Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Feedback
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page. |
Congratulations
Congratulations. A great idea implemented well. Wikipedia has got to big to keep up with, without wasting too much time looking. I'd be interested in writing the occasional article. :ChrisG 20:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Congratulations from me as well. I expect to be an avid reader.-gadfium 21:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Congratulations from me too. I look forward to contributing sometimes. Are we to go all the way with a gossip column, small ads and a letters page??? Apwoolrich 08:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Want to make Wikipedia wealthy? Start this: Wikipersonals, and charge $4.99 to be listed. Blair P. Houghton 21:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
Let me add to the chorus; I enjoyed reading this, and it was very well done. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:45, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is cool :) Dan100 00:12, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yes very useful, well done. Paul August ☎ 19:26, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Remarks
Hello. I think such a newspaper on Wikipedia is very usefull (mostly for those who don't stick everyday on it but want to stay in touch with the project). I don't know how you will handle archives but it could be interesting to keep old articles somewhere. I would say that, for each link on articles in the main page, one should be able to know a little more on the article : when was it written and what it the real topic. Don't forget that wp is read by a worldwide audience and your English must be "simple" (I know, "simple" prose is harder to write, takes more time, but it worth the effort : it is often the way to write beautiful prose, here I don't criticise those clear and precise article bodies, but their headers, cause I had to follow links to ensure I understood the topic). One more : I often use the "status bar" to check what is linking to what, so I would like the articles' filenames not to be obscure acronyms. I guess a date of publication plus a keyword or two could be better. Anyway, nice idea and nice work. I'm often completely lost in what is "going-on" in wp, what are the major changes and events. Here, I will find this info. gbog 05:15, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Excellent work, Michael
When I saw the announcement of this project I was slightly sceptical that there was a niche for it. The depth and quality of your writing proved me completely wrong. I really like it (and not just because you chose to quote me in one of the articles :). Minor suggestions only-
- When coming up with ideas of how best to integrate (if at all) goings-on and the signpost, please also consider the future of Wikipedia:Announcements which itself has died off since goings-on got started.
- For maintenance purposes consider using a subpage of form SignPost/Issue Number X/Article title rather than the current SignPost/Article title.
Pcb21| Pete 12:21, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I've thought about what role the Announcements page might have as well. Brockert above mentioned the issue of ongoing things like new admins, which currently is hosted at Goings-on. I'm wondering if that kind of material (i.e. terse administrative announcements that don't really have a news story behind them) might be moved back to Announcements, while the Signpost takes over the news-report functionality from Goings-on, which could then be retired from service.
- A proper scheme for organizing and naming the subpages has yet to be determined, but I do anticipate archiving by each issue, possibly in a manner similar to your suggestion. --Michael Snow 20:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Signpost Found
I stumbled onto Signpost today (I must have missed the memo) and how very nice it is. For the casual user (vs Wikiholic) it provides concise info about goings-on that "Goings-On" lacked. I feel more like an "insider" without having to expend my energy/time for example on arbitration pages. I like your NPOV editorial style - it reads very much like a newspaper. Well done and thank you. hydnjo talk 23:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks also from me. After being away for a few weeks, it was the easiest way to catch up on WikiHappenings, and it's very well written. Cheers! — Matt Crypto 14:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What they said. Thanks. –Hajor 14:39, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
wow
Michael I just want to say that your neutral writing is excellent. --Alterego 17:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
May 9 edition?
Is there going to be a new edition this week? Just curious—I always look forward to reading the Signpost each week! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
1 August issue
I'm just wondering where this week's issue is? Thryduulf 16:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's been delayed a bit because Worldtraveller had a technical glitch mess up his piece, and I'm still trying to figure out whether one other story is going to happen. Looks like it will be a smaller-than-normal issue once it's ready, which will hopefully be soon. --Michael Snow 17:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Size of current issue
Congratulations to everyone for the larger-than-usual events coverage in this issue. Keep up the good work! Ingoolemo talk 22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- I concur. I loved the generous length of the edition this week. Fantastic. Babajobu 23:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
Thank you
Just a thanks from me to the guys/gals who write for the signpost. I usually drop by to see what's going on in the Wikipedia world. Keep up the great work. - Akamad 12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
I just wanted to say thanks for everyone's excellent work on the signpost! -Ravedave 03:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your thanks! It's good to know the work is appreciated. — Catherine\talk 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to say thanks as well. The Signpost is great! :-) --unforgettableid | talk to me 03:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Great Job!
