue needs a bit more processing

Resolved

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-11-28 is currently showing the top banner and a stray noinclude tag above the "Lisa Seitz..." headline, and also above "The relevance of legal certainty". – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, on that page, in the "Joker's trick" section, the link to the Toaster hoax does not work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That is an odd glitch that only seems to occur in the single-page edition. We've had problems before with issues that got too long for all the templates/scripts to handle them, I wonder if this is happening again (it's a long issue and this is the last item). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 and Bri: My fault. I didn't know what the date was going to be on the final issue, so I used relative linking using {{#titleparts}}. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that fix. I'm still seeing two headlines and noinclude tags, as described above. Never mind, I think I fixed them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Kept thinking "Well, this is better than it being completely broken, but I must remember to fix this properly after publication." I did not remember to fix it after publication. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.2% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 22:10, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Assistance with bringing back the newsletter for WP:VG

I'm unsure where would be the appropriate place to ask this (there doesn't appear to be a centralized place for the people who create the Signpost), however I would like some assistance with bringing back the newsletter for WikiProject Videogames. I'm a bit unsure as to where I should start with it, however the drafting process appears to be similar to the one used for the signpost so I'd figure I'd ask for assistance from those who regularly help create the signpost. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're looking for a model, you could take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Newsletters. We send out a newsletter every couple of months, typically, to a list of people who have signed up for it. If you take a look at the history and "What links here" for a given newsletter, you can see the process behind the creation of each one. One thing that is helpful is to have a somewhat regular boilerplate with updates on statistics about your project, so that you do not have to do a lot of creative work to come up with content for each issue. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Reply from AffCom

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom:

Hi, I received the following email from AffCom a few days ago about our user group application. I am posting it here for transparency: Google Doc. I am currently mourning the loss of a family member, but I will try to draft a response to it this week. In sum, I believe we do indeed meet the criteria but there were some areas we need to clarify. Your feedback is welcome. Best, 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

End of moved part

Signpost templates

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom:

All Signpost file templates should now accept either Foo.jpg OR File:Foo.jpg. If you find any that don't, let me know. It's a trivial quality-of-life improvement. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600^th FP!} 05:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

This is very cool and very good. jp×g 10:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

End of moved part

Does not deliver - unsubscribed

I had to unsubscribe [23], as the delivery unexplicably failed since I used a subpage like User:DePiep/news (since ca August 2022). DePiep (talk) 10:18, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

undo: appears delivery is a bot message and so unnoticed in my watchlist. -DePiep (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Mobile display

May I suggest inserting a paragraph break between the lead image and the first sentence in a section? otherwise, the first few words are squeezed vertically, as in the screenshot below: https://ibb.co/Wpgwbvz thanks, fgnievinski (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

This problem may be occurring because an editor chose to use |size=300px instead of following the age-old guidance at MOS:IMGSIZE. Also, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Filler image-v2 has fixed pixel sizes, which may be related. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@Fgnievinski Thanks, and sorry. I have taken the 300px out and inserted a paragraph break but, checking on a mobile at my end, it doesn't seem to have fixed the issue (probably because the template has 300px specified, as Jonesey95 says). @Bri, HaeB, and JPxG:, any ideas on how best to fix this? Andreas JN466 19:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Topic subscriptions

I've made a couple of changes to some templates to allow users of Discussion Tools to subscribe to notifications about new comments on Signpost articles, mostly by adding some headings: [24] [25] [26]. Anyone not using it shouldn't notice any changes. I hope this is okay! Matma Rex talk 22:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

linterrors in signpostdelivery

Sent via script (w:en:User:Evad37/SPS) -- Nachricht versandt von Benutzer:JPxG@metawiki durch Verwendung der Liste unter https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Signpost&oldid=23972104

