Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newsroom discussions prior to May 2018 are archived at WT:POST.

Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

Reader feedback

View reader feedback on issue 3 (March)

All: You can monitor reader feedback by pressing the button, or clicking here. jp×g 20:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks good

Thanks @JPxG, Bri, Epic Pupper, and HaeB: and all it looks good. I've taken a brief tour, including the single page edition and it all looks fine. There are even some comments. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, out of four comments so far, only two of them are cursing us out, so I'd call it a successful issue so far :) jp×g 21:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
You gotta get used to that. I've had much worse said about me for about 7 days in a row at arbcom. Actually there's no personal attack here. A walk in the park.Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

A helping hand

The recent discussions about the last issue suggest to me y'all could use more volunteers in general. I'm not sure how effectively I could contribute but if there's any area I could lighten the burden for y'all (e.g. copyediting or short summaries of things) I'd be glad to help. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

A. C. Santacruz, you can add yourself to any of the positions here. While I'm still siding with the publication, I agree that we need more peeps to work on certain stuff. Smallbones (EIC) can prolly also consider promotion to add more members? GeraldWL 17:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
I've added myself to the copyeditors, Gerald Waldo Luis :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
A. C. Santacruz, welcome to the club :) GeraldWL 01:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

meta-tagging Signpost content

As discussed in early-January of this year, I've been updating the meta-tagging on Signpost articles using User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/SignpostTagger. Today I tagged the just-published latest issue and have been working my way backwards. I've gotten as far as November 2020, slowly approaching July 2019 when the tagging task was collectively forgotten. It doesn't seem that the draft articles can be tagged; only published Signpost can. Excusing the GIGO factor, many hands make light work and the article authors in the future might be reminded to tag what they wrote/compiled once publication happens. I'm hopeful that this tool will aid in a meta-analysis of past Signpost coverage. I don't mind covering this task myself as time permits because I see The Signpost as a champion for the editing community and their content while also serving as a bulwark against W?F, who threatens everything we've built here. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

@Chris troutman, thanks! I've had an idea floating around about a Signpost "guide" web app/user script that allows you to specify tags, and spits out a list of articles tagged with those tags. Having tags already integrated into a neat system helps a lot! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:21, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

April issue

I reset the countdown clock for publication on the last Sunday in April. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

recommend bot to scrub your subscribers list

User:Yapperbot/Pruner is currently in use on WP:FRS, pruning the names of inactive editors from newsletter subscriber lists so their respective talk pages don't become over-filled with newsletter announcements. When I was Signpost's publication manager I irregularly scrubbed our list after finding massmessage error reports showing which talk pages were too big to receive messages. Does anyone object to putting the bot to work? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me ☆ Bri (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
LGTM 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Affirmation of "From the Signpost team" in the 2022-03-27 issue

Hello Signposters,

In order to facilitate evidence-based discussion relating to the Signpost and the "From the Signpost team" article that was published, I would like to be able to share a precise list of those affirming the article.

So, please add your signature below in the "Affirm" section if you fully affirm the editorial without objection, and the "Do not affirm" section if not. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Affirm

  1. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  2. GeraldWL 01:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  3. Bluerasberry (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  4. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  5. I'll affirm to anybody who asks that I signed off on the article. That's in the edit history. While I don't want to stand on ceremony or complain about fuzzy-headed complaints that we can't express opinions in our editorial column, I don't think it's a good idea to report to people outside the Signpost that we took a headcount , and yes, by golly, the large majority of the staff expressed solidarity with Ukraine. Send them to me instead. I'll politely describe to them our rules. If you want to make a submission to have your opinion expressed in The Signpost, all you have to do is make a submission, have it meet our standards for quality, and have it approved for publication by the editor-in-chief (that's me for the time being) , They can also post their opinions in the comments below a related article. What's nor appreciated is people coming here for the first time and trying to dictate what staffers can say in The Signpost. EpicPupper put a notice on this page what he wanted to write, I encouraged people to contribute their ideas. It was also obvious to me where most individuals stood. Check my count on this - there were 18 articles this issue (some writers wrote more than one) - 7 weren't saying anything about the war - as might be expected, 11 were in some way about Ukraine, with one or two being not explicitely anti-Putin and the rest "stood in solidarity with Ukraine".The writers chose to do this themselves. I can read a consensus. BTW if you know of somebody with an opinion contrary to the above, feel free to invite them to submit an opinion piece for next month. But frankly I think they'd look pretty ridiculous saying that they can express an opinion here but Signpoist staffers for some reason are not allowed to. Enuf said. Smallbones(smalltalk) 04:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  6. FormalDude talk 07:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Do not affirm

  1. I do not think it's appropriate for us, as the house publication of Wikipedia, to take sides in any dispute not directly related to the encyclopedia's purpose. It damages the perception of our neutrality, which is our single most valuable (and fragile) asset. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    Sdkb, I'm not sure non-neutrality is a case here though. The statement doesn't side with any parties politically, and is merely stressing commitment to being trusted info on the invasion. As we should. GeraldWL 03:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    The headline is "We stand in solidarity with Ukraine". {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah... can do some copyediting with that one. But otherwise it feels well-intentioned, and the deletion review for me is too much. A chill discussion I think makes a difference; I can't see that now; it's moral panic going on. GeraldWL 03:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Gerald Waldo Luis: The statement doesn't side with any parties politically is simply not in any way a truthful description of the headline "We stand in solidarity with Ukraine". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

"From the team" retracted

Hello all! After some careful thought, I have decided to retract the original statement on behalf of the Signpost team. Although certainly many support it, I believe it is important as a newspaper of record to remain neutral in times of crisis, as it is the reason that our readers can trust us. I have replaced it with a title that is hopefully more neutral, and a note affirming our neutrality in conflicts and explaining the retraction. I hope that this can be another step in righting this wrong. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

To save others the trouble of finding it, the title is now "How The Signpost is documenting the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine". The single-page edition still needs an update. I'm fine with this myself but not fine with how we got here. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

What a clusterfuck. I guess I picked the wrong couple of days to be in bed with a fever, huh? jp×g 19:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)that article

OK, that's enough

  • First, nobody except me will touch that article any more
  • It is quite embarrassing for The Signpost - this looks like we're having an edit war with ourselves, but in reality it's just 1 editor with himself.
  • Nobody should be speaking for The Signpost or "the team" except for the editor-in-chief, nobody should be avoiding the standard of having their work approved by the e-i-c before it's published.
  • So we're going to wait at least a full day and staff can let me know what they think should be done with the article. I'm leaning to just returning it to the original headline with post publication additions removed. Let me know what you want or forever hold your peace. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
    Aaaand that's why I'm not fine with how we got here. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Helping out

Hi, I was just talking off-wiki with EpicPupper about joining the Signpost team, and he said that the Featured content section could be a good place to help out. I'd love to work on that if possible! ––FormalDude talk 23:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

FormalDude, you can add your name here :) GeraldWL 01:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@FormalDude I can help out some. Real life hit me pretty hard after February so I dropped off. Sennecaster (Chat) 12:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Featured content section guidance

The guidance on the writing and publication of the Featured content section of the Signpost on the Content guidance page includes the following statement:

The basic Featured content report template is currently generated on a weekly basis via script.

The hyperlink points to https://github.com/ResidentMario/fcimporter, which is the GitHub repository for a Python script I authored seven years ago (!). This is very old code, and I have very little expectation that it is actually still in working order, so it seems highly improbable to me that these instructions are still correct. Can the EIC or whoever writes the Featured content report these days confirm that this is the case? If so I can/will remove this reference. ResMar 18:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I co-wrote the last one along with @Sennecaster, and @FormalDude is interested in continuing them. The script looks interesting - I did the last one manually. I'll take a look; if it's broken, I can open a PR or you can remove it completely. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:28, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. Well, if you are interested in taking up continued use of the script, I advise forking the repository, or possibly even writing from scratch, over making a pull request. I am no longer maintaining this tool, so you should be the owner of its repository. :) ResMar 21:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

To do list

Here's a running list that should cover almost everything that needs to be done. Still needs copyediting too. Feel free to work on any part and mark it off. One note, it doesn't look like any topics gained featured status this period. ––FormalDude talk 03:33, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Good organization! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
  1. Goings-on/February 27:
    • Articles: plus Added
    • Lists:  Not Applicable
    • Pictures:plus Added
    • Topics:  Not Applicable
  2. Goings-on/March 6:
    • Articles: plus Added
    • Lists: plus Added
    • Pictures: plus Added
    • Topics:  Not Applicable
  3. Goings-on/March 13:
    • Articles: plus Added
    • Lists: plus Added
    • Pictures: plus Added
    • Topics:  Not Applicable
  4. Goings-on/March 20:
    • Articles: plus Added
    • Lists: plus Added
    • Pictures: plus Added
    • Topics:  Not Applicable
  5. Goings-on/March 27:
    • Articles: plus Added
    • Lists: plus Added
    • Pictures: plus Added
    • Topics:  Not Applicable
  6. Misc.:
    • Title: plus Added
    • Lead: plus Added
    • Lead and footer images: plus Added
I've finished the draft, just needs copyediting now. ––FormalDude talk 22:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I haven't copy edited it, but it looks absolutely beautiful. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia threatening to fine Wikipedia if info is not removed

The Metro is reporting that Roskomnadzor are threatening to fine Wikipedia if "‘material with inaccurate information of public interest’ about the situation in Ukraine" isn't removed from Wikipedia.

Worth reporting in the SP? I'll leave that up to you. Mjroots (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I looked into the source documents, since obviously you can’t fine Wikipedia. It looks like the fine is aimed at "the site owner" i.e. WMF (presumably up-to-date portals would also be liable). ☆ Bri (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Does NYT crossword puzzle count for In the media?

