Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Features and layout

"News update" approach

Hi, thank you for initiating this valuable project.

Regarding the formt, I think it might be easier to maintain the page if you

• date all the headlines,
• list them chronologically, and
• give each item some key words or categories - "technical," "dispute resolution," "policies and guidelines," etc.

That would way, you do not have to think hard about which story to keep/remove, etc. ja:Wikipedia:大使館(now retired) and ja:Wikipedia:ウィキメディアニュース are basically organized in that way (though not using any subpage because reports are shorter).

Tomos 08:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In terms of the date, it's on the page itself below the logo, in the right-hand margin. The same date applies to all headlines, and the stories themselves are dated in the bylines, so chronology is less of an issue. Granted, the news items themselves happen at different times, but some happen over the course of days, so I'm not going to try and organize by which came first. Stories will be rotated by moving all of the current stories to an archive when a new issue is published. --Michael Snow 17:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

archive of older issues

It would be nice to have a direct link to older issues on the article-page. It is possible to use the history of course, but that's not very comfortable. --Adornix 12:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've now organized the last issue into an archive at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives and linked it on the page. Sorry about the delay, my immediate priority was getting the new issue up, and the technical problems haven't been making this project terribly easy. --Michael Snow 20:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP:WSP ?

I think the Signpost is eminently important. Can it get a Shortcut? I think WP:WSP or WP:WPSP or even WP:WISP (I prefer the first one) would be appropriate, since WP:SP is already taken. Is there a special rule/procedere for shortcuts or can I just make one? Anyone opposing? --^grm_wnr 21:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about WP:SIGN? nine thirty-five 22:50, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If somebody wants to create a shortcut, that's fine. Either WP:WSP or WP:SIGN would be my choices, or both could be created. However, I would ask that no shortcut template be added to this page, as it would interfere with the visual presentation of the material. --Michael Snow 00:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I created WP:SIGN. Also, I previewed the shortcut template on the main SP page (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost), and if you place it before the "Signpost" picture, it appears exactly to the right of it and looks good. Since you have objections, I won't add it, but you should have a look at it yourself. --^grm_wnr 10:00, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The template itself looks okay, but the image used for the title is no longer properly centered. There's also the issue of allowing too much stuff to clutter up the page and undo the beneficial effect of whitespace. It doesn't matter for most of the Wikipedia pages that use shortcuts because they're not as focused on visual layout.

I'm not objecting because it's an awful idea, but on balance I don't think it brings enough benefit to compensate for the negatives. And I'd rather not start down a road that eventually leads to accumulating lots of junk on the page. --Michael Snow 20:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about adding {{shortcut|[[WP:SIGN]]}} at the foot of the page, so the box is added opposite the "/Archive" link - if people don't know it exists, they won't use it. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Excellent solution, thank you. Balancing the archive link is a much more attractive layout, causes no serious problems, and adding to the bottom of the page is less of a concern than interfering with the whitespace at the top. --Michael Snow 17:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stable?

I can create an rss feed for the signpost but i'd prefer to do it only when a stable layout has been achieved. I would be using this data...if the links were the only thing that changed it it would be quite easy --Alterego 22:57, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Two thoughts

• Any chance of a next/previous page link on each subpage? That would make it easier to browse.
• Is there a good place where people who may not have time to write for the Signpost themselves can drop links about things that others may wish to write about? For example: [1].

— Matt Crypto 16:40, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I was thinking about the second point earlier today and while Michael Snow's talk page is a good place to go with suggestions, when he's on holiday it would make sense to have a more centralised place for suggestions to be made. I thought it might be worth having a page for that sort of thing at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Suggestions. Worldtraveller 16:59, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I've snaffled that one.

On the first point, perhaps each article should have a template sidebar with that week's stories in it? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would work, too. — Matt Crypto 17:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Next/previous is a little awkward because I don't consider the stories to have any specific sequence, but putting all the stories into a template might be workable. A place for suggestions is good, and while I'm gone I think people working on The Signpost may find it useful to have a "Newsroom" page to coordinate things generally. For the time being, combining these two elements feels like it would keep things alive better. I'm planning to set up the newsroom with some more detailed information in the next day or so. --Michael Snow 17:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silly me, suggestions can be a separate subpage with the contents included in the newsroom page via template markup. Done that way now. --Michael Snow 16:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about a thin line at the top of each article? Example:

+sj + 01:48, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

At the top? Or at the bottom, so when you're done reading one article you can move on to the next one? But definitely a good setup, worth rolling out for the next issue. --Michael Snow 05:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the bottom would be better. Thryduulf 16:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Design Q

Would it be possible to alternate very light gray with white for the table rows, and to unify the header with a similar footer? +sj + 02:09, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Volume 1, Issue 14

11 April 2005

---

From the editor: Help needed during upcoming vacation

Yahoo! announces support for the Wikimedia Foundation	Privacy policy officially adopted
New article races to featured status but falls short of record	Microsoft Encarta announces new editing facilities
Media covers German Wikipedia DVD, plans for English	Wikimedia Foundation part of "dot-org boom" festival
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

---

---

I like the footer, but the gray background looks terrible in the classic skin. —Korath (Talk) 10:10, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think the suggested layout looks great - I put a link to the newsroom in the footer, I think it would be useful to encourage contributions and suggestions. Worldtraveller 10:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The layout looks good, but I don't see the need for the different coloured background, the difference isn't great enough to be immediately obvious but it is different enough to notice and this detracts from the content imho. Thryduulf 10:34, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done the footer, although I used {{shortcut}} rather than Shortcut : WP:POST as proposed which unfortunately widens the section between the tramlines slightly. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the color is a lot of extra markup for minimal reward. Depending on the contrast settings on the monitor I happen to be using, it may or may not even be visible, and even when visible it's probably a tossup whether you find it beneficial or distracting. I like the footer better with Sj's smaller shortcut links rather than the normal template; visual balance is more important than consistency with other shortcuts. Since already we don't place it at the top of the page, using the standard format isn't that important. I also like the newsroom link in the footer, but to reduce clutter I'm going to remove the link to the talk page, and just let people go there the normal way. I'll also add a link to talk from the newsroom. --Michael Snow 16:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

There should be an introduction that talks about what the signpost is. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 00:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

• That's probably a good idea, but I like the minimalist layout of the paper as it is. I think the best idea would be to add a link to a separate page, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About. I have gone ahead and done so. My "About" writeup was done really quickly, though, and is really bare-bones, so have at it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

  I edited Blankfaze's description a bit. More feedback on the 'about' page would be great. Tony, what would you compare it to? What kind of description did you have in mind? +sj + 18:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Comment box

In a break from wikipedia convention how about placing the comment box below the article - in conformity with other community newspaper online publications? Lotsofissues 02:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by this? +sj + 17:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Not wishing to second-guess Lotsofissues' intent, but perhaps he meant a space for comments below the article, rather than in the Talk: page? — Matt Crypto 18:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep, that's exactly what I meant. Lotsofissues 19:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

