Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/Archive 14

1095:

suggest stage 1) doing the archives first - this is the bulk of the renames and redirects - but if it's offline for a few days people might not notice at all. Once the archive is completely done, the only change needed will be to change the templates that link to it (see, e.g. above right hand side Signpost box). I'd think 3 or 4 changes in templates would be the last step needed for the archives. At that point we could do step 2) change all the publishing templates, right after an issue, so that we'd have a full month to make sure these work before the next issue is due to come out. Then step 3) check to make sure all the work areas, old drafts, and everything else that don't directly affect the publishing of the next issue are taken care of. This would probably take some time and be the least important, until something unexpected shows up. Like I said, a lot of work and I don't think we have the staff to do it!

893:'s estimate of 7,664 subpages - that's about the right number for just the articles in the archives (start with say 12 years of 50 issues per year at 12 articles per issue plus 4 years of 12 issues at 15 articles per issue = 7920) but there must be lots of supporting pages that have changed over time and may be more or less forgotten, e.g. the newsroom pages, unpublished drafts, "work" pages, etc. So if you do this make sure you've got *all* the subpages. Redoing all the templates involved in publication would be a major hassle - would anybody commit to working out all this? But most importantly there are about 5 ways to subscribe via, e.g. transcluded(?) info boxes, I'll see if I can find some examples. The subscriptions are our lifeblood. Who's going to make sure all those work properly? So unless somebody can promise to fix and check all of the above, or show any major benefit I'll say 3735: 3157:

in bad faith, but nobody was trying to calmly communicate with me. I don't think "use or abuse for fun or profit" insults anybody in the case - it describes a wide range of possibilities and great uncertainty. I frankly cannot admit any fault here that I am aware of. If anybody ever brings up the subject to me ever again, I'll just say "I don't deal with that story any more," and perhaps pass it along to another Signposter. If Bri wants to change that headline to "This headline has been changed to prevent even the appearance of offence" he may. I'm done with this.

1379:

since I don't think the tool that generates them supports category redirects. Plus the publication script would need to be be changed in a bunch of places, possibly multiple times if the move is carried out in a few phases - and if it broke than at least one issue might have to be published through the painful and time-consuming manual process (which itself might have outdated instructions if things have started to be moved). In short, a huge potential for disruption and/or breakage... so

31: 780: 576: 3764:

cannot happen at this point unless certain editors on both sides recuse themselves as they will definitely railroad the thread into user conduct discussions. I'm sad that I didn't wait long enough for the shitshow to settle (still got much to learn here on wiki), and apologize that not much benefit for the publication was gained from my thread. I hope in the future the community could have a good conversation on the SP. Sorry for all the stress, and hope y'all have a good weekend!

5785:. We send out a newsletter every couple of months, typically, to a list of people who have signed up for it. If you take a look at the history and "What links here" for a given newsletter, you can see the process behind the creation of each one. One thing that is helpful is to have a somewhat regular boilerplate with updates on statistics about your project, so that you do not have to do a lot of creative work to come up with content for each issue. – 3697: 952: 7285: 7261: 7237: 4844: 4820: 4796: 6799:. This involved adding a few hundred articles to indices from past years, eliminating a few hundred unnecessary redirects from our article space, and tonight, the task of integrating about 150 separate archive categories into module-based tags (including some 4,201 edits to clear the cats off Signpost articles). Christ almighty. There is still a lot more stuff that needs to be done, but here is what we have so far: 8009: 2603: 5609: 2198: 8538:

corrected when it is pointed out. On the few occasions when the editor-author chooses not to make the changes to make it more accessible, it is perfectly fine to make those changes yourself, unless (as previously said) there is an exceptional reason not to. Signpost does not get any ownership free pass here. The only reason this page is on my watchlist is because of a

4344:{{#ifexist}} around something that doesn't exist, we can just remove the whole thing and decrease page size by that much). Other stuff, like template calls that use parser functions, could also be replaced with whatever they render as. It would be stupid, but it would work, and then in the future we could just set a hard limit of 15 articles per edition. 3419: 1364:- I agree that the move should happen eventually, but only if the nominator (or someone else) puts together a plan that specifies the technical details of how to implement the move. It may be helpful to have both versions of the page run in parallel. Once a plan is proposed and reviewed by technical experts, I would support. 8062:

We could, but that has the reverse problem, people may miss the notice completely (not every editor is on every day). I'm not sure what the best answer for the community is on this - was hoping to avoid getting a large discussion open - it could be that everyone is fine with it. The more frequent the

8044:

likely makes it less effective at getting people to click on it. If the previous interval was a week-long notice for each month, perhaps we can just split the difference on that? So that if there's 2 issues a month, each would have WLN 3.5 days (or three, or one is four and one is three, or whatever,

4107:

The last four articles are missing. The Qatar article is displayed, and then the following items are missing: Gallery: Diving under the sea for World Oceans Day; From the archives: The Onion and Knowledge; Essay: How not to write a Knowledge article; and Humour: A new crossword. I poked around to see

3156:

I can't tell you how sick I am of the "Fake death camp" story, even after all this time. My email and talk page and Signpost pages were inundated with pleas and accusations and counter pleas and counter-accusation for months, and nobody made any sense. I don't think that everybody involved was acting

5763:

I'm unsure where would be the appropriate place to ask this (there doesn't appear to be a centralized place for the people who create the Signpost), however I would like some assistance with bringing back the newsletter for WikiProject Videogames. I'm a bit unsure as to where I should start with it,

4955:

A third thing: would it be possible to include lead images on the main issue page? That's the main thing that people see when they look up the Signpost. The front page of the publication ought to look good, so I think some images (not gigantic ones, of course) would improve its ability to get people

3809:

For like half an hour, I thought ruwiki banned non-government sources because I read "that" as "to". Everything took on a different meaning. Replacing "that follow this requirement" with "which follow this requirement" should make it harder to misread this and (imho) improves the text flow slightly.

