Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/General discussion

What about Goings-on?

Will this duplicate what Wikipedia:Goings-on is supposed to do? Is there a need to have both? Angela. 19:40, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

It probably does occupy much the same arena, but it's rather a different approach, particularly in providing prose instead of just links. Goings-on has increasingly deteriorated from the initial efforts, which were decently useful. Nowadays I think the people who still follow it must be disappointed with how little is there when they check. Anyway, I felt the concept needed to be reinvented rather than repaired.

I don't think both are needed, but I wasn't going to try to absorb Goings-on without establishing that this format is useful to people. If nobody objects, I suppose it can be redirected here instead after a little while. --Michael Snow 20:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but the advantage of goings-on is that it is just one page. Will people still be able to get a sense of what is going on from just reading the headlines here? Perhaps that needs to be kept in mind when choosing the headlines so people who don't want to click the links can still remain reasonably informed. Angela. 03:35, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

If I have more time, in future issues I might try to put brief summaries below the headlines to improve that. I think the objective is to give enough information for people to figure out whether they want to know more, not to give so much information that there's nothing to be gained by following the link. Getting everything on one page is a hopeless proposition here. --Michael Snow 04:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Goings on has been slowing down a bit. Once the signpost is established, most of the content of goings-on could be made into a column, a sort of police blotter with the new admins and such. If that was to be done, there would have to be a formal spot for ongoing contributions, not individual's user spaces as you mention above. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:05, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

For smaller bits of information, rather than people working on drafts of articles, it would probably make sense to set up a place where people just leave a note about some particular news item, like new admins. Then the reporters can work it into articles for publication. How about Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/pending? --Michael Snow 03:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ironically, I only found out about the Signpost from the Goings-on article :) --Lucky13pjn 04:03, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

As did I. Perhaps goings-on would be best refactored as a summary of the Signpost, with or without the blotter. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:22, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this reflects that Goings-on provides any significant usefulness that can't be handled between the Signpost and the Announcements page. And of course people found out about the Signpost there, because they can hardly have developed a habit of going to the Signpost for news when it didn't exist yet. I think the response suggests habits will change pretty quickly, but I'm not necessarily trying to kill Goings-on, I just think it makes sense to let it die. --Michael Snow 19:18, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interlingual matters

I have been reporting news from meta, mailinglists, other projects, and IRC for Japanese Wikipedia for a long time. I might bring some of the news stories to here when it is also relevant to English Wikipedia community.

I would also perhaps report what's reported here to Japanese Wikipedia, because I certainly see some are of interests of Japanese Wikipedians.

I also recall that German Wikipedia has its own community paper with some humor bent.

Tomos 08:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Productivity

I imagine productivity will go up with the Signpost now in service. People won't be wasting time catching up on Wikipedia events which are scattered and uncoordinated... the signpost is quite the apt title since it directs people to current WP events. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If it helps people spend more time working on the encyclopedia, that's great. I know that already people find it useful as a way to catch up on things quickly when coming back from a holiday, and people who have reduced their activity, but remain interested in the project, use it as a way to follow community events from outside. --Michael Snow 23:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Short issue

I was traveling most of the weekend and unable to work on this, so I have fewer articles than normal this week. The power outage seems to have slowed the level of news down a bit as well, so maybe I haven't missed that much more than would usually be covered. But of course there are things every week that I don't get to. --Michael Snow 09:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this a wiki or a newspaper?

I have the next version of the Wikitech column done, but I want to know what will happen to it when I post it.

Is this a newspaper or zine, where things are fine if correct at the time of publishing, or is it a wiki, where every article will be changed as time elapses and related events happen?

I thought it was a newspaper/zine; the bylines, dates, and periodic issue publishing all make it seem like one. If it's a wiki, why does it have those? Why have a new issue every week, why not just update each page (as happened to my last article)? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:39, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think that save for minor corrections, the newspaper model is more useful for most readers. You don't have to watch for changes to articles to get the whole story: Just reading it when the new issue comes out (with all-new material) and you've got the whole story. --W(t) 05:37, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

I assume from your edit summary ("feh") for your response at [1] that you disapprove of people correcting the false and misleading statements which you made. Is this true? If not, perhaps you could clarify. -- Jeronim 04:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Please point out how they were false and misleading. "Denied" was a bit strong, but that was what it appeared to be. Everything was true as of when I wrote it. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's a newspaper that's published on a wiki, so it ends up mixing the benefits of both, and sometimes the weaknesses of both as well. I've been more focused on the upcoming issue, and only recently saw these particular changes. It seems to have hit some nerves, both on your side and theirs; you expect to control what's under your byline, while the developers want the information to be accurate and are sensitive about how their work is portrayed. I don't know why it was such a big deal so late in the week; by that point, most everybody has already read the story and isn't coming back. Hence the need for a new issue and new stories. Wikinews has a similar natural tension on the issue of whether to update an existing story or start a new one.

