Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-09-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Arbitration report: Ohconfucius sanctions removed, Cirt desysopped 6:5 and a call for CU/OS applications (5,047 bytes · 💬)

Usernames in headlines.

I think it would be more appropriate if editors weren't directly referred to in headlines. –xeno^talk 22:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

...? It's a bit difficult not to refer to editors at all. Or do you mean just the negative items, such as desysoppings (which everyone agrees are normally regrettable)? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. "Date delinking case amended; Cirt-Jayen466 case closed; call for CU/OS applications" would have worked (if not have been as eye catching - trade-off, I suppose). –xeno^talk 23:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The headline wasn't inherently problematic, these types of headlines have been used in the past and few concerns were raised. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:09am • 23:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than "X desysopped", you could use the generic term "Admin desysopped".. the person is named in the story, it's a double hit to have it in the headline, but that's just my opinion. SirFozzie (talk) 23:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that works. Similar thing was done with Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-02-28/Arbitration report, rather than putting the administrators' name prominently in the headline. –xeno^talk 23:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Xeno here. It's a news forum, the users were newsmakers this week. At the very least, we can all be thankful that the headlines are rarely blatantly incorrect, distortions, or flamboyant dramamongering, like the headers often are on Tabloids, or worse, the AN/I and Village Pump threads. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming in the headline goes to hundreds of talk pages and remains there. It's potentially way out of balance. I agree with Fozzie. Tony (talk) 08:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm boldly replacing title with "Cirt/Jayen577 closure". I strongly disagree with naming only one editor in a resolution that involves two. Now, would somebody change the front page title? In both editions? I mean, dang.--Lexein (talk) 09:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There's no point in changing anything, because the damage is done on the talk-page subs notice on talk pages. Tony (talk) 09:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Aren't the headlines mostly transcluded? –xeno^talk 13:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly, but not entirely. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree - I actually read this because "Ohconfucius" was mentioned on my talk page and they've been mass changing access dates despite a lack of agreement that the formatting should change. -- Jeandré, 2011-09-13t20:34z

Arbitary break

Okay, I have to note that personally I preferred the title as it was, but obviously othe rpeople feel differently. Therefore I propose titles of the form "admin desysopped" unless prior consent is obtained to directly name participants. In the meantime, I will write to Cirt with an apology. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll put Cirt's name down here then. Desysopping Cirt is COMPLETE BULLSHIT and it's time to clean house at ArbCom in the next election. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured content: Wikipedians explain two new featured pictures (1,255 bytes · 💬)

I like the depth of coverage of two of the featured pictures this week. Very good work. Jujutacular ^talk 00:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Hate to moan as this page is always very good value, but just to note that clicking on "nom" for the first two featured pics listed (marabou stork and crowned lapwing) does not take you to the image. It looks like the section names have changed to be more detailed and this has broken the links. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind, I've fixed them. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on getting a few FPs of something other than animals! Recury (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Some great FPs this week, the spiral minaret is stunning aswell even if its not technically an FP. Ajbpearce (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In the news: 9/11 coverage, Wikimedia hypothetically rebranded and Wikipedia golf 2.0 (3,133 bytes · 💬)

Yknow, I couldn't find what Joan CollinS was talking about. I found no mention of Lowe in the article going back a few revisions... The Cavalry (Message me) 23:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That's because the problem was in NNDB's page on her, not in our article (which has apparently never claimed she dated Lowe). See Talk:Joan Collins#Arthur Lowe for details. --Avenue (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Dating myself here, but as a fan of the Encyclopedia Brown books growing up, I didn't know whether to cringe or laugh at that (very cheesy) Wikipedia Brown program! This simple parody mimics the books pretty well, on the other hand. sonia♫ 00:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely understand the idea of not granting undue weight to fringe theories, but for September 11 attacks to avoid even so much as a "See also" link to 9/11 conspiracy theories is ridiculous. I don't support such ideas—I detest them, in fact—but to hide them away as though they're a completely insignificant phenomenon is misguided at best. The fact that they're not even mentioned in the September 11 attacks template is even more outrageous.—tk tk tk 02:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

{{September 11 attacks}} has been subject to some edit-warring over the inclusion of such a link; and if that continues the matter should certainly be going into dispute resolution, given that the argument on the template's Talk page is about preference not policy, as far as I can see. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- NPOV is not a matter of preference. Gigs (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. the logo redesign. That fiasco was one of the worst episodes in Wikipedia's history. It was an early example of the Foundation's willingness to make unilateral decisions in back rooms (physical or virtual) while ignoring or glossing over community feedback. That's becoming a routine annual or semi-annual event here. The Foundation now has a history and just making changes, giving half-ass lip-service to user feedback, and ignoring contrary opinion until it dies away. The old logo still looks better, by the way. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this years anniversary of attacks was much happier than ever. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

News and notes: Foundation reports on research, Kenya trip, Mumbai Wikiconference; Canada, Hungary and Estonia; English Wikinews forked (2,246 bytes · 💬)

Editor's note: The Wikinews news came in very late for this edition, which was therefore delivered to some subscribers under a different subtitle. It will be dealt with in full in next week's issue. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 22:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Aren't the subtitles transcluded anyway? –xeno^talk 23:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

On the ENglish Wikipedia, yes. Our global subscribers don't get transclusions (obviously) but did get the updated subtitle; I think it was just the mailing list that went out incorrectly, and the first few subscribers here may need to purge. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 06:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We at Malayalam wikipedia had made a collective and concerted effort to reach the 20000 article target before Onam, the regional festival of Kerala which was to be on the 9th of September.When we set ourselves the target, it seemed a preposterous and impossible idea. But brick by brick , drop by drop articles started coming in. First a drop, then a trickle and it became a flood . On sixth september we reached the target and still had a few days to spare .The effort should go down in Wikipedia History as a classic example of collective , targeted effort. Yes we admit that the quality of many of the articles leaves something to be desired. We have now set our mind to cleanse the ml wikipedia of one line articles and to clean up the area. Stay tuned . We've just begun :)--Fuadaj (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Exciting stuff. The "rubbish article" or "no article" divide is always a contentious one. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinion essay: The Walrus and the Carpenter (1,123 bytes · 💬)

Funny, this is better than most of the MOTDs combined. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ouch. jorgenev 04:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The author's epiphany is I hope enlightening to all. Good work. Rich Farmbrough, 17:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC).
I like it! --MistyMorn (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Technology report: What is: agile development? and new mobile site goes live (975 bytes · 💬)

I believe the logging stuff is being done by nikerabbit, not aaron. Bawolff (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been using a mobile device to access and edit wikipedia for some months. As your article notes, it is not possible to edit wikipedia using the Mobile View: one must first click on the Desktop View. Unfortunaty, the new change introduced this week, sends me back to Mobile View every time I change a page. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

We'll look into this, thanks. If you have time, opening a bugzilla report (against MobileFrontend extension) is appreciated.--Eloquence * 07:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Politics in the Pacific: WikiProject Australian Politics (856 bytes · 💬)

Well, thanks for the shout out. I should add that the Whitlam and 1975 Australian constitutional crisis articles would not be as good as perhaps they are if Australian editors hadn't been willing to help out on the fine points of OZspeak. I have no Australian projects currently planned, but I'll be back in Oz in February and will hit the bookshops. There's a fine one in Brisbane I favour.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone has considered trying to get photos of current politicians by waiting on the steps of parliament house? Or even writing to the MP's offices? Stevage 06:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)