Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-09-06/Dispatches

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gary (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 5 September 2010 (→‎Reorg ?: fix link to screenshot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Not ready, not reviewed

Extended content

This is not ready yet and wasn't run through WP:FCDW. It should be reviewed at minimum by Ucucha, Dispenser, Dr pda, Gary King and Ealdgyth (have they been pinged?), and was put up with serious copyedit issues. In the future, Dispatches should be proposed at WT:FCDW to make sure they're ready before they're proposed at The Signpost. I am traveling, so catching up with this is a chore and I hadn't planned to log on today, but next I need to make sure this hasn't run yet. In the future, please coordinate Dispatches at WT:FCDW. I hope the Signpost will put off running this until it's been reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I come, I write, I get into argument. Most polarizing thing I've ever done here. If you want to review it so be it. In the future I'm writing this anymore, way too arbitration-muddled. ResMar 15:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, I seriously feel you lack faith in me Sandy. Wikipedians are not graded in the amount of contributions they have.ResMar 15:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing it at WT:FCDW would have been the appropriate thing to do-- I'm traveling and only found out about this because Dabomb87 notified me, and it hasn't yet had proper review. I think the instructions at WP:FCDW are clear on proposing topics with other members; if not, we should make them more clear. At any rate, this Dispatch needs to be reveiwed by several of the tool writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So be it. ResMar 15:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to run this not as part of the Dispatches series, because it's dead and done. Really disappointed in your attitude here, Sandy. — Pretzels Hii! 17:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we delay it by a week? There are glairing omitions (User:Anomie/linkclassifier, WikEd, stuff Gary King worked on) and some of the tool names are wrong. It would be good to hear input from the tool writers that Sandy's mention and FA writers on what they think the most useful tools are. It may also be useful to provide bookmarklet code (as done on SAPR page) for people not wishing to install script. Also, a future series could concentrate on tools for WikiProjects. — Dispenser 18:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been postponed; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#Dispatches. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WiikiEd? For content contribs? Same goes for User:Anomie/linkclassifier. Please understand the scope of the article and not stray out of it.ResMar 20:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you used WikEd? The syntax highlighter, reference collapsing, and ajax previewing are a godsend and it looks to get better with the upcoming table editor. The linkclassifier is just dabfinder (or dewiki's Begriffsklärungs-Check) with the data also put to other uses. — Dispenser 21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a major aesthetic choice not something you can quickly put in and say "hey, this is useful!" I suppose that would fit but I don't think that's a tool so much as a different way to edit, entirely. ResMar 22:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, here's a comparison. It's like writing in Notepad vs. writing in Word. ResMar 23:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how good this is in general, but the version of HotCat shown is the more advanced Commons one. —innotata 15:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the difference isn't that major. If someone can take a Wikipedia screenshot (better yet, of the interface when you type in Shield, as that's the example used in the article), they're more then welcome to replace the image on the page. ResMar 00:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summarization in points