3612:

The images that appear to the right on each article seem to have a different text-size for their caption than usual. It's not a lot in the default skin I use, but it looks jarring to my eye and might be more different for others depending on various style settings. The caption has hard-coded styling

3091:: You have not proven that authors acted for "fun or profit". I find words "Only high quality sources may be used" absurd. Do they mean that Knowledge allows low and middle quality sources in general? There is a discussion about the article, but I assume that 'The Signpost' is happy with the article. 1578:

I'll be sending an email to both of you within an hour. I'm somewhere between a rock and a hard place right now, so I'll be leaving a lot on this matter to you two for the time being ("two" assumes Bri is available). It looks like Eddie891 and DannyS712 are volunteering for parts of what needs to be

1026:

Although I don't necessarily oppose a change at some point in the future, if it is carefully planned out and executed effectively, I also don't see a lot of benefit for the effort. I imagine the vast majority of new readers find the Signpost by following a link, and then follow one of the documented

6876:

Overall, I want to continue to do streamlining things like this: having 150 obsolete categories with 4,000 pages in them that duplicate other functionality and haven't been updated in 8 years is not just unsightly, it's an impassable swamp for anyone who wants to read or contribute... the less of a

4361:

It is also probably worth noting that we had this same problem last month, where the single-page issue exceeded the transclusion limit by a lot. It turned out that one of the essays was transcluding an impractically large navbox, and changing that to a wikilink fixed it (ironically, it was an essay

2570:

Hey there! I've always been an avid reader of the Signpost. Recently, I've noticed that the Signpost has somewhat slowed down, and I'd like to join the team! I'm not sure of the meaning of TBD (does that mean candidates for this role are being selected from a list? what's the difference between TBD

2263:

I propose this because it reduces our internal spam, and also editors returning to wikipedia are highly likely to miss messages from actual editors because they may be lost in amongst tens of signpost deliveries. I am sure this would have been covered before but thought I may ask in case it hasn't.

1547:

I can't help with mailing list or off-wiki social media, but for onwiki publishing if you need a new publication manager I should be able to do it (i.e. have mass message and pagemover rights here and mass message on meta). Or is that not helpful because it should be a single person for both onwiki

8537:

If the formatting is causing issues with screenreaders, there needs to be an exceptional reason to keep it that way. Most of the accessibility issues on ENWP are made in ignorance due to the preference of the editor not taking into account how accessbility tools parse their content and are happily

3424:

I care deeply about Knowledge, and consider it more important that things get out there. But, really, seven years. It's been an open bug for that long, and the coders just talk vaguely about "structured data" might fix it in future, because it'd "Look ugly" to just include everything in the Author

2721:

Yes, please do send me an email. It might be helpful to include 2-3 paragraphs on what you think you can do best on The Signpost, what role do you think we can play within the community, *any* journalism experience you have. There are no right answers of course - just to see better where you would

1094:

probably don't have the time or abilities to do this all by ourselves: there are only 6-12 people involved in each issue and most of those signed up just for writing - an article or a series of articles. I don't know how we would do it. *BUT* if somebody were to help us and do this in stages, I'll

7773:

It has definitely occurred to me a few times that having some method of instant communication would be vastly beneficial for writing and editing -- for example, the hours before publication tend to be a gigantic mess because of the asynchronous nature of Knowledge talk page. And even prior to the

5433:

Indeed, attribution for thumbnail images is a rather difficult issue. A couple months ago I experimented with a layout style that would allow attribution overlays -- currently I am working on some template fixes that will allow these to be done in a non-painstaking way for each issue. As for this

3763:

I started the vpm thread hoping the community could get past the pissfighting and see if we could dispel widely-held contradicting opinions on the SP's role as well as identify nuanced issues which had not been discussed but could improve the SP if solved. It is clear to me that such a discussion

2178:

Between 2005 and 2016 each issue of the signpost also had a book version. This was useful back when books were actually supported by the WMF but now they are just a list of links to all articles in each issue just like the main page. I propose to remove links to these book versions from templates

1116:

because it's hard and not worth doing. I moved Portal:Contents (and subpages) to Knowledge:Contents (and subpages) once and it was the most annoying time of my life. The redirects work fine and the energy spent moving all the subpages and fixing broken things would be better spent doing literally

5031:

I'm sure the programmers weren't trying to make it so difficult, but perhaps trying to make a quick fix, or taking on a job that turned out to be too big, or coming up with an innovative solution to 70% of the problem. Or maybe it's just too old and complicated to fix properly. Some quick advice

5012:

and trying to make the tech here useful, consistent and easy to learn. But please always remember that the tech is here to serve the journalism - not the other way around. Also remember KISS, and document it so that in 5 years when a low-tech journalist comes in as an emergency replacement E-I-C

1378:

Seems like a high-risk venture for very little benefit. Not only is there the huge volume of subpages, plus categories, but there is also a complex web of templates that support much of the project automation that would need to be carefully reviewed and edited. It might also break the RSS feeds,

6092:

This messages do produce linterrors not the first time. Please do not deliver messages with such errors to other projects, like de:wikipedia. I do not watn to fix 38 pages with errors every month, pleas stop this and check the syntaxvalidity before delivering. I have fixed some hundreds of such

372:

in a certain 💕. This discussion is just about the URLs. But thanks for the effort to collect all this data to show us conclusively that it is possible for many news publications to successfully coexist under such a name. (Or did you mean to imply that our 2010 rename has since caused pain and

3806:

On February 24, Roskomnadzor, the Russian media regulator, demanded that the Russian media provide information about the "special military operation" only from official Russian sources. In response, the Arbitration Committee of the Russian Knowledge limited the use of sources that follow this

4343:

My understanding is that post-expand size includes stuff like template code that isn't displayed on the rendered page. If so, it seems like it'd be possible to just subst some templates into the single-page edition and manually remove enough dreck to get it to render. (i.e. if there's a huge

3836:

is still perplexing though. What is "only" excluding? I assume it's meant to say now editors of the Russian Knowledge may only quote, and not state as fact, statements by Russian officials, but it can easily be read as prohibiting editors from quoting statements by parties other than Russian

7825:

a few months ago, but never really got around to it. It is one of those things which I have left lying around for a little too long, but I am trying to work through the backlog right now, so I think it is probably time that I put up the invite and start getting people on. The invite link is

4194:, which means it was just too big to render. There's not a good technical way around that problem. If I had to guess, I'd guess that your best bet may be republishing this issue as two smaller issues. Nasty. Make sure to make some notes in the editors' workflow about these limitations. – 3875:

Right, after reading (the machine-translated text of) the link you provided, I see that it's contrasting the act of quoting Russian officials with the act of describing events in general. The mismatches between "describe" and "quote" and between the tenses made it particularly prone to

5038:

The largest SP issue in the last 3 years was about 18 articles. The tech caused some problems, but please remember that getting 18 quality articles is also a problem. It's not a problem to just say "We've got the resources to put out 12-17 good articles each month - let's stick to

5008:". I had to insist that people stop reprogramming, without first having a discussion on why a certain feature or template, or sub-program was needed, while I learned what the various doo-dads were for. After that, not many proposals came in. But I do support JPxG cleaning out the 3302:

An editor has been blocked. Now he attacks the English Knowledge using traditional media and sockpuppeting. The Knowledge persecutes weak editors using unacceptable geographical and national discriminations, but is unable to defend against a smart politically correct invider.

