Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

WT:POST

Comments

NOTE: if you have a story suggestion, leave it at Suggestions, not on this page. Thank you!

Please discuss the layout of The Signpost page and other general or technical issues here. Discussion about news items and stories themselves should be directed to the stories' talk page. The Newsroom lists other Signpost-related pages. If you would like to contribute to the Signpost, please contact ragesoss or visit the planning room.

Userboxes:

This user writes for
The Signpost.

This user subscribes to
The Signpost.

This user enjoys reading
The Signpost.

New format feedback

I can't say I completely like the new format because it messes up highlighting of all the links to open all of them in new tabs at once (either it grabs the top part by accident or it misses the bottom left story). In the older format, it was much easier to highlight the two columns at once to open all. I like the new discussion report section! Very useful info and great to find out about some discussions which aren't always well advertised/publicized. As an aside...how about some archiving of this page? :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you do that operation from the Signpost subscription template (at the top of this page)? It's easy to highlight all of those. As for archiving, yeah, it seems about time.--ragesoss (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does work from there, but that kind of defeats the purpose of having it delivered to my talk page :-P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask around to see if the highlighting behavior could be changed without disrupting the look.--ragesoss (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Collectonian, thanks for taking a moment to feedback. If you drag from the beginning of the first story (this week, the words "From the editor"), to the end of the last story (this week, "Litigation"), all stories should select fine. You can then right click and open all your tabs. As an alternative, have you tried using the single-page version? It achieves much the same effect as opening all the articles at once. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the highlighting when I first did it, and it messes up unless you hit it just right. And no, depending on the content, I skip some links and I prefer them all in individual tabs for easier scanning. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not a fan of the new format - mainly due to the excess space the new format takes up (I would prefer dropping the section headers and dropping the extra line spaces between sections). While I understand that some may prefer the new format - it's not for everyone. Can a variant be created that replicates the prior formatting? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the front page, or the format of the articles?--ragesoss (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The front page Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost. I use a modified version on my userpage; I understand that's somewhat unique, so that doesn't need to be directly taken into account ... but even if I wanted to switch to a standardly available version, all variants that I've attempted appear to include extra wording and spacing now that wasn't on the prior editions - resulting in them taking up more space than previously. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 07:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Maybe Pretzels can cook up an alternative version that strips away the new text formatting.--ragesoss (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Wikipedia:Signpost/Template:Cover-item has variant types 1, 2, 3, 4, and a default (and the related formatting series for each variant). If a variant 5 series were created that essentially replicates the original variant 2 series before the modifications, it should provide the retro-look functionality - although some tweaking would be needed to get it to work. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look into making a version more suited to your needs. You could use Template:Signpost-textonly, at the sacrifice of losing the two-column formatting. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw the comments on needing a more compact version for delivery; I'll keep an eye on those developments - it may work for my needs as well. For now I'll hold-off on switching to the single column version; while it removes the extra spacing, having only a single column makes it take up almost as much page space, just with more white-space off to the right. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I've just thought of another method you might want to try in the meantime - {{colbegin}}{{Template:Signpost-textonly}}{{colend}}. Pretzels^Talk! 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm stuck on IE6 where I'm at right now, and it doesn't support the multi-column formatting. But when I get home I'll have access to current browsers, so can play with {{colbegin}} when I get there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I previewed the {{colbegin}} solution today. Worst case, if nothing else comes along - it's useable; but it's not an ideal solution. I'll keep an eye on other developments, then decide later what to do. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, love the new look. It's very clean and professional. I'm also a fan of the new discussion section. --Pres N 14:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer sentence caps to the Olde Style Small Caps, and I also prefer my browser/skin sans serif to the forced serifs. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-16t14:52z

Don't like the talk page announcements at all -- just too loud and screaming. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like it would be helpful to create some sort of template that users can put on their talk pages that adjusts the way the delivery announcements appear. I'll look into that.--ragesoss (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be working on a more compact format for delivery to talk pages by next issue. This first time round, it was a bit huge, and I regret overlooking that. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I guess I'm the exact opposite of Ragesoss - I always want to read the Signpost in the single-page view, never in separate pages. Can we please have a link in the talk page announcements as it used to be? — Gavia immer (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Collectonian, not me, but yes, we'll make sure it has the single-page view link next time.--ragesoss (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes. Yes, that's who I mean. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that, I did intend to include the standard footer (which includes the single-page link). This will be rectified in time for the next issue. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I, for one, like the new design just fine. I think the sparse use of serif typeface helps give a dynamic aspects to the page. And the new white-background header in particular is pretty neat. Circeus (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find the the new Signpost font to be silly and completely unnecessary, especially in the delivered version (spamlist). I don't like such garbage in my userspace, even in a spam receptacle. At least have an option for users who get the Post delivered to not have that font polluting their pages - otherwise I see myself unsubscribing to the spamlist and thus unlikely to read the Post at all, which would be a shame. Otherwise, good work. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, you're right - the new format is a bit huge for delivery to talk pages. I'll be making some changes to improve the delivered version by next issue. Pretzels^Talk! 17:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I think it was an excellent job overall. Georgia is a perfect font choice for this in my humble opinion—a Scotch Roman typeface (one of the most time-honored and widely used styles in newspaper design), created specifically for screen viewing, that still looks great in browsers/OSs with subpixel rendering enabled. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm not a big fan of serif fonts for titles/headlines, as they're used in the new layout, but it's nothing deal-breaking. Powers ^T 18:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple questions

