Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

The Signpost Feedback

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

• If you have a story suggestion, please add it to our Suggestions page.
• If you have an article-specific comment, please add it to that article's talk page.
• If you have an article or report to be published, please list it at the Newsroom.
• If your message is urgent, please contact the editor HaeB directly or try to find a Signpost regular in the IRC channel #wikisignpost ^connect.
• For an index of Signpost pages, please see the Index.

"The Signpost" is way too generic a rename

"The Signpost" could be the name of any sort of publication from Palookaville to Podunk. Please go with something more descriptive and useful, like "The Wikimedia Signpost" or just "The Wiki Signpost".--Pharos (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

C'mon, someone's gotta agree with me on this...--Pharos (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We had this discussion a few weeks ago. Check it out here. It may become the "Wikimedia Signpost" someday down the road, but right now there isn't enough coverage of other projects to warrant that broader moniker. Our coverage is still primarily Wikipedia with only a few bits from other projects. The "Wikipedia" was eliminated because it resulted in redundant page names and readers of the Signpost don't need to be reminded that they're reading this newsletter on Wikipedia. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, to clarify: We do have a lot of coverage about topics beyond the English Wikipedia, especially in the "News and notes", "In the news" and "Technology Report" sections. This interwiki angle was also discussed at length back in June, and it was a major reason for the rename - in fact, the very first reason given in the renaming proposal linked above: "It makes a very visible signal that we report from other Wikimedia family projects too".

It is true, however, that our Interwiki coverage is mostly about other Wikipedias and not often about non-Wikipedia projects. While we should try to cover them too (and we do have an upcoming report about Wikinews, for example), I think this is also due to the fact that Wikipedias attract the very vast majority of pageviews and editors for the Foundation's projects (see the slides for Erik Möller Wikimania talk, p.4.)

Pharos is right that "The Signpost" could be the name of a wholly different publication - in fact, it is. In any case, outside of Wikipedia it is still useful to put "Wikipedia" or "Wiki" in front of the name, such as on Twitter and identi.ca or for the RSS feed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikiversity Signpost

I'm thinking about starting a wikiversity equivalent of the Signpost. Would anyone be willing to help me? Please contact me on my talk page. Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash (Review me) 15:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For this, I'm planning to copy the templates from here. Is that a problem with anybody? Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 15:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussions, Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

Can we go back to having that as the subtitle for Discussion Report? I always found the three clever titles (Discussions, Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations, The Report on Lengthy Litigation, and Bugs, Reports, and Internal Operations) very amusing. NW (Talk) 02:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I also support this. — Pretzels ^Hii! 03:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, hilarious, particularly when you've seen them for the two hundredth time. Meanwhile the readers who don't notice the oh-so-clever wordplay are left wondering what on earth the section in question is actually about. (And presumably those who do notice conclude that the Signpost's position is that all Wikipedia discussions are drama and all ArbCom proceedings are trolling.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kotniski: the number of readers who actually get the acronym jokes must be tiny, and they come at the cost of very unsnappy headlines. I only got the BRION thing last week, when it came up, and I only got the DRAMA thing just now. Maybe I'm thick. I would drop them and use snappier subtitles, without the alphabet soup upper case. Tony (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence and I think there's +/- in both views. I'm testing which is more suitable for the title of the arb report in particular. Will be interested to hear more feedback on the issue in the meantime. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Another point is that ArbCom proceedings have virtually nothing in common with "litigation" (more like "prosecution" if anything, though even that's a poor analogy), so that really is a misleading title (and even if a reader happens to notice that the initial letters of the title spell "troll" - so what? Why that word? Are we really accusing everyone who brings an ArbCom case of being a troll?)--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed that initialism. I don't think much of it at all. Let's make The Signpost reader-oriented, interesting. These coded wink-winks are all too in-house. Tony (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind cryptic insider jokes as long they do not get in the way of the reporting. And, yes I too have reservations against ArbCom proceedings being referred to as 'litigation'. I can think of nothing more apt than 'dispute resolution' which is what it really is.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 10:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is another aspect which hasn't been mentioned yet: On the issue content page (example), both the section title (e.g. "Arbitration Report") and the subtitle (e.g. "The Report on Lengthy Litigation") are displayed next to each other. If someone decides to use "Arbitration Report" as the subtitle, too, as it has happened recently, that would lead to an undesirable doubling on the content page ("Arbitration Report: Arbitration Report").

I have the impression that many readers like the puns and that they don't do too much harm among the rest. But I also agree that a good, descriptive headline is preferable to a generic one: It is crucial for readership numbers as many readers arrive at the contents page first and use the headlines there to decide which stories may interest them.

