Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Feedback

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on 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)

My congratulations too -- I really enjoy this, and look forward to seeing it develop. I'll keep my eyes open for things I can contribute. Catherine\^talk 07:37, 11 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)

Agree totally with Pcb21. I also was sceptical at first, but now I think it is great! Well Done! -- Chris 73 Talk 04:29, Jan 25, 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)

Largest issue ever, in fact. Nice work to everyone else...Michael Snow wrote a ton of articles this week, Flcelloguy continued his ArbCom series, and Karmafist wrote an article for the first time this week. Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 28 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)

Agreed. Ral315 (talk) 19:11, 6 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. --Mark ^{your 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)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought TROLL was about RFAs in addition to Arbcom cases? (I could have sworn I saw a few...) --maru (talk) contribs 20:26, 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. --Mark ^{your words} 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Er, yes, that is what I meant- I suppose I've been hanging around the durn Internet so long I can't associate an RFC with something bad. --maru (talk) contribs 01:07, 8 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'?Mark ^{your 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. Tito xd^{(?!? - 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. Mark ^{your 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'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)

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)

Yes, precisely. When at first you don't succeed, redefine success :). I mean that seriously, just change the official weekly release date to tuesday, and otherwise carry on releasing as you have done. Thue | talk 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why this is a problem... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because the current release date is misleading. People looking for the next issue of the signpost will be expecting it a day before it is available. Thue | talk 08:56, 5 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)

I could do that. Ral315 (talk) 00:55, 2 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. Leith p 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)

Conditional support; needs a light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:30, 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)

Can do. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:33, 9 May 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)

Frankly, I'd love to. Is there an easy way to get new fixed bugs, like the server admin log? Ral315 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

One of these has the details needed, which one.. dunno - [1] according to Consanguinity in #wikimedia-tech its [2] -Ravedave 05:51, 17 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)

There's a link on the main page to me... - Pureblade | ^Θ 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There is too. What was I thinking... enochlau (talk) 16:41, 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).

--Prim a t e #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)

in-jokes

I don't find the vaguely humorous but very contrived acronyms (such as T.R.O.L.L.) on the contents page to be particularly helpful. In the interest of wider accessibility, it would be better to scrap the in-jokes and rename the titles to the names of the pages to which they point (such as Arbitration Report). This is particularly because the contents list, as it appears in Wikipedia:Community Portal, is one click away from the main page, so ought to be more outsider-friendly. Thanks. Arbitrary username 21:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There's been some previous discussion on this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there was, but I have to say that I agree with Arbitrary username. It isn't particularly funny and it looks unprofessional. Rebecca 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the acronyms are very contrived. But that's what makes it fun. I'm not personally trying to make this the Wall Street Journal or The Times. It's a community in-joke that's been around for nearly a year and a half, and one that most people gloss over without recognizing its significance. I guess I don't see how someone recognizing an acronym as "TROLL" (if they did) could be unfriendly. Ral315 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I used "outsider-friendly" in the context of accessibility. I don't of course think the acronyms are "unfriendly" in the sense of hostile, but they are less helpful than more descriptive titles would be. Arbitrary username 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the fact they've been around for a year and a half could also be interpreted to mean that the joke is getting kind of stale, although I'm certainly flattered by having everyone imitate my original model. What I'm inclined to suggest is that we continue the acronyms through this year's Wikimania, so as not to disrupt their use for that particular series, and then gracefully retire them. I'm sure we can still find ways to inject a little fun into the Signpost. --Michael Snow 16:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