This messages do produce linterrors not the first time. Please do not deliver messages with such errors to other projects, like de:wikipedia. I do not watn to fix 38 pages with errors every month, pleas stop this and check the syntaxvalidity before delivering. I have fixed some hundreds of such errors. Lómelinde (talk) 05:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lómelinde: If you could suggest a change to be made here, it would be helpful. Vielen dank ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I can show it to you, look into my edits in the morning here from 06:12, 31. Okt. 2022 to 06:33, 31. Okt. 2022 erase the div. There is one </div> too much in the post. It is not the first time. Look at these edits so please check if there are pairs of opening and closing tags. --Lómelinde (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see the duplicated XML close div in User:Bri/Signpost publication (manual step 11). JPxG how are we doing the mass message now? Are you cutting and pasting something similar? Maybe it's in the output from the publishing script? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Evad37: Do we have a duplicate close div around line 877 in User:Evad37/SPS.js? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bri: Evad is inactive so I have a forked version of SPS.js in my userspace. I can take a look at it later -- I have been meaning to review and document it anyway. jp×g 18:29, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Grmpf: de:Spezial:LintErrors/stripped-tag please fix this errors --Lómelinde (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

What about fixing →this pages? I do not want to do this all month long. --Lómelinde (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I am looking at this now, and have picked a random page from the list of lint errors (this one): trying to bearbeiten the quelltext (?) and wondering if there are any clues in the Versionsgeschichte. Looks like there is a Versionsunterschied showing the problem -- there is indeed a duplicated div, but I don't know exactly where this is coming from. @Lómelinde: Is this happening exclusively on de.wikipedia, or is it on every wiki with global Signpost delivery? jp×g 02:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, your ping does not reach me. I do not check other wikiprojects, I am only working on de:wiki I do fix it now again, but it would be better not to deliver such errors. We try to fix all errors and the result looks well dewiki vs enwiki, but every new error hinders these efforts. That is frustrating. --Lómelinde (talk) 05:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

There are two users who are not activ since years (2014 and 2017), may your erase them from deliverylist please. --Lómelinde (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I do think the problem is as follows delivery on en:wiki looks like this I have put in some linebrakes for highlighting it the last closing div is part of <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">:

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr">
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-11-28}} </div><!--Volume 18, Issue 11--> 
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">* '''[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-11-28|Single-page]] * [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe|Unsubscribe]] * [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 15:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC) <!-- Sent via script ([[User:Evad37/SPS]]) --></div>
</div>

delivery on de:wiki, there is no separate opening <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"> but at the end the closing part of it :

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">[[File:WikipediaSignpostIcon.svg|40px|right]] ''News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's newspaper''</div>
<div style="-moz-column-count:2; -webkit-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
* News and notes: [[w:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-11-28/News and notes|English Wikipedia editors: "We don't need no stinking banners"]]
...
* CommonsComix: [[w:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-11-28/CommonsComix|Joker's trick]]

</div>
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'''[[w:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost|Read this Signpost in full]]''' · [[w:en:Wikipedia:Signpost/Single|Single-page]] · [[m:Global message delivery/Targets/Signpost|Unsubscribe]] · [[m:Global message delivery|Global message delivery]] 16:44, 28. Nov. 2022 (CET)
<!-- Sent via script ([[w:en:User:Evad37/SPS]]) --></div>
</div>

I do not now what you are delivering to other projects. --Lómelinde (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

• I made an edit to the script that removed the duplicate div tag, which I think will stop this from occurring. I see no reason why it wouldn't -- but we will have to wait until this month comes out to know for sure. I will be keeping an eye on it. Thank you for letting us know! jp×g 10:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I do think it is fixed now. Thank you and happy new year 2023. --Lómelinde (talk) 07:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia admins jailed in Saudi Arabia

[27] Noting this. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:B9C2 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip. I've started an item at the next issue's In the media for followup. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is another article: [28]. I realize now, this is the wrong place to post the links, but we're already here, so ok. 2601:648:8200:990:0:0:0:B9C2 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Readability on mobile

Hi. Has anyone checked the view of Signpost on mobile (via the Wikipedia app)? For example, I only see the comments section on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-01-01/In the media, while the original Signpost text is not visible. ---TadejM ^{my talk} 06:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Module improvements

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom:

Per Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Technical, the last few days I have been working on a set of scripts that automate (and augment) the indices at Module:Signpost. This involved adding a few hundred articles to indices from past years, eliminating a few hundred unnecessary redirects from our article space, and tonight, the task of integrating about 150 separate archive categories into module-based tags (including some 4,201 edits to clear the cats off Signpost articles). Christ almighty. There is still a lot more stuff that needs to be done, but here is what we have so far:

• Since all articles are tagged by department and subject (not quite all of them, but a few thousand more than previously) this means that it will be possible to use the module for automatic series sidebars, as was intended with the (evidently long since abandoned) 2015 attempt to get {{Signpost series}} into common use

This means that we will not have to find someone to dick around with stuff like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/RfA reform every time we publish another article in the series, as happened last January: we can just use something to automatically show the most recent 6 or 7, and not have it look like shit because nothing is tagged. This can, and probably should, be done for most of our articles.

