Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 00:03, 2 August 2007

Archives: General discussion | Content | Features and layout | Feedback | Images and logos

Shortcut

[[:|WT:POST]]

Please discuss the layout of The Signpost page and other general or technical issues here. Discussion about news items and stories themselves should be directed to the Newsroom.

Userboxes:

This user writes for
The Signpost.

This user subscribes to
The Signpost.

Contributors welcome

If you're interested in writing about community news for The Wikipedia Signpost, please contact me (on my talk page or via email, however you prefer) so we can coordinate our efforts. As editor, I would at the very least need to have an idea of what topic(s) you're covering. If you use the wiki to write drafts of a news story, please do this in your user space. --Michael Snow 09:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Do you want article-specific comments on their respective talk pages, on an issue-specific talk page, or here? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

On their talk pages is great, I do watch the articles for the week until they get archived. This page can be for discussion about the newspaper in general. --Michael Snow 07:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Volumes?

So far, we are at volume I issue V. How large will the volumes be, out of curiosity (OK yes, I am really bored ATM) - Lucky13pjn 04:24, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Presumably the volume will change with the year. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:38, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question about article submission

Can anybody just submit an article to this newspaper? Or, what's the submission process? Can one write about themself, if they use the third person? (And is good gramma 'n speeling a pre-wreck-squizit?) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 11:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. Joe D (t) 12:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A better link might be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom#In progress Reporters: note here what items you are working on ... editing each other's work is encouraged. In short, yes, anyone can submit an article (either simply suggest a topic or actually write the text themselves). This is a wiki - it will all be "edited mercilessly", of course! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New SVG files

Hi, I've made new SVG files.

Here they are, side to side with the PNG versions.

File:WikipediaSignpost icon.png

Could someone with edit access switch over to the SVG ones, please? Thank you. :) --Kjoonlee 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're not exactly the same, but they're very close. Also the SVG version doesn't have artifacts in the thin vertical line of the letter T when the width is scaled to 500px:

--Kjoonlee 12:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about an article...

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-05-28/BLP,_DRV,_ARB,_IRC - Some questions for the editor/writer... Jenolen ^{speak it!} 08:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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
Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.A) find the templates,
Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.B) parse the text in the first,
Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.C) See the second on the talk, and
Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.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:

Template:Left60

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)[reply]

Subscribing to the Signpost

Presumably, the answer is right in front of my face and I'm just too asleep to see it. I saw a post on another user's talk page to the effect of "Wikipedia Signpost weekly delivery" - where can I sign up for a similar deal? I'd love to read the new editions as they come hot off the Webpresses. PaladinWhite 13:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Paladin, the information you're looking for is right here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist. Hope that helps! --JayHenry 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome - I signed myself up. Thanks so much! PaladinWhite 07:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost in traditional newspaper format

User:Spebi/Sandbox – tell me what you think. –Se bi ~ 08:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

templates are bad

there's a bad link here[1] but I wasn't able to fix it easily because the actual content wasn't there. Mkultra72 12:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Featured article commas

I think that the list of articles that were/are promoted to FA should be separated by semicolons, not commas. That would prevent any confusion with articles such as Erie, Pennsylvania, which, especially (or rather, only) in the email format, makes it confusing. 69.19.14.27 00:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC) (OverMyHead)[reply]

That's something I honestly hadn't considered; actually, what might be better is separating them differently in the e-mail format. I'll try something out this time, let me know what you think. Ral315 » 19:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about another article...