Hey, I'd just like to say that this week's Signpost is the most well-written issue I've seen since so far! (I guess I can forgive you guys for being behind schedule with it lately.) May I suggest that you start saying that new issues come out on Tuesday, so that when they don't come on Monday, people won't be disappointed. Its kind of a stupid suggestion, but whatever. JaredW 12:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the compliments; all of us who contribute appreciate it. I'm not sure about the changing of the date - that would be something for Michael Snow or Ral315 to decide. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- We just need to do a better job of sticking to the schedule. --Michael Snow 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
TROLL (The Report On Lengthy Litigation)
I hate to be a party pooper, and I do appreciate the work of the people who write this, but would it be possible to change the name of The Report...? It smacks horribly of caballic in-jokery, which rather defeats the splendid work on improving openness which the Signpost otherwise does. It took me a long time to work out what this section was meant to be, and I've been here for ages. I can't imagine what the noobs make of it. --Markyour words 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Suggestions would be good. "RFAs and Arbcom cases in progress" doesn't sound very euphonius, and at least this one is semi-amusing. --maru (talk) contribs 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- I personally like TROLL but how about "Arbitration Digest"? --Thryduulf 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- TROLL = The Report On Lengthy Litigation. Aren't RFA's (Requests for Adminship) covered in "Features and admins"? Arbitration is RFAr. Although I suppose TROLL could cover RFCs and Mediation but I don't recall it doing and AIUI those processes are in a bit of a mess at the moment? I see TROLL as the Wikipedia equivalent of a court reporter. Thryduulf 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I suspect Maru means RfCs. --Markyour words 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- TROLL currently only covers requests for arbitration (sometimes abbreviated RfA), and Features and admins covers requests for adminship, which is much more commonly abbreviated RfA. Covering mediation and RfC would be a logistics problem; first, speaking from my position as a mediator, I wouldn't wish for the dispute to be covered, and it probably wouldn't be a good idea to cover RfCs either. Regarding the name "T.R.O.L.L.", the issue would be up to Ral or Michael Snow to decide; please continue to give feedback, though. Personally, I like it, but I can see why some people would be confused and/or offended. However, note that the acronym is no longer actively in use; from the main newspaper page, it's spelled out, and the subpage is now always at "Arbitration report". Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- On an optimistic note, perhaps 'Dispute Resolution'? If it is just meant to be Arbcom matters, then something like 'Arbcom Digest', 'Arbitration Cases in Progress'?Markyour words 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I like "T.R.O.L.L." It's community news, we can cope with community in-jokes. My 2 pennies. — Matt Crypto 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Here here! Raul654 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I like this too. The name is a bit of a chuckle for me. (Hm, as an arb, perhaps I shouldn't admit that...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- When I first figured out when TROLL meant, I started to ROFLMAO. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- What was hard to figure out about what this feature is? It is and always has been a report about arbitration cases, and I can't imagine anything that could have given an impression that it's not that. As for the joke, not everyone figures it out right away, but explaining it every week would spoil the joke. If you think it's snarky, keep in mind that the snark here can cut in all directions. A reader can see in it what they want, but that comes as much from their own preconceptions as anything that's inherent in the name. --Michael Snow 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I assumed it was about some actual litigation which the foundation was involved in. And I don't thiink I'm more than averagely obtuse. Markyour words 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- We all have our blind spots. Apparently mine was that, knowing what real litigation is, it didn't occur to me that anyone would actually think that's what I was talking about. Rather that was part of the joke, and it's interesting to learn that it did get misunderstood this way. --Michael Snow 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I assumed it was about some actual litigation which the foundation was involved in. And I don't thiink I'm more than averagely obtuse. Markyour words 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll stick my two pennorth in here and say that I've always been a little uneasy about this name as well. It took me no time to figure out what it meant, but my concern is the implication that arbitration is all about trolls, which is very far from being the case. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC) We use "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" primarily. That it's an acronym is more of an in-joke than anything. If you can't figure that it's arbitration cases by looking at the title, simply viewing the story pretty much makes it clear. Ral315 (talk) 18:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
My sentiments are exactly like OpenToppedBus's. I always try to avoid the word troll so as to avoid any chance of a personal attack. If it's never used in it's acronym form then I'm fine with the inside joke, but the word troll is just unecessary. - Taxman Talk 19:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- The only place the acronym gets used is the navigation links at the bottom of each story, which need to use shorthand titles. If we found a suitable substitute there, would that be satisfactory? --Michael Snow 19:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be fine, and I really don't have a huge problem with it, I've just never thought it was a terribly good idea either. - Taxman Talk 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- As per Taxman, I don't have a huge problem with it either, which is why I've not brought it up until someone else questioned it. I certainly don't mind keeping the name if the acronym's not used. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be fine, and I really don't have a huge problem with it, I've just never thought it was a terribly good idea either. - Taxman Talk 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
