Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
Help! I am having trouble finding the template for formatting Signpost articles of this sort. If anyone has it on hand then please share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is resolved. I copied another article. I still could not find the base template to substitute, though. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bluerasberry, looks pretty good. The regular sections in the newsroom use Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload (or similar) as a preload template. Substuting it as {{subst:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Story-preload}} will make it work on any page. But copying also works of course.
@Bri: can you take a look wrt copyediting/feedback/etc. - Evad37 [talk] 03:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Will be on-Wiki off and on for next few days but will try to keep an eye on the newsroom. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{{completed}}. Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-08-05/Special report - Evad37 [talk] 00:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiJournal of Medicine[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published

{{completed}}

@Evolution and evolvability: Sorry we missed responding to this for so long; we've been rather disorganised since February. Would you be able to write a short update as to how thing have been going so far in 2017, which we could include at the end of the piece? (perhaps as a postscript, or otherwise formatted so as to differentiate from the original) - Evad37 [talk] 01:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm drafting a short article now that should be ready in a few weeks to hopefully accompany a related publication in a medical journal. It will summarise and expand on a few things that some coauthors and I have been working on over the last year. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We are good to go with an embargo date with an embargo date of the 29th of August (next Tuesday). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the relevant URLs now that the main paper is live. Let me know if any further edits are needed after copy-editing. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ClockC Scheduled for the next issue (thanks!) - Evad37 [talk] 00:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-09-06/Special report - Evad37 [talk] 05:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability Initiative: Two steps forward, one backward[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
Thanks Gnom, looks pretty good on first glance. Will comment more later. - Evad37 [talk] 00:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnom: Maybe you should address the tension/conflict (perceived or otherwise) between sustainability and other movement aims. I'm particularly thinking of diversity and your comments regarding travel... especially given the strategy direction on Knowledge equity: "Our structures and governance will rely on the equitable participation of people across our movement. We will extend the Wikimedia presence globally, with a special focus on underserved communities, like indigenous peoples of industrialized nations, and regions of the world, such as Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. ... We will welcome people into our movement from a wide variety of backgrounds, across ... geography,..." - Evad37 [talk] 06:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Evad, Thank you for your comment! You are correct, this point is important. I already tried to incorporate it in the following passage: "At first, Sustainability Initiative had a slow start. The main challenge seemed to be that reducing our environmental impact is not directly connected to the idea of Free Knowledge. This is probably why it has been difficult to convince Wikimedia Foundation staff to prioritize the matter." I added a corresponding point to the section regarding travel: "While this would encourage remote participation and reduce Wikimania's environmental impact, it would also hinder in-person encounters, arguably the most valuable aspect of Wikimania." Maybe the entire draft now needs to be shortened a bit? --Gnom (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gnom, that's better now. I think the length is fine as-is (unless you really want to shorten it). Will schedule it for the upcoming issue. - Evad37 [talk] 02:34, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I've run through it and emailed Gnom to scrutinise, copy to Evad. I forgot to mention that "one backward" ... I had to think a little to work it out. Unsure the categorical anchors there are clear to readers; but not a big deal. (I'd repeat: "one step backward" if you retain it). Tony (talk) 03:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your comments and edits! I just answered Tony with a couple follow-up questions. --Gnom (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnom: Just checking you're happy with how the article is now (I'm looking to publish in the next 12 to 24 hours) - Evad37 [talk] 02:11, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Evad, yes – thank you very much for the heads-up! --Gnom (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}. Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-09-25/Special report - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offline Wikipedia developed at Kiwix Hackathon 2017[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: User:Bluerasberry/signpost draft I copied it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/OFF NETWORK
  • Submission type: News
  • Author: Bluerasberry
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about offline Wikipedia. Note that in the last issue I also wrote an offline Wikipedia article but in this case I have some hot new information from a conference and some video interviews. It is not my intent to report this continually but it worked out this way for now. I will have this draft ready for review by end of day Monday 21 August. It is mostly drafted now but I need to rearrange and get some review from team leads. I wanted to give notice now of my intent to submit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewer sought! I got feedback from the organizers of this event. It is ready for editorial review from The Signpost. If anyone would volunteer to review this, it needs copyediting, check to confirm appropriateness for publishing in The Signpost, and any editorial suggestions to make it better journalism. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: I took a look at the submission, and it looks to be very good, and definitely meriting inclusion in the Signpost. I know I am not the most experienced editor, however it seems to be very good. It seems to be slightly unclear what they actually did at the event, to me. In my understanding, the meeting was people talking about Kiwix, however, beyond the video statements, did they do anything else? Eddie891 Talk Work 11:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: This is great feedback, and yes, the outcomes were not clear. I put a couple of sentences about accomplishments in each of the 3 team sections. I hope that summarizes what happened. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have a reason for deleting the article from my userpage and copying it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/OFF NETWORK. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Embargo publication This is an event report, and now I have recordings of the talks in the event. I need to pause publication of this till as late as October. The report will be more effective if it contains all media from this event. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Evad37: Sorry to pull something back after submitting it but I had an unexpected follow up. I might not have a submission in time for this issue but I am working on multiple other stories so that The Signpost stays in content. My apologies for the trouble with this story. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: That's fine, just let us know when you're good to go - Evad37 [talk] 00:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lane and all, Comment: the pic shows the Raspberry Pi Zero W which costs only $10, while the "normal" Pi is $30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelgraaf (talk • contribs) 09:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I corrected the caption. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: Just checking in – any updates? - Evad37 [talk] 03:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Evad37: Yes I have another set of videos to add. This event only merits one article so I really ought to add them before this is published. I plan on having a final draft for submission by the end of this week. I am traveling a lot just now but getting my Signpost submissions in order is on my mind - thanks for your patience. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that I will miss my end of week expected finish point. I hope for next week. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ready on my side, need copyedit @Bri:, previously you did copyediting for this. Here are my recent changes. The biggest change is that now I have videos of the actual presentations from the event and incorporated those. @Evad37: Thanks for checking in at the beginning of October. I appreciate what you are doing for Signpost. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did a quick look, fixed an awkward phrase that was missed on my first pass, seems OK otherwise. Is there a missing accent mark on Cesar Lopez' first name?
You might also consider explaining more about how the tailored content packages are becoming "increasingly available". ☆ Bri (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: Thanks for that. Yes, I corrected the accent mark in the article and in the video files. The confusion around "increasingly available" was a problem of passive voice; I changed it to say exactly who was taking this action. I also had an unanswered suggestion in the comments section which I resolved here. Other thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good, definitely ready for publication. This question is for my own curiosity but might be a useful addition. Where does one find the curated WPs that are able to fit on constrained size storage media? Is there an index? Is there a community creating new ones? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: That story is a little more complicated. I will show the beginning then show the links going deeper -
http://www.kiwix.org/
http://www.kiwix.org/downloads/
http://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Content
http://wiki.kiwix.org/wiki/Content_in_all_languages
In that last link, you can see that there are packages of every language Wikipedia updated every month. This is not everything though - there are some unpublished packages in circulation. The unpublished ones are weirdly specific because of partner demands and they cannot be discussed because of privacy concerns. They might be something like "medicine, but exclude anything which shows a nude woman (breast cancer, vagina, pregnancy)" or "Wikipedia minus politics" or "Wikipedia minus pop culture". When any institution makes a request which is too specific it is because of a perception of the Internet which is at odds with the majority of how the majority of the Wikipedia community want people to imagine Wikipedia. It is sort of censorship, but probably more of arbitrary well-meaning demand based on how people several decades ago imagined a paper book.
There are a lot of social issues in play and maybe they matter more than the technical ones. Like for example, people who say they hate Wikipedia might say that they like the collection of Medical Wikipedia articles even though we are giving them a slice of the same content. Marketing and presentation probably plays a bigger role in people's satisfaction than the content we actually provide. You are right to perceive that there is something curious about all this.
I am not sure where this will go. There are some people who are creating curated sets of content but the default recommendation we have for packaging is provide English, then provide a few local languages. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}} Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-10-23/In focus - Evad37 [talk] 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Working with GLAMs in the UK[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
Thanks Jwslubbock. Can you add an introductory byline stating your role in Wikimedia UK? Just want to be transparent, and make it clear for readers who you mean by "we" in the piece. The first mention of GLAM could probably do with a link, possibly also Wikimedian in Residence.
@Bri: and/or Tony: can you take a look if you get a chance? - Evad37 [talk] 03:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was very, very clean – just a couple of minor formatting adjustments required in the copyedit pass. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I've updated it with my job title.Jwslubbock (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone help make the video slightly smaller so it doesn't obscure the media on the right? I can't figure out how to do the correct size format within the Signpost templates. Jwslubbock (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I made a new template - Evad37 [talk] 00:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}} Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-10-23/Special report - Evad37 [talk] 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TITLE[edit]