For a less controversial start, how about a "discuss this article" link at the bottom of each page, which lets you insert a note on the talk page? Other online publications don't have a notion of "Talk" pages to rely on. +sj + 19:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I find a bottom link to the talk page redundant. Talk pages are intented to aid in planning and collaborating on changes in content. Bottom talk pages of community publicstions, for example UPenn's Independent have a bottom comment page for responses to the non-editable article. Lotsofissues 22:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Layout ideas for how this might work are welcome, and would help focus the discussion. I'm not sure that just a section break would do. Relying on the talk page distinction seems much less confusing, however. +sj + 17:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Relying on the talkpage sounds best, but it might get confused with discussion about the writing (rather than the content and opinions). BrokenSegue 19:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

A section break is distinct enough. With the exception of the press coverage article, there hasn't been much of a written response to the articles. I'm hoping a same page comment box would spur responses. Lotsofissues 01:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Transcluding the talk page at the bottom of the article, with a "click here to add a comment" link could do it. Then the article never needs to get edited and the talk page still has the talk on it. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 23:53, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Footer

Can I ask that you please just use one template for this footer? When you archive an issue, you can subst: it into the pages, and then edit/re-use the template for the current issue. -- Netoholic @ 05:32, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Actually, we try and set it up so that articles don't need to be edited again before being archived. We'll take a look and see if something is feasible, but it may not happen for this next issue. --Michael Snow 06:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Then I might suggest avoiding the template completely. With so few pages in each issue, you could generate a footer and paste it into each page just before the issue is published. -- Netoholic @ 17:10, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Well, but wouldn't subst: still work, we'd just have to be sure the template is complete for the current issue before adding it in, right? (or edit the footer manually in each article for any late changes) --Michael Snow 17:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

What is the problem with using a new template for each issue? Are we running out of template space? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It's mostly a matter of keeping the template system neat and orderly by discouraging overproliferation, as far as I can tell. I can sympathize a little, since the Wikipedia namespace suffers from similar problems that make it nigh impossible to track down information when you want it. There's less reason to have a strong default favoring the preservation of a template or category than there is for encyclopedia articles. --Michael Snow 23:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe they should all be subpages of the same template to avoid cluttering too much. Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Signpost template

(discussion moved from line cutting logo section) —Teknic^Talk/Mail 14:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I use the classic skin, so I can't see this either. But we currently have a header which reads (picking the same example):

[[Image:Signpost vertical.png|right]]

__NOTOC__

__NOEDITSECTION__

==Ban on images with restrictive licenses announced==

:<small>By [[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]], [[23 May]] [[2005]]</small>

Why not do all of this, and any <div> malarkey, in a template, like the article-to-article links are added with {{Signpost1-20}}? Something like {{Signpost header}}:

<div>[[Image:Signpost vertical.png|right]]</div>

__NOTOC__

__NOEDITSECTION__

=={{title}}==

:<small>By {{author}}, {{date}}</small></tt>

Unfortunately, I don't know how to do the <div> business, so I'll have to leave that to someone else... -- ALoan (Talk) 11:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I created {{Signpost article}} a few weeks ago, it's mentioned on the Newsroom pages; I use it to create the header for articles I'm writing, don't know if anyone else does. It could easily be amended to include any divs or layout alterations necessary - feel free to mess about with it! Worldtraveller 12:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Stories by the type

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

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

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

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

RSS Feed

I put up an rss feed and html reader for the Signpost. It should be fairly resilient to layout changes, relying only on two points: 1) That the article urls on the front page are year-mo-da/Story Title, and 2) That the stories themselves occur between the first h2 tag and first div after it. I don't think those are likely to change, but if they do just drop me a line. link --Alterego 05:23, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Copying this notice to the article template so it won't be forgotten. Thanks very much, Alterego! — Catherine\^talk 06:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Catherine. I have a feature related question maybe you could answer. The feed is working very well, and I currently have it set up to update any time someone makes an edit to the page. This could be classified as beneficial or annoying, depending on your point of view. I could just as easily base the hasSeen code on the title, which would only refeed an article if the title changed. What do you think? --Alterego 18:05, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Is that every time the article page (rather than the main Signpost page) is edited? Anyway, this seems reasonable to me, as we do make corrections and sometimes add information to stories as necessary. Unless the re-feed is too much of an annoyance from an end-user perspective. I think we've hardly ever changed the title on a story after publication; the changes only come when a new issue replaces the old one. --Michael Snow 19:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For some reason the RSS feed doesn't seem to be working anymore. --Michael Snow 20:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's working. This is going on a server in my bedroom and I am constantly working on better ways to grab content so it may go down for a little while occasionally (at least until I get bored and leave them alone =). I did go ahead and change the hasSeen code to the title, it was just overloading my feedreader. I hope that doesn't bother anyone. I suppose I could do both versions but i'd rather KISS it. There is the more traditional news outlet method of issuing a correction or update in the title if it is a non-trivial update (e.g, a page move from "Features removal admins" to "Correction: Features removal admins" or "Features removal admins (Update 1)" --Alterego 23:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Someone, who presumably will read this, and whose ip resolves to the country of India, is requesting the rss feed once per minute. I must ask you to stop...I only update it once per hour. Thanks. --Alterego 17:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

If you noticed the errors in the feed today, or at any time in the future, that is a built in 'feature'. It's actually a good thing because I am alerted that there is a problem...in this instance the problem is that Comcast's DNS servers are down, so while it can upload the feed, it can't download web pages...not quite sure how or if I will test for that. Anyway, if you see errors in the feed, that means i've seen them too so no worries --Alterego June 29, 2005 21:46 (UTC)

RSS feed is temporarily down. Nothing wrong with it per se but I messed up the server --Alterego 16:12, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Is RSS feed up? I'm trying to get it with mozilla thunderbird (October 19) and no, it's not working -- (drini's page|☎) 02:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems still down to me :( I'd recommend for our official servers to take over Alterego server - they should be more reliable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Just noting up here as well that I'll have an RSS feed up within the week. Ral315 (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for referencing the Signpost

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/sandbox I was thinking, when the Signpost covers Wikiprojects, policy debates and other interesting things in the Wikipedia namespace (and possibly also for talk namespace when it covers articles) we could use a little template to reference the article, both because Signpost stories are usually good brief summaries of the issues, and to increase circulation of the paper. I've made a very quick prototype at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/sandbox (see right) based on the interproject templates, for comments. Joe D (t) 28 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)

I don't mind if people want to do something like this, although I certainly don't have the time to advertise The Signpost everywhere that gets written about. The talk namespace might be a better location for such templates generally, not just when involving articles (and please don't template every new featured article just because it gets mentioned in the wrapup). But efforts to spread the word are welcome, since I think a lot of people find out about The Signpost via word-of-mouth. --Michael Snow 28 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)

There are too many things on Wikipedia that people only find out about via word-of-mouth...including major policy decisions. :( 209.92.136.131 28 June 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Well, that's part of the reason The Signpost exists, to try and deal with such problems. --Michael Snow 28 June 2005 19:41 (UTC)

If you use this, use it wisely. It has potential for fanning the flames of disputes. Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 07:41 (UTC)