I would therefore propose the following compromise: We keep "Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations", "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" and "Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News" as fallbacks which are overridden as soon as a Signpost writer comes up with a decriptive headline that does a good job of summarizing the content of that section in that issue. At publication time, I will check for each of the three sections if we have arrived at such a title, if not, I will use the fallback.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW and FWIW, "The Report on Lengthy Litigation" had been used (apparently) continually since the very first Signpost issue in 2005, see Michael Snow's remark about the name there. There is a discussion about a new generic name for that section (invented by Ncmvocalist) here and currently in the Newsroom. Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion continued from newsroom:

A common cause of concern regarding the new name "Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution" is that it is POINTy, disruptive, and non-neutral and that "'tricky' has an inescapable ring of 'Tricky Dicky Nixon'". It has also been suggested that it be renamed to 'Arbitration Report'.

Personally, I find 'Arbitration Report' to be too bland. I also very strongly disagree to the suggestion that the new name is POVish. Only the trickiest and the lengthiest disputes make it to ArbCom and hence the name is very apt.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 10:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. To add to this, since 2005, there has been no concern about the title containing the word "lengthy" or the fact that it is very lengthy, so I kept that part of the tradition. This also appeared to be appreciated last week by some other readers. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

More than 10,000 hits on the 10 May edition; other interesting stats

Dear colleagues, I've used Henryk's article-traffic counter to do a little research on page visits to The Signpost. I had imagined that that only a small proportion of hits would occur after the end of each publication week—that reader interest in each edition would subside dramatically after subscription notices are posted for the subsequent edition. This is strikingly not the case. I looked at hits for each SP page in two editions—3 and 10 May—during two publication weeks and in the seven weeks after each. I chose these editions because they were different in composition: both included five of the six core SP pages (the Technology report was on hiatus in both weeks); but while 3 May had only a book review as an "extra" feature, 10 May was dominated by extra features.

The first graph shows the number of hits in the publication week alone for the two editions; the second graph shows the post-publication hits as a percentage of the original publication-week hits. In both graphs (call them Figs 1 and 2), the subtitles for each week are divided by a slash—first 3 May (red bars), and then 10 May (blue bars).

Conclusions and questions:

• Both Figs show how popular The Signpost is. For 10 May, there were 7,900 hits during the week (Fig. 1); this was boosted to a total of > 10,600 by hits since that week (Fig. 2), still rising. For 3 May, the figures are 6,145 and 8,464, respectively.
• It does look as though the presence of big-hit stories, whether core or extra, suppresses the readership of other stories, particularly the core stories. This might explain the marked fall-off in visits to many 10 May stories (blue) compared with the 3 May edition (red) in Fig. 1. It could be that when there are bit-hit stories, readers jump straight to these and earmark the other pages for later catch-up or don't read them at all. A larger sample would be required to work this out.
• Fig. 2: For both editions, post-publication hits have added more than 30% to the total number of page visits. Why? Do readers bookmark SP articles that interest them and return over the subsequent month or two? Do they access whole previous editions in one go from the subscription notice on their talk page?
• Fig. 1 shows that when porn is the topic, hit-rates go off the dial during the week. (An analysis of recent editions—yet to be posted—shows a similar effect when pedophilia or objectionable material are in the subtitle.) However, the effect is short-lived: retrospective interest is below average as a proportion of publication-week interest (Fig. 2).
• iPhone app and Vector rollout was popular during publication week.
• The topics of WP books, in both NAN and its stand-alone article, was of remarkably enduring interest after publication week (Fig. 2). Why?
• The greater overall hit-rate for 10 May suggests that either the presence of extra features, the particular topics of porn and WP books, or a combination of both, boost readership. A larger sample would be needed to confirm this.
• There is a possibility that top-left placement on the contents list boosts readership: unsure.

As an adjunct to Fig. 1, for the 10 May edition only, here is a breakdown of the fall-offs from the publication week (= 100%) through three periods expressed as day ranges, beginning Day 8. The figures are for the average number of hits per day during each period. The most recent range (49–63 days after end of publication week) has a seven-day hole in it (see limitations), so actually extends to 70 days. The slight upwards kink in the WP-book-related hits in the last period may be statistical noise: I cannot explain it.