3227:

Thanks for the response! Editors are encouraged to begin those tasks as they see fit, with no additional process, then? I've looked that page over a few times and maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any place to "sign up", add name to list, or anything. Thanks again.

2745: 1185:

only limited modifications can be made DISPLAYTITLE allows changing an initial letter to lower case; adding initial colons; changing spaces to underscores; adding a space after a namespace prefix; and adding formatting such as italics, bolding, superscripts, subscripts,

884:

It would be a meaningless change. 1st the disruption caused by *not* making this "logical" change would be roughly the same as the lack of making the change has over the last 10 years - essentially zero. I can see lots of disruption caused by making a change. Start with

7905:

In mobile view, images in articles squeeze a column of text to the left instead of flowing text below the image. Very hard to read that first sentence. Not sure of the solution. I lack the vocabulary to explain this, something involving maybe "float" or "text-align"? —

3474:

over just how few items on it get taken up, but I think when the Wishlist closes, it might be a good point to take stock of "wow, look at how many urgent technical issues the community wants fixed, and look at how slow progress has been". That's definitely a story.

1493:

I'm not sure about job titles, but if someone shares the Gmail credentials with me, I could commit to sending out the mailing list announcements at least for the next couple of months. (I've done it many times before, back when I was EiC - it's just copypasting the

545:

as long overdue, assuming the technical complications can be worked through. The watchlist concern would be a one-time inconvenience for the relatively limited number of people who have a bunch of Signpost pages listed. All this said, I'd be curious as to what EIC

6829:

every time we publish another article in the series, as happened last January: we can just use something to automatically show the most recent 6 or 7, and not have it look like shit because nothing is tagged. This can, and probably should, be done for most of our

1731:

It's not the number of sections, though roughly correlated; it's simply that there is too much packaged into each transcluded page, which is moreover transcluded a second time onto this page. That counts double against the transclusion limit (bug/feature is long

5648:

That is an odd glitch that only seems to occur in the single-page edition. We've had problems before with issues that got too long for all the templates/scripts to handle them, I wonder if this is happening again (it's a long issue and this is the last item). ☆

4888:(added comments, removed some dead code that didn't do anything, added span classes for the titles and blurbs). However, since I am still figuring it out, I reckon I ought to post here and see what the deal is on everything before making a lot of changes. 1735:

Part of that is because the templates are a little heavy with the styles. I was looking at improving that issue separately, but I wasn't sure if there were templates which are substituted versus not in the batch. (If you can let me know, that'd be great.)

7767: 7751: 3904:

Hi. It would be very convenient to have the date of original publication listed at the top of each content page. Currently there are only the title and headings and it takes quite some work to figure it out. I'm accessing Knowledge via the mobile app.

8158: 6655:

that removed the duplicate div tag, which I think will stop this from occurring. I see no reason why it wouldn't -- but we will have to wait until this month comes out to know for sure. I will be keeping an eye on it. Thank you for letting us know!

2065: 1090:- I see roughly three equal positions above "Support", "moral support" and "oppose". Before going to support or even moral support, I'd like to see a clear explanation of all the benefits of making the move. And I'd like to point out that staff of 725: 5438:

so it's kind of ambiguous what this means. As for it being a derivative work (the coloring of an originally black-and-white image), I did that myself so I don't particularly give a damn about it and release that component into the public domain.

7993:

Hmm, that's a lot of watchlist notices, especially since they are usually up for a week, having one up for almost 50% of the time seems a bit excessive to me. (No comment at all on how often SP want's to publish). Are the WLN's still wanted? —

4487: 3625:) coding gives formatting via sitewide CSS classes. Before I look into adjusting it, I'd like to know if there are any reasons for a Signpost-specific formatting of what seems like a WP-standard type of context, and in particular the basis for 3180:

It is unclear to me how to volunteer at this project other than as a contributing writer. The project states it's looking for editorial, publishing, and outreach help, too, but I can't seem to find out how to get involved in those capacities.

2571:

and vacant?), but if it's possible, I'd love to become a publication manager for the Signpost. Later, I may decide to take on whatever's on my mind in terms of article creation here, but I'm focusing on one thing at a time right now. Thanks!

721: 3652:

has styling conventions that are a bit different than other projects or article-space. If the size is an accessibility reason, I would be compelled to change it, but I wouldn't recommend editing the color (if it's WCAG compliant). Cheers!

2775: 1501:

Regarding social media: If time allows, I'm also happy to sometimes send out the monthly post from the Signpost Facebook or Twitter account, but I won't be able to serve as the main social media person. (Yesterday I had actually already

6915: 5822:. I am currently mourning the loss of a family member, but I will try to draft a response to it this week. In sum, I believe we do indeed meet the criteria but there were some areas we need to clarify. Your feedback is welcome. Best, 2887:

If anyone has feedback on this version then share with me, and I might do another version. I thought to make this because people ask what the newspaper is and how they can support, and I wanted to have some kind of promotion to help.

4937:

Another thing that occurs to me: this jumps out as really obvious when you look at a normal newspaper's website versus the Signpost. There are no bylines on the issue page, even though we have bylines on the article pages. How come?

1451:

Is it about the sharing the credentials for the wikipediasignpost Gmail address? In that case, someone could post the December issue from their personal email address instead, as a stopgap measure until that's sorted out. Regards,

5509: 253:

Page information says 7,664 subpages. I know this is a pure OTHERSTUFF whinge, but I'd rather see DYK move out of Template space first, which would actually be useful for tracking errors, and I gave up on that a long time ago. –

7777:

Anyway, Slack is kind of a pain in the ass -- it was really hot stuff half a decade ago, but nowadays, I don't know many people who use it except begrudgingly and for work. However, there are somewhat superior options nowadays:

7942:

was declined after no response. Not sure if that was a special edition or if SP is going to have a new publication schedule? While we have a "standing" approval for WLN's for SP - it is under the ~monthly schedule right now. —

6868:

This isn't anywhere near ready for prime time, but it might be possible to use the module to generate issue pages, so that, for example, we can have header images without spending four solid hours copy-pasting image links into

4879: 4406:

was rendering fine, so I just manually copy-pasted the code into the May 29 single-page page, and it seems to work fine. Of course, this may cause some bizarre ass-backwards problem in the future, but for now it renders okay.