• Comment sections (which I've been putting up for the last few issues) will no longer depend on someone deciding to manually tag each article to work properly; it's a task that User:WegweiserBot can do immediately after publication. I think that with this change, it'll be acceptable to make them more public-facing (which will make it easier for readers to participate).
• Pageview counts can be obtained automatically, for as many articles as we want (going back to 2015).

We can also get straightforward numbers for these, they no longer need to consist of multiple screenfuls of shitty glitched-out graphs from {{Graph:PageViews}}.

• This isn't anywhere near ready for prime time, but it might be possible to use the module to generate issue pages, so that, for example, we can have header images without spending four solid hours copy-pasting image links into Wikipedia:Signpost.
• Overall, I want to continue to do streamlining things like this: having 150 obsolete categories with 4,000 pages in them that duplicate other functionality and haven't been updated in 8 years is not just unsightly, it's an impassable swamp for anyone who wants to read or contribute... the less of a pain in the ass it is to interact with the Signpost, the more it will flourish... I think...

Anyway, while doing this I've been ignoring the submissions and suggestions pages, so I'm going to go look at those now.

jp×g 08:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

End of moved part

Do enwiki rules apply to articles?

Because according to that, yes. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Historical analysis, again

Per Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archive_14#Historical_analysis_(some_more), with a somewhat updated Quarry SQL.

Year	Articles	Total size	Avg size
2005	415	1726350	4159.8
2006	433	2348397	5423.5
2007	435	2071407	4761.8
2008	400	1886545	4716.3
2009	408	2601668	6376.6
2010	359	2973372	8282.3
2011	360	3763624	10454.5
2012	348	3855146	11078.0
2013	321	3501398	10907.7
2014	281	3267995	11629.8
2015	374	4632665	12386.8
2016	228	2636519	11563.6
2017	117	1770827	15135.2
2018	173	2152207	12440.5
2019	154	1976029	12831.3
2020	164	2508435	15295.3
2021	119	1698965	14277.0
2022	193	2540542	13163.4
2023	12	161824	13485.3

jp×g 06:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

And a table of the top 25 most viewed articles (7 days after publication):

Date	Column	Title	7-day
2022-10-31	News and notes	Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after "somewhat-viral" tweet	67400
2021-10-31	Opinion	A photo on Wikipedia can ruin your life	46440
2017-06-09	Op-ed	Wikipedia's lead sentence problem	12928
2020-01-27	In focus	Cryptos and bitcoins and blockchains, oh no!	11285
2017-07-15	Recent research	The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers	10612
2020-11-29	Opinion	How billionaires rewrite Wikipedia	10521
2023-01-01	News and notes	Wikimedia Foundation ousts, bans quarter of Arabic Wikipedia admins	9679
2016-02-17	Op-ed	Shit I cannot believe we had to fucking write this month	9258
2023-01-01	Technology report	Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Wikipedia project "at substantial risk of failure"	8400
2019-02-28	Humour	Streisand effect	8086
2022-08-01	Op-Ed	The "recession" affair	7773
2022-09-30	Serendipity	Removing watermarks, copyright signs and cigarettes from photos	7445
2016-12-22	Special report	German Wikipedia ArbCom implodes amid revelation of member's far-right political role	6970
2015-06-17	In focus	Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe	6290
2016-02-24	Special report	[UPDATED] WMF in limbo as decision on Tretikov nears	5140
2015-12-30	News and notes	WMF Board dismisses community-elected trustee	5098
2016-01-06	News and notes	The WMF's age of discontent	4781
2016-02-10	Special report	New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine	4718
2019-06-30	Discussion report	A constitutional crisis hits English Wikipedia	4546
2022-05-29	Serendipity	Those thieving image farms	4418
2022-06-26	Special report	"Wikipedia's independence" or "Wikimedia's pile of dosh"?	4339
2016-02-17	Special report	Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov	3824
2015-10-21	Editorial	Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching	3722
2020-01-27	From the editor	Reaching six million articles is great, but we need a moratorium	3704
2015-12-02	Op-ed	Whither Wikidata?	3647

Chats (get in here) (yes, this means you)

Looking through some old archives in the course of my spelunking to clean up our namespace and fill out WP:POST/T, I have been finding all sorts of interesting things: abandoned templates, abandoned drafts, abandoned projects, and abandoned layouts. I even found Pete Forsyth's 2016 attempt to gather together a technical manual to running the Signpost where he got about as far as I did and then stopped. But one of the most interesting things I found is what looks like the fossil remains of ancient Signposters' communication protocols: they used Slack all the darn time.