Limitations:

• The traffic counter had a nervous breakdown two weeks ago; no data could be drawn from that week.
• The traffic counter may not be highly accurate anyway.
• The sample of just two editions is small. Tony (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is really cool. Thanks for doing some hard-core research and drawing up some nice graphs. I feel there may have been other confounding factors influencing the difference in overall readership between the May 3 and May 10 issue (that's close to exam and graduation time for many colleges and high schools in the northern hemisphere). I hope you continue to expand the sample with a more issues as we go along so we can get an even clearer picture. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Henrik's tool is based off data from domas's dammit.lt site. Please see some recent revelations regarding that data here and here. (Note: I didn't read the above in its entirety, please forgive me if you took this into account. I'm just trying to spread the word about this news.) Killiondude (talk) 06:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Killion. Looks like May might have been less prone to packet loss, and that other months might be underestimating rather than overestimating hits. If the actual additional hits after publication week are even higher than I counted, it is yet more remarkable; I was more concerned the counts might have been overestimates, so this is kind of good news. Also, the emphasis on comparing within May should not be too vulnerable to distortions, I hope. I left a note on Henryk's talk page with a link to here.Tony (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for the work! Some additional remarks:

• The hits for the single-page view also need to be taken into account somehow.
• Some background noise from spiders is to be expected, but it shouldn't be too high (compare e.g. [1]).
• "Wikipedia books launched worldwide" was separately linked in Wikipedia:Article alerts/News, in an announcement that "PediaPress is giving away 100 free books". This page, in turn, is transcluded in many hundred WikiProject pages.
• As said by Tony, the sample size is still too small for some general conclusions, but the results certainly pose interesting questions.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Return to Contents" links broken

...in each and every article, it seems. They point to Wikipedia:WikipediaSignpost/Archives/[date of issue], but I haven't been able to find where exactly that missing space between Wikipedia and Signpost ought to be edited in; those templates are too complex for me. Can someone please fix it? Waltham, The Duke of 19:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Oopsy, mea culpa (and I could have sworn it worked for me before?!?). It was trimming the space. Try now. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 19:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

And lo and behold, the links have broken off their unannounced strike and resumed their regular duties. Thanks. Waltham, The Duke of 20:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a writer to do WP Report on WP Universities

We left a note on the talk page of WikiProject Universities to see if there were enough active editors to warrant an interview for a WikiProject Report article in August (right before many universities in the Northern hemisphere go back to class). Sure enough, there was plenty of interest and they're wanting to know when we'll start the interview. Unfortunately, the writer who was going to conduct the interview had to take a break. Would anyone be interested in taking this up? I would do it myself, but I'm a little biased toward this project. The article's date is flexible and we have all the resources you'd need to create the Report. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I would offer, but I'm on dial-up from Thursday to Sunday. Even if you're "close" to the topic, you could still recognise that and compensate (?). You could just put a short disclaimer in italics at the bottom. That's similar to what TV journalists do at the non-commercial networks. Tony (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This specific Report doesn't have to be done this week, so if you'd like to do it on the days when you've got a better internet connection, that's definitely an option. We've got a couple other projects scheduled this month, so there's no rush. Plus, you can just post the questions on one of the Report's sandboxes and the WP Universities folks will answer it on their own time. -Mabeenot (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

 Mono will be doing it...  ℳono  04:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the new signature. Tony (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.  ℳono  17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Maintenance templates

In our mad rush near the end of the cycle, we get edit conflicts way to often. We really need to use maintenance templates. Specialised templates with nav links to newsroom, etc. would be very useful.--Forty two^{Thanks for all the fish!} 15:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How's this:

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Inuse Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash (Review me) 18:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. I think this should help.--Forty two^{the answer?} 13:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Delisted FAs per week.

I think I've mentioned before that I read the Wikipedia Signpost for updates on what's going on with the featured content in Wikipedia. Every time a former FA is delisted, for instance, I like to check the article's talkpage, to see if it ever was featured on the main page. I think it might be interesting to note which ones got their turn on the main page at some point and which ones never did. The same ought to be done for former featured images. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Making people aware of the existence of the Signpost