Again, some questions for the writer/editor... (not sure if this was noted before)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-09/Board elections

Thanks,

Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book review

I'm very happy with the new book review section. Thanks for coming up with new ways for The Signpost to inform readers. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good! :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it, it seemed very "professional". Well done! Walkerma 01:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I happened to read the book as well, and the review was fairly good (although I would've liked some more well-founded criticism, especially of the economics). --Gwern (contribs) 03:26 18 July 2007 (GMT)

Unfortunately, I'm not equipped to really get into the economics side of it; and the book is less focused on that. I mostly just found it interesting that after I wrote the review, and I went to see what others had said, I found other people saying much the same thing I had tried to say. He makes a huge call for user-generated content to disappear and expert-content to redominate, but in the parts of the book that I'm qualified to discuss (I've been on networked bulletin boards since I was 13, got my first USENET account in 1987 at age 16, and have been using the web since Lynx and I'm occasionally paid to write for newspapers and I went to j-school and have read a lot about journalism history over the last 20 years), I found that he was in the 'enough knowledge to sound competent at a VC meeting.' area about things I knew about, but he was missing key arguments that both punctured and supported his premise. I included the link to the economics criticism because I couldn't assess that, but here was someone else who had had the same reaction. I was rather surprised by it, but after a little looking on Google News for reviews of it, you'll find a large number of reviewers said, 'he has some points about X, but I know a bit about Y, and he might not be up on this.' I grow suspicious the more things like that I encounter, the more I might also be missing. Not *baseless*, just not fully backed by a deeper understanding. --Thespian 09:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my kudos to those above. The review was well-written, and a great addition to the Post. Confusing Manifestation 07:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add my voice to the chorus of "good job" s for the new book review section. You chose a great title to open with and the review is well-written. I hope it becomes a regular feature. --Bookgrrl ^holler/lookee here 17:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

I do not know whether you people get enough credit for what you do, so here's a little something from an appreciating reader: I wait for the Signpost every Monday and read it with pleasure. I'm yet to read this week's book review, but will definitely do it. Thanks for your great work! Cheers from Kraków, Ouro (blah blah) 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue

First off, I want to be clear. I love the signpost.

However, this latest issue was definately different - it had the regular features etc, but no stories. I know they do not write themselves, but in cases like this you should consider rerunning updated stories from archives, or something similair. It becomes boring to read, like a newspaper with only the comics and movie listings. I'm assuming there was just a few editors inactive, but I believe you should take steps and consider re-running stories, or running smaller ones. I was a bit disappointed.

Anyway, keep up the (otherwise) fantastic work! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, nothing that notable happened, as far as I could tell. I tried in vain to find something that I could write more than a paragraph about, but couldn't find anything. Next week will have at least a few stories. The problem is that rerunning stories doesn't make much sense for us, since they're often out-of-date very quickly. If you ever have a suggestion for a story, we always welcome story ideas at the tip line. Ral315 » 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know that often not many things happen. I would recommend, in cases like that, having several stories a paragraph long. They won't be the best, but better than nothing. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

Litigation?

Litigation is, by definition, a legal proceeding. As such, I think that the title "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" to describe our in-house arbitration procedures is inaccurate. -Chunky Rice 06:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a play on words. The abbreviation spells out TROLL. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but the title does not describe the contents. That should take priority over a joke. It is as if there was a headline about soccer when the article was about golf. -Chunky Rice 14:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I never got the acronym! Maybe I should troll more... How about capitalizing the O to make it a bit more obvious for the rest of us? HG | Talk 14:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC) PS I love the Signpost ![reply]

Ok, tried adding capitalized 'O' but maybe the editors could to it properly? HG | Talk 15:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it isn't 100% litigation, but it's almost quasi-litigation, the way some people approach it. enochlau (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation means lawsuit. That's very different from non-court related dispute resolution. After opening the article, my first impression was taht CharlotteWeb was suing Wikipedia. I don't understand why people are against an accurate title for this section. -Chunky Rice 16:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from your very restrictive interpretation of that one word, I'm not sure what in the article would give you the impression that anybody was suing Wikipedia. If you're so literally-minded as not to understand how litigation can mean anything short of an actual suit filed in a court of law, I'm not surprised you don't get the joke. But I can assure you that plenty of attorneys describe their work quite casually as "litigation" even at stages long before any lawsuit is filed, regarding matters that may well be settled without it ever being filed in the end. In terms of etymology, litigation simply means a dispute, and that's a perfectly accurate characterization of Wikipedia arbitration. Language is versatile and flexible; reading it too inflexibly will miss a lot of color and nuance, and often leads to entirely erroneous conclusions. --Michael Snow 08:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 7 years of working in civil litigation, I have never heard anybody use the term to describe anything other than a suit. Further, that is how it is defined, not just how I define it. I looked it up and everything. -Chunky Rice 12:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard anybody use the term to describe anything other than a suit.

