Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:34, 12 January 2011

The Signpost Feedback

Template:SignpostNavigation

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 .
• For an index of Signpost pages, please see the Index.

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Pre-2010 discussions by category General discussion, Content, Features and layout, Feedback, Images and logos, Delivery

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Background to a story

Re: Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-11-29/In_the_news, "Internet carrier lawsuit", I thought that name rang a bell: Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Russell_Smith_(prisoner_activist). Fences&Windows 02:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Only new info in arbitration reports?

Instead of repeating some text, and changing some (compare a, b, and c), how about only including things that have changed since the previous report, with links to previous reports; or automatically hidden transcluded pages being previous case reports? -- Jeandré, 2010-12-11t10:21z

Who publishes The Signpost ?

That information is missing from your "about" section. But it's a basic fact for every newspaper, even electronic ones. If the Signpost is a blog, not a newspaper, could you note that? If "The Signpost is an independent publication which is not affiliated with the Wikimedia Foundation," how did you manage to get WMF to distribute a copy to all WP users, at the request of the WP user? Please clarify. Is the Signpost a WP:V verifiable source for anything at all, except matters that concern the Signpost itself? Just as an example. SBHarris 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a community-written publication. WMF is not involved at all. • 04:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to label it, maybe it's closest to a community-edited weekly blog? As for sourcing, the Signpost has the same status as any Misplaced Pages entry. Rd232 08:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I take it that means it's not a reliable source, except for talking about itself. It is certainly quoted a lot as a source, for a blog (see for example, the cites for the article on WikiLeaks). This will make the people at WP:RS = WP:IRS cry. By the way, I didn't get an answer to the quesion of how, if WMF is not involved in any way, The Signpost gets the privilege of being distributed to any WP user who wants to sign up for it. Would that be true of my blog, as well? WMF seems to be supporting The Signpost in all kinds of special ways that aren't available to others, so how is that possible if the two are not "involved" at all? Are you saying they did nothing special for The Signpost? SBHarris 19:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the delivery on talk pages? That's not special at all, for example the WikiProject Video games has its Newsletter delivered to whoever subscribes to it. The WMF certainly does not take any part in that (a few bots do). Jean-Fred (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks, again. SBHarris 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Newsletter redirects here

Misplaced Pages:Newsletter redirects here. I was looking for the automated way to deliver wiki projects newsletters; I know thee is a bot that can do it and I was expecting the redirect to lead me there. I'd suggest that once we figure out which bot does it, Misplaced Pages:Newsletter should become a disambig between the bot/process and Signpost. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion of subscribers list

User_talk:TeleComNasSprVen#Signpost_Subscription_List - the user has been already been reverted twice and cautioned not to repeat this without consensus, but perhaps some other people want to weigh in and help clear up the mess. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well scrubbing the list of inactive users seems worth doing; but I would have thought there was an easier, less intrusive way to do it. For instance, couldn't a bot check for activity levels and move low-recent-activity level users to a separate list, which delivers messages differently? Such users will presumably have the previous Signpost section unarchived on their user talk page, so the delivery bot can look for that and just put a link to the new Signpost into that section. Then, when a certain level of inactivity is reached (eg 1 year, 0 edits), stop delivering the messages at all. Rd232 07:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a very good idea if it's techicallly feasible. Tony (talk) 08:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Someone (I'm trying to take a wikibreak) ask the bot operator and/or at WP:BOTREQ. Rd232 08:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a similar tool for commenting out inactive members of WikiProjects. However, I never did get the parameters right for determining inactivity... — Dispenser 08:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably trickier for WikiProjects, because how many people are members affects how others see the project, and activity levels across projects vary a lot, etc. Figuring something out for the Signpost should be easier. Rd232 09:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: What logic is being used to determine removals? I wasn't aware that I was "inactive"... --Ckatz_spy 09:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I got a confusing message on my talk page, came here, and saw people were adding their names to the list, even though they were listed already. I did the same, not wanting to be removed and not having any clear direction on what to do.

As for the removal of names (which has apparently been reverted), I can appreciate it, but it would need to be done carefully, with clearer messages on talk pages. Thanks. --Chriswaterguy talk 10:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone with rollback ought to revert that bot's edits in the very near future, while the edits are still 'top'. Moving forward, this discussion should be re-brought in a few weeks when the dust has settled and there can be a reasonable dialogue about how to deal with retired and inactive users (if they need dealing with at all). --MZMcBride (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

PeterSymonds and Zalgo took care of this. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages turns 10

"On January 15, 2011, Misplaced Pages will turn 10." What will The Signpost do for that issue? It's only 2 publications away, too! Any ideas at this point? ResMar 19:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen many suggestions (this one didn't seem very convincing.) One idea I had very recently was to interview some of the very first active Wikipedians (cf. ) other than Wales and Sanger, for example User:Tim Shell, but they may be hard to track down and preparing a decent interview is quite time-consuming.