The New York Times crossword puzzle featured the word "Wikipedia" in the answers yesterday. Does this count for In the media? ☆ Bri (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The crossword puzzle is more akin to pop culture than journalism coverage. My personal view is that Wikipedia being an answer on Jeopardy! or the New York Times crossword puzzle in itself wouldn't be very significant. If someone were to write a feature on the popularity of Wikipedia, then items like these could potentially be incorporated, should it be appropriate for the direction taken by the article. isaacl (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree it's not super significant, but seeing how Signpost has had its own crosswords I think it's a cute, cool thing. Doesn't hurt to mention in passing somewhere imo. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Diff attribution errors in cross-posted Signpost items

I noticed that Recent research posted at Diff has an author who is a Signposter, but was not listed as one of the Signpost contributors (I suspect copy-paste error from another item, perhaps the technology report). Anybody know who can fix this? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you should reach out to CKoerner (WMF) (talk · contribs). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Hiya @Bri and @The ed17 - I'm the person who published both articles. If you mean my byline on recent research, that can't be edited on Diff AFAIK unfortunately to include the other contributors, so I included attribution with a link and authors in the lead: This Recent research column originally appeared in the March 2022 issue of the Signpost. It is republished from on-wiki, and by extension is dual-licensed under CC BY SA 4.0 and GFDL 1.3. The authors of this post are Bri, Gerald Waldo Luis and Tilman Bayer.
Regarding Diff in general, I'd like to republish more stories there to increase our reach :) Would love ideas on some columns that are candidates, or specific articles. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
If you'd like, I can add the other authors to the byline on the Diff version. Just tell me how you'd like them to be credited (user name/real name). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
@CKoerner (WMF) that’d be great, please add Bri, Gerald Waldo Luis and Tilman Bayer. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 16:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Not a problem. Done. :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Homoatrox: yes it is better to send info on this to me via email. It can be difficult to publish some info these days because of the war, but the main thing is to avoid linking to an article with both an edirot's real name and presumed user name given. The Perild/Spring article looks ok, but when in doubt just email the links to me. It can be difficult to check the facts, but we are interested in reporting the *facts* about a 2nd Belarusian editor still in jail for writing on Wikipedia. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Is the subscription page busted?

I'm seeing a blank page rendered at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe. It seems to have been broken by the last addition of a subscriber -- maybe it hit a script limit or something? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I noticed it's been like that for at least a few months. I had no problem editing the list directly. I think the purpose-built script is broken. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Not very inviting for people who get there and don't know what to do, though, is it? ☆ Bri (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks pretty broken to me, I tried to add my name, got a blank page, and then was told to go back to a blank page to click a non-existent button when I tried to undo. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
There was a VPT thread about this somewhere. It’s a MediaWiki wide issue, apparentally, not isolated to the Signpost. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Giving my 2 weeks notice

I've mentioned wanting to leave the post of The Signpost's editor-in-chief a couple of times over the last year, but so far nobody has stepped forward to take the post. This time I'm really doing it. My last day will be April 27. I hope I can end it a bit earlier, right after the next issue. It's up to staffers to select a new editor-in-chief. I'll suggest you consider several possibilities: a single editor-in-chief, 2 co-editors-in-chief, or even 3 co-editors-in-chief, who would each be able to take a month off at regular intervals. I'll come back to this thread in awhile and talk about what qualfications an EiC needs, and what an EiC actually does, but I wanted to get the process started now. @HaeB, Bri, Vysotsky, JPxG, and Ganesha:

Thanks in advance for taking care of this with all deliberate speed. A final note - I love being the EiC and I'll miss it, but my schedule doesn't allow me to put in the time that I'd like - I've been doing a poor job lately - and 3 years should be enough for anybody!

Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:08, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

You've done a wonderful job Smallbones, I hope you can use the freed up hours for lots of other enjoyable things. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your work! I've only known SP under your leadership but it's become one of my favorite parts of the wiki and something I always look forward to reading. May your future activities inspire the joy and excitement your work here has, Smallbones. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for everything you've done for the Signpost, Smallbones. Hoping to see you around here as much as you'd like to be even after your retirement! Ganesha811 (talk) 11:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks to all for the kind words. I do expect to keep writing, with an occasional month off. But lets get down to business here: who wants to perform the EiC duties? A newspaper does need a decision maker and an organizer, The usual Wiki-method of arguing out all the details, compromising, and forming a consensus generally takes too long when there is a deadline. A newspaper is a "snapshot in time" so having a deadline is the essence of a newspaper.
Probably the most important qualification needed is the ability to organize, finding people to gather and write up the news and searching out people with interesting opinions to supply our opinion pages. Having some sort of journalism background is a plus, if only because you'll end up writing a lot of articles. Reviewing submissions, asking for improvements, occasional rewriting or just being able to say "I'm sorry, but this doesn't fit" is important, as is having a thick skin. In short, almost anybody can do it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately I know that I don't have the experience or time to take it on. My contributions in the past have been fairly limited anyway, mostly crosswords and copyediting. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I can put my name forward. I've been actively involved since January, and I think that my background in English (with seminars in journalism) and CS can help with writing content and technical management and optimization. I have experience with copy editing as well, and I love getting people of different backgrounds to suggest submissions (as I currently do), as well as outreach. I notice that the submissions board often gets backlogged - I can help with that. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: Thanks for stepping up to the plate. If nobody else wants to put their names forward, this might be pretty simple. First though. this might be the right time to mention that having an assistant EiC (either formally or informally) could be a good idea. You will need a break every once in a while. I do wish that I'd had some type of succession plan in place when I started. See if you can arrange that. The most important rule is that you have to be responsible to ensure that all articles conform with EN-Wikipedia rules, which essentially means you have to read every word published and sign off on it before publication. I pretty much did that (well, I skimmed recent research pretty quickly, but you can trust HaeB - he knows the rules) with any exceptions being a mistake. You should organize an RfC style approval from the staff (e.g. right here). You're going to need their approval and cooperation to do the job right. I'd say anybody who has written an article in the last 24 months should be considered staff, but with one candidate there's no need to make it too formal. Good luck! Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to tentatively suggest that anyone else can self-nominate until 1 day after publication deadline, so 25 April 2022 UTC. (And please do! Co/assistant EiCs are a great idea.) I'll see how it goes after. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:42, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Recommend that the people who have signed up as Editor here, like I did, be considered assistant to the E-in-C. At least that's my understanding of the position. If you need a list of people to consider as "special assistant" or whatever as Smallbones suggested, there is a list I compiled of recent article authors. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
EpicPupper if you end up becoming E-in-C, would you want me to take over one of your writing sections so you don't have so much work? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 06:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Hiya @A. C. Santacruz! If you want to write any of the sections I'm listed in, feel free! After all, no one owns anything. I think I'll be okay with the load, but I'd always appreciate help. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
EpicPupper could I try the next WikiProject report? I have some ideas I'd like to pitch :D — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
(for clarity purposes, I am A.C.S but I renamed my account in case someone was mistaking my pseudonym for a real person) — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@A. C. Santacruz, sure! I've run out of ideas for that one so far, so have a go at it! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 14:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ixtal, sorry! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 14:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
EpicPupper what do you think of re-interviewing the COVID-19 project to discuss how their work has evolved these two years? Might be interesting. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ixtal sounds great! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, count me in as absolutely willing to sign on as a co-EiC. Being responsible for the direction of the Signpost is certainly something I find compelling, and that I'm interested in doing. I first started thinking about this when Smallbones mentioned it to me a few months ago; my main concern, then and now, is that I may find it difficult to fully commit to giving the publication my undivided attention, and that quality could suffer as a result. As an example of this, right now I am on vacation, typing from a ten-year-old laptop on a dresser in a guest bedroom, so I will be grotesquely half-assing all of my features for the April issue. But, if it is the will of the editorial staff, I am prepared to put in as much effort as I can give -- here's to seventeen more years! jp×g 05:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'd be in favor of this, as well as Bri, Ixtal and others being assistant to the E-in-Chiefs. I think you and EpicPupper together could provide plenty of energy and leadership for the paper. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

5 days until publication

We'll publish at the usual time on Sunday. There will be articles on

  • The situation at RU Wiki from a longtime contributor there
  • Another Eyewitness Wikipedian from Ukraine
  • If I can get a CC-BY SA approval to republish - the anarchist view of Wikipedia
  • In the media and N&n look like there will be enough material
  • Get your other stories in. Don't make me work too hard for my last issue as EiC! Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Anarchism waiting for a licence approval - isn't that the humour right there? Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments has released their winners. I think the best way to cover this is just to copy the announcement at Diff, https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/04/20/take-a-journey-around-the-world-with-the-wiki-loves-monuments-winners-2021/ probably in Gallery, but we could alternatively use "News from Diff" @Gerald Waldo Luis: which do you prefer? Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll be glad to put it in Gallery. Was seriously running out of ideas, didn't know WLM just occurred recently (never catch up on those kind of news). GeraldWL 04:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
SMART Copyright Act is something else from Diff perhaps worth republishing. It could be a brief item in NAN, or it could be published in whole. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Moving to "Wikipedia:Signpost"

Hiya! It seems like the Signpost was renamed from "Wikipedia Signpost" to "Signpost" back in 2011 (rename from "Wikipedia Signpost" to "The Signpost", perhaps @HaeB might have some reasoning?), but the page title remained unchanged. Any thoughts on moving it to Wikipedia:Signpost? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

For reference, this was discussed in December 2020. The consensus at that time was that the benefit/effort ratio was too low. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
That was quite a read. It might certainly be not worthwhile. I'm pivoting to adding a DISPLAYTITLE instead for now. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
But on second thought, it would be confusing to not have it for all the subpages as well. This needs some more workshopping, so I'm striking it for now. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I became curious about this a while ago -- since the actual title of the publication is the Signpost, it doesn't make a lot of sense to have it located at a different title. Per the database, there are 7,857 pages with the prefix Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. This is a shitload, but it's not completely intractable. It certainly wouldn't be that hard to actually perform the moves, and as for pissing off other editors, people often use scripts to carry out much larger tasks without controversy. Really, since it's a project moving around pages in its own space, I'm not even sure that this would fall under the purview of BRFA. jp×g 05:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Recognition as a user group