My issue with FCDW
  • I wrote this article not as an exhastive list but as an article, from a content contributor to content contributors, assessing my experiences with tools that are available to users to help them better write Wikipedia.
  • The scope is quite narrow. Only directly applicable things are mentioned. Please take time to understand the scope.
  • Note the disclaimer. It's there for a reason. Not an article meant to be comprehensive. Not in the least. In fact, I encourage the addition of related tools not already on the listing post-publication.
  • All this nonsense seems like a misguided attempt to assert WP:OWN. I do not see myself as tied to the WP:FCDW in the least, considering its inactivity. Rather, during the writing of this article I took to it as an idea bank for personal use.
  • I see no evidence of previous writers to this section being held to the same standards as I am held. They took the form of, "Hey I wrote an article on so and so, hey good work!"
  • No. Sandy you are not exempt from your own restrictions.
  • The goal is to write a weekly column for the Signpost that describes issues concerning featured content and related pages, particularly in relation to editing and how the processes work. Did it ever occur to FCDW that it is perhaps their own restrictions that have resulted in their vast failure to achieve their own goal? Far from being weekly, the last Dispatch was published in March! But of course, it doesn't have an active contributor pool as is.
  • At the worst I can defend my actions with WP:BOLD.
Signpost
  • It's been suggested that this be expanded and converted into its own series. I am definetly for a serialization, and strongly against splitting up the article to facilitate such a series. The reason for this is, I admit, my own impatience. This article is done and (arguably) ready; creating a series out of it would take a while.
  • Regarding whether this is best a Dispatch or a Tutorial: it is a Dispatch, unless Tutorial is so renamed as to be a wider entity. Tutorials by defenition teach you something; what does this article teach? It is a listing of good tools, not an excercise for writers! Yes it is borderline, but I think being something for editors, it's good enough.
  • I do realize now that the article was not as complete as it could be. I object to being held to the standards of a near-historical project, not to recieving help from users more experienced with this then I am. The open-ness of the article was intended to limit this "viewpoint" problem.
  • As I envisioned it, this article was meant to be a helpful tool for new editors just getting their hands wet with article writing. It is for them that this writing is most useful. Instead it has become a test of my patience.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my side of the argument. I'm itching to hear yours. ResMar 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I always wondered why on earth it was billed as "Dispatches". It is not specifically to do with featured content. Why not refine it, add to it, and put it up for a stand-alone page in next week's edition? Tony (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. As much as I want it to stand under Dispatch, half of the world is compromises. ResMar 23:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now that I think about it, this and this fit in the same scope as this article, and both made it into dispatches without problems. I think this article is appropriate for posting in the section. Also, I'm still waiting for an answer to my argument. ResMar 18:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The report seems reasonable enough to me; I have no opinion on whether it should be published as a "dispatch", but do believe it will be useful. One minor thing: was alt text really "briefly" an FA criterion? It was there from July 2009 to March 2010. Also, I appreciate that this can't cover everything, but I do think including wikEd would be a good idea. It helps a lot with content editing: the syntax highlighter enables you to separate references and other meta-information from text while copyediting; the find-and-replace helps correct repeated problems; the quick preview is, well, quick. There are a few other tools I use that you might consider including: User:Dr pda/editrefs.js, User:GregU/dashes.js, and User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js. Ucucha 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYKcheck was on, but HaeB reccomended I remove it as too specific. I think it would work, though. ResMar 20:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All valid. ResMar 21:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dispenser, can you do the Dab solver? I'm afraid I don't quite understand it. ResMar 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything except for the Dab solver has been added. ResMar 00:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been added, and the two users, Dispenser and Ucucha, that have responded to my comments are now both satisfied. Are we ready for publication this week? ResMar 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a bit more like a Wikipedia list-style essay than a Signpost article at the moment. I think you're unnecessarily constraining yourself with impatience and a narrow scope. I think splitting into a series might be one of the few ways of turning this into a Signpost-like article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It would be better to combine your expertise with that of the editors at FCDW: it can only get better, and you'll still take the major credit for it. And vocalist's idea of a series (two?) is a good one. Readers will tire, no matter how important the page is. The dash script definitely needs to be treated. So does the date-format harmoniser. In the second article, mention might be made of what is coming up in the future (even a bit of conjecture): Ohconfucius's trial of the engvar script is in its early stages and will no doubt be developed over the next year or so. This is one of a number of developments that area likely to aid content development. Tony (talk) 09:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but feel how you are ignoring how useful this article is to new writers in its current state. In addition I seriously doubt anyone would write such a series, as I certainly don't wish to. ResMar 16:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like this vauge wall of opposition. "I want to make a better article out of it." Please tell me how. "Lets make it into a series." Who will write it? Not me. Even so, you can write it as after, not hold back the present article. "The article isn't Signpost-y enough." Define Signpost worthy. I'm a tad bit dissapointed really that everyone is so ignoring how much of an immediate help this article will be to new writers. ResMar 00:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many essays and lists that are written in the Wikipedia space; just because those were deliberately not published in The Signpost does not mean that we're ignoring their usefulness to some contributors. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply saying that you are being very thick about this, and I wish you would just let it go. The arguments at this point are definetly weak. There's nothing wrong with the article. So it's like a list. And? Are Featured lists any less important then Featured articles because they are lists? No. In addition, there is all this talk about making it part of a wider project, which is little more then a giant slice of balony. So far I have seen nothing being done towards that direction. Even if this was to develop, there is still nothing stopping the article from publication in Dispatches, as it's Dispatch themed, not a "whole other thing." ResMar 15:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this ever makes it to publication, I'm clearing this page off and leaving a note. It reads, in big, bold letters, "Hallelujah" ResMar 00:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