Are they? Or is it possible to be a relatively active Wikipedian and yet not heard of the Signpost? Would an informative note on the Village Pump help? I'm of the opinion that it might, but I haven't thought it through very well. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And is subscription available yet on sister projects? Tony (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. But I have recently started announcing new issues on Foundation-l[2] (a suggestion by Phoebe), which I assume is read by a lot of people from sister projects.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for the subscription service to be made available at other WPs and at Commons? Who developed the subscription bot/facility first? Perhaps they might know. I think this is of prime importance in fostering interwiki collaboration. And let's face it, English is the international language, so we are in a unique position in being readable by many users throughout WMF projects. Tony (talk) 12:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride mentioned the possibility of creating a cross-project delivery bot, so that people could sign up on Meta and receive talk page deliveries on their home wikis.--ragesoss (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way and for what it's worth, there was a very short-lived delivery service on Wikinews in 2007 (n:User:HermesBot, six users signed up for it).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Who is best-placed to create such a cross-project delivery bot? It could eventually multiply our readership significantly. Um ... English is the international language ... and more foreign readers will inevitably feed into a more international scope, which is a good thing IMO. Tony (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a request to publish in the next Signpost... "Needed: A bot builder to create a cross-wiki bot for delivering the Signpost to our sister projects (Commons, Wiktionary, other languages, etc)." -Mabeenot (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to run such a request (it would also be a nice occasion to thanks EdwardsBot for the good work since it took up the delivery job in October last year, and do an estimate how many tens of thousands of Signpost copies it has distributed since). It might however be worthwhile to ask MZMcBride (EdwardsBot's owner) first. A delivery bot needs to be told what to distribute and when to start. For EdwardsBot I am already doing this as part of the publication process.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I've alerted MZBcBride to this section. Tony (talk) 04:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Related to this section title, look for weekly announcements of the new Signpost issue to start appearing on the Wikipedia page on Facebook, which has close to 400,000 fans. The one for this week's issue will probably go up later today. Also, there will be a page on Meta soon for community discussion and suggestions for other things for the Wikipedia page to post on Facebook.--ragesoss (WMF) (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of these messages—Sage's and Mabeenot's—are very welcome. Tony (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been up since Thursday evening, yielding over 250 clicks so far (bit.ly/czx8IB+). Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How about a specific Facebook page for the Signpost? Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 07:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

How will we actually move to Wikipedia:Signpost?

A question for those who know more about moving things around here than I do: how are we actually going to achieve moving our pages now we've renamed to just "The Signpost". There was consensus to put the main page at Wikipedia:Signpost. I can move some smaller pages without breaking things, but how will we adjust to publishing issues at Wikipedia:Signpost/2010-08-09, for example? — Pretzels ^Hii! 13:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Move them all, keep redirects. Could be easy as, with just a few critical templates to update. Or, if people aren't keen on keeping the redirects, fixing a few broken links and a few more templates to patch up. Or, if people aren't keen on moving back issues, mainly just template work. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be wise to duplicate a new set of templates, as the current ones look for the next/prev article/issue at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/***. Should be fine to keep the redirects for now, it's just sensitive things like the subscription list and complex templates like Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Signpost/Issue that must be moved with care. — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure duplicating templates in necessary - they can be coded to be backwards compatible. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 15:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How would you go about that? The only way I can imagine is setting them to check whether the article date is past whatever switchover we use, and outputting Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost or Wikipedia:Signpost depending on that - which would be unwieldy and very repetitive. — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the entire Signpost (it goes on for several pages). Could we get a bot to move it all? -Mabeenot (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should move older issues, as they are the Wikipedia Signpost. I think only our future issues, and pages like the Newsroom etc, should be under Wikipedia:Signpost. — Pretzels ^Hii! 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Just check for existence. It either exists at one location or the other. I already implemented it for the contents page. And yes, we could get a bot to move them (or AWB it). - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 08:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a good solution. The new location needs to take precedence though, in the event that both exist. — Pretzels ^Hii! 17:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Archives backlog

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2010 (extended, with ToC) end in late June. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! (Actually it went until the end of July, but the July issues were erroneously labeled with June.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm, that would be my doing. Sorry.

By the way, why are we still linking dates in the Signpost archives? I hardly think that the FBI seal take-down request can be compared in terms of newsworthiness with the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, yet so much seems to be made of their common date of 9 August. Waltham, The Duke of 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

SVG version of logo

• 
  PNG
• 
  SVG

I've created a SVG version of the Signpost's logo, however, it is a little heavier than the current one. I was wondering if anyone had any opinion on this.  ʄlame  23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mono, like I said here, the SVG looks a bit too dense in my browser. The logo (masthead) needs to be usable in small sizes, too, such as in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe/Message, and e.g. the fine white gap in the "S" was barely visible there in my browser when I tried the SVG - with the PNG, it is well visible.