Hi! I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on gaining recognition as a Wikimedia affiliate through user group status. Per m:Wikimedia user groups, recognition includes these benefits:

  • Usage of WMF trademarks if needed, for example on our social media outreach channels like Twitter
  • Large but limited quantities of Wikimedia merchandise for outreach efforts, contests, activities, etc
  • Public recognition of affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation, including being listed on several lists, which might increase readership
  • Affiliations Committee Liaison support during and after the approval process, for communication directly with a Wikimedia Foundation-affliated liason
  • One scholarship to attend the Wikimedia Conference, held annually in Berlin for Wikimedia movement affiliates. This provides the opportunity for The Signpost to voice our concerns or comments about the movement, and also for one contributor to report on the Conference through an in-person experience

The application is fairly simple, with the only requirements being having 3 active members with 300+ edits in good standing for at least 6 months, and agreeing to a standard Code of Conduct. It should be noted that this would not be a "conversion", but rather an additional label as a user group, without needing to change any part of how The Signpost runs. Looking forward to hearing from y'all! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the first item in the code of conduct: although Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About § Statement of purpose can probably be considered consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's mission, I think a consideration is if any of the current editors would feel hampered by this condition regarding the type of editorials they could write. isaacl (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd be happy to have a conversation with anyone who feels limited by this :) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, one of the principal accusations people make about the Signpost is that we are WMF ass-kissers. Now, this may be fair, or it may be unfair, but it certainly warrants some consideration if we make moves towards explicit affiliation. At the very least, it would look weird, even if it wasn't weird (obviously we would still be allowed to write an article saying the WMF hosed something up). It also seems to me like it would create some inconvenient situations with respect to our unofficial status; during the fracas over last month's From the Signpost team, it was often brought up (by people on all sides of the discourse) that we were an unofficial publication and didn't reflect the views of the Foundation or the English Wikipedia. It seems to me like a situation that would carry a lot of potential for clusterfuck. Of course, that's not to say it's a bad idea -- there are obviously benefits to official status, and certainly benefits that deserve to be talked about. But it would certainly be a significant decision for us to make as an organization, even if on the object level it didn't affect our editorial independence.jp×g 06:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not against becoming an "official affiliate" of the WMF through the AffCom. If anything it would distance us from the WMF's influence. I don't think they actually have any undue influence now, but putting AffCom in as a buffer wouldn't hurt our independence at all IMHO. It might not be worth the time, however, unless we used the time to write up a new charter. I think it would also increase our independence from en:ArbCom. IMHO a few people related to ArbCom have tried in the past to strongarm their way to pre-publication censorship. It's not a huge thing though. If we publish on en:Wiki ArbCom will always have post-publication censorship "rights". Only a minor improvement IMHO.
    • But I just wanted ro say 2 things:
      • Let's save this for *after* this forthcoming issue, and
      • If anybody thinks that over the last 3 years that I've kissed the WMF's ass, those folks know how to contact me via email and we can have a polite conversation about the matter. Absent that, they can kiss my fragrant plumber's cleavage Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
      Definitely more an "after this issue" thing, just wanted to start the conversation early :) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
For the record, looks like an incomplete application was drafted before. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing a sentence from the coordination page

On the editors section of the coordination page there's this sentence: All members of the editorial board are editors, but the News and Features editors take most of the responsibility. This doesn't seem to make much sense to me; there's only one "type" of editor listed on WP:POST/ABOUT and usually they edit all sections. Thoughts on removing? 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a little outmoded and not reflective of how this actually works, so I'm ok with that. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

En dash in essay

Hi! I was reading over next issue's essay and noticed there are two sentences which both use an en dash to introduce an after thought. I'm wondering if perhaps changing one of the sentences would be a good idea? Pinging Popcornfud. The sentences in question: It is often used to fix repetition that arises from other problems, such as needlessly complex syntax – a case of treating the symptom and not the cause. Fixing it isn't always a case of removing flowery language, but making prose clearer and more efficient overall – in other words, using plain English. There's quite a few endashes throughout the piece, do others also feel them excessive? — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The sentence could probably be split, or converted to use some commas. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a matter for WP:Style. It may be a minor mistake or just a matter of personal style. I'll leave it to the copy editors and I'll tend to favor Popcornfud's preference. Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
You know, I noticed that double dash a few times, and every time I thought "eh, I can't be bothered to address this right now". Sort of ironic in an essay to do with the perils (or not) of repetition, I suppose.
The essay has become a bit shaggy over time, with other editors expanding and rewriting the lead a few times. I'm grateful for their work, but the hedge might need a bit of a trim. It's nice that the essay has received some attention lately, so I may revisit it soon and see if I can brush it up a bit. Popcornfud (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
I've edited the section in question for now. I was kind of hoping that the Signpost essay was simply transcluded from the essay page itself, so they'd stay in sync, but I guess not? I'm not sure if any edits I make to the essay now are going to create headaches for the folks working on Signpost. (Even after 10 years of editing Wikipedia, I'm ashamed to say I don't really know much about the Signpost.) Popcornfud (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Popcornfud I imagine it's not transcluded to make sure the content published stays the same if the page gets changed after the fact (i.e. if WP:MAILBOX gets deprecated[Joke]). — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 14:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we can't transclude for the above reason. I did just copy the new text to the Signpost article. That should do it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Some text from Diff is a problem: "the capturing temple of David in Jerusalem, Israel". I can’t figure this out. Mistaking the word "captivating" as "capturing"? Mistaking Tomb of David for a temple? Misattrubution of the Second Temple as David's? So confused right now. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:00, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Bri, I've changed the Tomb of David thing, and did some alterations. If you notice other issues feel free to change it-- I've expanded the hatnote to note some copyediting is done. GeraldWL 08:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
We don't need to point out that we always copy edit our articles. In many cases that's just because we have something of our own house style, which doesn't necessarily agree with Diff's house style or any other publication's house style. That said, we try to follow the original as closely as possible. We also fact check. @Bri: please make any needed changes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Are we sure it was actually referring to Tomb of David? Doesn't seem that photogenic...? I don't know how to search for contest submissions by country. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Considering this is Wiki Loves Monuments, yeah it couldn't possibly be a coffin. I've changed it. GeraldWL 18:10, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I've marked the gallery as copyediting complete and ready for publication. That usually means "no more edits!" I'm concerned that we keep on inserting the same mistakes under the guise of copy editing.That said, I'll ask @Bri: to make once final check (and possibly one more edit). I'll thank everybody in advance. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:21, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It's okay now ... though I still have no way to tell what was actually submitted to the contest. At least I hope we don't insult somebody by grossly misidentifying a national treasure/landmark. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

18 hours to publication

Tomorrow's issue looks like it's shaking out real well. @JPxG: will you be ready to publish or should we ask for some backup? There are about 18 articles in play, but about 4 of them arn't really started. If you are going to choose between doing 2 mediocre articles or one good one. do the good one.

Just listing the articles"

  • Special report on Ukrainian editors - needs copy editing
  • Eyewitness Wikimedian, Vinnytsia, Ukraine - War dairy (Part 2) - just needs a quick CE
  • News and notes - looks exceptional good, but I haven't spend a lot of time with it
  • In the media - In briefs csan be copy edited - 4 top stories - I'll rewrite tomorrow
  • In focus - on ru.wiki - just needs a basic ce
  • Deletion report - not started
  • Serendipity - looks good, just a quick CE needed
  • Discussion report - is that all there is?
  • Deletion report - not started
  • Featured content - fantastic - copy editing will take some time
  • Arbitration report - not started
  • Traffic report - just needs a copy edit
  • Technology report - halfway started
  • News from the WMF - looks good, CE should be easy, don't copy edit the letter - it's a quotation
  • Recent research - HaeB always comes through
  • Essay - just an easy ce needed
  • Opinion - not started
  • Interview, Gallery, From the archive - all ready to publis
  • Humour - quick CE needed

So that's over 20 articles. Please write them or cancel the ones you haven't written yet and help with the copy editing.

I'll only have about half my usual Sunday time and might be called away at any time, but we should make it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll be around. jp×g 11:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Special report

@Smallbones: Should the Special report express an opinion on changing control of cities/regions with the word "fortunately"? See the last paragraph of #Andrii Hrytsenko, educator and prolific Wikipedia author. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Humor column template boxes

Bri, Smallbones - thanks for editing the humor column. I do think that the two template boxes at the start of the article should be put back into place - I understand why they were removed, but they're there as part of the humor. They help make the piece funny by illustrating the joke. Without them, it's just a bit of stale punchline. What do you think? Ganesha811 (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, for some reason, the hatnote is not appearing as italicized, which is confusing. Does anyone know why? Ganesha811 (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
@Ganesha811: I've taken care of the italics issue. It was introduced during copy editing, which means that we need to review the meaning of copy editing. It should start with "Do no harm." There's another form of editing articles that we don't do enough of - editing for meaning, structure, overall clarity, and taste. That type of editing should generally be done in conjunction with the author, so if you don't get your copy in on time, you leave the EiC with a yes/no choice, publish or not? That's not always an easy choice.
I've included my attempt at humour in the editor's note. IMHO nothing is funnier, or less funny, than somebody attempting to explain humor. Ganesha811: you may do what you want with that attempt. I've also included 1 message box. I'm afraid the 2nd box would only increase the probability that everybody will skip over them without thinking about it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't think we need the extra sentence in the editor's note, so I've removed it, but we can leave off the second box. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