T.R.O.L.L. doesn't seem notably unprofessional when taken in the context of WP's different nature from conservative publications like the Wall Street Journal. There seems to be utility in it's humourous and light-hearted approach to an often heated area, and it is consistent with the general views of WP readers and editors.--Nectar 17:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:Arbitrary username and User:Rebecca that the acronyms are contrived and unprofessional. Also, I was not aware at first that they were acronyms, and I changed the capitalization [3] only to be reverted and told that they were acronyms. Well, in that case, they should be explicitly shown as such, and I made this change instead [4], only to be reverted again. I don't understand the reasoning behind this. If editors support the use of the acronyms, then why try to hide them, making the capitalization look extremely odd and unprofessional to viewers of the Signpost who are not aware of the acronyms? And if my change was reverted because explicitly noting the acronyms makes the Signpost look unprofessional, then does that not raise questions about whether we should be using the acronyms at all in the first place? —Lowellian (reply) 11:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be interested to know why you would think that an internal newsletter for the enjoyment and enlightenment of contributors to Wikipedia should need to look "professional". This is not the sort of road down which we want to start travelling, because the next thing will be edit-wars between groups of people with their own ideas about what constitutes "professional". This is not the place for enforcing strict nomenclature, it's supposed to be fun and informative. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ditto Phil. I don't see what's wrong with in-jokes, considering this is a publication for in-house consumption. It's like suggesting the company newsletter shouldn't make references to internal terminology that an outsider wouldn't get. (Of course, this newsletter is unabashedly public, but nevertheless, its first audience is the editors of Wikipedia.) If we want to change the acronyms, then we should find a better reason to (e.g., better titles?) than just them being in-jokes or self-references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Keep the titles they are fine. The signpost is not press releases nor is it wikinews, so in-jokes are prefectly fine. I remeber getting a chuckle when I figured out the title was B.R.I.O.N and Brion Vibber is one of the main developers. -Ravedave 14:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's supposed to be fun and informative, how about coming up with something that is either a) fun or b) informative? These are just irritating. Rebecca 06:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I like the Signpost a lot. It's generally well-written, and I greatly appreciate the work of those who contribute to it. It plays a invaluable role in keeping the most-involved Wikipedia editors well-informed, but it is more than that: it is also a newspaper for the larger Wikipedia community of casual editors, and is increasingly extending beyond that, to the point that occasional viewers of Wikipedia read over it and outside bloggers and media/news agencies use it as a reference and a source of information. As such, I want it to be as good as possible. Of course it should look professional! Otherwise, let's just throw good grammar and spelling out the window as well. —Lowellian (reply) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In light of other comments . . .

I just wanted to drop you guys a note and say that, generally, I think you all do a very good job with this thing. People tend to focus on the problems with this free, non-paying, Wikipedia newsletter instead of on the interesting stories that are put out weekly by this free, non-paying, Wikipedia newsletter. Anyway, that's it, keep up the good work :) - Jersyko·talk 13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Laudatio

1: You do a great job!
2: Thanks for mentioning the two logo contests I initiated, I hope we'll get more input soon now. =]

—Nightst a llion (?) 06:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add my praise. TWS is a really good idea. - Heartofgoldfish 16:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Strong support Wikipedia Signpost is an excellent way to keep the community informed! --Donar Reiskoffer 18:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
100% agree - fantastic job, signposters :-) Required reading for myself every Tuesday, I very much look forward to it! Ta bu shi da yu 14:02, 26 June 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)

No problem - the contents are transcluded automatically, but the singe-page version is updated manually to pick up the articles for the relevant issue, to update the index, and to change the dates (see its history page). Anyway, thanks for pointing it out. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:15, 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)

Where's B.R.I.O.N.?

There hasn't been a B.R.I.O.N. for two issues now… I miss it… Jon Harald Søby 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. -Ravedave 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

On this topic, I'm working on it, but Rob Church, who used to give me write-ups on software changes, left last month, so it's tough to do. Ral315 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried diffing the release notes every week? If you download a Subversion client, you should be able to do that, and since every nontrivial change is supposed to be added to the release notes, you should get a reasonable list of things changed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone try emailing him for how he assembled it? -Ravedave 01:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a *LOT* of information floating around from the hacking days. Raul654 18:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can ask Brion Vibber, or Tim Starling if they will give you any software info. C a rm el apple 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems you don't need an SVN client after all. Here's a link to changes made to the release notes since July 17. Is that useful? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

To some extent. The only thing is it's not weekly. Someone bugged JeLuF about this a day or two ago; if nothing happens, I'll poke Brion or Tim. Ral315 (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You can make it weekly. Just go here (takes a long time to load), find the version prior to the one you want the earliest changes from (namely, the latest change that was included in the previous BRION), click "select for diffs" next to it, wait a while for the page to reload, find the top revision, and click "diff to selected #####". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Next issue

Is everything OK with the Signpost? When is the next issue due? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ral's yet to log on yet; and if he doesn't log on in the next few hours some one may have to cover him. All stuff has been proofread, and moved for publication, it's just that he's yet to log on to finish his articles and do finishing touches to aritcles. Issue should be out by 03:00, if Ral's not one. Should Ral log on before that he'll publish. Several stories that can be seen at the newsroom have not been finished such as wikicharts etc. ForestH2 t/h/c 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Published. ForestH2 t/h/c 02:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A bumper issue: well worth the wait! Great work folks. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lets drop the "Good Article" mentions, eh?