Status:
V ?
Declined

Wrong venue: @LovableARMY: Thank you for your enthusiasm, but this page is for news and opinion pieces about Wikipedia and the wider Wikimedia movement. Proposed/draft articles should be submitted to Wikipedia:Articles for creation – but note that Wikipedia only publishes articles on topics that receive significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (what this means). As of now, this article does reference any sources (see how to add references). You may continue to work on the article, and when you feel that it is ready for evaluation, you can submit it to Articles for Creation – I've added a banner to the top of the page with a submission button.
If you have any questions or problems, you can ask at the Teahouse (a friendly place to learn about editing Wikipedia). Evad37 [talk] 00:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{close}} - Evad37 [talk] 03:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations for WikiProjects (tentative)[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
Hi Bobo.03, sorry for the delay in response. Would you be open to this being covered in a WikiProject Report, if I can find an interviewer? (It seems to be partly in that style already, with the quotations you've got there.) Also, which are the "six projects" that have signed up – the table your talk page [1] has a lot more than six? And can you elaborate or provide links re the "study" mentioned there? - Evad37 [talk] 03:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Evad, thank you for your response!
  • Yes! I didn't conduct any interview with Rosiestep and Peacemaker, but we had many conversations back and forth to get their feedbacks and improve our system. Regarding the quotations above, I just told them that I am writing a post here to publicize our study, and asked them if they'd like to contribute a quote as support. I am not sure how the interview would be about, but hope it won't take them too much time.
  • The projects are Military history, video games, Medicine, Oregon, Skepticism, and Women's health. As you can see, some participants registered multiple projects, to not overwhelm them, I only chose one of the projects they put there. Also, some participants are from the same project.
  • Our tool is to help WikiProjects identify potential candidate editors to recruit by recommending related candidates using different recommendation strategies, sending the list of candidates to the project organizers, and requesting project organizers to recruit them. We want to see that by introducing this recruitment intervention, if projects can attract more dedicated editors, and if those recruited editors can become more active. Here is a more detailed writeup. Please let me know if you have any other question. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Evad37 and Megalibrarygirl: We conducted interviews to some participants, and got their responses. I think the draft is ready to review. Please take a look and let me know how does it look to you. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}. Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-11-24/WikiProject report - Evad37 [talk] 03:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interview[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
👍 Looks good, thanks Eddie – will publish in the next edition. Would you be able to come up with a title and blurb? - Evad37 [talk] 12:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}. Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-11-24/Interview - Evad37 [talk] 03:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia competitors[edit]

Status:
V ?
Cancelled
Simple English edition of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • Good idea Eddie891, I think this is something Signpost readers would be interested in. There are a number of these "...pidias" out there, some focused on specific topics, areas of interest. Don't know if you would care to include mention of Simple English Wikipedia. — JoeHebda • (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up icon Should be interesting - Evad37 [talk] 02:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Competitors? I don't remember reading anything in our prime objective, or the five pillars, or the core content policies about there being a competition. Perhaps we and (more importantly) our readers might be better off if we think of other encyclopedias as enterprises we can work with or learn from (if nothing else, from their mistakes), rather than competitors that we need to "beat". We're here to build an encyclopedia, not win a competition. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WPEN, being firmly #1, can pretty much ignore our competitors, of whom Conservapedia and Citizendium are perhaps have the most impact thus far. It's hard to believe WPZH, who I hear are #2 in their language, can ignore the market leader. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but (Mitch Ames and Jim.henderson, readers of the Signpost are certainly interested in this sort of thing. Like someone mentioned, these 'competitors' often have information that can improve WP articles. I know I've gone to these others and found interesting material. One of the biggest differences between "us" and "them" is their referencing is practically non-existent. So their utility is pretty low. As long as content here has to have a reference, the quality will be maintained.
Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing competitors, I just wrote a blog piece about Amazon's Alexa device. It uses WP content when a user poses a coherent question. It isn't perfect yet, but it really is a competitor. Now you don't even have to lift a finger and type anything into WP's search box to access information. Just open your mouth and make some kind of sound and Alexa will quote the first sentence of the WP article it thinks you asked about. Of course, I'm miffed because I hear the content I created coming out of a black cylinder that someone else is paid for. Commercialization was inevitable. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related upcoming (26 July) event in Perth: Wikipedia, friend or foe? - Is Wikipedia a competitor for the sharing of knowledge, or a complementary partner to traditional methods? Mitch Ames (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am finding it increasingly hard to find the time to work on this, so I welcome anyone else who wants to work on it Eddie891 Talk Work 21:45, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... This didn't really work. Might as well throw it in the dustbin now. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{close}} (this discussion will be archived if you ever want to come back to it) - Evad37 [talk] 01:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Wars Episode 1 The Phantom Vandal[edit]