30 minutes to go

@HaeB and JPxG: I'm back, awake and going into my final editing routine. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Preparing warmly... will be ready to roll. jp×g 19:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Give me 5 minutes to check RR and postpone an article or 2. I think it's 15 or 16 articles to punlish. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Looks basically fine to me. Are we going to ce Tips and tricks? If so, I will wait. jp×g 20:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
Looking over tips and tricks, it seems concerning that it links to Wikipedia:User_page_design_center as a section, which is marked historical when you go to it. @EpicPupper: What is the dealio on that? jp×g 20:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't deal with a totally new article submitted on deadline. @JPxG: ready to publish 16 articles. Let's do it! Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's go. jp×g 20:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Questions for WikiProject Report interview

I've added some questions at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/WikiProject report. I'd appreciate some feedback before I share the link with the interviewees ^u^ — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Generally they look good! I might add a question about "how did you first get involved in the wikiproject" or something like that. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Ganesha811 that was covered in the 2020 interview (link). — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @JPxG and EpicPupper to see if they have any issues with the questions before I share the link with the interviewees. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Those questions all sound great to me :) jp×g 23:33, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Selection of two new Signpost Editors in Chief

Since April 2021, Smallbones has expressed intent to step down as the current editor-in-chief of The Signpost. We appreciate his hard work and dedication for the last 3 years, and hope that he will continue regularly contributing articles. There have been several calls for potential EiCs to contact Smallbones, as a "From the team" piece in April 2021, in April 2022, and as several newsroom threads, the most recent being this one. I have volunteered as a candidate for the role along with JPxG as co-EiCs. We have been the only one to do so apart from offers for asisstant EiCs (which are included in this proposal).

We are organizing an RfC-style staff approval process for:

  • confirming myself and JPxG as the new EiCs
  • adding If the Editor(s) in Chief requires a break for one or more issues, the editors assist as acting EiCs where needed, assuming the regular duties of an EiC. to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination#Editors, assigning the editors the responsibility of taking over for the EiC when they need a break and implementing an emergency succession plan
  • tweaking the language of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination slightly to allow for multiple EiCs
  • adding Ixtal to the list of editors, making them a de-facto assistant EiC

For this approval, all Signpost staff are welcome to participate; staff is defined as any user who has a byline from the past 24 months of publication. We are trying to minimize bureaucracy as possible, so if you do not meet the criteria but would like to have a say, please do so. Thank you for your consideration, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC) and jp×g

Support

Please use the below markup for your !vote: 

# ~~~~
  1. I'm in favor. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  2. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Generally in favor of both working together. I would like to hear from, both @EpicPupper and JPxG: on their plans of how The Signpost will work (maybe a paragraph or 2) and how they will work together. I think this "RFC" could be very important in that the staff of TS is hugely important to our success. The EiCs will need to work with them closely, so any concerns or questions should be heard and answered.
  3. Support. — Mhawk10 (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
  4. Support. ––FormalDude talk 06:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  5. Support I understand why this proposal is being made but in practice, The Signpost production is highly collaborative and transparent. The editor in chief will definitely make some decisions here, but never so unilaterally as with a traditional publication. Anyone can comment at any time! Yes I support this proposed way forward. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll close this, if I may. Since there are no opposes, it's easy. Let's all congratulate our new co-editors-in-chief, @EpicPupper and JPxG:. I'll make the needed changes at our "about" page. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Please use the below markup for your !vote: 

# ~~~~

Comments

In the interest of laying the ground for a successful collaboration, I was wondering if the candidates have discussed with each other how they will work with each other in practice? For example, will you take turns being editor-in-chief, or will there be a division of duties (which could shift from issue to issue)? Have you agreed on how to handle disagreements? Good luck! isaacl (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I think isaac raises a good question here, especially seeing how you two have (in my eyes) kept to more or less defined areas of the Signpost I wonder if without this being explicitly discussed we would end up having two Signposts publishing as one. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, I'm not opinionated about what approach should be taken (other than there should be unified guidance to all contributors for any one issue). I'm just suggesting that the process will be more effective if each co-editor-in-chief knows what to expect from the other. isaacl (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • True to Wikipedia culture: unnecessary bureaucracy. Until The Signpost becomes indipendant of WMF servers and Wikipedia rules & regulations, despite the brave efforts of Smallbones and Bri, the publication is, and will remain, an endangered species. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not suggesting any bureaucracy at all (no new hierarchy, oversight, consultation, or anything else). I'm only providing suggestions on developing ways of working, which of course the candidates are free to ignore. isaacl (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
@Isaacl: I wasn't replying to you. I was making a completely new observation on the 'Co-EiC', the idea of voting on it, and its relevance to a species that has avoided extinction by the skin of its teeth a couple of times already. I am a firm believer in the actual need and importance of The Signpost, but is it worth creating pols and RfCs and stuff about it just because it's the way we jump to doing most things on Wikipedia just because we can? Will it really improve the lot of the magazine? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi Kudpung. Two things I'd like to note: I created an RfC-like approval process based on Smallbones' recommendation You should organize an RfC style approval from the staff, and accepted the idea of having co-EiCs also based on Smallbones' feedback having an assistant EiC (either formally or informally) could be a good idea.. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
OK, I missed that and I would be the last one to argue with any suggestion from Smallbones ;) but Smallbones has had a million ideas going through his head on how things could/should continue. But what's this about a co-EiC or an assistant? AFAICS, there's been a first class de facto EiC side-kick ever since the days I was EiC for a short while, and he did (and does) an excellent job. Is he resigning? Would that be something else I've missed? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
@Kudpung: You recall the ancient proverb lurk moar? Chris Troutman (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I've thought for a while about what to write here and finally decided neither to support nor oppose, but feel that needs an explanation. Basically I don't see this kind of election process as useful or necessary for this volunteer driven project – I just happen to disagree with Smallboness on this. It's good enough that someone stepped forward to do the necessary. Plus I didn't ask for permission in a similar situation to EpicPupper, I just picked up the harness and started pulling. In short people who want to do The Signpost or anything else should just do it. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It's good enough that someone stepped forward to do the necessary, which is precisely what Bri and I did in March 2018. The Op-Ed in that issue produced a lot of comment which has never been repeated in such depth since and revisiting it might be interesting and even useful. I never intended to be anything other than a strictly temporary de facto E-in-C and I didn't ask for permission either. When Smallbones took over later it was also without any bureaucracy. He's done a truly excellent job these past 3 years. Between them, he and Bri should be able to handover with a minimum of fuss to anyone who thinks they can put up with the slings and arrows of keeping The Signpost together and on track for another 3 years. But it's a heck of a lot of work, don't anyone ever underestimate it. Time will tell who has the staying power. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Essay section

EpicPupper and JPxG I was wondering what your thoughts were on maybe having User:Wugapodes/RFA trend lines be the essay for next issue as an interesting reflection on the Tamzin RfA and subsequent 'crat chat. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 00:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

LGTM. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
EpicPupper what does that mean? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 01:18, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
"Looks Good To Me" :) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I think we should also cover the RfA in the news and notes section; it's clearly the most high-profile happening here in the past month. I'd be happy to write up something brief once it wraps (although I'll be busy in the next few days, so give me a bit). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I've reached out to Tamzin about this. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Wugapodes has agreed with it running 👍 — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 18:34, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Some issue with the archives for this page

About a month ago, I archived some sections from this page, but they seem to have been placed in the wrong archive. I was publishing at the time, so I had a pretty strict schedule to adhere to, so I didn't try to fix it right then.

Basically, in March, there was an Archive 24, but when I used the archiver, it put them all in Archive 17. I initially thought that I could just copy and paste the erroneously archived sections into the current archive, but there was some overlap with timestamps, so I couldn't just do that. Anyway, here is the relevant section of my contributions:

Long list of diffs
2022-03-27T13:51:02 diff | thank hist −3,386‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "3 hour 15 minutes to publication" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:50:58 diff | thank hist +3,396‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎3 hour 15 minutes to publication: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:50:51 diff | thank hist −2,434‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "Questions and et cetera" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:50:50 diff | thank hist +2,444‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎Questions and et cetera: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:50:45 diff | thank hist −450‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "Heads-up" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:50:44 diff | thank hist +460‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎Heads-up: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:50:38 diff | thank hist −3,595‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "Two days, 5 hours until publication" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:50:37 diff | thank hist +3,605‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎Two days, 5 hours until publication: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:50:32 diff | thank hist −6,534‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "In the News - potential outing issue" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:50:31 diff | thank hist +6,544‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎In the News - potential outing issue: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:50:26 diff | thank hist −7,203‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "Keep an eye peeled please." to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:50:24 diff | thank hist +7,213‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎Keep an eye peeled please.: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:50:14 diff | thank hist −1,465‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "Traffic report, but for edits rather than pageviews" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:50:12 diff | thank hist +1,475‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎Traffic report, but for edits rather than pageviews: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:50:08 diff | thank hist −1,088‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "Gmail credentials" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:50:06 diff | thank hist +1,098‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎Gmail credentials: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:50:01 diff | thank hist −646‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "Organization of Signpost templates" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:50:00 diff | thank hist +656‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎Organization of Signpost templates: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:49:55 diff | thank hist −565‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "WikiProject report" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:49:54 diff | thank hist +575‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎WikiProject report: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:49:49 diff | thank hist −2,025‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "It looks good to me!" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:49:48 diff | thank hist +2,035‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎It looks good to me!: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:49:43 diff | thank hist −333‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "Reader feedback" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:49:41 diff | thank hist +343‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎Reader feedback: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:49:35 diff | thank hist −1,159‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "2022 staff organization" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:49:34 diff | thank hist +1,169‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎2022 staff organization: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted
2022-03-27T13:49:28 diff | thank hist −3,013‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom ‎ OneClickArchived "Automation + bots" to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17
2022-03-27T13:49:27 diff | thank hist +3,023‎ Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 17 ‎ →‎Automation + bots: archived using OneClickArchiver) Tag: Reverted