2436:

Hi all, I quite miss reading the WikiProject report. I realise we have a bigger problem of an overall editor at the moment, but I was wondering if anybody minds if I take a stab at conducting an interview (I was thinking with

6313:

Sorry, your ping does not reach me. I do not check other wikiprojects, I am only working on de:wiki I do fix it now again, but it would be better not to deliver such errors. We try to fix all errors and the result looks well

1892:

That's not going to work long-term as the header section (including the list of articles) will dynamically update when the next issue is published, rather than staying in sync with the transcluded articles for that issue -

450:

provided that (per Armbrust) there is some planning beforehand to check for possible technical issues. It would be good to rip off this band-aid. This was already the consensus back in 2010 after the rename, it's just that

161:– The name of the newspaper has long been changed, from Knowledge Signpost to The Signpost. The second "Knowledge" is also an annoying follow-up of Knowledge. I don't see any reason why the latter must be strongly kept. 6807:

all of them, but a few thousand more than previously) this means that it will be possible to use the module for automatic series sidebars, as was intended with the (evidently long since abandoned) 2015 attempt to get

3972: 3115:

I think the headline on the column refers to the "In brief" items, especially Ronan Farrow, NRA editing, plagiarism, etc. not the death camp hoax. The title appeared immediately above another #1 subtopic concerning

2771: 2403: 8165:

seems odd that nearly 8 years after we ditched HTTP (unencrypted connections) for WMF wikis there's URLs being shared with http protocol. and also odd that the link text and link target have different protocols.

4290:

has an extremely weird bunch of switch statements in it. Okay, so, uh, if {{{1}}} is 2, it passes the first switch, since it's not 1, and then the enormous block of switch statements afterwards...... is actually

8496:

If the Signpost is uncomfortable redirecting its readers to a userspace article, I am fine with the redirect being deleted. For multiple reasons though, I do not wish to have this piece hosted on the Signpost.

2863: 2279:

I think if we do this, we should send a message to the talk pages of inactive editors saying that they will stop getting the Signpost due to inactivity (and provide a link for if they want to stay subscribed).

6010:

Thanks, and sorry. I have taken the 300px out and inserted a paragraph break but, checking on a mobile at my end, it doesn't seem to have fixed the issue (probably because the template has 300px specified, as

916:

I don't think the aggregate detrimental effect of our very cumbersome URLs is "essentially zero", even if it might appear so subjectively to longtime regulars like you and me who have long ago gotten used to

3442: 2953: 5165:

Many of the illustrations on Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost have a checkerboard background, indicating transparency, rather than the normal, better result of a transparent background. Sumpin' needs fixing. -

5060: 2754:""if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Knowledge in order to shore up their power. And they do that." 1953: 8039:

Sorry, I got the ping, but my electricity/internet have been a little intermittent lately 😰 I agree that having a watchlist notice up 50% of the time defeats the purpose... it both spams up watchlists

927:

Or, as others have said, the watchlist inconvenience should be manageable too. We already have a precedent for such a large-scale change affecting the entire Signpost archive, namely the categorization

3725: 8124:

Perhaps alternating weeks to have it would work? E.g. odd-numbered months would have it for the start of the month (for one week), with a note of the mid-month issue publication date, and vice-versa.

1470:

publication manager, I am running the on-wiki publication activities only. There is no one currently handling either the mail list or the off-wiki social media. The position is vacant, hint hint. See

4968: 4950: 4932: 2064:

If a page is within 0.25% of the limit then it may break at any moment anyway, if something changes in a transcluded page. The fix reduces it by around 15%. The category can be checked with a search

5377:

was used – the link of the image was directed towards that issue's "News and notes". The attribution is on the file page, that's OK. But a reader has to be able to easily navigate to the file page.

4457:

It looks like whatever workaround you implemented this time worked enough to get through this event. I suspect that the root problem is all of those if/switch statements, which can be expensive. –

3420:

So... How'd you like an article about my frustration with how Media Viewer has been stripping my attribution from my images for seven years, and the coders assigned to it don't see it as a problem?

1844:

uses 1978424/2097152 = 94%. My version would reduce it to 79%. Old editions could break if the used templates are changed. If you like my solution then you could use it on old editions for safety.

3333: 6740: 6706: 3448:

I would love a well researched, neutral article on long-standing bugs reported by the volunteer community of editors, especially bugs that cause volunteers to repeatedly fix problems on pages. –

5434:

specific issue, I don't know if we are in moral trouble here: Kasuga has generally leaned toward licensing his Wikipe-tan drawings permissively. As far as I can tell, what he actually said was:

2407: 4974:

Probably because it just was never done. It's also a TOC, and whether or not to include authors/bylines on a TOC is usually a matter of taste. Many publications do, many publications don't.

4208:

Horrendous, but I hope there's some sort of workaround? We could code the single-page edition logic to just have a link to some articles when it's about to reach the limit. It wouldn't be a

3753: 3987: 2519: 1597: 5095:. Is this because it was ruled out as a feature, or simply because no-one had done it. Because I don't mind composing the list, although I won't always have time to add all the comments. 7774:

publication rush itself, it's often difficult to have quick communication (to say nothing of the dynamic between the various Signpost talk pages, email addresses, user talk pages and...)

5185:

Hello Team! I'd like to put in a request to announce the fourth edition of the Wikimedia Coolest Tool Award nominations. Who do I reach out to have this done? The text we want to use is:

2425: 6061: 6056:

I've made a couple of changes to some templates to allow users of Discussion Tools to subscribe to notifications about new comments on Signpost articles, mostly by adding some headings:

5961:

May I suggest inserting a paragraph break between the lead image and the first sentence in a section? otherwise, the first few words are squeezed vertically, as in the screenshot below:

2824: 2804: 452: 6261: 2560: 920:

Regarding the technical issues, it's good to map these out, but I think there are answers to all of these. For example, the subscription template would continue to work after the move

1610: 761: 3384: 3825: 2179:

linking to them referring to the single page version or just article list instead. Does this sound sensible? Didn't feel like touching signpost stuff without checking here first. --

1495: 5722:

Kept thinking "Well, this is better than it being completely broken, but I must remember to fix this properly after publication." I did not remember to fix it after publication.

3708: 391:

Definitely the former. We must accept re-use of the name or risk a civil war between Owmby and Little Somerford (smile). Seriously though, my opinion is the same as that found at

3788: 119:

The result of the move request was: Consensus against this move. The majority of people who have weighed in suggest that the (potential) downsides are greater than the upsides.

6841:

can do immediately after publication. I think that with this change, it'll be acceptable to make them more public-facing (which will make it easier for readers to participate).

6837:

Comment sections (which I've been putting up for the last few issues) will no longer depend on someone deciding to manually tag each article to work properly; it's a task that

5819: 517:

and consideration given to people's watch-lists. I recommend planning it, double-checking everything, announcing it in the next signpost, then executing it between editions.