By the way, moving the PNG to Commons appears to have broken it temporarily on some pages here; e.g. some section pages of the current Signpost issue might need purging.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to recreate an image as SVG without the source font. I'll let Mabeenot know; he should be able to get me a copy of the font.  ℳono  23:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The font is "Old English" (not the Monotype version). Send me an email and I'll get it to you. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The SVG version looks slightly smaller. Can it be at least the same size? Width across the page is the important dimension, to me. Tony (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist needs to step down or be replaced

Concerns raised on 8-9 Aug (permalink here, see Arbitration Report section) have gone without resolution and totally ignored by Ncmvocalist, except for a title change (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost current SignPost link). At least 4 users raised significant concerns in the permalink version; some examples "less neutral" by Ks0stm, "heavily biased" by Jéské_Couriano (Jeremy), "editorialising" by Ohconfucius, and "non-neutral" by myself. Also note the 18:59, 9 Aug edit summary by Jéské_Couriano where he says [3] "Ncmvocalist, you need to resign or go on sabbatical from the Signpost, or at least the Arb report". Ncmvocalist is simply not the right person for this job. I'm in no way asking for pro-Arbcom reporting, just neutrality and objectivity, and that we haven't been getting since he began doing SignPost reports. I ask for him to step down or be replaced. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I rarely read the Signpost, but I agree that Ncmvocalist seems to be overstepping from neutral reporting into editorializing at times (e.g. "results ... appear to have been dumped" from 2010-07-19 issue, which is still under discussion). –xeno^talk 00:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm noting a distinctive anti-AC slant from Ncmvocalist, and it's scaring me a bit. The job of any respectable journalist is to state the facts neutrally and without bias. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 00:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree they could be more neutral (along the lines of the reports from a few months ago, a gold standard of neutrality to which they could be compared), they have gotten somewhat better in the last couple weeks (at least perceptively so, after the August 8-9 report or the week before that...I seem to have lost my original comment where I said they sounded less neutral than before, but I remember typing it up...the only comment I can find is where I said August 8-9's report was more neutral sounding than the previous weeks). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Arbcom decisions are often controversial, and it should be by no means exempt from criticism. However, it seems that NCMV may be using his position here on SP to indulge in subtle – but often not-so-subtle – Arbcom bashing that could lend suspicion to some hidden agenda on his part. This clearly needs to stop. If he cannot be neutral, or at least give greater semblance of neutrality in reporting, he needs to step down. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• For me, the Arb reports are, if anything, too pro ArbCom. I've never seen any criticism of ArbCom reported, in spite of the fact that there is always plenty going around.--Kotniski (talk) 07:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• The Arb report is supposed to be an article with journalistic standards, not an editorial, Kotniski. Criticism or praise of ArbCom would be editorializing. We should merely be reporting on the status of cases, case overviews, and (if necessary) major developments that affect the case's course. What I'm seeing from Ncmvocalist as of late only convinces me that he's not the right man for the column. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand - I don't want the editor to criticize or praise ArbCom, I want him to report on other people's criticism or praising of ArbCom.--Kotniski (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As an example, Jeske Couriano was unhappy with my reporting last week because I reported that a case was technically open - he insisted it was either open or close (that's all there is to it), but evidently, at least one of the participants from the case disagreed with him [4]. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm all for such alternative interpretations appearing, but in this instance, I just didn't understand what you meant by "technically open". I think you're doing a good job and am not joining in the calls for you to stop doing it, but as a piece of hopefully constructive criticism, you could be more explicit in your statements so we can all understand clearly what you mean. --Kotniski (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No doubt, the type of feedback you've provided is very helpful (and appreciated) for that very reason - it's constructive. I'll definitely work on that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I knew exactly what he meant by "technically open". It's an apt description of where things stood last week. ++Lar: t/c 10:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

But you knew about the case, right? --Kotniski (talk) 10:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Er, no? :) ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