If anyone knows of an automated tool to fix this, let me know -- otherwise I will just go through and try to recombobulate them manually in the next few days. jp×g 06:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

  • Actually, looking at this a little, it is even more weird than it looks at first glance -- lowercase sigmabot was randomly archiving crap to Archive 17 in 2022, even though Archive 18 started in the middle of 2021. What the hell is going on here? jp×g 06:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Affiliate status

Hey newsroomers! Button pressed for applying for user group status. Yell at me for any issues. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Shared leadership

Hello! I’ve been discussing with JPxG on how we should do shared leadership, and we agree that it should be as unbureaucratic as possible. We’ve decided on three main guidelines:

  • both EiCs are free to implement changes as long as no EiC objects within 12 hours
  • a list of tasks will be made before every issue, and we’ll delegate responsibilities as needed
  • in the event of disagreement, we discuss and consult with editors as needed

cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:40, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Good plan! Bluerasberry (talk) 13:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
From the experience of helping JPxG publish a couple of months ago you could both do with checking your permissions ahead of publication date. One of JPxG's has expired. Good luck with the new gig. Cabayi (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment on proposed Op-Ed

Hi EpicPupper - I noticed your creation of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Op-Ed, with Tamzin's permission, and just read through it. I wonder whether it is a good idea to run it in the Signpost, especially this month. A few reasons:

  • It's not very long after the RfA closed and discussion has only recently died down; would it be worth waiting to allow time for heads to cool further?
  • The Op-Ed is highly personal, and while I appreciate Tamzin's openness and honesty in writing it, it makes it difficult to separate discussing possible changes to RfA from a clearly difficult personal emotional experience for Tamzin.
  • Tamzin says they are not referencing any supports or opposes by name, but the piece ends with a list of acknowledgements that could come across as using the Signpost's high public profile to celebrate certain editors for helping them pass. I understand that's not the intent, but it could come across that way.
  • This piece will almost certainly lead to a re-ignition of at least *some* drama around Tamzin's RfA. To that end, I'm not sure it actually benefits Wikipedia. Anyone reading it is already likely to be aware that RfAs in general are difficult and emotionally draining, and that Tamzin's was probably especially so. I think any gain in awareness from reading it will be outweighed by the potential for divisiveness caused by running it in such a high-profile spot.

Let me know what you think. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I also agree it may be too fresh, not because I fear it will continue the drama but rather because I think editors will fail to approach the valid criticisms and thoughts shared by Tamzin from a neutral perspective. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Ganesha811 and @Ixtal! Thank you for the comments, and apologies for the late reply (I am on vacation, but will still be present for this issue). I'll start off by replying to Ganesha:
  • By publication, the RfA will have been closed for about a month. I feel that as a community newspaper, our role is to present timely information, even if it means that some controversy will arise.
  • I do agree that it is highly personal. I think that placing the debrief in the Op-Ed column will separate our reporting to an extent, but I certainly agree that this extent may be thin. I'd welcome further thoughts on this, or suggestions to trim some of the debrief so that it is suitable for publication.
  • I have consulted Tamzin about this. Since copying over the debrief, she has edited it to remove the line that says that they are not mentioning any supports or opposes by name (I will update the Signpost version). However, she disagrees with trimming this portion of the debrief, but is okay with changing the Nableezy and MastCell lines to simply "* To [[User:Nableezy|]] and [[User:MastCell|]], for their words of wisdom" as a compromise (those two parts of the acknowledgements are the only portions that directly reference !votes). Tamzin thinks that the acknowledgements provide closure to the overall emotional arc of the piece. Please let me know if this is okay.
  • I believe that drama is (perhaps unfortunately) a crucial part of Wikipedia, and that some here would not hurt us. I think a fair definition for "drama" is a situation where there is a lot of discussion or where people have strong feelings such as anger. It is true that in many cases drama is accomplishes nothing, but this is generally how communities and institutions alike process change, find consensus, and question their principles, whether this results in reaffirming them or committing to change. If nothing can be described as drama, usually this is an indicator of a stagnant project. While "reporting on drama" may sound unwise, I feel that this is simply a matter of phrasing. In most cases, this indicates "reporting on events which were significant enough to justify hundreds of people sounding off about them", which I believe is almost always newsworthy. If I may, I would like to utilize the ANI thread involving The Signpost recently as an example. Attempts to seek consensus for the scope of the project were made, and although these were not necessarily successful, on-wiki not everything is as well. I think that contributors also learnt valuable lessons; I myself certainly did.
And now for Ixtal: I think that editors not approaching drama from a "neutral perspective" is the point of discussion. Contributors should be provided arguments from both sides of a discussion, in order to form educated beliefs.
Again, thank you for the comments, and I'd be happy to clarify anything if needed, or listen to further feedback. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 08:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Phew! Kudpung mops his brow, EpicPupper. (of course, as a former E-in-C, it's got nothing to do with me...) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I think those are sensible arguments. The only area where I disagree strongly is that I think Tamzin's changes didn't go far enough. It would be much simpler and better if the list of acknowledgements were removed altogether. Tamzin, since it is your article, I may as well say directly; I think the piece is valuable to the Wikipedia community if it provides insight into the RfA process. These acknowledgements don't do that, they are just a nice thing for you to do which is better suited for your own user space. The Signpost isn't a space for you to thank your friends or opposers, it's a space for issues of interest to the whole community. I don't think they are necessary to provide closure to the piece. I do appreciate how tough it must be to be this honest about the experience and thought the piece was generally moving. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ganesha811: What about cutting the body of § Acknowledgments, but still having the header and then {{further|User:Tamzin/340/112/16: An RfA debrief#Acknowledgments}}? As to your other concerns: I made the choice to be visible in this piece about the things I wanted to be visible about. I avoided things that I knew would definitely lead to relitigation, like responding to some of the arguments made. (The main reason I don't name the opposes I greatly appreciate is because that would, by implication, say which opposes I object to.) If there's specific parts that jump out at you as particularly likely to cause drama, I'm happy to discuss them, and at least broadly open to omitting or altering such portions (provided there's a disclaimer that the op-ed is abridged/altered). If your concern is about my openness about my mental health, though, I'm not afraid to be on the record about that. 1,000 people viewed my disclosures page during the RfA and none seemed to have a problem with it. Given that the community has also in recent years elected someone who openly has borderline personality disorder to every one of our most trusted positions and someone who openly has psychotic depression to quite a few of those positions, I take all of this as a sign that the community has moved past the Panyd era of judging people based on stereotyped fears of mental illness. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 13:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
TBH I think you discussing being a plural system is a great part of the Op-Ed, and a genuinely enriching experience for our readers (I don't think many have actually read about the experiences of plurality written by a system). I think adding the {{further}} template to a separate acknowledgements page would be the best way to go about including them in the article. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a reasonable compromise regarding the Acknowledgments section. None of my concerns are related to your openness regarding your mental health and i agree with Ixtal's comments above. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Putin warns against reading Wikipedia

A Signpost on Ownership

Seeing as how Elon Musk recently bought Twitter, I was wondering if it would be an interesting idea to theme an edition of the Signpost (perhaps June or more likely July) on the theme of ownership of content. I think it could be cool to have interviews with people from the WMF and also people who may be outside of Wikipedia but part of the free/open content movement discussing the state and future of online content ownership. I've read a lot of people online and offline discuss what "owning Twitter" means and how they feel about a company owning their messages so I wonder if now's a good time to reflect on the movement that Wikipedia is part of. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 07:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ixtal: Themed issues are always a nice idea but difficult to organize. In general, The Signpost would like more interviews. Do you have ideas for how we can get more submissions or better support interviewers? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
My suggestions would depend on how willing the Signpost team is to expand interviews outside of strictly within Wikipedia. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ixtal: I expect the audience is very willing to expand to anything connected. Obvious choices are knowledge centers like museums, universities, or government agencies; or technology organizations which produce anything which speeds communication. What did you have in mind? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking perhaps people from Creative Commons, Internet Archive, and similar organizations. I don't think universities make too much sense in this content (e.g. edX copyrights all its content, for example), I'm not familiar with museums, and I would avoid engaging with government agencies due to their political nature. Academic researchers/professors could also be interesting interviewee subjects. To be honest, I don't really know too much about organizations that deal with ownership on the internet. Open to suggestions! — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 14:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Ixtal, have a listen to Smirkybec's podcast The World According to Wikipedia ep 13 "What have we got in Common?". Cabayi (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Cabayi is sharing something great - If we wanted more content with the least additional effort, then anyone could be selecting and presenting existing published interviews like this one which Signpost has not featured.
@Ixtal: If you want to go ahead with original interviews then feel free!
Let me know if I can support. By the way, I am a university employee with the title "Wikimedian in Residence". All I do at my university is wiki stuff. There are lots of other wiki people at other universities. One list of such people is at meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. Most government agencies do not have an apparent political agenda, like for example, the United States National Institutes of Health has hosted lots of wiki events for sharing health information over the years (example). If you are interested in these partnerships and explore then I think you will find lots of connections. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales has publicly commented about the Twitter purchase [1]. ––FormalDude talk 05:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

New crossword for next month

General FYI - I'm planning on a new crossword for this month's Signpost. Theme and clues tbd. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

i have one ready for next month :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Titles for essay

Hey, EpicPupper! You suggested that I come up with some more clickbaity titles for the essay; since I spend all my time at DYK, one would hope I'd be able to swing something like that. How about:

  1. How not to write a plot summary (essay would need some reworking)
  2. Down with MOS:PLOTSOURCE! (kinda)
  3. Why articles on creative works can suck (and how to fix them)
  4. Three AMAZING ways to make your wikipedia articles shine (number two will SHOCK YOU)![sarcasm]