TROLL and BRION are just fine. Relax, folks. If you're "in" enough to recognize that there's a joke there at all, then it isn't an "in-joke" at your expense. --FOo 10:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Weekly release date
The signpost seems to be released on the day after the date stamp of the article. For example, this weeks signpost has the time stamp Feb 27, but were not available until the 28th (possibly it was available in the evening in the US=the night in the EU). It would seem more intuitive to me if the signpost was available on the day of its time stamp, just like newspapers where the Feb 27th issue is the issue availble on the morning of the 27th. Thue | talk 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the Signpost is released weekly, summarising the events of the previous week, and Monday is the copy date and date stamp. Inevitably, some articles are not ready by 0:01 UTC on Monday, let alone 0:01 local time for New Zealanders, etc, (some Wikipedians do have lives at the weekend, some authors are in the US) and things slip a bit past the deadline, as is the way of things. Like most readers in Europe, I suppose, I generally read it on the Tuesday, but I think the Monday date stamp is fine: think of it as identifying the week of the issue, rather than the day of the issue. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- Why not release on tuesdays? -Ravedave 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I've been working harder to get my article(s) done on time (I found the FoxClocks Firefox extension, which gives me an extra browser clock set to UTC/Wikipedia time, which helps.) Would putting the Submission and Publishing deadlines on the Newsroom page help contributors to get things prepared in a timely manner? — Catherine\talk 20:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
current admin noms
I think it would be nice if, in addition to listing the users who passed RfA last week, we listed also the users who were up for RfA at presstime. I don't go to RfA all that often, usually only if I know the people involved. I do read Signpost every week however, and sometimes discover that I've missed an RfA that I really would have liked to have voted on. What do you think? -lethe talk + 12:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I sometimes have the same need, so I regularly check the VfA page, and I would appreciate reading about it in the signpost. -- Chris 73 | Talk 15:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- As an aside, I find that keeping User:Dragons flight/RFA summary on my watchlist is a good way of keeping track of current RFAs. Leithp 15:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Gosh - what an exceptionally useful page.
-
-
-
- In the spirit of sharing, I stumbled across Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers yesterday. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Weak oppose. I think it might be a bit overkill, considering Dragon flight's link and the ability to type RfAinto the search box. But still, this isn't the worst idea ever or anything. youngamerican (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- I personally don't see the need to include current RFAs...if people can't be bothered to check it once a week, then that's their fault. Someone being named an admin is newsworthy; someone applying isn't, in my opinion. Ral315 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Ral315, it is as simple as writing WP:RFA and looking at the TOC quickly... Mikker ... 19:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Features & admins
For recently featured and defeatured images, articles et al, I think you should link to the nomination as well as the item itself, similar to how you link to both userpages and nominations for RfAs. I lime to read nominations. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
B.R.I.O.N. - Software
The Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News section is nice for users who want to keep abreast of some of the administrative issues going on behind the scenes, but it seems to cover hardware with quite a bias. What's the harm in adding something to report on changes to the software; which occur often, and which end users often aren't informed of? Rob Church (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sure Ral315, who writes that section, would be happy to report on such changes, if he were made aware of them. Raul654 17:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed the coverage of technical issues, whether by Ral315 or myself, is always coming from people who simply aren't heavily enough involved in those matters to do them justice. We'd be happy to have anyone more familiar with that side of things who can feed us information or even help in writing these reports. --Michael Snow 04:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
There's a Subversion commit log, and also a mailing list which the bug tracker spits out feeds to. If those are a bit too high volume (and they can get quite busy) then I've no problem with feeding you a list of things changed or fixed on a weekly basis; I'll go and review the logs now and put something together. Rob Church (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Would also be very interesting to hear if there has been purchased/installed any new servers. As far as I can see from the serverlist there has been no new servers since last year, even though there has been a major fundraise in the beginning of this year. Ulflarsen 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- That would be greatly appreciated, Rob -- thank you! Wherever you build your list, drop a link in the Newsroom, and the info will be included in the Signpost's next issue. — Catherine\talk 15:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Done. I'll negotiate with Domas Mituzas about getting purchase info. available, when he's around. Rob Church (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikimania report
Just a heads up that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-10/Wikimania report isn't linked from WP:POST. I don't want to stuff up the pretty formatting so I haven't done it myself... enochlau (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
PUBLISHING!