Part of the reason to correct a story, though, is that the news changes from week to week. Even when dealing with a recurring subject (like arbitration or press coverage), not that many articles are really about the same subject as the previous week. So if something needs to be fixed, might as well get the facts right where they appear, because you may not be talking about those same facts again later. --Michael Snow 07:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I think something could be learned by the developers by what I wrote. I gave it as I saw it as a member of the list. I will post another episode this weekend; if it is similarly censored, it will be my last. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 00:13, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful with such an attitude. Regardless of whether it's a wiki or a newspaper (it's both), it's supposed to be objective reporting, not pushing an agenda. The function here is keeping the community informed, not teaching people a lesson. Report the facts in an accurate and responsible manner, and let them decide for themselves what lessons they want to learn. --Michael Snow 04:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Publicity

It's navel-gazing to the nth degree, but The Signpost is now mildly famous thanks to Steve Rubel. --Michael Snow 20:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You mean Steve Rubel (who?) is now mildly famous thanks to Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost. - DavidWBrooks 21:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You could put it that way, too, it depends on your audience. Rubel is a public relations executive and relatively notable in the blogging community. He may not be as well-known to Wikipedians, nobody's felt the need to write an article about him yet. --Michael Snow 21:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

We also got linked to from the Quixtar blog entry (see the Suggestions page). He didn't quite get us (he said that people had discussed posting the entry in the Signpost or in the Newsroom), but... Ral315 (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we wrote about him in December as well; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-12-05/In_the_news#Micro_Persuasion. — Catherine\^talk 07:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

http://wikipedia.org/Article redirections

If you visit http://wikipedia.org/Article, you're redirected to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article. Is there ANY good reason though that the former URL doesn't immediately point to the correct Wikipedia page? In other words, why can't http://wikipedia.org/Article serve as a direct alternative to http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Article? Just like http://sbgskl.livejournal.com/ points to the same page as http://livejournal.com/~sbgskl

Your question would probably have a better chance of being answered at the help desk. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I'll give a suggestion why: Wikipedia is bigger than just the English version, for instance we have a very active German version. It's better to make people aware of the 404 and then redirect so they are discouraged from providing a misleading and inaccurate link. That's my take on it, anyway. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The only reason that the first is still there is because the English version used to be at wikipedia.org, and they didn't want to break links. So it's very unlikely that the latter will be done. Ral315 (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Something to do

I'll cover something or do something. Just leave a message on my talk page. GangstaEB EA 00:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost on the front page?

I've proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Wikipedia Signpost on the front page? that the signpost have more visibility on the front page to advertise the presence of a Wikipedia community. Comments would be appreciated. Thanks --  Netsnipe  ►  12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit internal/community/behind the scenes for the Main Page? There is already a prominent link on Wikipedia:Community Portal. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

My point is that the Signpost box is much more dynamic than a static Wikipedia:Community Portal link. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The dynamic box appears on the Wikipedia:Community Portal right near the top - have a look. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

While I can't say I oppose us being added to the main page, I question whether the Signpost is relevant; my worry is that newbies get too fine-grained a look into the community, too early. Someone had the Signpost on the main page during the redesign phase, but it was eventually removed. I'd certainly entertain a discussion to do so. Ral315 (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Sign up

How do we sign up for the Wikipedia Signpost? •Sean•gorter•^{(T) (P)} 05:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be looking for the instructions on Template:Signpost-subscription. --Michael Snow 06:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Statistics

A few weeks ago I found my way to a page listing the number of featured pictures, lists and articles etc plus the number of defeatured pictures, lists and articles, and I think it was something to do with signpost. Can anyone point me towards it? Thanks, RHB 21:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It is probably a past edition of Features and admins (current edition). Circeus 21:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia:Featured article statistics? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats the one, thanks Aloan and Circeus. Is there any way to access that from the main signpost? RHB 17:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Section on Other Language Editions (Spamlist)