Status:
V ?
Needs drafting
  • Submission: wikilink to your submission (or red link to where you intend to write it)
  • Submission type: Humour
  • Author: 22mikpau
  • Discussion:
    Once in an encyclopedia far far away... Hey guys I'm back (I helped with an opinion article on task forces in July)but with a new idea. In honor of Star Wars:The Last Jedi coming this December, I thought it would be funny to do a Wikipediafied parody of the film saga. I say this now because I personally think if this one is popular you could create a miniseries on it for future editions. Maybe this a plain dumb idea and I bet you can find ton of reasons why... but on the other hand if you like it, let me know on my talk page. 22mikpau (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@22mikpau: I'm open to the idea. @Barbara (WVS): would you be interested in helping? - Evad37 [talk] 23:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't going to believe this but I started working on this a month ago. Here is a snippet:
Welcome to Yodapedia,
the free encyclopedia that jedi masters can edit.
We now have 4 draft pages in an English-fabricated creole.
May the phorce be with yew. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 00:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@22mikpau and Barbara (WVS): Are you still working on this? Our December issue is scheduled for December 15, and the following issue will probably be about three weeks later - Evad37 [talk] 01:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect,I'll start work this weekend and hopefully it will be done by the release ofThe Last Jedi... on The 15th22mikpau (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the current draft of the Humour article. I just couldn't come up with exactly what you want. I hope you can come up a great idea. I am just not "feelin' it". If you come up with a sorta draft, I am sure we can both make it work. I do my best work when I am exhausted because then I can't control my imagination. It just goes off on tangents that are sometimes funny. A good place to start is by looking at what articles are in the Star Wars category, if there is one. Keep in touch. Even if you just come up with some kind of 'skeleton' or story board. I think I can go off on one of my tangents. You will be made to put your name in the by-line just in case I start another fire with content that doesn't amuse people. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look what I found: Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction ! How funny is that? I can't believe the category death squad hasn't nuked this yet. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think another editor has written what we need. I just read Hutt (Star Wars) and can't stop laughing. I love the whole idea of writing about fictional characters as if they were real. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to type when you can't stop laughing. I found my biography in one of the references: "Zorba the Hutt is an ancient slug with wrinkled, leathery hide that long since faded from a vibrant ochre to pasty grey. Other than his age, extreme even for his long-lived species, Zorba's most recognizable features are his long, white dreadlocks and braided beard."[1] The only thing that doesn't describe me is the beard.

Im sorry but i got busy and though I'll try to work on it i may not have the time22mikpau (talk) 00:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Charlesjsharp[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
Looks good. We can keep publishing an interview an issue if you want – or less often, whatever suits you better. - Evad37 [talk] 01:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: User:Eddie891/sandbox/WomenInRedContest
  • Submission type: News
  • Author: Eddie891
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about the Wikipedia Women in Red Contest that closed on November 30. They created over 2800 articles. I'll see if I can get it done, and let me know if it is wanted at all. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Are you planning to interview or get quotes from the organisers? - Evad37 [talk] 01:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully. Should I conduct the interviews on a different page? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
However you want to do it is fine. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Interviews desk was used in the past, with interviews in subpages. Or since its a wikiproject, you could use Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk. - Evad37 [talk] 01:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A short interview with Dr. Blofeld is at User:Eddie891/sandbox/signpost/interview3. I can rearrange it to fit in the main page, or we can do something else. Whatever you want, Evad37. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eddie891: Sorry for the late response. I think having it in the same page makes sense. Also, I will be publishing later today – I've got to finish up some other sections first, so if you're online and see this, you can copy it in; or otherwise I will do so (and put in the Signpost layout/formatting) later. - Evad37 [talk] 02:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TITLE[edit]

Status:
V ?
Wrong venue
 Closed. Wrong venue: This page is for proposing news or opinion pieces. You can ask for help at the Teahouse (if you need it) - Evad37 [talk] 02:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interview[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
I think it's going in ... now included in Newsroom's article status chart; I've done some work to prepare it. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
{{completed}} Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-01-16/Interview. Thanks Eddie891 - Evad37 [talk] 16:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cochrane-Wikipedia Initiative[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: User:JenOttawa/signpost
  • Submission type:
  • Author: JenOttawa
  • Discussion:Hello, I have drafted an article to be considered for Signpost. I would welcome any suggestions or feedback that you may have. This is my first submission. Looking forward to learning more about the process! Link to draft. Thanks for your time and consideration. Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JenOttawa, thanks for your submission – it sounds like an interesting project. A couple of comments: It would be useful to have an example edit or two that has occurred through the initiative (that would also be a way to have an image in your article, which isn't required, but nice to have if possible). Secondly, Cochrane Hypertension and Cochrane Russia seem to be part of the initiative – maybe you could talk about them too (we cover and have readers from across the Wikimedia sites, not just English Wikipedia). Thanks again, - Evad37 [talk] 01:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Evad37 for taking the time to review my submission and check out our project page. I think that I may use your idea of including other Cochrane Projects for a future post, as I am still learning more about their projects. I have made numerous edits to the Pneumonia article very recently, adding a fairly large list of Cochrane reviews found here: link Can you give me an example of your idea of using edit examples to make an image? Thanks again for your time and excellent suggestions. JenOttawa (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JenOttawa: With the images, I just meant taking an image from one of the articles, and having a caption liking to the edit, along th lines of [article] was updated with new evidence from a Chocrane Review thanks to this initiative. That way there's an image to look at rather than just a block of text, and there's a demonstration of the practical use of the initiative that you're describing. - Evad37 [talk] 03:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So for example, this image: File:Malaria.jpg and the diff [2] for Malaria. Or you could use an image from Pneumonia and link to your edits there. Or any other you think might be better. - Evad37 [talk] 03:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Evad37. Thanks. I am not certain how to link to only my cochrane-related work on the pneumonia article. I can do it through my dashboard, but cannot see a url for this visualization. Is there any more work that needs to be done on the body of my submission? Thanks again, JenOttawa (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
link to my dashboard: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/Cochrane/Cochrane-Wikipedia_JenOttawa/articles JenOttawa (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JenOttawa. The body looks alright, but we'll probably do some minor copyediting (just to polish things up). I'll schedule it to be published in the next issue, and put in an image and caption. - Evad37 [talk] 02:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds great Evad37. Thanks for offering to copy edit it for me. I appreciate all your help with this! JenOttawa (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}} Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-05/Special report - Evad37 [talk] 07:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man interview[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
Thanks Eddie891, I'll schedule it for the next issue - Evad37 [talk] 02:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}} Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-05/Interview - Evad37 [talk] 07:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do Editors Have The Right To Be Forgotten?[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
Thanks for the submission, Atsme (and to Eddie891 for helping}}. I'll publish it in the next issue. It will probably get a few minor copyedits, and it will also need a short blurb – we can come up with something if you like, or if you prefer, you be could write it. (just a sentence, or two short sentences if that works better; and it will appear alongside the title, so there's no need for duplication). Thanks again, Evad37 [talk] 02:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Evad - you can write the blurb. I'm focused on trying to clarify some of the ambiguities in our PAGs that often lead to content disputes and behavioral issues. Give me ambiguity or give me something else! Atsme📞📧 03:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}} Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-02-05/Op-ed - Evad37 [talk] 07:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeless reveiw[edit]