SignPost reporting should be neutral, not editorializing POINTy tabloidism. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with that. And I think everyone knows I'm not Ncmvocalist's biggest fan (I think at various points I've suggested that he too often gets involved in things he should abstain from, that he gives the appearance of being excessively officious in his dealings with others, and that he would make a terrible arbcom/CU/you name it clerk and thus needs to stop trying to clerk things, among other observations), but nevertheless I think he's doing a fair job here. Is the Signpost a house organ or an impartial source, or is it a muckraker? I want impartial. That includes highlighting things like the fact that a case is only "technically" open. ++Lar: t/c 14:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think that Ncmvocalist's coverage has had its problems, but that the Arbitration Report is being taken in a positive direction. On the problems, I think the current report on the R&I case understates the progress made in the last week. I think the phrase "technically open", whilst apt, could and probably should have been further explained for this week's report. However, I think these are areas for improvement and I disagree with Rlevse's call for Ncmvocalist to be replaced. The previous reports were, in my opinion, not worth reading; banal, bland, and reading like ArbCom-authored press releases, they did not give any real flavour of attitudes towards ArbCom and of ArbCom actions. Those reports were a base from which to build, not an ideal to which to aspire. Coverage should reflect what ArbCom is doing and how that is being received, and whilst that might be uncomfortable for arbitrators at times, that is not a reason to sanitise reports. Balanced, factually-supported, and fair - sure; but still informative and a worthwhile read. Maybe a helpful innovation might be the introduction of a separate editorial section, allowing for explicit Op-Ed commentary; if that happens, however, Rlevse might want to brace himself because true Op-Ed commentary will be much more direct and critical at times than anything Ncmvocalist has reported to date. EdChem (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Life is too short to get to true consensus NPOV on signpost. I think Ncmv is generally doing a good job for the community and I for one can live with a little interpretive opinion from time to time whether I agree or not; especially if the alternative is bland bland bland. As for the above, can I nominate the sentence "The job of any respectable journalist is to state the facts neutrally and without bias" as the most naive proclamation ever made in good faith on Wikipedia, either that or so subtlely ironic that I misread the straight face, or possibly meaning "no journalist is respectable" which may be more in line with public perception. --BozMo talk 11:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I hadn't been following Signpost coverage, but Ncmvocalist left me a note asking me to look into this. I'm involved in the Climate Change case. I also have many years of experience in journalism (believe that or not, as you will; and I'm sure I'm not the only editor around here who could say that). A few points:
  • Signpost is a small operation in a small community and sponsored in a way that those who are reported on can -- as is being done here -- exert influence on coverage. All this means that the prudent, practical course for the writers is to be very conservative in tone. Headlines are not terribly important when the length of the report is so short, so (purely for practical reasons) I recommend taking the duller, more conservative course with the headline here. It isn't a matter of whether the headline is "biased" or not. By giving way on minor issues such as headlines over pieces only one short paragraph long, you keep your powder dry for more important issues. All reporters face pressure about bias, and they all have to pick their battles.
  • On the merits (the principle), Ncmvocalist is utterly blameless regarding the headline. It simply isn't biased to say litigation is "tricky". The CC case is obviously trickier than most ArbCom cases. That's all I took that word to mean, and you editors, including you, Rlevese, need to assume good faith. If you have other reasons to complain about bias, address them directly.
  • Rlevese, you are not only wrong, you are being much too sensitive and as an arbitrator you should be more cautious with your own language, because the Signpost's integrity depends on it not being seen as truckling too much to influential Wikipedians, like arbitrators. Everyone knows Signpost isn't totally independent, but if it's to be trusted to any degree, everyone who is covered by it needs to put up with irritations in its reports and only complain about clear-cut problems and only do it in a reserved way. This page is much closer to an ArbCom case page than to anything else on Wikipedia. Please keep that in mind.
  • Often, one complaint of bias is only the latest in a number of similar complaints alleging the same bias by the same person or group about the same subject. I notice that there have been previous complaints, including one here [5] about using the word "dumped". As with the headline, Ncm, please choose more conservative language or you're simply not going to be able to do this reporting. Do Signpost reporters have editors? Toning down language is a typical editing function, done by someone without a dog in the fight, so those edits tend to be accepted more easily by the reporter. When people being covered want to make changes to make coverage of them easier, it is very difficult for the reporter to accept those changes.
  • When it comes to questions of tone (such as using words like "dumped" or "tricky") you always have to balance the goals of sparking reader interest and attention with the possibility that your words will be interpreted as biased. In a smaller, in-house publication like Signpost, that balance is much closer to the latter than the former.
  • Ncm, If you start a blog, you can do essentially the same reporting, with the words you want, but with independence. If you're good at it and keep doing it, you'll eventually get quite a following. And you won't need to tone down your language. OpenWikiBlogPlanet and PlanetWikipedia display Wikipedia-related blogs, and that's one good way to get attention for it. It would involve somewhat more work than contributing to Signpost, but not much more, and it would probably be a lot more satisfying.
  • Everybody, if you want Signpost to be trusted, especially by the more clued-in editors, you need to tone down your criticism considerably. Emotional statements alleging bias are particularly toxic for Signpost because if you win, you run a strong risk of looking like you've only won control, not won on the merits. You'll have damaged Signpost's credibility, destroying the village to save it. This is not worth doing over use of words like "dumped" or "tricky".