Only after I subscribed did somebody bother to change the spamlist from where I posted myself to receive 2 copies of Signpost, one in English, and one in what I thought would be Icelandic. It doesnt matter, it was just a case of reading whichever one I logged into first. 'Now, someone has changed the page informing people that when you sign there, you get a copy of the English language signpost sent to whichever wiki you register to. So now I am getting 2 copies of signpost both in English. Any chance things could be made a little clearer for people please? I wanted signpost in English and Signpost in Icelandic. Guess that's not gonna happen, is it? Thor Malmjursson 13:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The Signpost is in English everywhere. The spamlist for other languages is there if you want to be notified on your talk page on that language, instead of here. Jon Harald Søby 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, anyone is welcome to translate into other languages if they feel like doing so. We don't have that as a regular service, partly because it was envisioned as primarily an English Wikipedia newspaper. But we're happy if people from other languages find it useful. --Michael Snow 05:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it should have been obvious to me, but what threw me was in that section, it started Other Language Editions, and then people were putting underneath their names, and then (I thought) the language they wanted it in afterwards. As for example with Jon Harald Søby, I saw his name, then (Norwegian) listed afterwards. What I assumed was that it meant He was requesting a copy in Norwegian, not a copy to go to the Norwegian Wiki... :) Guess we all make mistakes (I know, cause with me, that's frequent!) Thor Malmjursson 11:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That's okay, I can see why it wasn't obvious, I've tried to straighten out the message there to make it more clear. --Michael Snow 21:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For next time...

...or not, I just found out that the fR WpA WILL NOT let you commit an edit without previewing it. 68.39.174.238 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; I've confirmed this. The edit page button is disabled until you hit "show preview". Of course, this may apply to anons and new users only (as I didn't log in). Simetrical or brion might know more about this. Ral315 (talk) 06:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just made an edit there (creating my user page), and did not use preview. The need for preview may only apply to anon editors. My account there is not a new one.-gadfium 07:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I also verified with a new account fr:Utilisateur:Trödel Test - which did not have email confirmation and one can commit an edit without preview. --Trödel 17:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so it definately seems to be IPs only. I can understand the reasons, but dislike it as I am used to whatever you call tab-navigation. I edit, type tab once, type a [lame] edit summary, hit tab twice and then space and that saves the page. With the save disabled, I would hit "Show changes" and lose out totally... 68.39.174.238 22:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More new info: Prevew and show changes both enable save. 68.39.174.238 22:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost Distribution

Hi, Has it been discussed to put the signpost on a particular page, and then post in template format on users pages the newsletter, rather than posting the news letter on the actual page...?

Surely that would be a better use of resources..?

Reedy Boy 19:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, users can see the Signpost on the main page, or put the Signpost template on their user or user talk page. But a lot of users seem to prefer having it posted to their talk pages. For me, it's not really a resource problem, since I use a bot account that automatically makes the posts. Ral315 (talk) 05:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Delivery

Is there any way I could get the signpost. I am the head of a wikia wiki. -My Talk —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.162.2.135 (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Delivery

Hi I want the signpost to be delivered to here i added the details in spamlist but i am not getting it. What is frequency of publictaion? Maharashtraexpress 10:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this publication is part of the English Wikipedia, and so it likely can only be delivered to English Wikipedia user talk pages. I can't say if that's the reason or not, because I'm only nominally involved with Signpost, but I'd think that's it. -- Zanimum 13:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Weekly publishing day

The "about" section notes that the Signpost is published on Mondays. As we all have seen, it is almost always published on Tuesdays, UTC, to the point where it is already Wednesday in some places.

Why not say that the Signpost is published Wednesdays, and if the eds aim for Early Tuesday UTC, it'll never be late. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect they aim for Mondays, and slip to Tuesdays... :-) I've been involved in volunteer publishing before, and you really just have to be patient and wait until everything comes together. Carcharoth 12:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The other thing, if people say Wednesday, then regular contributors will just submit their (probably already late) stuff even later. Plus, people will turn up on Tuesday saying they have something urgent to put in the newsletter, and they will be told it's already gone to press. Carcharoth 12:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Leave it be. I'm really pleased that it comes out so regularly and as close to its intended publication day as it does, given that it's a spare-time activity. Well done, Ral315 et al! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Carcharoth has it about right, saying Monday is needed to keep on schedule at all. A transparently soft deadline is much less use than the public embarrassment of being late. If it's Wednesday somewhere at the time of publication, things have actually gone wrong—most of the time it really still is Monday where I'm located when the issue goes up (though not this week, my apologies). I would actually like it if all stories were ready by Sunday. --Michael Snow 18:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How to sign up for this