Let me know which of these work, which don't (thoughts on no. 4 particularly wanted)—i'm happy to workshop any, these are more start-y ideas. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, thanks! Number 4 sounds good, added. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 14:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Ah, EpicPupper, the one you ended up adding was suggested sarcastically ;) are you sure that's the right one to run with? Seems a little weird to put my username on that... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Haha, @Theleekycauldron! We run similar titles before. If you feel uncomfortable with it, feel free to change :) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 07:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

11 days until publication

So far we have:

  • Community view (WMF has a Board of Trustees election coming up, with affiliates shortlisting candidates. If our application is approved, we could act as a liason, holding a poll for what the community feels about candidates)
  • From the team (new leadership)
  • News and notes (I have some extra material, looks good)
  • In the media (could use some help on expansion)
  • Discussion report (we are once again backlogged for a 2-month report. help is welcome adding WP:CENT/A items to the report)
  • Serendipity (will have a submission this month)
  • Featured content (looks good)
  • Arbitration report (two months again; JPxG at the helm)
  • Traffic report (looks good, will trial a new "most-edited" section)
  • Technology report (I'll handle this one, have some Tech News and Diff stuff)
  • Gallery (World Oceans Day is on June 8, so this one will be featured pictures of oceans)
  • Recent research (HaeB, as always)
  • Essay (submission from theleekycauldron)
  • From the archives (tentatively a piece on The Onion; we have a video-based submission (exciting!), might move to next issue)
  • Tips and tricks (needs new content for the week of publication)
  • Humor (crossword looks good)
  • WikiProject report (looks a bit short, any expansion ideas?)
  • Interview (Mikehawk has a submission; not done yet, will check in)
  • Op-Ed (Tamzin's RfA debrief)

I've highlighted the areas that could benefit from some help. It looks like we'll have 19 articles this month, a lot! Please try to get them ready for copy editing as soon as possible, and help with copy editing is always welcome. Cheers! Feel free to reach out if you have any questions. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 14:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

We might also have an "In focus" or "By the numbers" submission about the gender gap (I think?). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 14:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
News from Diff with WLE HR+E added. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 14:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I've added a couple of items to News & Notes – the publication of the latest WMF Form 990, and the impending start of the India and South America fundraisers. Please review. Cheers, Andreas JN466 13:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Jayen466, those look good to me on first glance :)
  • We'll also have a special report for this issue, on Ukraine
  • Mikehawk has told me that he hasn't heard back from the interviewee since sending them the questions, so that might have to be delayed
  • I might have an opinion piece about Community Tech, I might not
Please, please, please help with the highlighted items above! The order of them is roughly in order of priority, coincidentally. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I expanded Tips and tricks. ––FormalDude talk 05:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I have written up four of the ITM In briefs. There are still a couple left. Andreas JN466 14:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I've added a short introduction to the WikiProject report and reminded the invited editors of the publication deadline, but I'm not sure there's much more I can do to expand it. EpicPupper perhaps if you remind them, as EiC, they might add to the report? — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm a member of the COVID WikiProject so I added my answers to the interview questions. ––FormalDude talk 19:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Regarding the op-ed: @Tamzin: What is going on with the typefaces and text colors? I assume this is some kind of draft thing to keep the paragraphs at the bottom distinct during editing -- if it is ready, can they be returned to normal formatting? jp×g 00:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
    @JPxG: Huh? I thought EpicPupper and I already were in agreement on the typefaces and colors. They're not part of the drafting process. The point is to make clear who's speaking. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Sorry for the late reply, as I've been out of town (and am now phoneposting, to my own shame) -- I don't think the way they are now will be accessible (per MOS:COLOR). I think it would work fine formatted as plain text - we may be able to figure something out to distinguish the blocks of text with blockquotes or the like? If we can't figure out something that works by publication time, there is always next issue. jp×g 07:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: are there any colors that fall short of AA Normal against a white background on https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/? I thought I'd checked all four. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines specify a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 for text, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Color requires 7:1 "where feasible". I know the pink comes out to 4.5:1, haven't checked the others. ––FormalDude talk 20:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
For the text set in Courier (or a monospace fallback font), as Courier has very thin strokes (and numerous monospace fonts do as well), it would be helpful to have greater contrast. isaacl (talk) 20:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft for a person covered in this month's issue

The bio draft listed above relates to the person mentioned at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media#A profile of Wikipedians and breaking news. I'm not taking any more action here as he and I know each other. Perhaps it is worth mentioning the draft in the ITM piece, to encourage expansion?? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll also just say, I've shared a draft entry and specific COI edit requests on the talk page, if folks are interested in reviewing. I wouldn't have shared a draft entry I wrote myself except I felt inclined to take action after someone published a very subpar stub about me in the main space. See talk page for more info. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Another Believer: Should we link to your userpage in the article? jp×g 01:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I didn't realize correcting the title of the CNN article would require the footnote "Conflict of interest disclosure: The subject of the article contributed to this section". My bad, I figured this was a minor correction. ---Another Believer (Talk) 12:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Another Believer, sorry for the confusion! This is mostly a precautionary measure, it is a minor edit but I'd like to avoid ANI threads. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I understand. Not sure if adding "and gave permission to link his name to his username" (or similar) helps? Might make the footnote sound less like I drafted the section, and also several editors have asked me about being "outed" recently so not sure if acknowledging the permission granted helps. Your choice! Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Makes no difference to me, but FYI the footnote mentions permission to link my name but no link appears. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

3 days until publication

  • ITM needs some links to prose expansion
  • Interview - as we haven't heard back from the interviewee, and as Pride Month is in June, switching to queer Wikimedians and delaying current interviewee
  • Discussion report needs writing
  • Traffic report - help wanted for "most edited articles" commentary!
  • Gallery - needs images
  • WikiProject report still a bit short but it can do. I'll try to find another interviewee, and add a brief news item from a state WP
  • On the bright side needs good news
  • Tips and tricks
  • Eyewitness Wikimedian - I'll try to copy from someone's talk page

Submissions and others

  • Arbitration report - JPxG
  • Tech report needs writing on items from Tech News
  • Opinion - I might write, an AI researcher might submit something
  • Special report submission waiting
  • Serendipidity submission waiting
  • Recent research - HaeB

It looks like we've got a lot. I'll try to do a lot of stuff on Saturday, but please do your part, and submit anything you're planning to soon. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 04:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Note another addition to News and notes: [2] (Pages have been opened on Meta to discuss changes to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the UCoC itself.) Andreas JN466 13:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@EpicPupper: If you want an Opinion piece, I would offer you [3] – this could be adapted to the Opinion format with minimal work (which I am happy to do). Let me know. :) --Andreas JN466 13:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll be unavailable this weekend due to various observances. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I added everything to the Discussion Report except for two items which I don't know enough about personally to summarize:
If EpicPupper or anyone else familiar with those could add them, that would be great! ––FormalDude talk 01:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I have contacts at the WMF and am very familiar with these. Will read over the report, thanks 😁 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Addition?

Now that The Signpost in in the throes of changes in management, I seriously propose reprinting this article in the 'From the Archives' column. It's as relevant today as it was then. Just my opinion... @Bri:. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Before I step out for the weekend, I'll say that it does seem an opportune time to review the proposed and suggested changes. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
These changes look interesting, will review tomorrow and potentially incorporate. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Deadline?

The deadline template looks *completely* broken. I have no freaking idea about what is happening, but publication is most definitely not in 2 hours. Please ignore for now. This is the actual publication time. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; I just tried to fix the time in the template accordingly. Generally speaking I agree that the template is a bit confusing (cf. Special:Diff/913163475).
Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think a great place for us to get started on repairing some of the technical debt might be that goddamn deadline template. It does nothing but confound me. Gah... ;_____; jp×g 07:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

15 hours until publication

  • Community view
  • News from the WMF - need license approval

I'm beyond tired and ready to collapse into bed for the night (see my edit summaries, heh heh). I can help in the morning tomorrow, but might not be there for publication (celebrating my birthday). 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 06:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Good morning/evening/whatever. I will be around to publish what we got. jp×g 07:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, happy birthday ^__^ jp×g 07:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

+1! :) --Andreas JN466 13:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like there is a huge amount of stuff that needs first pass copyediting still. Uh, well, whatever, I guess. Fuck it. We'll do it live. jp×g 08:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I love that reference (I assume it's to Bill O'Reilly's rage), but it almost got me into trouble when I based a marketing skit off it. Apparently it's not as familiar to Europeans as I thought it would be. I'll do some copyediting now. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 09:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to cover the board candidates' edit counts in Community view, as one criterion readers might be interested in, here is a list:

  • Farah Jack Mustaklem (Fjmustak): ar.wikipedia.org 3,643 en.wikipedia.org 3,182 commons.wikimedia.org 1,926 meta.wikimedia.org 985 www.wikidata.org 546 wikimania2016.wikimedia.org 66 ar.wikisource.org 46 he.wikipedia.org 34 www.mediawiki.org 29 fr.wikipedia.org 29 Other projects 194
    • All projects 10,680 [4]
  • Mike Peel (Mike Peel): www.wikidata.org 192,526 commons.wikimedia.org 130,267 en.wikipedia.org 73,789 en.wikisource.org 5,054 meta.wikimedia.org 4,043 simple.wikipedia.org 929 wikimania2018.wikimedia.org 477 pt.wikipedia.org 299 wikimania.wikimedia.org 174 foundation.wikimedia.org 114 Other projects 510
    • All projects 408,182 [5]
  • Gilbert Ndihokubwayo (Gilbert Ndihokubwayo): meta.wikimedia.org 211 commons.wikimedia.org 121 rn.wikipedia.org 36 fr.wikipedia.org 19 eo.wikipedia.org 16 en.wikipedia.org 11 www.wikidata.org 9 wikimania.wikimedia.org 2 en.wikivoyage.org 2 eo.wikiquote.org 1 Other projects 0
    • All projects 428 [6]
  • Tobechukwu Precious Friday (Tochiprecious): meta.wikimedia.org 1,086 www.wikidata.org 487 incubator.wikimedia.org 310 commons.wikimedia.org 306 ig.wikipedia.org 232 www.mediawiki.org 165 en.wikipedia.org 44 wikimania.wikimedia.org 9 sn.wikipedia.org 4 en.wikiquote.org 4 Other projects 8
    • All projects 2,655 [7]
  • Lionel Scheepmans (Lionel Scheepmans): fr.wikiversity.org 23,399 fr.wikipedia.org 4,877 meta.wikimedia.org 2,939 en.wikiversity.org 1,090 fr.wikibooks.org 856 commons.wikimedia.org 738 be.wikimedia.org 442 ► en.wikipedia.org 259 www.wikidata.org 186 wikimania.wikimedia.org 84 Other projects 566
    • All projects 35,436 [8]
  • Abderamane Abakar Brahim (Abakar B): fr.wikipedia.org 577 commons.wikimedia.org 515 meta.wikimedia.org 117 wikimania.wikimedia.org 74 fr.wiktionary.org 18 www.wikidata.org 3 en.wikipedia.org 3 www.mediawiki.org 2 pl.wikipedia.org 1 en.wikivoyage.org 0 Other projects 0
    • All projects 1,310 [9]
  • Joris Darlington Quarshie (Joris Darlington Quarshie): commons.wikimedia.org 13,307 en.wikipedia.org 3,588 www.wikidata.org 1,254 outreach.wikimedia.org 1,178 meta.wikimedia.org 1,168 www.mediawiki.org 1,097 en.wikiquote.org 46 af.wikipedia.org 14 incubator.wikimedia.org 4 ak.wikipedia.org 3 Other projects 1
    • All projects 21,660 [10]
  • Egbe Eugene Agbor (Eugene233): www.wikidata.org 11,192 commons.wikimedia.org 771 meta.wikimedia.org 547 test.wikipedia.org 467 www.mediawiki.org 90 en.wikipedia.org 24 fr.wiktionary.org 10 fr.wikipedia.org 4 nl.wikipedia.org 2 wikimania.wikimedia.org 2 Other projects 2
    • All projects 13,111 [11]
  • Kunal Mehta (Legoktm): en.wikipedia.org 29,898 www.wikidata.org 22,133 commons.wikimedia.org 4,908 www.mediawiki.org 4,059 meta.wikimedia.org 1,269 es.wikipedia.org 573 en.wikinews.org 326 de.wikipedia.org 243 fr.wikipedia.org 241 it.wikipedia.org 233 Other projects 3,721
    • All projects 67,604 [12]
  • Shani Evenstein Sigalov (Esh77): he.wikipedia.org 9,968 www.wikidata.org 2,439 meta.wikimedia.org 921 commons.wikimedia.org 865 en.wikipedia.org 361 outreach.wikimedia.org 301 wikimania.wikimedia.org 156 wikimania2014.wikimedia.org 47 wikimania2012.wikimedia.org 36 wikimania2016.wikimedia.org 17 Other projects 48
    • All projects 15,159 [13]
  • Gina Bennett (Redwidgeon): en.wikipedia.org 479 en.wikiversity.org 130 commons.wikimedia.org 78 meta.wikimedia.org 59 wikimania.wikimedia.org 45 outreach.wikimedia.org 7 www.wikidata.org 7 en.wikibooks.org 6 en.wikivoyage.org 5 ca.wikimedia.org 2 Other projects 0
    • All projects 818 [14]
  • Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom): pl.wikipedia.org 15,159 www.wikidata.org 2,489 meta.wikimedia.org 969 pl.wikimedia.org 713 en.wikipedia.org 571 commons.wikimedia.org 382 pl.wikinews.org 17 pl.wikiquote.org 13 de.wikipedia.org 11 wikimania2013.wikimedia.org 10 Other projects 83
    • All projects 20,417 [15]

--Andreas JN466 13:06, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make a write-up. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 16:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Moly White in Sunday Washington Post

I just saw this, it looks like a major WaPo coverage. I'll have to read it first! I'll likely add it in at top of In the media. Will meed copy editing in say 45 minutes. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Archived link here, for our own benefit in reading/reviewing/checking. jp×g 17:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I've popped a pointer to ITM into News and notes. Andreas JN466 18:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
See also: Molly White (writer)‎ ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Extending publication deadline by 10 minutes

For CE, Community View, and whatever expansion needed. JPxG approved. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Emergency nerds recruited

I am out in the mountains right now, and editing from my laptop... a couple of my compatriots are waiting for me to finish publishing this Signpost issue before we can go on a hike, and said compatriots are both professional copyeditors, so don't be alarmed if low-EC accounts start popping up in the revision histories for our articles this month ;) jp×g 18:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Big thanks for this month's final copyediting to xXx lex xXx and An average beverage, who I now owe lunch! jp×g 20:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
That hiking trip is going splendidly, isn't it? Commiserations. --Andreas JN466 20:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hands off the keyboards

Everything looks great, folks. @Bri, @Another Believer, @Smallbones, @FormalDude, let's allow @JPxG to push the buttons. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Everything is broken, the world is burning, please hold. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 20:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Test section, 2022 June 7, to see where OneClickArchiver puts it.

Hoomba baroomba. jp×g 21:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Mass message

What the hell happened to your current issue notification? There are no links, just <nowiki> type of links. Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The world has been fixed. The sun is bright, and all subtitles are happy. jp×g 21:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Somebody set up us the bomb

Okay, so, the publishing script decided to go totally apeshit for some reason -- I think it started crapping its pants on the Video section. I have no idea why it did this but I guess I am going to try to manually fix the thing htat's transcluded onto everyone's talk pages (thank God it is a transclusion lol). Stay tuned! jp×g 20:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Everything (should) be fixed now! Sorry all. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Reader survey

In Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2022-05-29/From the team, is the link to the 2022 reader survey just supposed to be a link to the talk page? isaacl (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl fixed, thanks. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Feeder readback

Click here and see what the kids are talking about nowadays. jp×g 21:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Reader feedback

View reader feedback

Newsroomers: You can view reader feedback with the button above. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wew! Between this and the feeder readback, we've got total coverage... jp×g 22:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, congrats to ...

@EpicPupper and JPxG: on their first issue. This one is always the hardest, after this the 2nd hardest is always the next issue. There was obviously a lot of enthusiasm in this issue - keep that going! A lot of new faces too - that's great. My personal thanks to Bri and Andreas K, letting everybody know that former editors-in-chief are behind the current ones 100%. I've always felt that this type of message is important when you know when you are done with the issue - and have survived. The next "done message" is up to you! We'll see what the readers say. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Has it gone out to subscribers yet? I don't see it on my tp. I also do not see the watchlist notice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It was mass-messaged, I think. Watchlist notices need an admin to add. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The watchlist notice was one of the things that significantly boosted readership when I stepped in as E-i-C in 2018. You need an admin on your team. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

On communication

@EpicPupper and JPxG: Congrats on your first issue as co-EICs. I look forward to reading it. I have to say, though: I understand that we're all volunteers here, but this really has not been a good way to treat a guest writer. It's not that there was anything wrong with the feedback I was given. It's a matter of communication. I was led to believe through off-wiki conversation on the 14th that we had resolved all formatting issues. Then the exact same concerns were brought up again at T-minus 3 days. I responded promptly, and didn't hear back until the day of publication. When I did hear back, I responded again off-wiki, and then discussed the matter in detail off-wiki, proposing an alternate formatting that would have met AAA Normal. Instead, the issue was put to press with the op-ed spiked, which I didn't know about until after I'd both contributed to a last-minute interview request and helped you resolve your publication issue. I was told that it could run in the next issue instead, but a) that would mean an Op-Ed digging back up an event by then two months in the past, something I'm not okay with, and b) it would require me to trust that these same issues wouldn't recur with next month's issue, and I've been given no reason to trust that. For that reason, I've G7'd the piece with EpicPupper's blessing.