If used, it really has to be only on talk pages. Seems like a lot of work; add to all those talk pages and remove at the end of the week. Is it really worth it? Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 07:52 (UTC)

I don't see why they would neccesarily have to be removed at the end of the week, AFAIK the pages are never deleted and many will remain useful for users unfamiliar with the topic. Joe D (t) 29 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Reference to Signpost

Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly WP News

On a related note, I noticed the Signpost was not mentioned in a suitable classification in w:Community Portal, and the invitation in the introduction was easy to overlook when looking for news. I made a smaller version of the above template in w:Wikipedia_Signpost/ad and included it in what seemed an appropriate section of Community Portal. (SEWilco 29 June 2005 16:03 (UTC))

Being bold with the Newsroom

I've been bold and turned it into one main page, similar to the Wikipedia help desk, to help clarity (way too many people didn't know where to post suggestions, etc.) Tell me if you like it, hate it, want to kill me, think kittens are cute, etc. Ral315 (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the coloured background, because it serves no organisational, functional or other (such as colour-coding) purpose whatsoever. Otherwise, the new layout is excellent, due to its organisation. I've been bold myself and removed the background. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It had no purpose, but I thought it looked slightly better in color. Nevertheless, I like your edits, and yours is better, now that I look at it. Ral315 (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternative single-page Signpost

Format: It would be a great addition to have the weekly frontpage also provide a link to a single-page Signpost, with all articles stacked on it. For people like me who read (or browse) each article, having to open 6 to 10 of them one after another gets tedious. (preceding unsigned comment by 62.147.39.221 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 November 2005)

A good idea, and easy with transclusion. violet/riga (t) 22:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing you mean something like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single. [[Sam Korn]] 17:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

They do, though I only created it after they made these comments :) Ral315 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Now all you need to do is to use <noinclude> to avoid all those images from cluttering up the right hand side... [[Sam Korn]] 20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it! :) — Catherine\^talk 04:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added "noincludes" to the sidebar image and the footer in the current crop of articles, to make sure it works. I had to "subst:" the {{Signpost article}} used in Flcelloguy's articles, so that I could noinclude the sidebar image but keep the byline. I could add the noinclude to the sidebar image in the template itself, but that would mean it would have to be subst'd each time it was used, or the image wouldn't show up in the individual article!  :) What do you think? — Catherine\^talk 05:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it as well! (Shouldn't this discussion be in the format or feedback sections, not the tip-line, by the way?) Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 23:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Introduce subscription!

Seriously, make hot new copies of Signpost come directly to the readers' user pages! I've prepared this little demo template, {{signpost-subscription}} to illustrate how this would look. Any user that would want to subscribe would simply put the bit of wikicode on their userpage, and the template would need to be updated when new issues are published. Plus, we can use [what links here to see the list of subscribers. Zocky 20:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could put the Signpost on your watchlist, which I do.--Sean|Black 21:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Bah, too many pages on my watchlist for that to be useful. Zocky 21:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I can understand that, which is why I do semi-regular "pruning" of my watchlist to get rid of things I don't need anymore. But hey, whatever you prefer.--Sean|Black 21:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, regardless of watchlist habits: It seems that many users like to keep things like the Picture of the day on their user page, and many people also have a link to the Signpost. I'd say there's reason to believe that this will be liked by many users and that it will be benefitial to the Signpost, by increasing the probability that users will see titles of potentially interesting articles on their or other users' user pages. Zocky 21:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it, I've added it to my userpage. Why is it a "demo"? Jacoplane 21:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The Signpost already has something like this; see Template:Signpost-subscription. I'll add your version to that page as well, though. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I looked for it and didn't find it... Maybe it should be more obviously advertised. I think that it's better if we have just one, so that what links here is more meaningful. I also think that promoting the {{signpost-subscription}} tag may be a good idea, to further the newspaper metaphore. Zocky 22:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I linked it in "From the editor" last week; I don't want to make it sound too ad-like by linking it in too many places, though. I've merged the two templates; no need to have yet another template for me to update each week :) Ral315 (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we should put a link to it in the template itself. Also, I liked my version more (well, not necesserally the colour scheme). I think the design of the template should match the Signpost page. Zocky 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the template to look like the other templates discussed above. It's fairly resistant to resizing problems, as long as you don't make your screen fonts really small. Zocky 17:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I like it better, definitely, though I worry a bit about the size of the template on user pages at 800x600. Ral315 (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added the template to my user page but one strange thing is that all these links are configured as external links. Shouldn't they be wiki links?? --Gurubrahma 18:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I honestly haven't seen them as external links. Ral315 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

RSS feed will be up for the December 12th issue

Just to note: I've been approved for an account on the Wikimedia Toolserver; I'll have an RSS feed up by the end of the week. The feed itself is written; I just have to get to bed now :) Ral315 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kudos to you :) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How does the feed work? I need something like that for specific subsets of articles... +sj + 18:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

At this point, the feed is updated manually. I'm going to make it a bit more automated, but at this point I don't want to do it fully automated (too complicated, and prone to vandalism). Ral315 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Single-Page view

Why was this taken off the front page? It's amazingly convenient, rather than opening 7 (and this is a small issue) tabs at once. IMO it wasn't cluttering anything either. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 07:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC).

The edit summary by User:Ral315 says, 'Removing single page view, it looks too cluttered otherwise.' It does look somewhat odd. Perhaps we could remove the tip line link, since the Newsroom link next to it has a link to the Tip Line in it. - Pureblade | ^☼ 09:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to see what I can do. That's sort of why I was pushing for a new design a few months ago; this design doesn't allow for much apart from the stories. Ral315 (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe move the archive up to the top right with About? --Michael Snow 06:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I liked this view. And the idea of a new design... Ral, did you mock anything up?

Did so a few months ago...support for it was about 50-50. I'll link it later tonight. Ral315 (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Nicer archive views

I would like to see back/forward links to page through the archives -- "<  12 December 2005  >"

...along with archive views that look just like a proper signpost, with a table-of-contents and header. Perhaps each archive could additionally be a single-page view, with the TOC at the top. Right now it is not easy to search for/find something in the archives. +sj + 18:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I might be able to do that; I've been trying to find a good way to do it. I'll work on it over the next week or two. Ral315 (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

January 9, 2006?

