Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom: Difference between revisions
→Regular responsibilities: add me to ITN |
→Next issue: sister project report done |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
|Task8= Sister projects |
|Task8= Sister projects |
||
|Link8= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Sister projects |
|Link8= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Sister projects |
||
|Status8= |
|Status8= Done |
||
|Notes8= Strategic Planning Update --[[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 08:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
|Notes8= Strategic Planning Update --[[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 08:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:short update, might need another opinion.--[[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 12:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
:short update, might need another opinion.--[[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 12:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 129: | Line 129: | ||
::Its bridgespan as in 'bridge', I thought this was an update, eugene already did this a couple of months ago. It seems like this is turning into an entire introduction or a primer to the planning process, Eugene's update was shorter than the current article and half of it focused on the foundation's position on china. I intended to only update everyone of the current developments in the last month along with a small introduction, not explain the entire process. Someone please clarify if thats whats expected here. --[[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
::Its bridgespan as in 'bridge', I thought this was an update, eugene already did this a couple of months ago. It seems like this is turning into an entire introduction or a primer to the planning process, Eugene's update was shorter than the current article and half of it focused on the foundation's position on china. I intended to only update everyone of the current developments in the last month along with a small introduction, not explain the entire process. Someone please clarify if thats whats expected here. --[[User:Theo10011|Theo10011]] ([[User talk:Theo10011|talk]]) 16:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Okay, I have fixed the typo (Bridgespan). I wasn't aware of the previous coverage. You can just mention the previous story by Eugene with alink to it. That should be enough.--[[User:Forty two|'''<font color="DarkGoldenRod">Forty two</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Forty two|''<font color="teal"><span style="cursor:help">Thanks for all the fish!</span></font>'']]</sup> 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
:::Okay, I have fixed the typo (Bridgespan). I wasn't aware of the previous coverage. You can just mention the previous story by Eugene with alink to it. That should be enough.--[[User:Forty two|'''<font color="DarkGoldenRod">Forty two</font>''']]<sup>[[User talk:Forty two|''<font color="teal"><span style="cursor:help">Thanks for all the fish!</span></font>'']]</sup> 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::Like I indicated in the discussion about Sister projects report linked above, a report should go much beyond a mere announcement and provide the reader with enough context. Some passages still sound a tiny bit too much like a press relase for my taste, and if we would have started this article earlier, we might have had more time to add even more factual information. But the text has become pretty good now anyway, and I believe it will be of great value to many readers. I corrected several typos, added some context (when mentioning a new name such as "Bridgespan", one should somehow indicate what it stands for), and also links. I did not find a link for the "repository for statistics gathered for the process", if there is a good one, please add it (even after publication). Marking the report as done now, going to publish very soon. |
|||
:::Regards, [[User:HaeB|HaeB]] ([[User talk:HaeB|talk]]) 23:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
|Task9= Dispatches |
|Task9= Dispatches |
||
|Link9= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Dispatches |
|Link9= Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-08-09/Dispatches |
Revision as of 23:08, 9 August 2010
Suggestions | Review desk | Opinion desk | Interviews desk |
Notices
- Everyone interested in Signpost matters is invited to join the IRC channel #wikisignpost.(webchat)
- note: I took myself off as the lead for News & Notes -- not because I don't still love the post, but because getting seated on the board means I have even less time, and makes it inappropriate for me to be lead writer on this section (and I haven't been doing it for a month or two anyway). I will still contribute suggestions to the newsroom; feel free to incorporate these as you see fit. cheers, phoebe / (talk to me) 09:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Would anyone be able to find a place to mention the ongoing discussion at Valued Picture Candidates (Wikipedia_talk:Valued_picture_candidates#Dead_project.3F) about revamping and saving the project or shutting it down? — raekyT 14:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Next issueDue for publication: Error: first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time.! Deadline this week is 3:00 UTC, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Issue/Next.Once all tasks are complete, the editor-in-chief (or nominated deputy) should complete the publication process. |
Does anyone else find the Umberto Eco section just a little too long? - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 11:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
|
I'm in the progress of adding images to this. Please don't publish this edition until this is done. Thanks, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Review me) 19:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
|
I'm on dial-up Thursday to Sunday. Tony (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
I've retained last week's title (Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution) for this week's issue, but I'll definitely use a descriptive header next week. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
For a general discussion about these titles, go here. "Arbitration Report" is not an option because we have a system of (short) section titles - i.e. the page name, here "Arbitration report" - and (longer) headlines, here "Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution", or traditionally "The Report on Lengthy Litigation", a title that has been used continually since the very first Signpost issue in 2005 until recently, even though it might also be seen as highlighting negative aspects of arbitration. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
|
|
Strategic Planning Update --Theo10011 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok Haeb I have corrected the article as per your suggestions, a couple of things though the date I used for the recommendation going in front of the board were verbatim out of Sue's email because I dont have an idea myself what the exact month is, Please correct it if you know the right answer. Second, I mentioned eugene and philippe, along with brisgespan and the blue oxen group, the thing is I am not sure if Philippe was officially an employee or a volunteer at the start, I think he might have become an employee in the middle of the process, so I left that out intentionally since I am not sure. Please take a look and tell me if there is anything specific you want me to look at.--Theo10011 (talk) 08:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
←Thanks, Forty two. I see that both Phillipe's and Eugene's links are dead. I will buzz Theo and ask whether he can attend to the page. Tony (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC) Tony I left a reply on your page, Forty two the interlinks usually have problems with the Strategy wiki thats why i used the external link, I am going to revert it and leave it as it was originally, they linked to both their pages right, if its alright. --Theo10011 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
well the Blue oxen group is Eugene basically, its his consulting firm, didnt think it was necessary to mention that. As for bridgespan they just did the interviews and were on a couple of the task forces. They are both consulting firms basically, I could mention some of their former clients and their areas of interest but its going to be rather long and irrelevant to the process not to mention sound very corporate, let me know if thats what you want?--Theo10011 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Please make sure the transcluded content is substituted into the actual page before publication. — Pretzels Hii! 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Real pity, because I think it needs that input from crats and a few experienced admins; that's what readers engage with, and it would be a nice balance to what could be a little grey and statistical (although the colours in the table are great). I think an even shorter title would be better: "RfA drought worsens". The generation gulf is at least partly dependent on that, anyway. I'll c-e soon, in case you want to go ahead. But if you want to hold off until next week, I could help by emailing a few people for short responses to possible interpretations of the stats. Any chance we could put an extra graph in showing the ratio of passes to fails? I could do if you want. There's a good online journal article on the RfA process, which you could link them to. That article would bring another dimension, although it could be the subject of a whole article itself. Tony (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
|
Regular responsibilities
Signpost journalists can claim responsibility for regular features, and continue writing their beat for as long as they wish. If you would like to be a regular writer for The Signpost, add your name to the appropriate task. If you'd be willing to cover a story that is usually covered by another editor, or are willing to cover it sporadically when the normal writer can't, add your name to the Backup list so you can be contacted when the need arises – the more the merrier. If a beat is not assigned to anyone and no draft for the next issue is listed above, anyone should feel free to write it that week.