Would it be feasible to redirect the subpage and template talk pages here or to another central area? That way discussions can have some focus. Also, I can't figure out how to update {{User Signpost-subscription}} to the new look. §hep ^Talk 07:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know that template existed. Pretzels probably wasn't aware of it either. Does it look different now than it used to? As for discussions, maybe we should just note here where they are going on. I suspect most issues brought up at a particular template will be technical issues related to that particular template (like the one you bring up at Template talk:Signpost-subscription). That's the only one I've noticed so far.--ragesoss (talk) 07:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a handful; it doesn't look any different then it used to...it just doesn't have the same look as everything else. But with so few uses it probably doesn't matter a whole lot. I'm not sure as to what makes it more useful then the other template, maybe it's a tad thinner? §hep ^Talk 07:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got something. It looks decent in IE7/FF2. Thoughts? §hep ^Talk 09:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that I found this pretty amusing. §hep ^Talk 06:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what do you think about implementin the idea at {{SignpostNavigation}} (talk) from almost a year ago? Maybe not specifically in that template...but somewhere? §hep ^Talk 07:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, cheers Shep for spotting that template and doing a little work on it. It's used by under 50 people, but is in the standard userbox dimensions so fits in with other userpage templates - a good example of this is at User:JimMillerJr. There is an archives search box on the Archives index now. Pretzels^Talk! 17:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSS

As a communications consultant, I routinely tell my clients that having their Internet content syndicated on RSS is an important key to building an audience. The current, Mediawiki-specific methods of delivering the Signpost are very effective for some people. But many Wikipedia editors, and others who may be interested in the goings-on of Wikipedia, get the bulk of their news via RSS. Either knowingly, or indirectly because it gets picked up on a web site they read regularly.

I suggest placing a high priority on distributing the Signpost via RSS, in addition to current publication and delivery methods.

Of course, it would be ideal if our wonderful programmers would add this capability to the Mediawiki software; but I think that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. So I'd suggest taking a less technical approach: simply set up a blog account, and paste the contents of each Signpost into it. (wikipediasignpost.wordpress.com might be a good place to start.)

Thoughts? -Pete (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, RSS should be a priority.--ragesoss (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should work fine. Also available in Atom here. §hep ^Talk 06:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very cool, but I don't think it's sufficient for what I had in mind. I'd like to see something that's worthy of inclusion in aggregators like Planet Wikimedia and Open Wiki Blog Planet. In other words, a single entry for every article, or at least for every issue. One lightweight way to do it would be to set up a Twitter or Identica account, and just tweet a link or collection of links every time an issue comes out. Probably means about 10 minutes of work/week to set up 10 shortened URLs and compose the messages. I'd be game to work on it, but would prefer to work with somebody(s) in getting it set up. Anybody? -Pete (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking into a couple of possibilities, one of which would be to duplicate the Signpost on another wiki that has RSS enabled. At the least, we can set up a blogger team blog or twitter feed.--ragesoss (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking to Mark from jeays.net, he said he should be able to setup a screen scrape similar to this that would check for updates every six hours or so. We could probably have it set to check around 3 UTC. What do you think about this solution? If it's no good I'll need to be able to let him know so he doesn't waste his time coding anything up. He said he should be able to look at it in the next few days. Cheers, §hep ^Talk 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I own wikipediasignpost.com, and if anyone comes up with a good idea to use it for, I'd be happy to offer it. It has, in the past, hosted a WordPress-based RSS feed, but the maintenance of keeping it up got to be a bit much. Ral315 (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I've noticed that many of the content and editor conduct RfC's posted lately haven't received much community participation. Perhaps, in addition to the ArbCom case report, you might list the open RfC's with a brief description of each. RfC participation is important because they are one of the most important steps in dispute resolution. Cla68 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, there's just too many content Rfc's for me to cover. I think Jake should be able to help out next week; though, so maybe we could add something then? If you'd like to add the content/editor Rfc's to DRAMA you'll be welcomed with chocolate chip cookies. :D §hep ^Talk 22:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll try to help out with it. Cla68 (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue going out on the 23rd is just getting started at User:Stepshep/Signpost. If you'd like to add content to this week's edition that'd be the place for an eventual merge. The cookies are good. Promise. §hep ^Talk 23:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Can you talk a bit about the Graphic Labs. That s an interesting graphic initiative, and we just openned a Map lab :] --Yug (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crystal ark.png

Image Workshop (make a request) | Map Workshop (make a request)

File:Crystal ark.png

Couple more things

What do you guys think about adding WP:UPDATE's monthly summary of guideline changes? If would have to be modified a bit to fit with the post's style, but it's very useful information just not widely publicized. I count that at the end of January it had about 40 or so hits for the January report for one page and less than 20 for another. The author might even agree to provide us one in the Posts' format if we ask nicely. Thoughts? §hep ^Talk 22:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion report

This is an excellent addition to the Signpost. Too often, discussions go on with limited input simply because the majority of editors are unaware of them. I think that this should be included every week. I'd suggest following the example of the Lengthy Litigation page by including discussions from prior weeks. Maybe have two sections: One at the top: Newly Listed Discussions and then underneath it, Previously Listed Discussions. Once a discussion has been closed, drop it from the list. Un school 08:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More feedback

I'm not on Wikipedia too much these days, but I like the new look. Stay classy, guys. — Bob • (talk) • 01:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]