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

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

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

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

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

Adding

I want to add the signpost to my userpage but cannot find the code for it can I have it? - Mike Beckham 04:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind found it :) - Mike Beckham 04:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, adding {{Signpost-subscription}} to your user page will acheive the result. -- Longhair 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyways apreciated! - Mike Beckham 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Signpost Archive

This project page should contain a link to an archive of past issues. I would add it, I just can't seem to find where this archive is. --Cyde Weys 08:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Look for an archive link here, bottom left, or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives to link direct. -- Longhair 08:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicer archive views revisited

I was going to post here about duplicating the look of the main Signpost page on the Archive subpages such as this one for issue 2.8, but then I discovered that these pages are being used to contruct the Archives page by {{template inclusion}}. Is this really the best way of doing this? The current system seems weird to me, since I expect to be able to browse to the per-issue archive page, such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20, before going to the individual articles. I'd also like to be able to bookmark (or otherwise link to) individual back-issues. The only way to do this currently is to go to the first article in the desired issue and follow the < parent-article link at the top of the page back to the article list for that issue. That's just Not Good... So I propose we abandon the template-inclusion approach to the yearly archive pages and instead link to "proper" index pages for each issue modeled after the Signpost front page (note that the appearance of the yearly archive pages would remain essentially unchanged, apart from linking the issue numbers). If anyone is unclear about what I'm proposing, I can mock up an example. - dcljr (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the simplicity of assembling the yearly archive pages still has much to recommend it. However, I fully understand the point about navigating between individual issues in the archives. Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to add Previous Issue/Next Issue links to each of the individual index pages, but do this with "noinclude" tags so these links don't clutter the full archives? I'm not completely clear on what your proposal is, but that seems to me like the best solution at present. --Michael Snow 21:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Actually, I'm not sure you do completely understand what I'm saying (my explanation above did seem rather complicated once I read back over it). What I'm suggesting actually doesn't require any more work beyond what people are already doing — just slightly different steps. Instead of putting the list of article links on pages like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20, the archiver would simply place them directly on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives like so:

'''The Wikipedia Signpost''' is published every Monday. Below are archived stories from 2006.

Archives for previous years: [[/2005/]]

See also a [[:Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives|category-based view]].

==January== ===[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02|Volume 2, Issue 1]], [[2 January]] [[2006]]===

• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/Reporter plagiarizes Wikipedia|Wikipedia ... plagiarism]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/ArbCom update|Arbitrator elections set to begin in a week]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/News and notes|News and notes: Appeal ... controversy]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/ArbCom candidates|ArbCom candidates]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/Arbitration report|The Report On Lengthy Litigation]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/Features and admins|Features and admins]]

===[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-09|Volume 2, Issue 2]], [[9 January]] [[2006]]=== ...

===[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20|Volume 2, Issue 8]], [[20 February]] [[2006]]===

• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Jimbo interview|An interview with Jimbo Wales]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Arbitrator resigns|Arbitrator Mackensen resigns]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/China revisited|Access issues in China revisited by media]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Wikimedia UK|Wikimedia chapter incorporated for the UK]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/News and notes|News and Notes: ... milestones]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/In the news|Wikipedia in the News]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Features and admins|Features and admins]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Technology report|Bugs, ... Operational News]]
• [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Arbitration report|The Report On Lengthy Litigation]]

[[Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives]]

Then the "current" (at the time) version of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost would simply be copied (or moved) to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20 (or whatever subpage is appropriate) and probably altered slightly to indicate it's an archived version. Finally, the version at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost would be updated to the new issue. I don't think this actually adds significantly to the work involved in archiving the issues, but results in much nicer looking single-issue contents pages and a slightly improved (IMO) navigation system (I'm not actually talking about previous/next links between issues, although they could be added when the page is archived, if desired). - dcljr (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize you were looking for a way to navigate directly to a given individual issue from the basic archive page. I thought you were suggesting a way to deal with what sj asked about above. --Michael Snow 01:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the idea of moving/copying it, really. What I'd be more in favor of is a text at the top explaining that it's an archive, a table of all the stories, and the stories, included like the single-page view. This also makes it a lot more obvious that it's an archive. Ral315 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Archives, revisited.

I'd like to put forth my idea for a new archive setup. We could still offer the text-based archives as we have them now, but this would be the preferred setup:

User:Ral315/Sandbox

If we do this, noinclude tags would need to be added to all Wikipedia Signpost images (something that could easily be done if we agree on this. What do you think? Ral315 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I see is the odd spacing of the vertical images along the right, although that would be taken care of per Ral315's suggestion. Perhaps we could add a link to the top/navigation at the bottom of each article? This seems to be a good step in the right direction. - Pureblade | ^Θ 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was about to suggest "noinclude"ing the side images (is that done for the live version of the Signpost already? The side images don't appear in the single page view)

There also seems to be an erroneous date link in the header; and the TOC looks out of place, given the contents page is there at the top already.

In addition to an archive, that format may even be an easier way to read the "live" Signpost - I've never bothered with the single page view before, but this mock-up looks nicer, I think - the single page view would look better with a "contents" header like the archive mock-up and without the TOC... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, is this a suggestion to replace the current archive setup or linked from the issue titles? The current setup (with article titles) will be more useful when someone two years from now is quickly scanning to find out the month of the Great Userbox War, but Ral315's proposal is better for actually scanning a particular issue. I'm not that fussed either way, but will second the suggestion for a "Go to top"/"Go to next issue" navigation link for those people who can't get enough archives. - BanyanTree 21:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To clarify a few points, this would be an alternative (and possibly the default). Also, the redlink on the proposal would link to the next week's issue (and on subsequent issues, there would be a similar link on the left side of the page.) Ral315 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with RSS feed

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

Subject: WikiNews RSS feed
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 12:47:51 +0100
From:
To: jwales@wikia.com

Hi!
I tried to get the RSS feed:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/wikinews-rss/rss-de.php
it looks like "utf8" is not a valid encoding name
i guess it has to be utf-8.

I am using RSSOwl 1.2 : http://www.rssowl.org/

bye

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

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

Will the Signpost be back this week?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spam List

What is the template that is used for the spam list (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe)?

--Primate#101 06:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually not done through template; I take the plain text, modify it weekly as needed, and paste it to the users who request it. Ral315 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

RSS feed IS BROKEN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the time being, I have some sort of backup RSS :) [2] Bryan 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

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

Unwikified headlines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interactive M.A.N.I.A.

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

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

Problem yet again with RSS feed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes - thx !!!

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

Arbitration report formatting.

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

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

instead of

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

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

-- Jeandré, 2006-07-18t16:32z

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

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

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

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

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

Single page view for archives possible?

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

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

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

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

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

Signature disambig?

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

Latest Audio link

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

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

RSS MIA YA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:POST

I find the note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What about this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Permalink suggestion for the single-page version

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

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

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

— Permalink

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

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

interwiki template

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

Single-page view

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

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

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

Disambig up the top of the page...

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

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

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

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

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

Change to signpost main page

I've added the code

style="background:none"

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

From the editor

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

Like this:

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

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

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

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

WikiCast: Signpost - Volunteers needed.

Hi,

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

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

ShakespeareFan00 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

One page

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

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

RSS feed now available

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While the Signpost's feed is:

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

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

Planet Wikimedia

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

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

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

Format (show/hide)

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

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

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

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

Audio Version-

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

ShakespeareFan00 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Delivery page

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

This was a error that everyone had during that specific publication. This will not happen again as it has been edited in the bot delivery commands. If you wish to fix your own pages, append </small> to the bottom of Ralbot's timestamp. This particular error was malformed HTML. It was not a big issue until HTML Tidy was updated, at which point things broke on the delivery of the Signpost. Many thanks, Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Single-page view archive late, and link

Two little things:

• The Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/SPV/2007 hasn't been updated for March 26 and April 2
• On the main page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single the link "Archives" should maybe link directly to the single-page archive, and be named "Single-page archives"

Thanks,

62.147.36.241 11:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I will get someone (most likely Ral315) to follow this up for you. Kind regards, Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 07:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Techie Signpost

Having recently subscribed to Signpost, I find that it mostly contains foundation-related items which are not of much interest to me. Is there, or could there be, a "Technicial Signpost" edition or supplement, with news of new WikiMedia developments, new templates, new major projects, planned bot activities, tools for editors, etc? Andy Mabbett 10:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what you see is all that exists. If you'd like to lend a hand to the Signpost, and help to develop further content, this would be greatly appreciated. I'm sure Ral315 is still open to new section ideas.