Almost every single report on foreign Wikis has mentioned that they do not have an equivelant of our or deWiki's Good Articles. It's obvious that almost everyone has some form of Featured Article standard, but almost no-one has anything like GAs. So, why continue to mention it unless they do? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

A good point, though I think the point was partially to emphasize that the GA standard is in its infancy in that it hasn't yet been adopted by many languages. I fully expect it to take hold on many other wikis in the next 3-6 months. Ral315 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It could also illustrate that GA was never a good idea and was simply ignored by the other 200 wikis... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing: Wikipedia in the news

Why is this section missing from this edition? Did nobody write a new article about us this week?? Or do we need more volunteer-power for the 'post?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

More volunteers are always helpful. This week, nobody else took it and I was unable to get it, so we published without it. We haven't had anyone really doing it on a week-to-week basis since July, so if someone wants to handle it, that's great. Ral315 (talk) 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to chip in as I consider that section to be one of the most interesting and valuable :) Any templates, tips (Google News:Wikipedia?) etc. for info where to look for new stories?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Trödel actually just volunteered to do that this week. Feel free to help him on that, or if you see an article worth a full story (I think the Jimbo/Chinese censorship stories in the news this week would merit a full article, for one thing), go ahead and chip in there.

As to where to find stories, we've mostly used Google News and such in the past. Let me know if you have any other questions. Ral315 (talk) 19:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, a just a note, there wasn't many stories in the news last week; so it wasn't really worth of an article. If you remember we published 9/6 so there was only a couple days for an ITN story, and nothing really big came out. Sugar pine^t 23:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Tnx for the info. Where is the draft article being prepeared?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some people collect articles at Wikipedia:Press coverage, if you need a list. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Trodel's doing this one at here. User talk:Sugarpine 23:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I dropped out of doing this one; I was getting a bit burned out on it and then had a busy summer full of paying work... when I was doing it regularly, I found it helpful to subscribe to Google alerts (search Google News for "wikipedia", then look for "News Alerts" in the sidebar - you can set up separate alerts for "according to Wikipedia" or "Jimmy Wales" or anything else that suits your fancy. Then you get a digest email every day there's a news story concerning us, and if you're smart you can collect a little each day for "In the news" instead of scrambling the night/morning before deadline. :) Also makes it easy to watch for duplicate stories (many stories are syndicated or reprinted), and you get a sense of what the BIG stories are. There are some non-notable sources cataloged by Google; we don't have to report it all. And remember that Google doesn't get everything; I always tried to do a quick search at Yahoo News or the like as well before wrapping up. BBC News is also good for catching non-US stories. I also kept Wikipedia:Village pump (news), Wikipedia:Press coverage and Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a press source 2006 (and pages linked in sidebar) on my watchlist to catch stuff noted by other Wikipedians. Hope that helps — Catherine\^talk 02:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions --Trödel 03:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Tech report

Just wondering why the Tech report is no longer a regular beat. Not enough notable stuff? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

More like nobody with the time and talent to write it. We'd love to resurrect it if somebody capable wants to step up and volunteer. --Michael Snow 06:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

"Litigation"

Is it possible to change the name of the "Litigation" article something in regards to Arbitration Committee? When I saw that I thought it was talking about real litigation and somebody had sued Wikipedia... Just H 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a somewhat humorous (depending on the person judging) acronym. Arbitration is, in practice, roughly equivalent to litigation, actually, though it's not referred to as such. Ral315 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Subscription

Didn't know where else to ask but my subscription to Signpost seems to have stopped. Curious as to what might have happened. I've missed the read. Thanks. Ekotkie 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My approval...

...to whoever made the comment about the color of legal writing. 68.39.174.238 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This would be a reference to the recent article on court citations written by Michael Snow. I figured that, as a lawyer himself, he may have been having law school flashbacks and needed to work out some issues. :p - Banyan Tree 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well done

Just wanted to say thanks to all those who write/edit/publish the Signpost- it makes great reading, especially helpful for keeping up to date with the big things while I'm not very active :) Petros471 14:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized

This Signpost article says:

The story was first reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune on February 21, but received little attention (the original article is not available online, but excerpts are available here). The story was publicized by professor Juan Cole in a April 14 blog entry. On April 15,

But in fact two days after it was reported in the Star Tribune, I mentioned it here on this talk page. Nonetheless, it was not until April that it appeared in the Signpost. I'd have put it there in February, but I'm really not familiar with the conventions of the Signpost. I thought someone who was familiar and who edits the Signpost would consider it worthy of mention there.