In any case, we should be covering the celebrations in "News and notes", summarize anniversary-related musings from other media in "In the news", and rest assured that the Foundation and many others are already putting in quite some efforts to make users aware of the anniversary ;)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A great opportunity lost, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so. As opposed to many other news media who are currently publishing Misplaced Pages stories on occasion of the anniversary, we are in the fortunate situation of not having to sit on interesting Misplaced Pages-related stuff waiting for an opportunity like this to justify running it (e.g. such an interview can also be published in the Signpost at any other time). So, not that much journalistic opportunity lost. It's more like not bringing our own present when going to the birthday party ;)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

He he. :-) Tony (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Good articles in the Signpost?

I would like to suggest adding a monthly update on good articles to "The best of the week". Listing all would not work, since there are sometimes more than 200 of them. Also listing the best would be impractical, since no one can be expected to read through more than 200 articles. Instead I suggest listing a handful of the most vital articles, as defined at Misplaced Pages:Vital articles. This could provide a welcome contrast to the featured articles, whose subject are often somewhat peripheral. I've made a suggestion as to what it would look like (numbers must be adjusted on Saturday):

Good articles

216 articles were promoted to good articles in December. Net growth was 184 articles. Among the new good articles were:

• Wales (nom), a country in the United Kingdom, which name originally means "land of the foreigners". Welsh-speakers prefer "Cymru", from "fellow-countrymen" (nominated by Daicaregos and FruitMonkey).
• Manhattan Project (nom), the project whereby the United States developed the first atomic bomb, was set in motion by a letter from Albert Einstein (Hawkeye7).
• Abraham Lincoln (nom), the 16th President of the United States, was assassinated only five days after winning the Civil War (Peregrine Fisher, Carmarg4 and others). (picture at the right)
• Malaysia (nom), the Southeast Asian country of some 28 million inhabitants, is headed by an elected monarch (Chipmunkdavis).
• Felix Mendelssohn (nom), who is known in many non-English-speaking countries as Felix Mendelssohn Bartholdy, wrote 12 string symphonies between the ages of 12 and 14 (Smerus).

I would be happy to take on this task, if there is any interest. Lampman (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your offer, but the page is called "Features and admins". At many times of the year, the page is groaning with just featured listings, and is sometimes too long. Call me a snob, but I'd rather highlight content that has passed the most rigorous processes. Dabomb recently said no to a similar request by the "Valued picture" people.

If you're willing to contribute to the treatment of featured content on the page, please, you'd be very welcome. Tony (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can only agree ;) ResMar 15:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I concur with Tony. In addition, I'm not a fan of having to select which GAs are most noteworthy; it takes us one step too far beyond our journalistic capacity for this column. How frequently are vital articles promoted to GA? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tony: I understand your reservations, but I do not quite follow your arguments. Referring to the page name seems like little more than a circular argument (Why is it called "Features and admins"? Because it contains only featured content. Why does it contain only featured content? Because it is called "Features and admins".) Size-wise, there has recently been a sharp down-turn in new FAs, to the point where the post has been left empty some weeks. Under these circumstances it is hard to see how a short, monthly update on GAs could brake the page's back. As for the old "FAs-vs-GAs" turf war, this is fortunately becoming a thing of the past as people realise that the two projects both fulfil different purposes. This can be seen in the recent wide consensus on assigning a main page symbol to GA articles, on a line with FAs. Dabomb: Abraham Lincoln is a level 3 VA, the others, except Wales, are level 4. Lampman (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem with good articles is that about 30 or 40 (don't know exact numbers) are promoted every week. So writing a section for them in F&A would be to tedious, and take up too much space, to be worthwhile. In addition, it's called Features and admins, so Featured pieces and new admins get preference over everything else. ResMar 04:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

cleaning the subscription list

I use a script that crosses out the names of blocked users. Using that it is fairly easy to identify users who are indef blocked and don't need to receive the Signpost anymore. I'm sure there are also many on the list who have retired, either officially or by just ceasing to edit. While not a huge problem, it can lead to ridiculous situations where one bot is delivering the Signpost and another is archiving it a week or so later, creating piles of archive pages that consist of nothing but unread copies of the Signpost. I'm wondering if anyone can think of a way other than checking all the names manually to identify such cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be simpler just to get the archive bots to not archive the Signpost unless users specifically opt-in to it. Users who are no longer here obviously wont opt-in. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more of not delivering it in the first place. However, I don't know anything about bot programming so I have no idea which idea would be easier to implement. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Media and Internet role, shoddy journalism, et al

I think there's a good Signpost article in this story, waiting for a good journalist to write. Before I get to my point, please have a look at Andrew Wakefield, Jenny McCarthy and MMR vaccine controversy, focusing on the criticism emerging of journalists, the media and the Internet, and how they fueled this scandal.

Then notice, that even on Misplaced Pages, and in spite of Andrew Wakefield being on the mainpage In The News, the McCarthy article has gotten more page views than either Wakefield or the MMR controversy article. That's just alarming on so many levels! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)