Also, what do you mean "new WikiMedia developments", right after you say you're not interested in WMF news? You realise the software used to run Wikipedia et al is actually called "MediaWiki"? -- Zanimum 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

We normally have an article on MediaWiki-related things; the writer's on a break and a replacement hasn't stepped in as of yet. Ral315 » 14:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett 14:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm very interested in MediaWiki software developments. I'm not particularly interested in who sued who, or who said what in which newspaper, or who appeared at which meet-up. Andy Mabbett 14:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful to enable subscription to Signpost sections in addition to subscription to the entire Signpost - like subscribing to receive only the New York Times Book Supplement without getting all the rest. Is this possible to implement if there were a request to do so emerging from the community at large? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No; as it is, there's too much to do to publish the Signpost, and there'd be no easy way to handle it (as it is, it takes about two hours to publish, plus the time I spend writing). Ral315 » 06:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Technical note

In the single-page view, the references display cumulatively for the later articles. Thus, imagine this scenario:

Article 1

Ref1, Ref2

Article 2

Ref3, Ref4, Ref5, Ref6

In the single page view, article 2 has Ref1 and Ref2 even though those references were from the preceding article. It's necessary to break up the coding so that "reflist" only applies to the most recent article. YechielMan 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not possible to do so with the current software. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with putting <noinclude> around the <references/> on each page, and then putting a <references/> tag at the bottom of the single page view? Tompw (talk) (review) 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User information needs

Xpost: Copied here from Squeakbox's idea of 11 June '07 on User_talk:Ral315.

re: this delivery

(Added pre-closing: I see from that talk link, that there is some narrow right floated formatted version... and perhaps some of these points/suggestions have been implemented as well?... which means you need a link to a How-to page on your subscribed delivery (full width), and perhaps an additional prominent mention in the About page on much of these matters! Some link such as "Signpost options" on all the versions.)

• Is there a selection, option, seperate list, or capability to get a much condensed Signpost on talk page deliveries?
• T'would be good if were right floated and somewhat similar to a generic infobox. "Jest de facts" sort of formating, a very muted "mast head" graphic, and just one column of links similar to a page TOC, as it were but using a small font (80-90%). I'd use a maxwidth: 200px in a div style around it, and such self-wraps long titles. (I belatedly see that Template:signpost-subscription (backlinks edit) already does this... so the story needs told on "how does one get "Template:Signpost-textonly (backlinks edit)" vice the page hog so that one doesn't have to
  A) find the templates,
  B) parse the text in the first,
  C) See the second on the talk, and
  D) finally reason out that one needs to take oneself from the subscription list, and place the template on one's page instead! Poor customer service that! <g>)
• Similar idea (along the lines of Squeakbox's idea of 11 June '07 about an email notice feature) would be an option to just receive a link to the issue's source page without headlines-- something like:

The new Signpost is available: Volume -513, Issue XXXII, 15 Octember 1492

:... that'd be a desirable feature to have along with the fixed small template, as will alert one that the page is new content.

• Some may want one or the other format to appear, but in a fixed location... suggesting a delivery method by placing a template on the users talk page in said location. (Looks like you've got this covered--just not well documented!)
• All the above taken together suggests an alternative delivery method-- Have the BOT parse whatlinkshere for different templates instead of a sign-up page. A user wanting the Signpost just adds the template to their talk, with the proper parameter to control the delivery mode.

• Being a periodical, I'm sure the subst'd version (in the technical sense) (this change) is an exception to the reasoning behind the rule of substing templates on user talks... this is far more wasteful of Foundation memory resources than would using a separate template on each users page for each issue, and since your "Issues" are static, update que factors are hardly germane--the talk pages update fast, not the source page. This in turn suggests composing your news page as a separate template for each issue and minimizing memory consumption by including only that template on a user talk page.

Just some stray thoughts, as the big block delivered format while nice, does tend to use up a lot of a users talk page. Even were the Signpost the New York Times, answering these issues for a new (or old) subscriber ought be easy to find and clearly presented as delivery options. Cheers! // FrankB 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost in traditional newspaper format

User:Spebi/Sandbox – tell me what you think. –Sebi ~ 08:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I love it. Iknowyourider (t c) 08:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks cool, although the colors look horrible under the Fosfori Verdi skin I am using. --Gwern (contribs) 01:57 24 June 2007 (GMT)

I suggested a similar, but more simplistic look in 2005, and half or more thought that even that was too "busy". As such, I'm not too keen on another design. Ral315 » 18:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not suggesting it as a complete new design for the Signpost, but just as a novelty. +spebi ~ 08:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Rss

Is there an rss feed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.233.147.188 (talk • contribs).

Yes, there is. +spebi ~ 06:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's out of date; there is no RSS feed. Ral315 » 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The only RSS feed we have is: History of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost as an RSS feed --Kjoonlee 20:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you go into a page's history, there's always an RSS link and an Atom link in the toolbox section. --Kjoonlee 20:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Archives need updating

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives seems to only go up to the 4 June issue. Can someone fix this please, as I have a bit of reading to catch up on... :-) (I know, I could fix it myself, but I thought I'd let someone else try). Carcharoth 12:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Caught up through the last issue now, sorry about that. As you might know, I've been a little busy with an election. --Michael Snow 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course! No problem, and thanks. Carcharoth 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Archives

Whenever I read this week's issue, I like to pop back to the previous week to check I haven't forgotten to read it. I usually use Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives, but last week's one is not there yet. I eventually worked out how to find the articles by rummaging through the page history. Would I be right to say that a prefixindex for the date will find all the subpages for a particlar issue? See here for this week's issue and here for last week's issue. However, while Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-09 exists, neither Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-16 or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-23 exist yet. Is that page the only archive for the Signpost? Is it possible for updating the archives to last week's issue to be part of the stuff done before the current issue goes out? Carcharoth 12:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And they are there now. Many thanks. Carcharoth 11:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Editorial and Op-Ed Features

I just discovered the The Wikipedia Signpost, and wow! What a great resource. And much-needed too. What it's sorely lacking, however, are regularly-featured "editorial" and "op-ed" pages devoted to showcasing a variety of opinions from responsible Wikipedians of all stripes. Seraphimblade for instance, due to the importance of the issue he discusses, should have a wider forum for his rant than just his own talk page. ô¿ô 16:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested in hearing more from opinionated Wikipedians (and Wikimedians from other projects, and a few wiki-enthusiasts from elsewhere), you should check out the two blog aggregators: open.wikiblogplanet.com and en.planet.wikimedia.org .--ragesoss 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians? Opinionated? None that I've ever met. Don't you know we're one-and-all NPOV? But seriously, thanks for the URLs. ô¿ô 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea also, and I too have a bunch of short opinion pieces on my user page. So how do we create an op-ed/editorial page for the Signpost? Timothy Perper 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

More prev/next links, please!