It has definitely occurred to me a few times that having some method of instant communication would be vastly beneficial for writing and editing -- for example, the hours before publication tend to be a gigantic mess because of the asynchronous nature of Wikipedia talk page. And even prior to the publication rush itself, it's often difficult to have quick communication (to say nothing of the dynamic between the various Signpost talk pages, email addresses, user talk pages and...)

Anyway, Slack is kind of a pain in the ass -- it was really hot stuff half a decade ago, but nowadays, I don't know many people who use it except begrudgingly and for work. However, there are somewhat superior options nowadays: Discord seems to be the prevailing one, and especially the prevailing one here (we already have a gigantic one for Wikimedia projects, and there are others for UV, SWViewer, WLDC, WMUSC, WMNYC, WMSA, WPTC, and NPP).

In fact, EpicPupper and I had planned to set up a Discord guild for the Signpost a few months ago, but never really got around to it. It is one of those things which I have left lying around for a little too long, but I am trying to work through the backlog right now, so I think it is probably time that I put up the invite and start getting people on. The invite link is zW9JVvVwFR or at the button below (I've set it up not to expire, but if a bunch of assholes show up and start posting hello.jpg, we can turn it off).

For anyone over the age of 25: there is a good deal of information at WP:DISCORD on how to install the goofy zoomer app (it is like IRC, except much better in a user interface sense, and much shittier in an ideological sense). I'm aware that this is some goofy zoomer app, but it is better than nothing, and besides, we should get used to zoomer stuff if we are going to publish every Fortnite ;^)

[zW9JVvVwFR Invite link]

jp×g 09:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

The thing about archaeology is that the people who made the fossils are usually long-dead. ;-) Instant messaging for the Signpost goes back a lot farther than that! From 2012–2014ish, coordinating each week's news and notes section involved Skype for instant messaging + Google Docs for writing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I did mention our old Skype group to JPxG on Discord. ;) Andreas JN466 20:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Mobile View: Images in Articles

In mobile view, images in articles squeeze a column of text to the left instead of flowing text below the image. Very hard to read that first sentence. Not sure of the solution. I lack the vocabulary to explain this, something involving maybe "float" or "text-align"? — LumonRedacts 01:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Completely agreed. Whatever solution is implemented should prioritize Vector 2022 skin but also other skins. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 08:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

WLN's

FYI: MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-messages#February_Signpost_notice was declined after no response. Not sure if that was a special edition or if SP is going to have a new publication schedule? While we have a "standing" approval for WLN's for SP - it is under the ~monthly schedule right now. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Xaosflux The Signpost is currently back on a (roughly) fortnightly schedule. Andreas JN466 18:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jayen466, @JPxG: Hmm, that's a lot of watchlist notices, especially since they are usually up for a week, having one up for almost 50% of the time seems a bit excessive to me. (No comment at all on how often SP want's to publish). Are the WLN's still wanted? — xaosflux ^Talk 19:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Up to JPxG of course, but I agree that having the Signpost WLN up 50% of the time seems like overkill. Maybe shortening it to three days is the way to go. Andreas JN466 19:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Sorry, I got the ping, but my electricity/internet have been a little intermittent lately 😰 I agree that having a watchlist notice up 50% of the time defeats the purpose... it both spams up watchlists and likely makes it less effective at getting people to click on it. If the previous interval was a week-long notice for each month, perhaps we can just split the difference on that? So that if there's 2 issues a month, each would have WLN 3.5 days (or three, or one is four and one is three, or whatever, who cares). jp×g 22:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We could, but that has the reverse problem, people may miss the notice completely (not every editor is on every day). I'm not sure what the best answer for the community is on this - was hoping to avoid getting a large discussion open - it could be that everyone is fine with it. The more frequent the call to action for the same thing is put out (In this case "read the signpost") the more people will start ignoring it in general. Do you have any idea how many people are getting to SP via WLN today? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I would think if people aren't on Wikipedia for three or four days then they can probably also miss that one Signpost issue.