Is the signpost ready to be published?! If not, what is the time it will be published (it's 11 1/2 hours late).
--Primate#101 04:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fair go... it was just Easter! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Highlighting updates visually
I wanted to suggest that somehow we highlight the Signpost when it is a fresh update (mondays). My eyes tend to skip over it (at the community portal), due to its fairly homogenous layout week-to-week, and i only remember to check it occasionally.
My own whimsical suggestion, would be to lighten the font by a shade on wednesdays and saturdays, then on mondays it becomes full-black again, making it visually pop. But i'm sure you can devise something better :)
Just a thought. -Quiddity 20:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Watchlist is your friend. :) Rebecca 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Alternatively, you might wish to join our "message" list and receive an update to your user talk page. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:59, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd meant more for the benefit of others. To increase casual readership. As i'm guessing it's a common problem. Maybe something as simple as adding a "Fresh on Mondays" line, or similar? Or a 2nd "Signpost" logo in a different colour, and the two could alternate each week. See what i mean? -Quiddity 22:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I see what you mean now. Well, it does include the issue/volume number and the date of publication in the template, so that in each update they will change. I'm not sure if people would like a different color; first, it would be hard to determine when a "new" issue becomes "old", and some people might view colors as garish and tacky. I'm open to suggestions, though. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Just a slight variant. eg. 1 black, 1 dark blue. Every monday you'd change to the other.
- I'm picturing the 1920's boy on corner, shouting "Extra, extra! read all about it!" :)
- Or the other idea of the logo getting slightly grayer over the course of the week. Then suddenly being black again on mondays.
- Just some ideas, i'll leave them to percolate ;) -Quiddity 06:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I like the idea of two colors that flip back and forth, or maybe a color for the nth edition of the month. Maybe just a little red 'New' icon for 24 hours after it gets updated. -Ravedave 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Date of single-page version not updated
For some reason, the date on WP:POST/1 hasn't been updated: the new articles for 3 July 2006 are all there but the topmost header still says "26 June 2006". I've used the "purge" link to be sure, to no avail. No biggie, but there's a glitch somewhere.
(And BTW, big thanks for that single-page version. I had suggested it some months ago, and it had been implemented, what, 6 hours later? Terrific.)
-- 62.147.113.238 01:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just needed editing (which I have just done). This is a wiki - you can fix errors yourself! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- But, as I understand it, the Single-page version is generated from the Multi-page version automatically by transclusion, not by hand; isn't the Single-page version's header (and its date) also automatically derived from the Multi-page version? -- In other words, I thought it was a bug in the transclusion process that generates the Single-page version, a bug that would have missed out the header and date part. Thus, I thought that fixing it myself wouldn't help in the long term, compared to reporting on a bug. Oh, well, sorry. -- 62.147.113.80 12:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Oh, right, I see. But then, I guess it should be possible to avoid duplicating the Signpost's TOC by making it a subpage like articles, and using in it three template variables (for the subtitle, the link to the other version, and the shortcut), so as to invoke it from both front pages, kinda like:
-
-
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-03/TOC|
| subtitle = Multi-Page View
| switchlink = Single-Page View
| shortcut = WP:POST
}}
-
-
-
- And:
-
-
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-07-03/TOC|
| subtitle = Single-Page View
| switchlink = Home
| shortcut = WP:POST/1
}}
-
-
-
- Just a thought. -- 62.147.113.80 13:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-
-