-- JohnWBarber (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

An excellent analysis. Thanks for taking the time to spell the issues out so clearly. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, excellent analysis and good advice. Thank you for taking the time to comment. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Signpost has already lost lots of credibility because NCM's problems with arbcom go back to 2008 and choosing him to report on arbcom was an obvious error and his bias shows, that's what needs toned down. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

JWB's analysis is, dare I say it, fair and balanced. This episode is one example of a trend I've noticed lately, which is that people are starting to take themselves way too seriously. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Boris. RLevse, if you are not happy with Signpost reporting, the Towncrier is (or easily could be) over here. Or just write a letter to the editor to clarify your position. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist asked me have a look at this thread because I previously complained about his Tricky backronymn. I objected to the backronym (tho it's better than the old TRoLL one) but I think the person who puts in the effort to write these reports are free to ignore such objections if they don't think them valid, and call the reports what they want. As for the content being biased and mentioning delays - I don't see the problem and prefer Ncmvocalist's reports' content to the old style. -- Jeandré, 2010-08-19t10:42z

From reading the comments above it seems like he is angering people on both sides of the issues pretty close to equally. If I am right about that, than he should continue doing the writing like he has been, taking in constructive comments and adjusting if necessary. He has asked a few people to review his work, this is what actually led me to this page, which to me is a good sign that he is trying to be open minded about everything. I think everyone should back off a bit and allow him a good dose of assume good faith. I read the Signpost and I can't say I can find anything specifically wrong with his writings. Like everything written like this, common sense should be used while reading. Just my two cents about this, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rlevse raaaage. I agree with most of the other comments in this section: if there are specific issues with the writing, point them out and they can be discussed. A generic "I don't like it!" isn't helpful, productive, or constructive. Having read some of the older Signposts, I can't really say I've ever seen the writing as particularly neutral. It still beats out that piece-of-shit Llama publication any day of the week, though. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Per Ohconfucius, above. In addition, there has always been a gaping hole in the reportage of ArbCom cases: the case texts themselves are long and bureaucratic—there are good reasons for this (although I'd do it a little differently myself). What the community needs are succinct, neutral, accurate versions of the background and judgement of each case. The Signpost is the ideal place to make ArbCom cases more accessible to the community. That should be the focus of the Report. Tony (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I agree with Tony. I find the ArbCom cases nigh impossible to read. I think that it would be good if The Signpost explained the cases in a more accessible way. Thanks, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 12:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

IP Subscription

Please remove the IPs from the list of subscribers. Hazard-SJ ^Talk 09:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Pretzels ^Hii! 15:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking bandwith :) ResMar 04:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it does. Lots of IPs + monthly newspaper subscription = bandwith hog. I wouldn't support such a move, though. ResMar 01:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's weekly. :) Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 12:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see why we should prevent IPs from subscribing to the post.--Forty two^{the answer?} 13:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PERF. –xeno^talk 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We shouldnt. ResMar 15:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why IP contributors shouldn't be allowed to subscribe. — Pretzels ^Hii! 17:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispatches

It's listed as "On hiatus," but I decided to go ahead and write up Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-23/Dispatches. It's a list of pertinent editor tools. Only partially complete right now. Feel free to add good ones I've missed. Hope it's not too bad of an article :) ResMar 02:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ooh. I like it! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea, but I feel it might be more useful if it was a series of features on related tools, with maybe even key tools (eg AWB) getting their own report. That would be more digestible for readers, as well as easier to write, and then from reader feedback you can cover tools that have been overlooked. Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but all this comes after. The article should stand as is (it's meant to be a dispatch thing anyway), perhaps we can start a series. While I'm interested in that regard I in no way see it as a reason to delay the publishing of the article. ResMar 15:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, because I think the present article would be better split into several, as part of a series. This is great idea, but it can be made better by restructuring it as a series. If there is no appetite for that, a one-off is still good, but the decision needs to be made now. Rd232 ^talk 17:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I decide that it should be posted as is and the possible serialization be put under discussion for later. I'm sure that's not worth a mule's eye though. ResMar 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not run this Dispatch yet, and in the future, please coordinate your work at the Dispatch Workshop to avoid the problems present here. See Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-23/Dispatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think a better analogy would be "to avoid the problems here and instead face them head on there." ResMar 16:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, not to dismiss the many great contributions of the Dispatch Workshop to the Signpost in the past, but considering that only four of its "weekly columns" have appeared after May 2009, the last one five months ago, the project can safely be described as inactive (if not historical). It should also be remarked that some content that used to be in Dispatches - interview-style statements by FC contributors - has since been integrated into the "Features and admins" section (by Tony and others).