Hi. I've noticed that many wikipedians receive the signpost on their talk page, and I'd be interested in recieving it too. Is there a signpost spamlist, or do you have to write for the signpost in order to recieve it? This is because I would like to be notified about wikipedia's news without having to visit the page every time. If it is possible to recieve it without having to contribute (although I could if I found something to write to the signpost about), could someone put me on a list to recieve it, if there is one, or link to it? If not, could you tell me how you recieve it, as so many other wikipedians recieve it as well? I keep thinking of this like a wikiproject, where you could put your name on it, even if it's not. Please reply, and I hope whoever does the signpost doesn't have to send it manually to everyone involved every week, as that would be hard work, I think they use AWB anyway. Thanks. PS. I find it strange that an admin blocked for a reason could easily unblock him/her-self, because then why would they be blocked in the first place, unless they are desysopped? – AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)(+sign here+How's my editing?)} 22:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A weird idea

Is it possible at all for the Signpost to get an ISSN? Circeus 05:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, yes. But "Serials are print or non-print publications issued in parts, usually bearing issue numbers and/or dates. A serial is expected to continue indefinitely.". --Gwern (contribs) 06:16 8 May 2007 (GMT)

Has the Signpost been delivered?

Has the Signpost been delivered this week? I can see the new Signpost at WP:POST, dated last Monday, but I haven't received the Signpost on my user talk yet. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Subscribing to the Signpost

Presumably, the answer is right in front of my face and I'm just too asleep to see it. I saw a post on another user's talk page to the effect of "Wikipedia Signpost weekly delivery" - where can I sign up for a similar deal? I'd love to read the new editions as they come hot off the Webpresses. PaladinWhite 13:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Paladin, the information you're looking for is right here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe. Hope that helps! --JayHenry 13:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome - I signed myself up. Thanks so much! PaladinWhite 07:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No Delivery?

The July 30th signpost still hasn't been delivered. I can deliver it with my bot if other's think I should (no approval needed). --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of it right now. I had a hell of a vacation - the internet connection had limited range, and ended up going down completely for a while due to a storm. The same storm started a forest fire that forced our campground to be evacuated just a few hours after we left for home :) Ral315 » 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bummer dude. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, apart from that it was a great vacation... Ral315 » 13:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I for one am glad that our hardworking editor-in-chief had a good holiday :-) Ta bu shi da yu 13:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, the best part of going away is the lack of an Internet connection :) enochlau (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, after I was sure that Michael had published it, I stayed away from the internet, apart from checking weather maps occasionally. By the way, the fire's still going, at 14,300 acres right now. I swear, I didn't do it! Ral315 » 07:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sign up link

Can the link to receive the signpost be made more prominent? I'm getting reports now and then of people who are unable to find it.

Ideally there might be a "Delivery" link on the links at the front page, so that people receiving or reading a copy also easily see the link.

For now though I've added it to the navigation template, which should be easy to find. Putting it under "tools" might be logical, but is not the most helpful thing to newcomers seeking the "sign up" or "remove me" links. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

signing up

how do you subscribe? LizzieHarrison 20:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I do, but {{Signpost-subscription}}? MrZaius^talk 09:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Or if you want talkpage/email notification, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Subscribe. --ais523 15:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Need help finding a Signpost story

About a year ago, the signpost had a story about some museum (I think it was affiliated with the University of Oregon, or some other University in the US Northwest) that had put a bunch of (Native American-related?) pictures on Wikipedia, and saw their traffic spike. I need to find this story ASAP. Raul654 16:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You probably mean the University of Washington, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-04-09/In the news. There are some pictures and also links to useful parts of their digital collection, mostly related to local history (Native Americans along with prominent whites from the region's past). --Michael Snow 16:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. Thanks! Raul654 16:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Grr, Michael beat me to it by about 4 minutes. --ais523 16:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In case a similar problem comes up in the future: inurl:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/ can be given in a Google search to limit it to Signpost entries, and the main problem finding the article was to find the right search terms ('museum' isn't in the article anywhere, and was misleading me). --ais523 16:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, both of you. The reason I asked is that I'm trying to talk someone with a wonderful (large) collection of modern public-domain classical recordings into letting me upload them to Wikipedia. He was afraid that this would suck the traffic away from his site, and I was trying to reassure him. Raul654 18:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to point him to a sustained increase, rather than a temporary spike. Which was it? Also, pictures and recordings might be different, unless you have a credit and link appear in the article itself (I thought we didn't do that?). Carcharoth 01:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