I've collapsed the above thread, in order to help everyone move forward. There also appear to be related discussions at WT:POST#Dispatches and WT:POST#Dissapointing and WP:POST/N#Dispatches.

My suggestion would be: Make a bullet-point list of the meta-problems here in this thread, for addressing by next week. I'll make an attempt, below, with the 2 problems I recall reading about above. Please tweak/add/remove/revert, as needed. Keep it short and relevant - people are imperfect and life is hard, but let's ignore that and write some column. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Dispatches" heading - whether or not this list belongs in this particular section of the Signpost. Alternatives?
    • [replace me with alternatives]
  2. Length, or serialization - should the current list be split into 2 shorter lists, so that readers are more likely to read all of it?
    • Note: Currently there are: 11 User scripts, 6 Toolserver tools, 2 Externally hosted tools.

My 2¢: If more tools are suggested (below) and accepted, then I think it might be helpful to split this list into a shorter 2-part series. Aim for 10-15 items in each, perhaps. HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the stuff listed below is even vaugly related to the scope. It has to be relevant to DYK/GA/FC, and not some random article editing tools. "Diff viewer" for example. You can see the last diff, so what? What does that give you? ResMar 16:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How was I supposed to know that?? There is no mention of DYK/GA/FC in the list's introduction. The title is "Useful tools for content contributors", and I find the tools I suggested, useful.
You deleted my comments below, so anyone wondering what "last diff" tool you're referring to will be forever confused. I tried to help, and you "sigh"ed at me. Nice. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Just forget it. Do what you want with it. Maybe I am being obstinate, but it's only because I've been fighting for this article for 2 weeks now. Pain in the ass it's been, pain in the ass it is. I'm just annoyed that the suggestions of late have strayed very far from its original scope. Want to focus on writing articles now, as helpful as this would be. Sorry. ResMar 22:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It'll be all good in the end. If you have an established scope, then that's cool, but I simply had no way of knowing that. (unless it's mentioned in the 2 weeks of prior discussion, that I've only skimmed through).
However the only concerns I recall seeing mentioned, are the 2 above (1. it might be under the wrong "heading", 2. it might be a bit too long, and could possibly be improved by being split into 2 parts), and those hardly seem worth 2 weeks of argument.
I glanced through a few of the older revisions, and it looks like you removed an entry for "ImageMapEdit", so there are obviously possibilities for expansion.
If you're frustrated, then I'd say you're in the position of a normal "newspaper writer", and you should let the "newspaper editors" abuse your writing, until it is published. That's how these things work! ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed imagemap because as much as I liked the tool (and it came in handy with 2010 FIFA World Cup Final and such articles), it's too narrow in scope and isn't directly related to Featured processes. ResMar 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested additions