Editor Interview[edit]

{{close}} (Withdrawn by contributor) - Evad37 [talk] 08:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by contributor
Status:
V ?
In development
The problem is, Barbara (WVS), that you are talking to an empty press room. (Please see the comments to my op-ed). I know myself how daunting the submission process is. Perhaps if you do what K.e.coffman has done and first create your proposed article in your user sub space. I have nothing to do with any of this really, but I'd certainly take a look at it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain that I understand your comment completely. Your comment makes complete sense if you believe that this is my first submission of content. I've been a regular contributor since last summer. I have the best job because I get to contribute humorous content. (I guess you don't read it.) I also help out with the other sections of the Signpost when I can. I'm sorta optimistic. Since I write a humourous article, I must admit that I find the critiques and discussions after Signpost articles slightly ironic. This is because such contributions seem to be longer in length than a lot of the Signpost articles themselves. Also, an editor has to have a very tough skin to withstand constant critiquing of Signpost contributions. Imagine a world where such energy could be put into creating content rather contemplating the demise of the Signpost. I guess what I really want to say: I have a lot of fun doing what I do and that others are missing the opportunity to enjoy themselves. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 19:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I directed Barbara to the experimental Quick Start page. Let's give it a try ☆ Bri (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did the test run. Thanks for transferring the page to my userspace to work on. Let me know if you need me to try again. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 20:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS), of course I read it, I wouldn't be so loudly advocate of keeping it running if I didn't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I apologize just assuming that most don't read the whole publication. You've bumped up my readership to 4! Me, Bri, You and then me again when I refresh the page. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 21:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why is submission a redlink now? Is this withdrawn in favor of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by contributor; see Special:Diff/837257893 ☆ Bri (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Songo Didiza[edit]

{{close}} (wrong venue) - Evad37 [talk] 08:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

misplaced new article
Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

Songo Didiza is the founder and CEO of Green Building Design Group - a leading partner in the green economy in Africa. She founded GreenBDG to close the widening gap between the public and private sector green economic strategies and policies; and the practical implementation thereof.

Didiza’s work in the green economy includes several publications such as the Green Building Material Catalogue as well as the numerous market intelligence reports she compiled while at the GreenCape Sector Development Agency. Her industry publications include authoring the 2016 Energy Services Market Intelligence Report, which covers various energy contracting investment opportunities for the property sector in South Africa. Songo has played an active role training and development of building environment professions on green building opportunities such as energy efficiency, renewable energy and energy performance contracts for both private and public sector representatives. She has public sector experience at national, provincial and local government levels. She was listed in the Mail and Guardian Young 200 South African publication.

Songo has a degree in Economics Science from Wits University, where she majored in Applied Mathematics and Economics, and has obtained a post graduate degree in Sustainable Development and Renewable Energy at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. Her green economy experiences include servicing clients in the financial services, mining and energy sectors, and including the emerging renewable energy sector in South Africa. Songo is also involved in several startup initiatives within the consulting and renewable and energy efficiency energy industry. She participates in various leadership development organisations as a subject matter expert on sustainability and the broader green economy.

