Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-12-03. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Discussion report: Concise Wikipedia; standardize version history tables (975 bytes · 💬)

Looks like the "Standardize version history tables" RfC has been closed. See Template talk:Version#Results --Waldir ^talk 00:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#RfC on era style (BC/AD and BCE/CE) seems to have been inactive since mid November. Should it really be listed here? --Dweller (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Concise Wikipedia: I played a bit with the API and created a demo/proof of concept. It shows the lead of Wikipedia articles, stripped out of infoboxes, etc. It's on Github, so issues and pull requests are most welcome! --Waldir ^talk 21:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured content: The play's the thing (0 bytes · 💬)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-03/Featured content

News and notes: Wiki Loves Monuments announces 2012 winner (2,104 bytes · 💬)

A small comment (nice story :) ): to the best of my knowledge GLAM institutions didn't submit images. You are perhaps confusing images /of/ GLAM institutions that are also a monument (which is a special category this year) and images /by/ GLAM institutions? effeietsanders 19:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Those looking for a mention of this in the story will not see that, at the moment: The related text has been commented out. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

It's unfortunate such a great image is constrained into a 180px by 180px thumbnail in a gallery. I suspect most readers will not notice the photo's quality, unless clicked on, which very few will do. Maybe there could be a larger image preview when hovering over an image in a gallery. As it stands now, nobody will be clicking on a 10 images in a gallery. It might be even better to have an Images tab, next to Read/Edit. Just some thoughts. Tomb of Safdarjung. 24.242.195.208 (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It is sad indeed. However, for the article I do understand it - the article is about the tomb as a whole and not just this small part of it. But when someone writes about the chamber it should get a larger preview. effeietsanders 18:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps few people would click on all images in a gallery, but not nobody; there are compulsive clickers like me who would. (Which is why I have about 250 tabs open in my browser. Seriously. The situation is more than a bit problematic.) Waltham, The Duke of 18:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: MediaWiki problems but good news for Toolserver stability (3,384 bytes · 💬)

Bugzilla upgrade: One of the new features is that notification emails are finally html-enabled. This allows the ascii tables showing the changes to actually display correctly as tables in modern email clients that don't use monospaced fonts by default, and long urls are no longer cut if they wrap. Despite this, on the mailing list thread at least two people said they preferred the plaintext format. I guess their email clients are smarter than mine :) --Waldir ^talk 14:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
- My eyes!!. I also hate the html emails :P Bawolff (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
WMF analyses decentralisation issue: Quite frankly that particular message is meant to be customized by the users. No two wikis have the same needs for welcoming their users. Its unrealistic to expect otherwise. Bawolff (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WMDE needs to grow the fuck up and realize that Labs isn't what they thought it was, admit that they've been wrong, and properly fund toolserver. The WMF needs to grow the fuck up, get over the fact that they dislike sharing power with the chapters, and give WMDE some money to help run the toolserver. This kind of childish bullshit is precisely the reason that confidence in the WMF and some of the larger chapters is so low. No one editing on any of the projects, the people doing the actual work that the WMF and WMDE supposedly support, gives a shit about the monumentally large egos of the battling staff members, or the incessant pissing matches that serve only to fuel those egos. What we do care about is that if toolsever fails, projects stop working correctly. Figure out something, pretend to be nice to each other, and don't let this happen again. Everyone that isn't in the WMF or WMDE leadership is tired of it. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Sven said it perfectly. Legoktm (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

+1 Exactly. --Atlasowa (talk) 11:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

+1 SeeAlso → Permalink de.wikipedia --Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ‎ 18:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Money shouldn't be the problem for WMDE (and I also doubt it for WMF). Hence, I'd change your comment in the following way: WMF needs to grow the fuck up and realize that Labs actually cannot and possibly will never be able to replace the toolserver entirely, admit that they've been wrong, and properly support the toolserver [esp. with dumps or a virtual surface = things WMDE is not able or allowed to develop on its own]. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject report: The White Rose: WikiProject Yorkshire (628 bytes · 💬)

What a great article, what a great wikiproject - lots of good ideas such as:

a newsletter each month,
monitors the popularity of and recent changes to its articles,
maintains a portal,
collects resources for contributors to use.

…and most of all this [link http://toolserver.org/~alexz/pop/] which I discovered while snooping around.

Thanks once more, Mabeenot. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)