I've never used this, so don't know how to write it up, but it needs to be added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and really the whole thing needs to go to FWDC first. It should be published next week. This week's edition is already too large, especially if that book review goes in (which I think should also be postponed). Tony (talk) 03:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe how complicated this is becoming. The post is becoming more of a forum then an actual, realistic list, and if it continues it would become a how-to guide rather then an article. Several ideas have been mentioned that aren't even vaugly related to the scope, which I've pulled off the page. ResMar 16:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I highly, highly, highy doubt this will ever see the light of day. ResMar 16:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This demonstrates two problems with the approach you took. First, a Dispatch should never be written at an actual dispatch page, rather at a temporary workshop page (see the instructions), where it can be workshopped prior to publication, and only put forward when it's ready. Second, I agree-- getting this right after such a rocky start is going to be very hard, but I suspect that your general attitude isn't encouraging anyone else to work on this. You made some mistakes; perhaps if you would stop blaming others, and collaborate, others would be more willing to work on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage whoever wants to work on it to work on it, I just personally don't like the direction it's going. Will you get off my back with the workshopping thing already? That's dead in done, which pretty much describes the project as a whole, anyway. Who am I blaming, exactly. It simply looks to me, with the level of opposition and everything, that this article is going to get nowhere, fast. ResMar 22:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mario, you're a good journalist, and The Signpost needs you. Please cooperate with Sandy, who has played a key role in lifting the standards of WP articles and in making the FA system work smoothly. I cannot see why you object to the workshopping process. This important page can only be improved throught it. Tony (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, two days prior to its being put off again, what are we going to fruitlessly try to accomplish again? Or should I try the quene-it-and-watch-everyone-scream-no trick. ResMar 00:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link to this draft at the FCDW template. Tony (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's published, it can be added-- those templates are for published Signpost stories, not drafts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is nice if you're reviewing, but completely unhelpful if you are writing. I'll give it a special note mention on the talk page. ResMar 16:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about FA tools

Moved from the main page:

Sandy, this isn't a tool. It is only a program on the most pure definitions as its instructions for layout. — Dispenser 17:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is this even a tool? It's a template for god's sake! Totally needless advertising. ResMar 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More: I'm adding this section since at the last meetup people veterans were surprised at some of the cool gadget notably the metadata one.

Thats nice but I don't really care. If it's out of scope, it's out of scope, and what's here mostly sounds like a coding session. ResMar 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You care, otherwise you wouldn't be writing this. Out of scope is something else. — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add note about Internet Explorer compatibility, there are some problems between Firefox/Webkit (Chrome, Safari) due to CSS implementation (e.g. outline:1px;) Has anyone tested skin compatibility?

Not a coding session people! ResMar 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite necessary. Unless you want to leave people with a feeling of incompetence ("I'm too stupid to figure this out") or thinking the Signpost writers are arrogant geniuses ("They can't explain to normal people"). If it's not a coding session, don't included installation instructions then. — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove tool which only duplicate functionality, perhaps only linking to then as alternatives?

Add standard installation instructions? or something so we aren't templating the same instructions every time.

Not a major issue, and each one is different. ResMar 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There the same for the most part they consist (i) Install gadget under preferences, and/or (ii) Install script to User:Username/skinfile.js. — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But writing the same thing over and over again is, well, bad writing. ResMar 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some images show visible JPEG artifacts, consider replace them

So what, this isn't Featured pictures and the best available is the best available. ResMar 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the Signpost is that once published it can't be changed, we should optimally provide the best images for the issue. Note: I'm not bound to it. It was just a note while I was reviewing the work done. — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mention the Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts and their library

Going to do that in a talk page note. ResMar 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's much more appropriate in the main article. Why would you even suggest that? — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some nice stuff near bottom of: http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Environment_Survey/MediaWiki_Extensions/Nomination

WikiEd: Summary isn't long enough, mention some its more important features, syntax highlighting, quick preview, improved (slower) diff, find & replace, sorting, template & reference collapsing, HTML/"rich text" to wikitext converter. All features being reimplemented by the usability team.