It's a bit like buses ... if there are more buses per hour, then it's not such a big deal if you miss one. Andreas JN466 15:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe have one notice up for a week at the start of the month, with the publication date for the mid-month issue also shown? isaacl (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps alternating weeks to have it would work? E.g. odd-numbered months would have it for the start of the month (for one week), with a note of the mid-month issue publication date, and vice-versa. EpicPupper (talk) 05:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Still not sure what the "best" answer on this is :/ Just pushed the recent issue to WLN. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

email announcements of new issues

how is the text of the email announcement generated?

seems odd that nearly 8 years after we ditched HTTP (unencrypted connections) for WMF wikis there's URLs being shared with http protocol. and also odd that the link text and link target have different protocols.

--Jeremyb (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The manual publication steps are at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#Manual off-wiki tasks. The error seems to be embedded in some rather complex templates, specifically one that looks like

{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|7}}

I suppose the automatic publishing script inherits the same problem. Maybe someone with more esoteric template knowledge can go farther than this. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Looked a little harder, the problem is probably at Signpost/item where there is a hardcoded http: at the switch target for format 7 (the same magic 7 format code used in the snippet above, unsurprisingly). Is anyone else available to confirm before I go changing things? ☆ Bri (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe that Jonesey has fixed this. I do not see any issue so far, which I think means this is resolved. jp×g 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Double message delivery

I received the notification for the latest signpost twice. Is there a reason for this? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

We should track it down, but this doesn't seem to be a pervasive problem. I didn't see a single other double-post in a dozen user talk pages that I spot checked. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I take what I said back, there are more than a few multiple transmissions, even one sent thrice to User talk:Newyorkadam. Others receiving two copies include User talk:Zarasophos, User talk:23emr, User talk:Slywriter. No idea why. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It may have consistently happened for everyone registered as User:Account as opposed to User talk:Account at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I asked at Village Pump: Technical and was told this is a Massmessage bug, T93049. Apparently it's happened randomly since 2015. Can I recommend trying this: unsubscribe and re-subscribe as User talk:Aaron Liu ... it might mitigate. Or it might not. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed a possible cause here. At User talk:AshokChakra two Signposts were delivered (one and two). Both of them were sent from the global message delivery list. The first one has this editnote at the bottom: Message sent by User:JPxG@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Signpost&oldid=24726786. The second one has this editnote at the top: Message sent by User:JPxG@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Signpost&oldid=24726786. Not sure what could cause this. It may be restricted to global massmessage subscribers.

More at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Technical#Technical_issues. jp×g 20:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Signpost author trying to unpublish their own article

In response to an edit war over accessibility and my resulting messages, FormalDude has decided to try to move his own article to userspace. I have no special authority with the Signpost but this isn't exactly the done thing, is it? Graham87 07:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If the Signpost is uncomfortable redirecting its readers to a userspace article, I am fine with the redirect being deleted. For multiple reasons though, I do not wish to have this piece hosted on the Signpost. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This is not worth wasting the time of the few people who actually make the Signpost run, so I've moved it back. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If the formatting is causing issues with screenreaders, there needs to be an exceptional reason to keep it that way. Most of the accessibility issues on ENWP are made in ignorance due to the preference of the editor not taking into account how accessbility tools parse their content and are happily corrected when it is pointed out. On the few occasions when the editor-author chooses not to make the changes to make it more accessible, it is perfectly fine to make those changes yourself, unless (as previously said) there is an exceptional reason not to. Signpost does not get any ownership free pass here. The only reason this page is on my watchlist is because of a previous accessibility issue around ownership. "Its my ball and I am taking it home" didnt get a lot of traction there either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Unfinished?

Was the latest issue of the signpost published too early? Cause it seems very unfinished. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok so its mostly finished now... but is this issue meant to be humorous? Cause you missed April Fool's day by 2 days. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:24, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

They even tried to lampshade that.

Since this was published on April 3, the idea of doing an April Fools' Day bit makes no sense. Frankly, the whole idea was kind of stupid, especially when we have gotten hauled to AN/I over Fools' bits before

Aaron Liu (talk) 18:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Honeslty I couldn't tell if that was a joke or not because that entire thing is a joke. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)