the great V A T con

is it just me or has anyone noticed no change in prices and in a lot of cases price increases since the reduction in V A T, example i am dare i say it a 'smoker' is there vat on tabbacco, did it come down in price, nope, i am a drinker, same deal, no price drops, in fact my local is putting there prices up, and in more general shopping, in one of the large food retail chains well they might have reduced there V A T, but put there prices up just as quick, so living on a limited budget as i do, i can honestly say V A T reduction has not realy helped that much. am i the only one are there more of me out there. Fly1one (talk) 18:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone involved with the signpost act as a link between the signpost and...

A discussion on the assesment scale is currently taking place at.[2]. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

What do you think of:

Readers can subscribe to a web feed of the Signpost in RSS format.

 ? §hep^Talk 06:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this feed only update when the content changes? In other words, could it be included in the wiki planet aggregators and behave like a normal feed that gets pushed down the page as it gets older and pops up at the top again when the new edition comes out?--ragesoss (talk) 15:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand everything some program checks the /Spamlist/Message page every 6 hours to see if the links have bbeen updated. If the links are new, it updates the feed. I'm not sure if it would move down a page... You could always email Mark who runs the website, I'm sure he'd have an answer for you. §hep^Talk 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I've asked Ral315 to set up WordPress on wikipediasignpost.com, which I plan to update manually. But this RSS will be good to have as well, as it will serve a different purpose... simply an up-to-date list of articles in the current issue.--ragesoss (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

WikipediaSignpost.com is now live as a WordPress blog, which will be updated weekly. I've added/suggested the feed [3] to the blog planets.--ragesoss (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice. §hep^Talk 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The Signpost doesn't update on my user page

Hello there. The template on my user page doesn't update to the latest issue anymore. Can someone more knowledgeable than me fix this problem, please ? If it is of any help, the template does update itself when I pretend to edit my userpage (i.e. click "edit this page" on my userpage and then save without changing anything). As a side note, I do like the new version, it looks more professional, especially graphically. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to purge your cache in order to see the most recent changes. Wikipedia doesn't automatically load templates every time you visit a page, this keeps down on the server load, the downside of this is that it takes a null edit to update the templates on said page else you have to wait for the job queue to get to it which can take a few days. It's very similar to the way categories update. §hep^Talk 19:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks to you and Ragesoss, who helped too. Thing is, the template doesn't update ever (for weeks in a row) if I don't make a null edit, so I thought I'd ask. Now that I know what to do, everything is fine. Have a nice day ! Rosenknospe (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking of going through with AWB and null editing every page that transcludes the template when I or X! do the deliveries. Can't do it in auto mode, it just skipes the page...but it's under 20,000 pages. §hep^Talk 22:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Errors in the latest Signpost

In the 'WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics' - "They need not all be Featured articles; Good articles and articles which have been through Peer review (with any major problems addressed) can be part of a Featured topic." - misleading, it's articles that are ineligible to become Good or Featured articles and which have been through Peer review. Good Topics have the exact same rule; only the required percent of FA/Ls changes (from 25% to 0%). There's no rule that says that at least three of the articles in the GT have to be GA or FA; I'm not sure where the writers got that from. --PresN 15:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I updated the page. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 19:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

SIPO

WP:SIPO is also a redirect. -Stevertigo 03:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lessons for the "brits"

We are British, or Britons, not "Brit". Shnitzled (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Except me. I'm a Brit. (chorus of "Oh yeah. Except Derek, Of course, Obviously, etc.") -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I tried to figured out of if the conveniently short "Brit" was derogatory, but Wikipedia and Wiktionary failed me by giving no indication. Sorry to any Britons that were offended.--ragesoss (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No more derogatory than Yank, Kiwi, or Canuck, I would say. I think that people would need to be pretty thin-skinned to be offended when there was no intention on your part to offend. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it offensive, it's just not what we are called. Shnitzled (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say Brit is fairly common usage, just slang. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Brit Awards? :-) And I'd say Britons has several meanings. I'd use British every time. Carcharoth (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)