Blah blah blah useless extras that can be gotten by going to the link and reading the page itself. There's a lot of stuff in it, and I'm certainly not about to try and cover all of it. ResMar 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try to cover the important part related featured article production as these will resonate well with our audience. — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Viewer: The above needs to be rewritten, alt text is a meaningful image replace, in most cases it ... [long debate at WP:ALT]

It's a list of tools not a policy marker. ResMar 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
briefly mention: UTC clock, black/green wikipedia, increase edit summary length
How is that related to Featured processes? Even vaugly?
That section is meant as an offshoot for Readers of Wikipedia and as are the part below. — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe: Javascript Library to IE users.

This isn't a coding session, it's an article about Featured processes.
It pertains to tool installation. — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't even know what that is, and that's a good sign that most people wouldn't either. Sounds like something pertinent to writing scripts not to using them. ResMar 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catscan 2

Where???

User:Pyrospirit/metadata

How is that related to Featured processes?
Meant as offshoot. However, it does read the article history from the talk page, so there could be a case for it. — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups

How is that related to Featured article processes? ResMar 16:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link disambiguation, checking redirect? Still better for the offshoot article. — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I haven't had much time this week to write. I'll try writing some more latter today, but I do need some good copy edits (much better at Javascript and Python then English). — Dispenser 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to explain what scripts are, could you distinguish them from bots? Tony (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't this be a stand-alone page rather than in the "Dispatches" slot? Tony (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A single tool uses a bot in its editing interface, the DOI tool. Considering it's just one tool, and the nature of the bot gets ample mention in the description, that's hardly relevant enough. Tony, that's a terribly tired argument. We've already agreed that yes, it could run seperatly, but I wrote it for, and it has been tuned to, Dispatches. Consider this a weak effort to revive the section. The 3000 article was gutted and thrown into F&A, and now you say this shouldn't run in Dispatches either. Hmm... ResMar 15:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a remark: A somewhat related Signpost article ran as "Tutorial" in 2008 (Editing Monobook, installing scripts, it focused more on the process of installing, but also listed some scripts briefly).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a tool that makes it easier to install scripts. After installing the tool (or if it becomes a gadget one day, then after enabling the gadget), the user no longer has to edit their skin.js page to install scripts. The tool is called Wikipedia:Script Installer; here are some screenshots that show it in action:
  • Script documentation page
    Script documentation page
  • Script Library
    Script Library
  • Script page
    Script page
  • Skin page
    Skin page
  • Toolbox
    Toolbox
Thoughts on perhaps integrating this into this dispatch, or in a future one? Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reorg ?

One of the confusing things about this article is why it's organized around what kind of tool each is (bot, script, whatever), which doesn't strike me as really being of interest to the editor-- the editor needs to know what it does, not how it was built. Reorganizing this article around what each tool does might make it more coherent and useful to the editor using those tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say...no? The present order is perfectly fine, and there's no need to muddle up readers by posting different tool types all over each other. There'd be no clear indication as to what exactly they are looking at, and there's no need to completely destructure the article. It works; if it ain't broke, don't fix it. ResMar 15:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that some of the tools are for fixing and editing refs, other for fixing and editing MOS issues, etc., and reader/editor needs might offer a better organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that users would want to know what is what. ResMar 15:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may be more technically versed than some of us dummies-- I don't know or want to know a bot from a script from a whatever-- that clutters my brain and makes me feel stupid :) I do want to know how I can edit refs or make MOS corrections. Let's get more feedback on this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would improve the article (by making it more accessible to readers); seems like an excellent idea. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And now I am waiting for the developing argument related to organization that will get nowhere and just delay everything further. Every action has a reaction around here. ResMar 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the reflinks tool was not included? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wiki, ResMar-- that is how all articles develop on Wiki, and I must observe again that your attitude isn't entirely helping the process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted about the Wikipedia:Script Installer in the above section; I'm just brainstorming here, but I could perhaps add a list of "Featured scripts" or something to Wikipedia:Script Library (where a user's installed scripts are shown; if you have the tool installed, it looks like this) as a list of suggested scripts for users to install? This could also rotate in accordance with any future dispatches about scripts, for maximum impact. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-09-06/Dispatches&oldid=383117893"