Would it be possible to copy the convention of the wikiworld pages and include prev/next links on all of the regular pages? If this is hard, then I'd at least like to see such links on pages such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-08-27 (ie those linked to from the archives). Lupin|talk|popups 06:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Single page view archives

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV/2007 was 5 issues behind. I added issues 34-37, hopefully correctly. Please check, and watchlist if you normally do :)

The only problem I encountered was the internal subsection link for Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-09-10/SPV#Signpost_interview:_Jimbo_Wales doesnt seem to work (possibly due to the italic Signpost?), and I cannot determine a fix at the moment. Not critical, but I am curious as to the problem. Thanks. --Quiddity 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. The actual title had two spaces between the colon after "interview" and "Jimbo", whereas the link assumed one space. enochlau (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please make it easier to scroll through the issues. EVERY issue should have a link to the most recent previous one and most recent next one. This can easily be achieved with a standard template included at the top. Since the page names are based on dates, the previous and next issue page names can even be derived, and need not be supplied as explicit parameters, I believe, with some clever coding. ++Lar: t/c 23:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ral315, where do you keep the template that you use every week? A few of us can work on improving it if you want. enochlau (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a template of sorts, but mostly I copy-paste from one issue to the next. What you see is what you get. I am looking into an improvement, to make the footer a complete template, that would link to all current stories, and link back to prior issues. I've got an idea of what I want to do, and I'll post it here in a day or two at most. Ral315 » 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Browsability

I was wondering if the signpost editors would mind adding "last issue / next issue" links to the weekly signpost? This would make browsing the past editions easier. >Radiant< 11:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Heartily agree (as I requested 3 threads up...). See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue-nav although there are plenty of other ways to do it. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New feature on WikiProjects

I really like the new feature - I believe that the WikiProjects are often the backbone of Wikipedia, bringing some organization and expertise to a subject area. Highlighting a particular project may help it to recruit members, and it will educate the community on the project's contributions. If you want another WikiProject to feature, WP:MILHIST has for some time been a gold standard of organization and activity. (I'm not a member!) Walkerma 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to point to the significance of the military history WikiProject in the context of other stories before, but it's certainly a good candidate for this treatment. If you or anybody else wants to write it up, by all means give it a go. Other suggested projects are welcome too. --Michael Snow 19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write that up for next week :) ( arky ) 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Interview suggestions

Ral315 invited interview suggestions here. I have several. Raul654 wears a lot of hats on Wikipedia and has been with the project for more than four years. SandyGeorgia is an important contributor to the featured article selection process and is a widely-respected non-admin. Durova handles many "complex investigations" and has written some articles for external audiences about Wikipedia [3] [4]. Cheers!--chaser - t 09:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Second the Raul suggestion. Also, some in-depth interviews with board members would be nice. Oh, and a Jimbo interview that doesn't suck (no offense to Ral). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm happy to be interviewed. Raul654 04:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If you thought the Jimbo interview was bad then maybe next time you should submit some questions yourself. It's not as if that was a closed process. --JayHenry 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is simply that Jimbo is pressed for time and pulled in many directions, making a good interview challenging. It really would require professional-level prep work to produce something of real quality that way. So while more input would be nice, it's a difficult project, and I wouldn't fault either the interviewer or those who submit (or omit to submit) questions. Interviews with other people are more likely to generate new insights, even if their appeal is less obvious. --Michael Snow 18:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to read an interview with the first Wikipedian - I remember hearing somewhere neither Jimbo nor Sanger were the first to register. --Gwern (contribs) 18:04 23 October 2007 (GMT)

User:Eiffel made the earliest still-extant edit (here). User contribution histories were lost in the transition between mediawiki phases I and II, and II and III. According to Wikipedia:UuU, there might have been an earlier one by Jimbo. Raul654 18:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Eiffel seems as good a person as any. Bonus points, actually, since he still edits occasionally. --Gwern (contribs) 18:54 23 October 2007 (GMT)

Interview Awadewit (talk · contribs), Dineshkannambadi (talk · contribs). Really strong FA contributors focusing on one topic, creating a body of really high quality articles. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think an interview with Awadewit would be interesting - delving into how academics view and interact with Wikipedia. Kaldari 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the thing that User:Ta bu shi da yu mentioned on the tip line is really fascinating too. --JayHenry 02:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put my hand up for an interview (shameless self-plug). Even though I'm on an extended wikibreak. I think, incidently, it's a wikibreak because I break the wikibreak by reading the Signpost :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to go the FA route, ask Hurricanehink (pretty high up there in the List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations, has a ton of featured lists, and even three featured topics). Another suggestion would be to ask current arbitators, or bureaucrats. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This academic study found that one editor, Maveric149, contributed 0.5% of all persistent word views (PWV) in Wikipedia, where a PMV is defined as a given word introduced by an edit that is viewed by one reader (page served). What that means is that this editor, having edited 41,000 times on 18,000 articles, is consistently adding information to fairly popular articles, and that information is sticking. Or, to put it differently, if you look at the view logs and randomly chose one page that was served, and that page has 1000 (different, non-trivial) words on it, on average 50 of those words will have been added by Maveric149. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not surprising - if you got here back in 2002, when things like President and United States were still red links, it was very easy to create lots of persistant words :) More to the point, for months after he got here, Mav did vandalism patrol to (literally) every edit -- it wasn't that hard when there were only 100 or day. You go to recentchanges at the end of the day, and revert any vandalisms. Raul654 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But unless there was some flaw in the methodology, vandalism reverts shouldn't count towards the PWVs. And since most of the PWVs have accumulated since Wikipedia became more popular, it at least points to the longevity of the early content (whether written or just reverted by Mav).--ragesoss 16:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an interview with User:Lord Emsworth, if he can be found. And User:Nichalp has also been around for a long time, wears several hats, and has lots of FAs.

It may be interesting to interview some of the other long-term bureaucrats, such as User:Cecropia, User:Secretlondon, User:UninvitedCompany, or User:Warofdreams. Or User:Angela.

Or, to go in a different direction, how about a long-term editor like User:Giano II or User:Ghirlandajo. Or User:SlimVirgin, User:David Gerard, User:Piotrus, or User:Tony Sidaway. -- !! ?? 16:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means I have wait a little longer before anyone thinks I'm a "long-term editor". ;) -- llywrch 21:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure that that an interview with you would be perfectly delightful. Are you putting yourself forward as a candidate? -- !! ?? 21:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, why not? I like to hear myself talk. :-) llywrch 02:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And you yourself sir, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And what about me? :-) (goes away feeling a bit slighted). - Ta bu shi da yu 09:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I already mentioned you higher up on the thread! Oh what, you want mentioned twice? :) --JayHenry 10:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes! :P Ta bu shi da yu 10:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quietly quite delighted that someone thinks I'd be worth interviewing! Warofdreams talk 01:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Quietly suggest Deskana, who was recently given OS and is doing a lot of good things. Daniel 00:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to be interviewed, if people would like that. --Deskana (talk) 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting interview with Danny about Veropedia, since there appears to be sufficient interest at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Veropedia. - BanyanTree 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

All editors

Why don't we interview all these editor (it's via email, right?) and then release one interview per signpost edition? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Audio version...