8223:

at the switch target for format 7 (the same magic 7 format code used in the snippet above, unsurprisingly). Is anyone else available to confirm before I go changing things? ☆

7959: 5764:

however the drafting process appears to be similar to the one used for the signpost so I'd figure I'd ask for assistance from those who regularly help create the signpost. ―

3398: 2588: 2273: 248: 222: 194: 3968: 3720: 2907:

Great idea! We are such a text centric culture, I didn’t even think of a video outreach. Where do you think would be a good place to get this, or a future revision, seen? ☆

6710: 3036:, the editor in chief can issue retractions or corrections. If the error is elsewhere in English Knowledge, we may be able to raise it to the attention of the community. ☆ 1506:

the current issue in the widely read Knowledge Weekly Facebook group from my personal account. It was reasonably worthwhile, generating 16 Likes and one reshare up to now.)

5365:

the terms of the license under which some of the images were published were violated, as far as conventions used on Knowledge are concerned. It is not possible to go from

3687: 2767: 2399: 5208: 2565: 7763: 5775: 4899:

only shows department and headline. Is there a reason for these to be formatted and displayed differently? And if so, is this an editorial reason or a technical reason?

3341: 2243: 2238: 1946: 688: 8186: 4108:

if I could find some loop or counter that was hitting a limit, but I did not find anything useful. Here's what the end of the above page looks like in ExpandTemplates:

1914: 1021: 8490: 7869:

goes back a lot farther than that! From 2012–2014ish, coordinating each week's news and notes section involved Skype for instant messaging + Google Docs for writing.

4329:

If you can make it work in a sandbox version of that template, I'm happy to implement it. As it stands now, you may want to split the 29 May issue into two issues. –

3998:

The mass message that was sent broken. Everything but the video on how Qatar was blocked are broken links. On the Signpost homepage itself there is a similar effect.

3554: 3247: 3222: 263: 7634: 7474: 5755: 4191: 3782: 2960: 1490:

Apologies if it felt like I was calling you out - of course we are all volunteers here and you are already running much of the show, which is absolutely appreciated!

1328: 837: 234: 8281:

We should track it down, but this doesn't seem to be a pervasive problem. I didn't see a single other double-post in a dozen user talk pages that I spot checked. ☆

6057: 5858:

All Signpost file templates should now accept either Foo.jpg OR File:Foo.jpg. If you find any that don't, let me know. It's a trivial quality-of-life improvement.

3856:

A bridge in Kiev was bombed. A witness to the bombing said "holy shit!" and Russian official Vladimir Jerkovski stated "we all jacked off after we threw the bombs."

3811: 3544: 2142: 2050:{{Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Single/Header|issuedate=date}} {{Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/date|4}} {{Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Single/Footer|issuedate=date}} 8455: 4102: 3270: 2632: 5302: 2983: 2354:

Support the idea in principle, but note that the bot Tom (LT) refers to doesn't support pages with the mass message list content model, so couldn't be used here.

2113: 1149: 174: 7841:). I'm aware that this is some goofy zoomer app, but it is better than nothing, and besides, we should get used to zoomer stuff if we are going to publish every 7759: 7714: 7410: 6132: 6059: 5782: 5180: 4179: 3457: 3190: 2709: 2681: 2649: 829: 3511: 2214: 1108: 440: 8464: 7682: 7666: 7618: 7602: 7586: 7570: 7538: 7442: 7346: 5989: 5092: 4475: 4338: 4216: 4152: 3945: 3916: 3679: 3614: 3470:

Phabricator has an absurd backlog, of which Adam's ticket is unfortunately but one of many examples. The coverage of the Wishlist this issue didn't talk about

2499: 2312: 2298: 2220: 1356: 1132: 861: 813: 754: 676: 6219:

Evad is inactive so I have a forked version of SPS.js in my userspace. I can take a look at it later -- I have been meaning to review and document it anyway.

5628: 2735: 2022:{{Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Single/Header|issuedate=date}} {{Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/date|4}} {{#section:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Single|footer}} 4501: 4419: 4307: 4281: 3976: 3889: 3869: 3846: 3569:. Please rest assured that many Wikipedians quietly read, enjoy and are informed by each month's issue, even if we rarely bother to show our appreciation. 2842: 2580: 2343: 2326: 2080: 1996: 1969: 1082: 1073:

redirect is entirely sufficient. If the people responsible for producing Signpost want to make changes they should be allowed to do so without interference.

1000: 554: 509: 4010:

Yeah, the script decided to go apeshit -- it's being fixed now (some talk pages may need to be purged to make the correct version show up). Oopsie woopsie!

3657: 2971: 2964: 2511: 2493: 2475: 1398: 1222: 1196: 1036: 563: 535: 6758: 5871: 5735: 5693: 5272: 3928: 3133: 3088: 2918: 2830: 2413: 2128: 1796: 1373: 975: 910: 821: 464: 8432: 4316: 4022: 3601: 3502: 3378: 3312: 2381: 2363: 1887: 1853: 1262: 1171: 945: 929: 360: 7650: 7522: 5479: 4466: 4374: 4356: 4203: 4169: 3493: 3291: 3073: 2167: 2118: 1694: 1059: 853: 406: 386: 6733: 5080: 4997: 3638: 1981:

That could work... as long as it doesn't break any old single page editions. I.e. if there are some close to the limits already, wouldn't they now have

1726: 1557: 8179: 6927: 6744: 6736: 6727: 6702: 5619:

is currently showing the top banner and a stray noinclude tag above the "Lisa Seitz..." headline, and also above "The relevance of legal certainty". –

4057: 4040: 3057: 2942: 2761: 2757:"seems to assume that there is only one legitimate defensible version of the truth on any controversial question. That's not how Knowledge used to be." 2231: 1679: 1592: 647: 143: 7859: 7750:, I have been finding all sorts of interesting things: abandoned templates, abandoned drafts, abandoned projects, and abandoned layouts. I even found 6699: 4874: 4440:

to give this a second look. It doesn't seem like any templates are failing to transclude on either page now, so this seems like it is perfectly fine.

3021: 1834: 8199:

I suppose the automatic publishing script inherits the same problem. Maybe someone with more esoteric template knowledge can go farther than this. ☆

7698: 3121: 2389: 1928: 1904: 845: 747: 669: 657: 652: 7912: 4452: 3413: 3103: 3047: 1536: 1461: 7554: 7394: 5494: 4896: 4232: 4183: 4072: 3801: 2950:

The website can no longer be trusted, according to the site’s co-founder, insisting it’s now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment”

2901: 1779: 1765: 1745: 1518: 1485: 799: 681: 480: 8608:, the idea of doing an April Fools' Day bit makes no sense. Frankly, the whole idea was kind of stupid, especially when we have gotten hauled to 8216: 7426: 7362: 5601: 4885: 4388: 4287: 4266: 3739: 3727: 3471: 2248:

Hello all, I often stumble on the talk pages of inactive editors who have a trailing list of many signposts plopped on their talk page (see e.g.