YodaAfrica This is a misplaced submission. Please see WP:Writing your first article. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and Notes[edit]

{{close}} (merged to News and notes) - Evad37 [talk] 08:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Status:
V ?
Cancelled
Changed status to "Cancelled" -- actually it was merged to the News and notes section. ☆ Bri (talk)

Future directions for The Signpost[edit]

{{completed}} Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Signpost

Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: User:Bri/Signpost
  • Submission type: Suggestion
  • Author: Bri
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about making it easier to contribute to Signpost. This is not a test. Or maybe not. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, if I had my way, I'd pay a UX/design expert to consult with us for a day and come up with a "dream big" idea. Integrated video, modern look and feel, easy user interaction, easy social sharing (incl. hashtag feedback), you know, more 2018 and less 1995. While you're at it, overhaul the submissions pages to make it inviting and easy as pie to contribute. How about a "feed" of content proposals automatically formatted? That and some programming changes on the editorial side including short-term snippets and longer-term serious reporting and roll-ups. More bot curated content as has been suggested – traffic report has been specifically mentioned here. User-customizable editions, filters, periodicity. Maybe an upvote/downvote model for TOC presentation. Multiple curators of multiple views; ad-hoc and self-organizing editorial board based on followership. Re-imagining the whole thing from the start, in other words. But that takes funding, and a funding proposal ... hmm ... ☆ Bri (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should go to Meta and ask for some funds. Also, can we get the Visual Editor to work on the draft pages? I really don't enjoy scrolling through the source code anymore and I could work a lot faster. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 14:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T123231
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T57792
As User:Whatamidoing (WMF) told me: In re: Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2017 1#Signpost, there have been a few discussions about enabling the visual editor for the Wikipedia: namespace. The main deterrent for this wiki is the presence of ANI in that namespace. However, there are a couple of requests (see links in the corner) that would probably also work for your purposes. I'm sorry to say that I can't promise that any of them will happen any time soon, but if you subscribe to the tasks, then you'll get notifications (e-mail from Phabricator, not WP:Echo notifications) when/if there is any progress. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OR, as User:Kerry Raymond: There are three ways. One is to get the VE enabled on the Wikipedia namespace in which Signpost lives. This is a policy issue rather than a technical issue. The second is to place the template {{VEFriendly}} at the top of individual pages, which basically lets you invoke the the Visual Editor on that page, for an example see Wikipedia:GLAM/State Library of Queensland/QWiki Club. The third is to do manually what the template does, which is to add &veaction=editsource onto the URL of the Wikipedia page. None of these are officially endorsed, but just saying what I do in similar situations.Eddie891 Talk Work 14:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: Please don't use the last two if you have the 2017 wikitext editor enabled (Beta Feature, with a white toolbar). It will replace the wikitext with raw HTML. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to self-approve this. Could another Newsroom volunteer have a look at the proposed content and indicate if they think it's good to go? Status|Unreviewed can be changed to Status|In development in the template at the top of this section. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The myth of the clean Wehrmacht[edit]

{{completed}}: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Op-ed

Status:
V ?
Published

NOTE: This intended article is now partly a subject of an Arbcom case opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#German_war_effort_of_1939–45 today. An editorial decision will need to be made regarding the publication of this article at this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise of Wikipedia as a Disinformation Mop[edit]

{{close}}: Merged into ITM

Status:
V ?
Merged

Survey finds high demand for moderation in Admin incidents procedures[edit]

{{completed}}: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/In focus

Status:
V ?
Published
I agree with Eddie; if User:Zarasophos/ANI Research is fairly complete, in other words you don't plan to write a whole lot more, then it will be a good subsection in the regular topic News and Notes vice an entire irregular section. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - this is the blurb, not the complete article. I'm still planning on actually writing the whole thing, sorry for not mentioning that. Or do you mean that the whole article would not be long enough to stand on its own? --Zarasophos (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is long enough, it can be on its own. Sorry, Ithought it was complete. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zarasophos: Good luck. Let us know when it is complete. Thank you for taking it on. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that Zarasophos is actively building this out as of yesterday. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent graphic, it almost makes the case all by itself. Still under construction, with incomplete section on recommendations from Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program (!). ☆ Bri (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is ready for copy-editing. --Zarasophos (talk) 09:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit is done; this piece looks ready to go. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bri The first paragraph was meant to do double duty as blurb --Zarasophos (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I condensed it a little if someone wants to review. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ACTRIAL becomes AC-PERMANENT[edit]

{{completed}}: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Special report

Status:
V ?
Published
Updated and expanded following yesterday's RfC closure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the draft open for other people to edit? Richard Nevell (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell please discuss on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is the discussion section on this page not the appropriate venue? Richard Nevell (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, as it's still in my user space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I'll leave comments here. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editing is now closed for the April issue. Users are welcome to make comments in the usual sections after publication. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the reason I was slow to comment is that I do not believe it is good practice to have users who have been prominently involved in a debate be the ones who report on it. Which includes me to be fair. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion Report: Discussion to end portals underway[edit]

{{completed}}: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-04-26/Discussion report

Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: User:Pythoncoder/Signpost/Portals
  • Submission type: News
  • Author: Pythoncoder
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about the discussion on whether Portals should be eliminated. I recognize the Signpost's publishing schedule may make this article outdated, but I'll update it as new points spring up or the discussion closes. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 15:12, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is ready for copyediting. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 17:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is interesting as it is, but judging by the immense amount of discussion the topic has generated (the subpage is 470 KB long) could probably do with some more detail. For one, there should be a summary of the ongoing survey. It would also probably be good to interview one or two supporters / opposers of deletion instead of just summarizing their points; some illustrations would also be good, maybe screenshots of a few good-looking / outdated portals? I would also consider the article more as "Discussion Report" than normal "News".
I'm not an Editor, but especially in light of the new monthly publication schedule, I think it would be a shame if this discussion would not get exhaustive coverage in the next issue. --Zarasophos (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have limited time to work on it, but I'll see what I can do. The News category is a result of my n00biness regarding submitting to the Signpost. — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 14:24, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pythoncoder I just found out that the Signpost apparently has a poll feature. Just wanted to bring that to your attention... --Zarasophos (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of legal certainty to the English Wikipedia[edit]

Status:
V ?
Declined

{{close}} – declined

NPP & AfC - a Marriage or an Engagement?[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published

I don't think the Editor in Chief needs to submit their pieces for approval :P Zarasophos (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The transcluded template lets the publisher and other newsroom helpers know what is on the ToC for publication. It should help to avoid double submission on the same topic, which happened in the April issue. I'm more than confident with my prose, but I also make errors - particularly typos which always demand a good proofread, but generally not a Copyedit; and sometimes the Signpost format is a challenge. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is this piece ready for copyediting? Zarasophos (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. It will be expanded. There may be further developments before publication date. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scheduled for next issue per discussion on my talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/Special report —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes (so it shouldn't get credit for our work, either)[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: Link
  • Submission type: News
  • Author: Zarasophos
  • Discussion:
    @Bri: already adopted this suggestion for In the Media, but I think that would be burying a story with some opportunity.
Oh, and have a laugh at the second edit request on the talk page of the article: "If it is not added by the current editorial staff of this wiki, we will insure that it does get added as it is truthful" when am i finally getting my paycheck?Zarasophos (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paychecks awarded in order of arrival at Newsroom, get in line :) Seriously, I'd love to have an editor take this, let's hear from Kudpung before calling it a done deal. Reading your draft it's a little unclear if you are intending to take the "unchecked claims reported as facts" angle or the "co-opted labor" angle. Or both? If the latter, can I recommend considering the thoughts and content of the Goldman paper and the Salon piece logged at User:Bri/sandbox#Thoughts ☆ Bri (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I can do it, I would like to cover both, but otherwise the "why does the WMF let this happen? What's our interest in letting people think Google did anything for this knowledge?" angle will have to suffice... Thank you for the links, very interesting! Zarasophos (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zarasophos, I seem to recall, IIRR, that the fast indexing by Google of our articles and the Google results page infoboxes were part of a bargain between the WMF and Google for a significant donation from Google. Just sayin' ... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung That's very interesting, do you have any sources for that? Zarasophos (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Zarasophos, [3], [4], [5]. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may also be interested in: [6], [7], [8], Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-06-29/Opinion —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with the 2018 Wikimedian of the year[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
  • Approved. Someone please clean up and add to the publication schedule. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Should the interviewee's responses also be copy-edited, Eddie891 and Kudpung? I see no source for these statements, nor are they wrapped in quotation marks, so I was about to submit some changes that also modified the responses (the original meaning is still retained, of course). After some consideration, however, I am concerned that doing so may be inappropriate, so I am checking here first.
    If the interviewee's responses should be retained as verbatim quotes, then wrapping them with quotation marks is probably best to both indicate as much and to ensure the reader understands why the prose style differs from what is usual in The Signpost and Wikipedia more generally. I am fine with either; I just need to know which is preferred here. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 15:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Nøkkenbuer You can copyedit, just being very careful to not change the meaning. Also, in the intro, write something at the end like the Interviewees responses have been lightly copyedited for clarity and grammar. The original responses are available [link to original diff.] Eddie891 Talk Work 18:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this acceptable, Eddie891? —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the interviewee's Wikimedia username appear somewhere in the piece? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note for completion, both the local Wikipedia username and the Wikimedia username were added to the article. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-08-30/Interview. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission[edit]

TITLE[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
 Done: The submission was published here. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

TITLE[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
 Done: The submission was published here. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

Donna Strickland: Can we please make a (small) change to the way we document the notability of academics?[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
 Done: The submission was published here. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 16:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

Now Wikidata Is Six[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published

{{completed}}

Looking back, looking forward: A beginners experience on Wikipedia[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
  • Submission: User:DiplomatTesterMan/Signpost Opinion1
  • Submission type: Opinion
  • Author: DiplomatTesterMan
  • Discussion:
    This piece is about my experiences as a new Wikipedia user and editor who is now nearing his 3000th global edit in the Wikipedia universe. It is not meant to be self-promotion in any way, but rather a write-up about the motivations behind why I stayed (hinting on retention of new users), how a new user like me has spent his time navigating Wikipedia, what I think of Wikipedia now, and what a user like me can aim for in the future. I also try to make this a little a humorous, and draw attention to certain issues too. (This is still a work in progress, but I think good enough to be shown since I am not sure if this will be allowed or not on Signpost. Please do suggest improvements, is it too long, too short, too much of self promotion? BUT, I am not using my real name here... is the humour bad? etc) Ques: In short the first question I just need help with, can something like this be considered for Signpost? Thanks! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for issue 12, will be adding to contents page. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: The submission was published here ☆ Bri (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