OK, Two previous attempts to gst Signpost in audio version failed... Third time lucky.

Would there be any interest in there being an audio version of Signpost simmilar to the archived examples on Commons?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we know how much interest there is in getting an audio version? It's just that, from my experience in recording audio versions of articles, that it takes a long time to record text and edit. enochlau (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer Festival/Flite do the reading? -- SEWilco 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just listened to Festival reading the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/License compatibility. I don't think I could stand to hear it read any more. --Carnildo (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Red ink hurts me eyes

The Anthere interview was good, but could I propose that the colors be reversed in the future? (Red for questions, blue – or black, my preference – for answers.) Reading a lot of red text is yucky for me. Thanks for your great work on the WPSP! – Scartol • Tok 13:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It was especially poor against the beige background of the classic skin; I had to cut-and-paste the article out of Wikipedia to read it. Just coloring the questions would have been sufficient. —Cryptic 18:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe indenting the responses? enochlau (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The colors are to emphasize the differences between questions and answers, and a color-free version is provided (see the link at the top of the page). I understand it might look bad with different skins/stylesheets, and I'm open to color/style changes, but I think it's important to emphasize the differences between questions and answers. Ral315 » 21:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In most interviews I've seen, the questions are printed in italic, and the answers are printed in regular text. Questions are also indented by one tab stop, and are often prefixed with "Q", the interviewer's name, or the publication's name. --Carnildo (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That format was probably borrowed from Wikinew, which uses bold. Circeus (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

An idea for a series

I, like many editors, specialize at wikipedia. I write articles. I know others help fight vandals, but how exactly do they do that? What does it mean to be a bureaucrat? What's a checkuser? Why is AfD so contentious? I haven't read the hundreds of pages explaining all of these things, yet. (Shocking, I know.) I was wondering if the Signpost could run a series highlighting some of the major editorial and administrative roles at wikipedia - explaining them and their history, in essence. It is often difficult to figure out what all of these different processes and roles are unless one becomes part of them (which is not always good!). This came to my mind because I realized how little I knew about ArbCom when the ArbCom elections were announced. I am now having to gather information from other editors about ArbCom before I can vote. I'm not sure how to make such a feature fun and exciting - anecdotes? tie-ins to news stories and events? - but I do think it would be useful. Awadewit | talk 12:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems a great idea to me. There are all sorts of topics that could be explored other than roles as well, sort of an "under the hood" about roles, and techniques, and major internal pages, etc. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

See, that's already catchier. :) Awadewit | talk 12:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think an interview with frequent contributors in certain areas, 'crats, checkusers, etc. would be pretty interesting. Cheers, ( arky ) 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have some interviews and those are great but that's not quite what I had in mind, "under the hood" is more about the how and the what, not the who. I can't speak for Awadewit's original suggestion though. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps interviews could be a part of it, but my initial ideas was closer to the "how and the what". However, any further information would be appreciated! Awadewit | talk 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I were only considering a weekly report reporting on WP:AN/I about a hour ago, but that sounds like what I were considering. I would be happy to take this, and start next week (only problem is thats my graduation week, and at the end of the weeks it's "Schools Out, Scream and Shout!"!). This would also be a learning experience for me, learning what a Checkuser is etc. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we shouldn't wait on this a week or two, and think about it. I honestly would consider this to be more suited to a WikiProject (similar to tip of the day -- an introduction into the more complex parts of Wikipedia). That would be a lot better for new users, I'd think, than a weekly series -- users who show up two months from now aren't necessarily going to look in the Signpost archives for information. The other problem is that information can change, and if people did go to the archives for information, it's entirely possible that such information would be dreadfully inaccurate. The other problem with a weekly series is that if the main writer leaves, somebody has to pick it up, or it falls by the way side and is of little help to anyone. My opinion is that we should weigh the pros and cons of integrating it into the Signpost on a weekly basis before we do anything. Ral315 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

New format feedback

I can't say I completely like the new format because it messes up highlighting of all the links to open all of them in new tabs at once (either it grabs the top part by accident or it misses the bottom left story). In the older format, it was much easier to highlight the two columns at once to open all. I like the new discussion report section! Very useful info and great to find out about some discussions which aren't always well advertised/publicized. As an aside...how about some archiving of this page? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you do that operation from the Signpost subscription template (at the top of this page)? It's easy to highlight all of those. As for archiving, yeah, it seems about time.--ragesoss (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does work from there, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having it delivered to my talk page :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask around to see if the highlighting behavior could be changed without disrupting the look.--ragesoss (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi AnmaFinotera, thanks for taking a moment to feedback. If you drag from the beginning of the first story (this week, the words "From the editor"), to the end of the last story (this week, "Litigation"), all stories should select fine. You can then right click and open all your tabs. As an alternative, have you tried using the single-page version? It achieves much the same effect as opening all the articles at once. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried the highlighting when I first did it, and it messes up unless you hit it just right. And no, depending on the content, I skip some links and I prefer them all in individual tabs for easier scanning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not a fan of the new format - mainly due to the excess space the new format takes up (I would prefer dropping the section headers and dropping the extra line spaces between sections). While I understand that some may prefer the new format - it's not for everyone. Can a variant be created that replicates the prior formatting? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the front page, or the format of the articles?--ragesoss (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The front page Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost. I use a modified version on my userpage; I understand that's somewhat unique, so that doesn't need to be directly taken into account ... but even if I wanted to switch to a standardly available version, all variants that I've attempted appear to include extra wording and spacing now that wasn't on the prior editions - resulting in them taking up more space than previously. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe Pretzels can cook up an alternative version that strips away the new text formatting.--ragesoss (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Currently, Signpost/item has variant types 1, 2, 3, 4, and a default (and the related formatting series for each variant). If a variant 5 series were created that essentially replicates the original variant 2 series before the modifications, it should provide the retro-look functionality - although some tweaking would be needed to get it to work. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look into making a version more suited to your needs. You could use Template:Signpost-textonly, at the sacrifice of losing the two-column formatting. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw the comments on needing a more compact version for delivery; I'll keep an eye on those developments - it may work for my needs as well. For now I'll hold-off on switching to the single column version; while it removes the extra spacing, having only a single column makes it take up almost as much page space, just with more white-space off to the right. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I've just thought of another method you might want to try in the meantime - {{colbegin}}{{Template:Signpost-textonly}}{{colend}}. Pretzels^Talk! 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm stuck on IE6 where I'm at right now, and it doesn't support the multi-column formatting. But when I get home I'll have access to current browsers, so can play with {{colbegin}} when I get there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I previewed the {{colbegin}} solution today. Worst case, if nothing else comes along - it's useable; but it's not an ideal solution. I'll keep an eye on other developments, then decide later what to do. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I decided to remove the signpost from my userpage for now. "colbegin" wan't a very good solution (poor layout and doesn't work in all browsers), and the new versions of other formats print too big; so not having it on my user page was just the better solution for now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, love the new look. It's very clean and professional. I'm also a fan of the new discussion section. --PresN 14:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer sentence caps to the Olde Style Small Caps, and I also prefer my browser/skin sans serif to the forced serifs. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-16t14:52z