Should I conclude that those who edit the Signpost pay more attention to Juan Cole's blog than to this talk page? Michael Hardy 17:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael, I'm sorry we missed your suggestion, but in fact you didn't post it to this talk page. Looking through your contributions, I discover that you did leave a note on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-02-19/In the news. That's the talk page for an individual Signpost article, which is normally for discussion of that particular story, rather than suggestions for new ones. Also, the note was posted rather late in that week, by which time activity on previous stories has usually died down as we focus on the upcoming issue.

The best place to leave suggestions is our "tip line" at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions. This is where we noticed it after other readers posted about the incident there. One of them apparently saw it on professor Cole's blog, which I understand is fairly widely read, and brought it to our attention as a result.

I would add that as volunteers, we do the best we can, but we cannot guarantee that potential stories won't be missed. We need more people to write stories, as there are always issues that might be worth covering, but which we don't have time to work on. --Michael Snow 17:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth redirecting all talk pages of individual Signpost articles either here, or perhaps to the front page of the Signpost for that week? I'm sure this page gets a lot more readers than any individual Signpost article talk page does.-gadfium 20:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. You'd end up with crosstalk on too many subjects, and occasionally confusing posts here that don't make it terribly apparent which story the comment relates to. Keeping discussion related to published stories distinct from newsroom planning of upcoming stories helps our work stay at least somewhat organized. --Michael Snow 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Book review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kudos

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

This issue

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

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

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

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

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

Litigation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinda unrelated, but is "Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News" intentionally BRION (Brion Vibber)? Clever that (yes, apparently I'm a bit slow as I didn't realize the TROLL thing either). Wickethewok 16:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. enochlau (talk) 05:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Feedback

Not sure where feedback goes exactly, but just wanted to say I really appreciated the article on the top 5 bugs. It's really nice to know why certain bugs haven't been implemented, what their status is etc. Please do this again, maybe with the top 10 or 20, perhaps every 3-6 months or so. Thanks! Stevage 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree - It was nice especially the SUL update. - Ravedave 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey?

In the time I've been editor, I haven't received a ton of specific feedback on the project itself, what people would like in the Signpost, etc. Anyone think an optional survey would be good? Possible questions might include:

Which regular section(s) do you find most important: WikiWorld, In the news, Features and admins, Technology report, Arbitration report?
Which of these options do you use to read the Signpost: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, single-page view, the Signpost transclusion template, the Signpost spamlist, and/or the e-mail list?
Which do you prefer: Bundling short, two-to-three paragraph articles together in News and notes, or splitting them into their own story pages? (NB: I've wondered about this because when I first took over as editor, I ran a lot of short stories that I'd probably combine into News and notes today, so I'm curious as to users' opinions).
Have you ever suggested something for us to cover?
Are there any stories you thought we should have covered (or covered better), but didn't?
Are there any stories you thought we should NOT have covered, but DID?
If the Signpost were to interview people on a semi-regular basis, who do you think we should interview, and why? Wikipedians, non-Wikipedians who affect Wikipedia (i.e. Andrew Keen), Jimbo, board members, staff, etc.
Plus, an additional comments field for anything else.

I'd like to know what's useful, and what's not; I'd also like to know what stories are useful to Wikipedia readers. Any thoughts? I'm thinking about running the survey with next week's Signpost. Ral315 » 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a survey is a great idea. If there were a survey, I might make these suggestions: try ahead of time to find people to cover certain stories for the Signpost such as meetups and other real-life events that are relevant to Wikipedia. Another possibility: a new column covering policy discussions and proposals. For developing and getting feedback on new policy proposals, announcements on the Community Portal and Village Pump generate too little attention, while watchlist notices (e.g., as was done for a few hours with WP:Flagged revisions) generate too much attention in a short period of time. Signpost coverage might split the difference.--ragesoss 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Headlinese

This is more of a pet peeve than anything but would the editors mind reducing the amount of headlinese. For example this week's headline 'Study examines Wikipedia authorship, vandalism repair' could easily be 'Study examines Wikipedia authorship and vandalism repair', which is what I assume it is meant to be, or 'Study examines Wikipedia authorship, vandalism and repair', which might be the 1st guess of some readers not used to US headlines (in this case it doesn't matter too much as the 2 meanings are similar). We aren't particularly space limited are we? To me the current version just reads as incredibly American, I don't know if changing it would make it sound incredibly wrong to Americans though? JMiall ₰ 17:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The compressed style of headlines is due to layout constraints, rather than the absolute capacity for content. Layout matters for a website on a computer monitor just as it does for print on paper, even if the execution may be different. So the usual mantra that Wikipedia is not space-limited doesn't apply to this issue because it's not a question of disk storage. The layout for the Signpost main page may not be spectacularly impressive, but it's deliberately designed toward a newspaper aesthetic within the limitations of the wiki format. Considerations include that whitespace is valuable, and to be honest, making headlines read like headlines. I hope that explains the rationale.