Signpost statistics[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
Discussion (hidden for clarity)
Following my article suggestion a few days back and the "Sounds good to me" by Pythoncoder, I compiled statistics for Signpost articles for 2018. The stats can be found here at the moment, User:DiplomatTesterMan/Signpost Statistics, where i have listed all 157 articles in a sortable table along with their pageviews. I would request everyone in the Signpost team, User:Bri, User:Evad37, User:Bluerasberry, User:Barbara Page, User:Kudpung, User:Tbayer (WMF), User:Nøkkenbuer to give suggestions related to interpretation of the data and what could be done with this article, if possible.
The article for Signpost could be in the following four formats:
  1. The current format tagged in my submission above (with various Signpost team members answering questions, and framing better questions)
  2. A serious research article
  3. A funny+serious opinion piece backed by the research
  4. This becomes a small part of the main research article
Any other suggestions and help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DiplomatTesterMan, This is truly an impressive amount of research and very valuable to the Signpost team. I don't have time to go through it all, but I would be inclined to suggest summarising which of our regular columns are the most visited, highlighting which articles received particulary high hits. Maybe illustrate with some charts of how readership has increased or declined over the year, and maybe a colourful pie chart to demonstrate which columns got the most hits Probably wrap it in traditional quality newspaper journalese, fairly serious, but perhaps some light comic relief. Unusual for The Signpost, a three part series on adminship may be worth examining. Unfortunately you'll have to do most all this yourself, but we can improve the style and copyedit it. 14:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
Kudpung, Thanks for the reply. Well, I didn't want you all to go through all of it... just the actual article which is fairly short located at "How many pageviews does Signpost get?" But yes, I will go ahead with all the points mentioned above. I have already covered a point or two, will work on the others. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: the Q&A section for "The Signpost members" – who is this? The editorial team? Or the readers?
Feedback: I'd be fine running what you have so far as a special report. Then coming back with the analysis part after you've done interviews for the Q&A section. In other words, a two-part special report spanning two issues. It might be interesting to include the interviewees' reactions to reader input from the first issue. Bri.public (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DiplomatTesterMan, Do you have any updates regarding Bri's comments? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply. Bri's suggestion is a really good one and I had been working towards the article in that direction, that is, a two part report spanning two issues. The Q&A section had been for the editorial team, but since that is going in the second part, it can be put on hold for now. I will wrap up the first article in the next two three days. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind, I'll move your draft to Signpost space so it has the Special report page name, and the section starts showing up in the contents page and other tracking. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. No problem at all. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approved part 1, statistics and analysis, for issue 13. We will hold off Q&A for follow up. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Hi. Just now you reviewed the article lightly. Thanks. I just now added a small new part related to comment stats. So yes. The article is like 98% done from my side. Will just tweak it a bit, check typos and all. Thanks Kudpung too for reminding me on my talkpage to wrap up the article :D I saw the revised dates just now for 24 Dec :D Regards DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion needed:
Currently the first headline says - "380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?"
Do you think this alternative one is better? - "380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right? Tell us in the comments what you think?"
DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bri: Should I add in the article that this is a two part report? Or no need?DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: You had written: "Probably wrap it in traditional quality newspaper journalese, fairly serious, but perhaps some light comic relief." Well, i have left out the comic relief part... the hard stats by themselves seem better. Maybe the hard stats themselves in the serious tone of the article is the comic relief, the irony of it all :D the actual comic relief could maybe go into the second part after the Q/As. lets see.
You had also written :"The Signpost, a three part series on adminship may be worth examining." Will consider for the future and lean upon previous three part articles on adminship :D DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: The submission was published here ☆ Bri (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}

Gallery (memorials)[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published

ALT title, "A tour of some of the world's greatest memorials, courtesy the PM of India"
ALT title, "A tour of some of the world's greatest memorials"
ALT blurb, "Travel across USA, Israel, Russia, France, Canada, UAE, Rwanda and Tajikistan..."DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-01-31/Gallery

The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published

{{completed}}: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-01-31/In focus

The creation of the Esperanza group[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
Also yes, I was deliberately trying to be bold and edited my draft there. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 23:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MattLongCT: I added a couple of sentences from the above as an introduction, since generally we should be explaining to the reader why a particular article was selected. - Evad37 [talk] 23:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Evad37, thank you! I was rather unsure how to include that. :D ―MattLongCT -Talk-☖ 00:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{completed}}: Published as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/From the archives

  1. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20090624125405/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars%2Farticle%2Fsw20030911hutt
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions/Archive_2&oldid=1166670794"