1785: 1751: 1438: 6254: 6102: 4088: 4004: 3277: 2930: 7490: 6826: 5616: 4884:

I am going through some of the templates for the Signpost and trying to figure out what's up -- for example, yesterday I did some revisions on

4392: 4187: 4076: 3919:, I see "Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2022-04-24/News and notes" at the top of the page. Can you link to a page where the date is not shown? – 3256: 2534: 2071:

is there right now and doesn't render. I don't know how much it goes over the limit but the fix would currently reduce it to 87% of the limit.

2068: 1841: 1667: 1651: 869: 8254: 7939: 6136: 5931: 5197:

Please submit your favorite tools by October 12, 2022. The awarded projects will be announced and showcased in a virtual ceremony in December.

5152: 8555: 8103: 7927: 7758:. But one of the most interesting things I found is what looks like the fossil remains of ancient Signposters' communication protocols: they 7730: 7506: 7458: 7378: 6169:

how are we doing the mass message now? Are you cutting and pasting something similar? Maybe it's in the output from the publishing script? ☆

5741: 5717: 4488:

Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 1#Technical issues with the script, and suggestions for the future path of the publication

2450: 1620:

Hello Smallbones. I am currently interested in writing for this issue's Humour section. I was wondering if you would be all right with that?

1028: 8594: 8530: 6851:

We can also get straightforward numbers for these, they no longer need to consist of multiple screenfuls of shitty glitched-out graphs from

6001: 3807:

requirement: it was forbidden to describe events related to Ukraine using these sources; only statements by Russian officials can be quoted.

3772: 496:. However, I have no clue about the feasibility of moving thousands of subpages, and it would certainly be a hassle on people's watchlists. 8641: 8625: 7830:

or at the button below (I've set it up not to expire, but if a bunch of assholes show up and start posting hello.jpg, we can turn it off).

7741: 6307: 6045: 5794: 5489: 4362:

on the obstacles posed by impractically large navboxes). So if the issue is transclusion limits, we may be able to do something like that.

84: 72: 67: 59: 8511: 8144: 8133: 6273: 5643: 5424: 5353: 5328: 3854:, my guess would be that "only" excludes any statement from such sources that isn't a statement from a Russian official. So from the text 8275: 6792: 5484: 3909: 2188: 2096: 1067:

General Knowledge editors should have no role in deciding this sort of thing. The present state of affairs is acceptable and the present

707: 697: 110:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

8210: 8095: 8027: 8000: 7976: 7892: 5135: 5004:

My attitude toward the added layer of programming The Signpost has (over plain old Knowledge) was simply "how do I make this work?" or "

1645: 1639: 7315: 6782: 6694: 6284: 5877: 5849: 5818:

Hi, I received the following email from AffCom a few days ago about our user group application. I am posting it here for transparency:

5809: 5699: 5593: 5579: 5266: 5118: 3297: 1934: 640: 5013:

there will be a chance to have them understand what's required and what's bs. I'll divide the current Signpost tech into 4 categories

8447: 7815: 6686: 6644: 6353: 6331: 6231: 6072: 5504: 3523: 3170: 8387: 8352: 8324: 8292: 8073: 8057: 7873: 6765: 6602:"margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;" 6545:"margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;" 6462:"margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;" 6207: 6180: 6156: 6126: 5948: 5826: 5660: 5530: 5451: 2994:

What if you misinform? How to disacuss/correct a text published in 2019 and readalready by many people? How to collect the feathers

7799: 5915: 3243: 2372:

oh bugger. Do you know of any way to do this without using PrunerBot? Refactoring the entire page seems like a bit of an effort...

2317:

Also post a note on the subscription page explaining that the list is pruned periodically based on whatever criteria are chosen. –

1917:) brings the post-expand include size down to 1,779,891/2,097,152 bytes = 85% and will keep the header in sync with the contents - 8111: 5974: 3578: 3531: 1876:(with the publishing date variable of course). Hopefully this saves you a little bit of work ingesting this whole conversation. ☆ 1140:. Minuscule benefit, high effort and high risk something would break. Some historical artifacts are best accepted and left alone. 7811: 5474: 5464: 5370: 5290: 5175: 5104: 4507: 4250: 3607: 1017: 6895: 6668: 6283:): trying to bearbeiten the quelltext (?) and wondering if there are any clues in the Versionsgeschichte. Looks like there is a 5560: 3006: 8338: 6757:

Hi. Has anyone checked the view of Signpost on mobile (via the Knowledge app)? For example, I only see the comments section on

5894: 4269:, we get... the thing Jonesy95 mentioned above. It seems that, indeed, it's just not equipped for as many sections as we have. 2612:' latest note from the editor signaled he would be stepping back, so there's plenty of room for people to step up, I'd think. 1027:

subscription methods, if they choose to subscribe. The actual page name doesn't really affect the user experience in practice.

702: 621: 92: 8577: 8234: 8067:") the more people will start ignoring it in general. Do you have any idea how many people are getting to SP via WLN today? — 7837:

on how to install the goofy zoomer app (it is like IRC, except much better in a user interface sense, and much shittier in an

5121:. I suspect it's more to do with no-one having done it, and the July issue having a lot of content rushed at the last minute. 8102:

Maybe have one notice up for a week at the start of the month, with the publication date for the mid-month issue also shown?

7807: 6909: 3498:

I'm working on the Technology Report for the February issue, and I am planning to add some mentions regarding slow progress.

2995: 2481: 633: 613: 8078:

I would think if people aren't on Knowledge for three or four days then they can probably also miss that one Signpost issue.

4121:<div style="float:right; clear:right; position:relative; right:-3%; width:49%; margin-bottom:15px; text-align:left;": --> 3878:

it was forbidden to describe events related to Ukraine, except to quote statements by Russian officials, using these sources

3858:

only "we all jacked off after we threw the bombs" could be quoted on ruwiki. But I shouldn't have to guess, it's ambiguous.

8152: 5514: 3317: 3175: 2924: 1408:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

7865:

The thing about archaeology is that the people who made the fossils are usually long-dead. ;-) Instant messaging for the

6881:

Anyway, while doing this I've been ignoring the submissions and suggestions pages, so I'm going to go look at those now.