Still, I agree it would have been better if Resident Mario had posted a notification on the Workshop's talk page. However, while feedback by others is important to ensure the quality of Signpost articles, this is already being provided in the Newsroom, and it is not entirely clear to me why it is necessary in addition that a Signpost writer who just wants to contribute an interesting article has to submit to the authority of not less than five different users whose last significant contribution to the Signpost appears to lay way in the past ("It should be reviewed at minimum by Ucucha, Dispenser, Dr pda, Gary King and Ealdgyth"[6]).

That being said, it is questionable whether the article even falls under the scope of Dispatches ("issues concerning featured content and related pages"): None of the tools presented is particular to featured content processes. If such a rubric is needed at all, the tutorial series seems closer in kind.

As the article is not time-critical in any way, and there have been several suggestions for expansion or improvement in the Newsroom, I think there isn't much harm in postponing it until the following issue (August 30). Therefore - after discussing this with Resident Mario - I won't publish it in the upcoming (August 23) issue.

If this somewhat unpleasant discussion has the positive side effect of reviving the Dispatch Workshop, that would be great.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful. I have plently of ideas and have pinged Rurchfish, Cirt on some (responses: I'll see if I can finish it and yeah, I'll think about it), but this acidic response is seriously offputting, and otherwise I doubt anyone will contribute regularly beyond the ocassional "special-event" post. ResMar 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the Dispatches warranted so much heated and emotional discussion. I feel it's important that we remember to welcome new contributors rather than biting them because of small misunderstandings. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope by new, you're not referering to me? I started editing in Dec 08, thats not new on any order. I feeel my qualifications are not an issue. Anyway, I think that the article is perfectly placed as is. A tutorial is meant to teach you something. What does this teach? ResMar 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note Looking away from the "content tools" idea for a second, Raul654 (talk · contribs) said he would write something up about the 3000th FA, which was recently promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

ResMar can feel this getting pushed back another week. Oh well, at least it's something important. What was the 3000th FA? ResMar 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Raul654#FA milestone. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess I should be proud that the product of about an hour of work on my part has come around to a scalding debate on the community's part. This discussion needs to be centralized. Here, the the article's talk, or notes. Don't we have to delete the talk page once its up for publication anyway? ResMar 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing no evidence of a scalding or heated debate, so perhaps I missed it, but the centralized discussion should have occurred at WT:FCDW, which would have avoided these issues. There are still several tools missing, and editors who have written or extensively use those tools in content review processes are just now beginning to weigh in and correct the errors. Referencing several misstatements above, the Dispatches cover multiple content review processes-- not just FAs-- and pinging in all of the editors who wrote and use these tools, as well as notifying WT:FCDW, would have been a more efficient way to approach this. I'm wondering why ResMar chose to launch this unilaterally when there is a clear Project page with members (which he acknowledged), but hope this Dispatch will move forward now, with a comprehensive reivew of several missing tools, including pinging in those editors who wrote and use them. The Signpost Dispatches shouldn't really be a venue for one editor to unilaterally write up his "favorites", rather a more collaborative and comprehensive approach to content review. I would be very surprised if a Dispatch could be written in an hour !!! I haven't had time to review this Dispatch for missing content, but as a minimum, I see it doesn't explain that the Featured article tools can be added to any talk page, so there may be more missing content. The Dispatches had historically a high level of quality, precisely because of the collaborative effort, so let's not see that trend decline with hurried entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Point on "historically." The support page was very, very inactive. Can you point out other editors going through the same process I am right now, first and foremost of all? And I'd love to know whats missing. Because a) a vauge "stuff is missing" hardly means anything and b) I'd love to add it. ResMar 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Featured article tools can be added to any talk page." What? ResMar 23:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed the list (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-30/Dispatches), but was then confronted with the long comments thread (from last week), at the end. Could (some or all of) that be collapsed, please and thank you? :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Just stopping by to make one comment and then moving on my way: Last I checked, WP:OWN is a policy that refers to articles, but in spirit refers to any part of Wikipedia. Just something to keep in mind... §hep^Talk 00:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

flagged revs

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/flaggedrevisions looks very outdated, and too big to boot. I've enclosed everything in small tags, if that's ok, and I propose a new list from where that one dropped off. (Eg. Recent pending changes debates) ResMar 02:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

True, for these two reasons I included it only as a link in the June coverage about Pending changes. It might be an idea to have a new, separate template for Pending changes, but it would so far only include three articles (two in June, one now), and we might still get new articles about Flaggedrevs in general (e.g. a write-up about Felipe Ortega's study on Flaggedrevs on the German Wikipedia, once the video from his Wikimania talk becomes available).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the newest issue :) ResMar 21:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)