Don't like the talk page announcements at all -- just too loud and screaming. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be helpful to create some sort of template that users can put on their talk pages that adjusts the way the delivery announcements appear. I'll look into that.--ragesoss (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be working on a more compact format for delivery to talk pages by next issue. This first time round, it was a bit huge, and I regret overlooking that. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I guess I'm the exact opposite of Ragesoss - I always want to read the Signpost in the single-page view, never in separate pages. Can we please have a link in the talk page announcements as it used to be? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean AnmaFinotera, not me, but yes, we'll make sure it has the single-page view link next time.--ragesoss (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes. Yes, that's who I mean. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I did intend to include the standard footer (which includes the single-page link). This will be rectified in time for the next issue. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I, for one, like the new design just fine. I think the sparse use of serif typeface helps give a dynamic aspects to the page. And the new white-background header in particular is pretty neat. Circeus (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the the new Signpost font to be silly and completely unnecessary, especially in the delivered version (spamlist). I don't like such garbage in my userspace, even in a spam receptacle. At least have an option for users who get the Post delivered to not have that font polluting their pages - otherwise I see myself unsubscribing to the spamlist and thus unlikely to read the Post at all, which would be a shame. Otherwise, good work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, you're right - the new format is a bit huge for delivery to talk pages. I'll be making some changes to improve the delivered version by next issue. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think it was an excellent job overall. Georgia is a perfect font choice for this in my humble opinion—a Scotch Roman typeface (one of the most time-honored and widely used styles in newspaper design), created specifically for screen viewing, that still looks great in browsers/OSs with subpixel rendering enabled. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I admit I'm not a big fan of serif fonts for titles/headlines, as they're used in the new layout, but it's nothing deal-breaking. Powers ^T 18:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Design

I've been trying to think up something clever for users who liked the old style or would prefer a modified one. I have a feeling, though, that this might be too parser heavy. It would rely on checking if a user has a specific subpage created, then giving the correct output. For instance

{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Style|{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Style}}|}} Would, in theory, modify the appearance. With other subpages such as /text font size and face could be modified. I'm just not sure if it would make archives and /Signpost pages too parser heavy. Thoughts? §hep^Talk 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing I hope we can do for the deliveries, which have been the main concern of disgruntled readers. It's only <1000 pages, and talk pages aren't super high traffic, so something like this applied to the deliveries would be good, I think.--ragesoss (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I got lost. A bot could do separate lists. Users on this page get this format, users on another page get a different format, etc. It would require keeping 1 more page updated at publishing, though. The the bot could send out the new version, the old version, and the "/2009-30-02" (plain list) version, without much trouble. §hep^Talk 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

New Design

Following Shep's suggestion, I thought I would stop by to comment on the new design. Personally I would like something nice and simple, such as the way it was sent this week. It doesn't take too much space, and it still has everything there... Of course my opinion is one among thousands. :) Pax85 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the exact same thing. The plain list works best for me. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page delivery format

Resolved

Anyone know what happened with the Signpost talk page delivery format? It used to be a lot ... prettier. If this is a bot problem, I wouldn't mind helping with whatever is wrong. --Cyde Weys 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a coding problem with the design (well, kind of). There were many complains (see above) about font size and it's general size and font face. The most major issue was brought up here. I believe we're more than happy to have someone look at the design to see if we can accomodate most of the complaints and major issues, but it has nothing to do with the bots. §hep^Talk 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a bot solution might be appropriate... a bot that checks some bit of code on a subscriber's talk page, and delivers whatever format that user wants. Some people have said that they prefer the plain text version that we've fallen back on while we work on the kinks in the more styled version, so a delivery bot that detected which version ought to be delivered might be useful. User:Pretzels, I believe, is still planning on tinkering with the updated version he designed to address some of the problems, but it's been a few weeks now.--ragesoss (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Newest delivery had a minor issue. Its lacking of a normal header keeps an edit link from appearing for easy clearing after reading[5]. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Ya, that probably should have stayed somehow. §hep^Talk 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please use section breaks when throwing papers onto talk pages

Resolved

When ShepBot tosses the paper onto someone's talk page then please create a new section using == Wikipedia Signpost ==. The existing method of adding a br/h2/... meanings the Signpost blob is appended to the previous talk section. People hitting edit for that section end up needing to remember to insert their new content above the stuff added by ShepBot.

I believe you can get nearly the same affect as what you have now by having the bot append the following.

== The Wikipedia Signpost ==

Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »

16 March 2009

You will need to view that in edit mode to see what gets added. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry for overlooking that. I've updated the design for next week's delivery, you can see an example on my talk page. This fixes the issue you mentioned, and also allows for an [edit] link as requested previously. Pretzels^Talk! 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that looks great. It's pretty cool in what you can get away with on MediaWiki. My only comment would be the use of the long dash, I think it's an mdash, in the title and you end up with a .E2.80.94 in the URL for section links. For example, User talk:Pretzels#Wikipedia Signpost .E2.80.94 16 March 2009. Hopefully the Signpost lead will be so riveting that no one will see the URL. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Make "comments" into a "Feedback" link on the main page

A feedback link that creates a new talk section would be handy from the main page and the talk-page notices. The tip line is useful, but most good feedback isn't in the form of a tip. +sj+ 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How's it look now? I added a link as you suggested to the footer, which appears on both the Signpost frontpage and on individual articles.--ragesoss (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the feedback link! Nice to promote discussion. But feedback & tips are two separate things. Many of the comments that we get are in fact tips rather than comments about the 'post itself... though people usually figure out where to put the appropriate thing. We should consider restructuring the newsroom at some point. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. We need to prioritize the pages that get used: this one, the tip line, and the planning room (which really is the newsroom, in the analogous sense to an brick-and-mortar newsroom).--ragesoss (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Add forward/back links from archive subpages

I love navs. An auto-generated nav from archive subpages that link forward and backwards to the previous/next week would be handy, perhaps with another link to the full year's archive.

For example: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18

+sj+ 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I would love to see something like this; if anyone knows how to code something like that up, please do. Preferably, it would be a template where the parameters are the dates of three consecutive issues: {{Signpost archive|2009-05-04|2009-05-11|2009-05-18}} would look like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost with the 5-11 issue contents, and it would be on an archive subpage like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2009-05-11, and have links that work the same as the previous and next links for the individual regular features.--ragesoss (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I've set something up and am working on populating the back-issue subpages.--ragesoss (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

More feedback

I'm not on Wikipedia too much these days, but I like the new look. Stay classy, guys. — Bob • (talk) • 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)