Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

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

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

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

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

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

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

[zW9JVvVwFR Invite link]

jp×g 09:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Mobile View: Images in Articles

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

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

WLN's

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

email announcements of new issues

how is the text of the email announcement generated?

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Should Signpost Articles on Open ArbCom Cases be NPOV?

Please comment on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be NPOV, or whether one-sided opinion pieces are fine? The general question is sparked from the controversy around this Signpost article, much of which can be seen at its talk page. In particular, see the WP:ANI thread here, which was opened on the basis that the article "prejudges an active Arbitration case", suggested that the review prior to publication was "the most ever for any Signpost piece" and was left up roughly on the basis that "it is one editor's opinion. Not the voice of the SignPost".

So in an attempt to avoid similar chaos next time this happens, please provide your view on whether Signpost articles on open ArbCom cases should be written in an NPOV manner, or whether a one-sided opinion piece is fine. Ideally without commenting on the specifics of this one current ArbCom case.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)