Well, you have now! There's descriptive linguistics for you. --Kjoonlee 16:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty clearly, presenting a case before the ArbCom is the Wikipedia equivalent of litigation. A lawsuit is simply a case in court. Even if you're interpretation of "litigation" is dogmatically literal, the ArbCom is a place where people submit cases before a panel of arbiters who issue a ruling. Perhaps, you've forgotten the definition of law. From Merriam-Websters: "Law. 1) a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority." Is that not apt? --JayHenry 16:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those "definitions" are closer to descriptions of how people use those words, rather than formal definitions that should be obeyed. (Heh, the word "definition" has lots of definitions. Woah..) --Kjoonlee 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's confusing, because the Signpost does run stories about actual litigation. -Chunky Rice 17:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it'll continue to bug me, but if everybody else thinks it's great, I'll just deal. I will admit that I am very particular about word choice, but I realize that not everybody is like that. -Chunky Rice 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

imagemap

Hi, as documented at Template talk:Audio-IPA and Template:User_free_culture (source), GFDL images must have copyright notices attached as per section 2 of the GFDL. I have mentioned that omitting source info is problematic in all my edit summaries, but people who keep reinstating the imagemap do not supply any reasons. Why is that so, and why would people want to remove a link? --Kjoonlee 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help but notice your edits, and I actually agree with you - could people please explain why they're doing this? One way around it would be for someone to create a public domain version of the Wikipedia Signpost logo, and that way, you can do whatever you like with it, but I don't see the benefit of having a non-clickable title. enochlau (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I'm not a copyright attorney by any stretch. But my interpretation is that the GDFL requires that copies of an image contain this source information. But this is the Signpost Masthead being used as the Signpost Masthead -- in effect, this is the original -- so I think you could argue that rules about "reproductions" do not apply. Similarly, the GDFL doesn't specify how the GDFL notice is passed on, it's certainly best practice in almost every instance to do that through a clickable image. But is this the only acceptable way to use a GDFL image on Wikipedia in any possible context? And if so, isn't it similarly a violation of the GDFL every time someone uses the template {{click}} on a GDFL image? --JayHenry 00:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 217: / Line 217: @@
 Hi, as documented at [[Template talk:Audio-IPA]] and [[Template:User_free_culture]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_free_culture&action=edit source]), GFDL images must have copyright notices attached as per section 2 of the GFDL. I have mentioned that omitting source info is problematic in all my edit summaries, but people who keep reinstating the imagemap do not supply any reasons. Why is that so, and why would people want to remove a link? --'''[[User:Kjoonlee|Kjoon]]'''[[User talk:Kjoonlee|lee]] 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 : I couldn't help but notice your edits, and I actually agree with you - could people please explain why they're doing this? One way around it would be for someone to create a public domain version of the Wikipedia Signpost logo, and that way, you can do whatever you like with it, but I don't see the benefit of having a non-clickable title. [[User:Enochlau|enochlau]] ([[User talk:Enochlau|talk]]) 23:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
+:: Forgive me if I'm wrong, as I'm not a copyright attorney by any stretch.  But my interpretation is that the GDFL requires that ''copies'' of an image contain this source information.  But this is the Signpost Masthead being used as the Signpost Masthead -- in effect, this is the original -- so I think you could argue that rules about "reproductions" do not apply.  Similarly, the GDFL doesn't specify ''how'' the GDFL notice is passed on, it's certainly best practice in almost every instance to do that through a clickable image.  But is this the only acceptable way to use a GDFL image on Wikipedia in any possible context?  And if so, isn't it similarly a violation of the GDFL every time someone uses the template {{t1|click}} on a GDFL image? --[[User:JayHenry|JayHenry]] 00:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)