I must admit that I don't see what's particularly American about headline style, which can certainly be found in the British or Australian press, or even in other languages for that matter. If by "headlinese" you only mean the inadvertent double meanings sometimes created in such writing, I don't see this as an applicable case. I really see no material difference between either expansion you offer on the original headline. The study of vandalism repair inherently includes some degree of studying the underlying vandalism. Or else I'm just not getting the distinction you're trying to make. But we have had real cases of headlinese before, so feel free to watch out for it. --Michael Snow 18:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know this happened in Australia so I've done some brief research (looking at a a couple of pages of headlines etc for each) into replacement of 'and' with ',' in various news sources:

CNN, Washington Post - use ,

The Guardian, Independent, BBC, Sun, Nature (news), The Age - use and not ,

The Australian - use both

The nicest contrast was Washington Post:'The Fix: Debate Winners, Losers' & The Guardian:'The winners and losers'. All of this confirmed my impression that I can't remember ever seeing British news sources doing this, I'll have to recalibrate my impression that this is just an American style though. JMiall ₰ 20:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to have you do an inventory of this particular style issue, I was referring to headline style generally. I'm sure that there are regional idiosyncracies, and this one may be more commonly (but not exclusively) an American practice. If you want a British example, though, I found the Daily Telegraph uses commas this way. --Michael Snow 20:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

When I write my headings for ITN, I make them sound vaguely newspaper-like, just because I like to do it. enochlau (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

it's a monster!

Is this the largest issue, by number of articles, ever? Nice job, writers and editors. - Banyan Tree 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a record, yes. Though really it was a busy week, and several things come to mind that didn't get covered, or could have been covered in more detail. More help needed, always; but definitely thanks to those who did so much work. --Michael Snow 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. A lot of it was the busy week, but certainly it's an improvement. 10 different users (11 including Greg Williams) wrote at least one article; that's another record. It's nice to see more people helping out. Ral315 » 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, and thank you for this great feature! Bravo. Jon Harald Søby 12:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject reports - add interview questions?

I currently find reading the WikiProject reports slightly dull and bland - perhaps we could spice it up by adding a short (2-3 questions) interview with someone who is heavily involved in the project? enochlau (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome idea! I'll add that in :) ( ar ky ) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured Content Details

What would you think of expanding on the current FACstuff by introducing each one (if its subject is not apparent from the title) and giving a report on how it fits in with other feature content? Like this:

Knut is an individual polar bear who became the subject of international media attention because he's exceptionally cute, and is the first polar bear with a featured article.
History of Baltimore City College is the third featured article on the history of a specific college or university, joining History of Michigan State University and History of Texas A&M University.

I think one benefit of this is that it would give a tie-in for reporters interested in a local interest story (first town in the Yukon with a featured article, for example), and give publicity to the FAC process. I'd be willing to help out with such a thing, but I probably couldn't actually complete it reliably. Would there be interest in it? Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd definitely be interested in seeing such a thing, if it's feasible. Ral315 » 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the more prose the better. When starting out I wrote actual stories about particular articles going through the process, and while I trust people find the current data-driven compilations useful, I think there's untapped news value we could do more to bring out. --Michael Snow (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a one line explanation for each bot approved, saying what it will do.-gadfium 05:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoffman Arbcom case

I edit under my own name. Can you please report this case a bit more neutrally, and not go talking about proposed decisions about how awful I am before I have even had a chance to write my evidence, like you did on the 3rd? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem exists in the attempt to balance reporting on proposed remedies and making it clear that such remedies are proposed, and not effective unless they're voted in by arbitrators. The article's here -- any thoughts as to how I could improve the wording? Ral315 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I suppose it's a case that's gone rather strangely, with the rush to voting and deciding punishment a day after it opened, and so on. I'd have been inclined to just leave out the remedies, but, I don't know. Sorry, the whole thing really is stressing me out, particularly as it happened over exam time, with no delay to give me a chance to make up evidence. Hell, there were proposals asking for my head when the only thing I had been able to post was "I have exams, could we delay a bit?" I don't know... Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured articles

Featured articles in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-17/Features and admins are the same as in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-10/Features and admins. Visor (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Has now been fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)