I'm quite fond of both of you as people, but this really isn't a good way to treat someone. I offered my services to a project you supervise, was responsive at every turn, and was rewarded with dead air, contradiction, and finally a silent spiking. As you move forward as editors-in-chief, I hope you'll treat other writers better than this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 23:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Tamzin, and thank you for bringing forward your concerns. I am so sorry for our horrid treatment of a wonderfully responsive contributor; what transpired should never happen again. On the 10th, I accepted your submission, approving the current formatting at that date. On the 14th, JPxG reached out to me regarding his concerns with the colors, specifically with accessibility. I then contacted you with these concerns, and was notified that the colors passed WCAG AA, but not AAA, which is acceptable under the Manual of Style, and that the nearest shade of pink would not be particularly visually pleasing. I was happy with this response, and reported back to JPxG. During pre-publication checks, JPxG brought this up again, as he felt that the colors were not easy to read, and that the perspectives were difficult to understand. He directly brought his concerns with you. I also reached out, and suggested potential compromises, which were declined understandably. Instead, you suggested an alternative.
After sharing your suggestion offwiki with JPxG, he remarked that he would not be okay with proceeding with it. I then proceeded to complete other tasks, such as finishing some of the articles, doing further pre-publication checks, and copy editing. I planned to notify you that it would be postponed, but it went off of my radar. My communication with you was unacceptable and did not convey accurately the events going on.
On a broader scale, this is an example where I did not necessarily agree with JPxG's opinion, but tried to maintain a "united front" with him on our communication. This led to contradictions, particularly in myself and JPxG reaching out to you independently, occurring without coordination on our end. I am to blame with many of these coordination issues; JPxG has been wonderful with pinging me in edit summaries of important decisions, but sometimes I have not done the same. I will attempt wholeheartedly to correct this issue.
For this I would like to reiterate my apologies, and I hope that The Signpost does not lose a positive contributor. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I understand the frustration but I do hope you REFUND the piece and run it next issue. I think your piece is important for the community to read and interact with as our RfA process improves and as many of us learn to interact with plural systems. Of course, that choice is yours to make and moving away from publishing the piece is fair under the circumstances. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 07:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for this month being a shitshow in general — we had a quite large 23-article issue, which I ended up having to proofread on the day of publication due to spending the previous couple of days out on the road. Honestly, if I weren't vacationing with some very kind copyeditors, it probably would have gotten delayed even further than the several hours it already was.
As far as I can tell, what arose here was a bizarre V-shaped structure where EP would message me a summary of what Tamzin said, and I would respond, and then EP would semd Tamzin a summary of what I said, and then Tamzin would respond, et cetera, which put an unrealistic burden on everyone involved ... especially EP, who ended up having to manually do a task that software has been capable of handling since some time in the 1970s! I don't think anybody fucked up massively here; it's hard to run a project, and there are bound to be some growing pains as we figure out how to structure things efficiently. Of course, it's regrettable that we weren't able to run the piece, but as has been said, there is always the next issue. jp×g 16:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
If the piece may run in a future Signpost, may I suggest it be userfied back to Signpost space, not deleted? The speedy deletion by the submitter, who is an admin, definitely looks irregular and it's better for everyone involved IMO if that gets done. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I only found this comment after being pinged to EpicPupper's WP:REFUND request, which I see he's now withdrawn. (I will reiterate that I only deleted the op-ed after EpicPupper gave his blessing.) To be clear, I do not wish for this piece to run in The Signpost. Not next issue, not ever. The responses above and the exchange at REFUND do nothing to mollify my concerns that, if slated for the next issue, we'd run into the exact same communication issues and I would again waste a lot of my time appeasing unclear and inconsistent desires. If anything the response, containing now two reversals of course, strengthens those concerns.
If either EIC would like to run the piece over my objections as author, they can have it restored (by me or any other admin), and I'll send it to MfD instead. But if y'all could please get on the same page about what you want, and then stick to that, I would appreciate it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: It might help to have someone responsible for working with our guest writers and running their pieces. That would take some of the load off of the EICs and make it easier to be consistent and well communicated. ––FormalDude talk 03:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
If you want to publish a decent, beefy issue every month, you'll all get to know soon enough how many hours you have left for other people's submissions, your other WP work and RL without burnout. Been there, done that, as Bri can attest, and also from his 3-year work alongside Smallbones. I must admit that from a copyeditor's perspective, I found that particular article would have been quite challenging. Remember that copy editing is far more than just proofreading - it's very often an almost complete rewrite. I do it for a living. The Signpost 'editorial staff' are volunteers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It should help here to distinguish 3 types of editing:

  • proofreading - includes checking spelling, punctuation, and grammar. It's all rules based and there are thousands of rules. I always am embarrassed whenever there is a misspelled word in a published version. Everybody should pitch-in on this. and our readers, by tradition and our invitation, do a very good job after publication. All it takes is concentration and practice. As EiC the concentration part was very hard for me because there are always 3 other things on my mind while I was doing it.
  • Copy editing should stay strictly with the writer's ideas and mostly with their words, but to clarify the writing you can remove excess verbiage, switch the order of sentences, or the order within sentences. Working with word-choice by changing a few words, maybe even rewriting the lede. The EiCs and a few trusted editors should concentrate on this. If the writer doesn't want to be copy edited like this, by whoever is available, they force us into an accept/reject decision right at the end. I'd lean toward reject.
  • Just plain editing will often challenge the writer. Reordering paragraphs, rewriting the lede, changing words, breaking up sentences, sometimes up to a complete rewrite is all par for the course in RW publishing.There should be a good back-and-forth with the editor and writer. Ultimately, the writer has to accept the changes - their name is on the text - but a refusal to work with the editor will generally end up with a rejection. Frankly I only had the time to edit at this level for about a dozen or so articles over 3 years. I did make a few mistakes in this area, mostly by not rejecting poorly thought out submissions.

Hope this helps. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll agree with everything Smallbones said and add an amplification. Regarding the first bullet, it's very hard to proof one's own writing. One tends to slide over errors that have been read several times before, even if one would find the same errors if reading another editor's writing fresh. This is the best case for new eyeballs on the text, and we should discourage editors from marking their own submissions "copyedit complete" prior to publication (even the E-in-C, but it happens in an emergency). Pinging individuals who have a good track record of showing up and reviewing articles ~24 hours before publication has helped. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Community view

@EpicPupper and JPxG: How long will the poll for the community shortlist be open? I was just going to drop a note about this in the Kurier (the German Wikipedia's Signpost equivalent), and that is a key bit of information people will want to know. --Andreas JN466 09:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

German Wikipedia diff: [16]. (For an English translation, just drop the text into https://www.deepl.com/translator – this is generally better than Google Translate)
I've assumed that we will publish the results in the upcoming June 26 issue. --Andreas JN466 10:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, it occurs to me, we should announce the poll on the mailing list(s).
Speaking more generally, we should also resume announcement of Signpost issues on the mailing list(s). The only issue to have been announced on Wikimedia-l in recent months seems to have been the February 2022 issue. --Andreas JN466 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Jayen466! The poll is set to end on June 29 - 1 month after publication. Sorry if the schedule is a bit tight. I've been attempting to set up mailing list announcements in the publishing script; I don't currently have access to our Gmail account (locked out), but will try to advance this. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Is that 23:59 UTC on June 29? Andreas JN466 18:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
It should be. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hang on ... Wouldn't it need to be sooner? The next Signpost issue is due to come out June 26. If you wait until June 29, you'd have to publish the results in the July issue. But the affiliates' voting period for the shortlist is July 1–15. So if the idea is to inform the affiliates process, we need to end the vote June 25 latest. (Cool idea to have a community shortlist vote, by the way. I hope people will participate in sufficient numbers to make it meaningful. Mailing list announcement?) --Andreas JN466 19:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm planning to publish the preliminary results in the next (June) issue. I think that this will work, but yeah, it's not optimal. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Gmail account and mailing list announcements

(Branching this topic out as it is separately relevant)
Thanks for the update regarding the wikipediasignpost Gmail account. Is there anything other folks (including but not limited to The ed17) might be able to do to help solve this? If Google's two-step verification is the issue, there might be workarounds by resorting to backup codes [17] or the authenticator app [18]. Alternatively, it might be possible to send email from the wikipediasignpost@ address using another account [19].
The monthly mailing list announcements are a pretty important. For all we know (e.g. from the last reader survey [20]) they bring in considerably more readers than the corresponding announcements on Twitter or Facebook.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I tried backup codes, but I can't commit to constantly being logged in with that account, so when I log out, I don't have access anymore. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem? I still have access to the Gmail account. You don't? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I personally am locked out. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
What the reason for having to log out inbetween? If the problem is that you need to access a different Gmail (Google) account, try using separate browser profiles. That allows one to stay logged into two different Gmail accounts at the same time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Community view

@EpicPupper and JPxG: How long will the poll for the community shortlist be open? I was just going to drop a note about this in the Kurier (the German Wikipedia's Signpost equivalent), and that is a key bit of information people will want to know. --Andreas JN466 09:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

German Wikipedia diff: [21]. (For an English translation, just drop the text into https://www.deepl.com/translator – this is generally better than Google Translate)
I've assumed that we will publish the results in the upcoming June 26 issue. --Andreas JN466 10:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Also, it occurs to me, we should announce the poll on the mailing list(s).
Speaking more generally, we should also resume announcement of Signpost issues on the mailing list(s). The only issue to have been announced on Wikimedia-l in recent months seems to have been the February 2022 issue. --Andreas JN466 12:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi @Jayen466! The poll is set to end on June 29 - 1 month after publication. Sorry if the schedule is a bit tight. I've been attempting to set up mailing list announcements in the publishing script; I don't currently have access to our Gmail account (locked out), but will try to advance this. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Is that 23:59 UTC on June 29? Andreas JN466 18:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
It should be. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Hang on ... Wouldn't it need to be sooner? The next Signpost issue is due to come out June 26. If you wait until June 29, you'd have to publish the results in the July issue. But the affiliates' voting period for the shortlist is July 1–15. So if the idea is to inform the affiliates process, we need to end the vote June 25 latest. (Cool idea to have a community shortlist vote, by the way. I hope people will participate in sufficient numbers to make it meaningful. Mailing list announcement?) --Andreas JN466 19:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm planning to publish the preliminary results in the next (June) issue. I think that this will work, but yeah, it's not optimal. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 22:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Gmail account and mailing list announcements

(Branching this topic out as it is separately relevant)
Thanks for the update regarding the wikipediasignpost Gmail account. Is there anything other folks (including but not limited to The ed17) might be able to do to help solve this? If Google's two-step verification is the issue, there might be workarounds by resorting to backup codes [22] or the authenticator app [23]. Alternatively, it might be possible to send email from the wikipediasignpost@ address using another account [24].
The monthly mailing list announcements are a pretty important. For all we know (e.g. from the last reader survey [25]) they bring in considerably more readers than the corresponding announcements on Twitter or Facebook.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I tried backup codes, but I can't commit to constantly being logged in with that account, so when I log out, I don't have access anymore. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
What exactly is the problem? I still have access to the Gmail account. You don't? Chris Troutman (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I personally am locked out. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
What the reason for having to log out inbetween? If the problem is that you need to access a different Gmail (Google) account, try using separate browser profiles. That allows one to stay logged into two different Gmail accounts at the same time. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple WikiProjects in one interview

I was wondering if it would be possible to do a report on how multiple sport WikiProjects are covering female athletes, but since WP:SPORT and WP:WSPORTS are kind of abandoned (with the former having federalized into subprojects) I'm not entirely sure how one would go about doing so. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 21:35, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Multiple WikiProjects are awesome :) Let me know if you need any support. You definitely should start early if you're doing multiple, to ensure there's enough answers. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:37, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_24&oldid=1146639079"