Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Signpost
WT:POST
Feedback

The Signpost feedback

Please use this page for general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints.

  • For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions.
  • For article-specific comments, please add them to that article's talk page.
  • For proposals for a feature, see Newsroom.
  • For proposals for an opinion essay, interview, WikiProject report or book review, see the dedicated desks: Opinion, Interviews, WikiProject, Review.
  • If your message is urgent, please leave a message here or try to find a Signpost regular in the IRC channel #wikisignpost connect.
  • For an index of Signpost pages, please see the Index.


The Traffic Report[edit]

The traffic report looks at absolute page traffic which is certainly quite interesting but I wonder if it might also be interesting to compute (possibly via a toolserver project) and examine peaks above a certain factor of the moving average of the previous week's visitation rate. I suggest this after failing to find a suitable news event that could cause a spike such as this one that goes rather high above the base-rate on September 11, 2014 for the article Egyptian vulture - http://stats.grok.se/en/latest90/Egyptian vulture Shyamal (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Tenth anniversary coming up[edit]

The very first edition of the Signpost was published by Michael Snow on January 10, 2005; so now is a good time to start thinking about whether and how to celebrate the occasion. (One somewhat obvious idea might been to interview the former editors-in-chief, but that was already done in 2012.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a greatest hits issue? I'm not sure what criteria we'd use to select the articles though. Gamaliel (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I suggest selecting the most popular articles the paper has published by page counts and using them to write up a synopsis of the paper's progress. ResMar 01:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Timing's heavily ironic. Tony (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015[edit]

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I should probably note: I will quit if this becomes an advertising platform for the Wikicup without covering the major controversy over it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Hope you don't mind that I moved your comment to the talk page since it somehow got into the table. Could you link to or explain the controversy? I for one am ignorant of it. Gamaliel (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

An interesting note[edit]

I don't know that this is newsworthy, specifically, but it may be a humorous observation that needs to be made to explain a certain strange quality in this year's top ten most edited articles (per [1): [2]. All, ResMar 01:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Numbering...[edit]

Volume 10, Issue Negative 1?Naraht (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Monumental fuck-up[edit]

Pine, I emailed you the other day to alert you to the existence of News and notes this week. A huge amount of work went into it. You acknowledged my email, saying that Ed would publish this week.

The whole edition needs to be sent out again. As soon as possible.

T

Fixing this now Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't receive[edit]

I did not receive the January 7 edition, even though I subscribed. What happened? Nahnah4 (talk | contribs | guestbook) 03:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Nahnah4: I'm not sure; I can't find anything that's wrong. Let's see if it was a hiccup and the 14 January edition goes to your page. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

op-ed[edit]

To Gamaliel: I posted a second op-ed well before you marked the page "on hiatus." It's free content for you. All you might do is proofread it. As for me, I can't get enough of the sound of my own voice (or the sight of my excellent turn of phrase). I'll be back tomorrow to re-read this comment. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! Whatever I did to screw up the table was completely uninentional. I will try to fix it when I am back on a proper computer instead of this tablet. Gamaliel (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm having trouble figuring out what I did wrong. Can you link me to your missing op-ed? Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Still linked at the opinion desk. It's about AfC. You might want to move old entries into the archives, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Chris troutman@ The template does that automatically when resetting the newsroom. I've slotted it in for you. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

GLAM[edit]

The GLAM newsletter is currently produced on a monthly basis, and has many stories that would be of interest to a wider signpost audience. Would it make sense for the signpost and the GLAM community to work together more closely, either by the signpost crew copying some key GLAM articles into a GLAM section of the first signpost after the GLAM newsletter comes out, or by the Signpost simply republishing/linking to the GLAM newsletter as a monthly GLAM section of the signpost? WereSpielChequers Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Jonathan Cardy (WMUK): Sorry for the delayed reply on this ... we are going through an editorial transition right now. My initial reaction is that this sounds like an idea with some potential. Let me talk to Gamaliel about this, and see what he thinks, but I think this can definitely go somewhere. Thanks for bringing it up. Go Phightins! 18:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Ping Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) because Phightins did not put ")" the first time. Rcsprinter123 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
If that works, maybe the monthly GLAM supplement could be alternated with some sort of special reports from the various other WMF entities, perhaps on an alternating basis? I suppose I and a few others could get together a report from Wikisource every few months. John Carter (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Just thinking out loud here. We have the research report the last edition of each month, if we did something with GLAM the first (or would it be the second), we could potentially run something the first and third (or second and third) WMF-ish. Go Phightins! 21:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Does the education project have any sort of regular newsletter? Maybe if it does, running that as a once-a-month supplement, with the various other entities filling in the 4th week, might work best. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
I think there is an education one, and I'm pretty sure there is a tech one. Agreed that a different "supplement" each week would make more sense than just a GLAM one. Thinking more deeply on it, the ideal route would be for a non GLAM person to do some sort of a summary/intro that included such highlights as the latest content donations. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 12:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Better Delievery[edit]

Hey all,

Will it be good to have a Signpost edition at your talkpage with at least some decorations as Book & Bytes give? I mean, some border and/or Signpost log and/or the like..--The Herald : here I am 16:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We send out editions to more people and more often than Books & Bytes and This MOnth in GLAM, so I've always preferred the minimalistic approach. Most Wikipedians, in my experience, don't like to have a cluttered talk page! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This week[edit]

I sent out the Signpost this week, so any mistakes are solely attributable to me and not User:Pine or User:The ed17. Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thankfully, though, I don't think there were any. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

21 Jan 2015 single-page link not there[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-01-21 link isn't there. Incidentally, searching for "Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014" yields results but 2015 doesn't show anything (there should be two right? 14 Jan and 21 Jan issue). -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.. - The Herald (here I am) 15:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Gamaliel:..It is because of the confusion of Wikipedia Signpost and Signpost.. - The Herald (here I am) 15:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks but I notice this difference: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-01-21 versus Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-01-21. I see that the former style is used for the previous years, eg Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-03-19. Also, previous issue Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-01-14 is missing. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It appears that the bot has not been automatically doing this for quite some time, and quite simply no one has noticed the difference. :-) I've alerted Jarry1250 to the issue. Thanks, Ugog! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)