4400: 4396: 3663: 3124:

moved it into its own article. Is a re-titling in order? It does seem like a poor juxtaposition at this point in time. -

2956: 2626: 1982: 1949: 1942: 1663: 1659: 8583:

Ok so its mostly finished now... but is this issue meant to be humorous? Cause you missed April Fool's day by 2 days. ―

8424: 8413: 6087: 5436:

Every Wikipe-tan's illustrations by me can be used under the GFDL and CC. --Kasuga~enwiki 08:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

7900: 6242: 5908: 3704: 2111: 1635: 1412: 608: 345:

The Signpost: Monthly magazine for the villages of Little and Great Somerford, Startley, Seagry, Rodbourne and Corston

7949: 3958: 2260:) to automatically remove inactive or indeffed editors from the list after a timeframe (e.g. 3 years of inactivity)? 8539: 6077: 5233: 2781:

Thanks, that will be a quick summary and write-up. Paid editing and how to combat it is indeed a complex problem and

2294: 1820: 588: 436: 47: 17: 5404:

licensed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, so the image on the page

5066:

Ah, "The largest SP issue in the last 3 years was about 18 articles." - July's SP certainly broke new ground there.

2762:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html

8472: 6652: 6144: 5468: 5366: 5293:

is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, which requires attribution. —⁠

5286: 3359: 2584: 1873: 1700: 8516:

This is not worth wasting the time of the few people who actually make the Signpost run, so I've moved it back. ––

8403: 8399: 7918:

Completely agreed. Whatever solution is implemented should prioritize Vector 2022 skin but also other skins. ~ 🦝

368:

The rename from "Knowledge Signpost" to "The Signpost" already took place over a decade ago, see also the article

306: 5091:

We had been trialling a list of the most editied pages in the traffic report. However, this was last done in the

4075:(which you see after clicking on "Back to contents") has 4 fewer articles than the homepage. Same issue with the 3915:

I'm seeing the publication date at the top of each article page in both mobile and desktop view. For example, at

2608:

But seriously, always wonderful for the Signpost to have new contributors! I'm no longer involved, but I believe

1283:{{DISPLAYTITLE:Knowledge:<span style="color:white;width:0;font-size:0;" class="hidden_title hidden-title": --> 182: 8091: 8023: 7972: 7888: 7795: 6041: 4984: 3404:

Can confirm, didn't work on Opera 3.2.7 - tried again in desktop mode and subscription to talk page got added.

3239: 2798: 2703: 2675: 2469: 2438: 559:

To add to what I said above, I support Smallbones' position. The technical complications may be a high hurdle.

503: 2746:

Sanger interview in a mainstream publication: "Nobody should trust Knowledge, says man who invented Knowledge"

8372:. Apparently it's happened randomly since 2015. Can I recommend trying this: unsubscribe and re-subscribe as 6932: 6359: 6287:

showing the problem -- there is indeed a duplicated div, but I don't know exactly where this is coming from.

6162: 5676:

My fault. I didn't know what the date was going to be on the final issue, so I used relative linking using {{

4295:? Well, I cannot edit TE-protected pages, so I guess there is no point to even trying to figure it out here. 2162: 1503: 529: 8242:

I believe that Jonesey has fixed this. I do not see any issue so far, which I think means this is resolved.

490:

per HaeB. This has been something needing to be done for a while, note, for instance that the article is at

8081:

It's a bit like buses ... if there are more buses per hour, then it's not such a big deal if you miss one.

8064: 7803: 5544: 5499: 5389: 5381: 5282: 3186: 3053: 2868: 2833:. Unless he has something new to say, with new evidence, this new article may not be worthy of coverage. – 2687: 1655: 582: 575: 152: 132: 5222:

writer (for half a decade or so) I'm really pleased to see what a good state it's in. Well done, editors.

5005: 6923: 3993: 1985:(which the old single-page editions transclude) also now having to transclude the new /Header subpage? - 1013: 969: 897:, or at least hold off for a year while we figure out what would be needed to make this change smoothly. 331: 244: 218: 190: 168: 122: 8406:). Both of them were sent from the global message delivery list. The first one has this editnote at the 7746:

Looking through some old archives in the course of my spelunking to clean up our namespace and fill out

3032:, even if they don’t know the term. But first we need to know what the problem is. If it is an error in 2811:

Sanger is stretching his 15 minutes of early Knowledge fame beyond its limits, when he seems to endorse

1840:

That sounds like a good idea. I checked the 2020 editions. Several use around 90% of the allowed limit.

8259: 8005:

Up to JPxG of course, but I agree that having the Signpost WLN up 50% of the time seems like overkill.

6795:, the last few days I have been working on a set of scripts that automate (and augment) the indices at 3540: 2595:

Careful! One benign expression of interest in taking on a small role can lead the modern equivalent of

2431: 1258: 962:

with. If it only moves the page itself but redirects subpages to the original page, it'd be pointless.

38: 1933:

That's a lot of code to duplicate for each edition and maybe having to maintain if something changes.

6295:

Is this happening exclusively on de.wikipedia, or is it on every wiki with global Signpost delivery?

5385: 4243: 3769: 3700: 3689: 1445: 1325: 311: 101: 8425:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Signpost&oldid=24726786

8414:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Signpost&oldid=24726786

8189:. The error seems to be embedded in some rather complex templates, specifically one that looks like 7295: 7271: 7247: 6844:

Pageview counts can be obtained automatically, for as many articles as we want (going back to 2015).

6088:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Global_message_delivery/Targets/Signpost&oldid=23972104

5333:

Actually I don't think it's a copyright violation since the image is attributed at the file page. ––

4854: 4830: 4806: 1685:

I have no idea how it's supposed to work normally, but I temporarily redirected it to make it work.

8297:

I take what I said back, there are more than a few multiple transmissions, even one sent thrice to

6855: 6812: 6752: 4067: 3899: 1631: 341: 114:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

6362:

looks like this I have put in some linebrakes for highlighting it the last closing div is part of

5634:

Also, on that page, in the "Joker's trick" section, the link to the Toaster hoax does not work. –

4515:

with year, number of articles, total sum of all articles' size, and average size of each article.

3261:

Hello! How can I subscribe for my user talk page in another language project? Is that possible? -

2124: 2101:

Saw this and thought it might interest the community. It needs to be viewed on a desktop browser.

301: 8551: 8175: 5567: 5412: 5401: 5204: 5086: 4084: 3348: 3235: 3198: 3182: 2619: 1429:. This is pretty important, as these lists presumably still represent a large audience. Regards, 972: 469:

I would expect technical issues with the large number of templates, and the publishing script. ☆

6280: 3266: 1426: 921: 7838: 6919: 6773: 6051: 3532:

https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/wikipedia-russian-invasion-of-ukraine-edits-kyiv-kiev.html

2896: 2303:

Good idea. Have a look at the link I provided and that's already one of the bot's functions. --

2109: 1192: 1155: 1145: 1009: 240: 214: 204: 186: 163: 6682: 6640: 6349: 6327: 6269: 6250: 6152: 6098: 5188: 3961:

We’ve been mentioned here, although I do not know for sure if it’s worth noting in the post.

3666:

appear in three different sizes, AFAICT: 85%, 88.4%, and 94%. All of those are compliant with

3565:

My thanks to the editors and regular contributors for all your good work in providing us with

8621: 8395: 8298: 8271: 7787: 6716:

Thank you for the tip. I've started an item at the next issue's In the media for followup. ☆

5970: 5840: 3865: 3821: 3536: 3374: 2395: 2290: 2257: 2076: 1965: 1849: 1792: 1711:?? Last month was 12; the two issues before that each had 11. I've posted a call for help at 1297: 1210: 1159: 432: 111: 8566:

Was the latest issue of the signpost published too early? Cause it seems very unfinished. ―

8138:

Still not sure what the "best" answer on this is :/ Just pushed the recent issue to WLN. —

6877:

pain in the ass it is to interact with the Signpost, the more it will flourish... I think...

6735:. I realize now, this is the wrong place to post the links, but we're already here, so ok. 4114:<div style="float:left; clear:left; width:49%; margin-bottom:15px; text-align:left;": --> 1069: 157: 8636: 8589: 8572: 8543: 8525: 8506: 8302: 8129: 5800: 5770: 5677: 5538: 5346: 5321: 5259: 5171: 5053: 3964: 3832:

Oh, I too read that as saying the Russian Knowledge complied with the regulator's request.

3765: 3231: 3163: 3129: 3066: 2856: 2728: 2576: 2210: 2184: 2173: 1623: 1585: 1313: 1101: 1008:, its the new common name. It seems there wouldn't be many technical issues, so why not? -- 903: 779: 735: 595: 8630:

Honeslty I couldn't tell if that was a joke or not because that entire thing is a joke. ―

8428:. Not sure what could cause this. It may be restricted to global massmessage subscribers. 7782:

seems to be the prevailing one, and especially the prevailing one here (we already have a

2948:

Seems like Sanger is the only person willing to criticize the present state of wikipedia:

2751:"there's a complex game being played to make an article say what somebody wants it to say" 1615: 8: 8310: 7923: 6068: 5997: 5790: 5713: 5639: 5624: 5575: 5510:

File:Port and lighthouse overnight storm with lightning in Port-la-Nouvelle (cropped).jpg

4891:

Here's one, to start -- why do the monthly archive pages not show the sub-headlines? The

4462: 4334: 4199: 4148: 3924: 3675: 3453: 2979: 2933:

published in The Sunday Times on August 1. Should this be added to the next in the news?

2838: 2421: 2322: 1690: 1553: 1352: 1340: 1127: 402: 356: 316: 286: 259: 5308:

Thanks for pointing that out. I assume we'll need to have an admin do some cv-revdel. ––

2008:

Yes, but it only adds around 5 kB. That's 0.25% of the limit, and the fix would be easy:

336: 8547: 8485: 8264:

I received the notification for the latest signpost twice. Is there a reason for this?

8171: 8086: 8018: 7967: 7883: 7791: 7779: 6870: 6193: 6036: 5526: 5420: 5298: 5200: 5019:

things that are useful but don't make sense (you just need to memorize how to use them)

4980: 4892: 4231:

It seems to me like, okay -- this arrangement is extremely complicated. So, basically,

4080: 3934: 3758: 3748: 3597: 3353:

page and here. I understand that at this point I still do not need to add the template

2938: 2820: 2792: 2697: 2669: 2614: 2556: 2535:"Joe Biden gifts Boris Johnson $ 6k bike, Johnson gives a photo printed from Knowledge" 2507: 2489: 2463: 2446: 2377: 2339: 2308: 2269: 1866: 1344: 1310:, targets this page, editors will still be able to link to this page via the redirect. 1304: 870:

Local man halfway through rude reply no longer able to recall why he hates other editor

814:

WikiCup enters final round, MCDC wraps up activities, 17-year-old hoax article unmasked

6279:

I am looking at this now, and have picked a random page from the list of lint errors (

5388:

released to Public Domain, so it doesn't need to link to it—the image isn't a link on

3262: 1339:

on the technicality that if we do move, it should be to "Knowledge:The Signpost". See

8193:{{Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/{{Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Templates/Issue|1}}|7}} 7908: 7834: 7783: 7539:

German Knowledge ArbCom implodes amid revelation of member's far-right political role

6838: 5956: 5861: 5725: 5683: 5160: 5145: 5124: 5069: 4036: 3859: 3815: 3560: 3467: 3431: 3204: 2889: 2812: 2159: 2104: 1627: 1606: 1188: 1141: 1078: 525: 271:

Not to be confused with the hundreds of existing publications called "The Signpost":

230:

Due to the large number of subpages, this move shouldn't be done without discussion.

6678: 6636: 6345: 6323: 6290: 6265: 6246: 6148: 6110: 6094: 6086:) -- Nachricht versandt von Benutzer:JPxG@metawiki durch Verwendung der Liste unter 3389:

I think there is a bug and subscription doesn't work from the mobile Web interface.

278: 8107: 7747: 6007: 5966: 5944: 5927: 5918: 5589: 5556: 5100: 4992: 4259:{{Signpost/item|{{{1}}}|0|2022-05-29|From the team|A changing of the guard|0.2 MB}} 3959:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/17-horrifying-wikipedia-stories-just-003102856.html

3885: 3842: 3715: 3634: 3574: 3370: 2989: 2884:. I am not sure if I ever shared this here, I have been sitting on it for a while. 2358: 2281: 2072: 1976: 1961: 1845: 1788: 1252: 1032: 427: 374: 128: 7475:

Wikimedia Foundation's Abstract Knowledge project "at substantial risk of failure"

7291: 7267: 7243: 6115:

If you could suggest a change to be made here, it would be helpful. Vielen dank ☆

4850: 4826: 4802: 4471:

I think we can undergo a thorough review of them and remove any unnecessary ones.

8631: 8584: 8567: 8517: 8498: 8468: 8306: 8125: 7752:

Pete Forsyth's 2016 attempt to gather together a technical manual to running the

6796: 6319: 6315: 6083: 5823: 5765: 5360: 5334: 5309: 5247: 5228: 5167: 5149: 5048: 4916: 4472: 4313: 4213: 4099: 4000: 3984: 3942: 3795: 3779: 3654: 3585: 3551: 3508: 3499: 3308: 3158: 3125: 3110: 3099: 3061: 3017: 3002: 2851: 2766:

These quotes seem pretty accurate. Have fun covering this story in the Signpost.

2723: 2716: 2609: 2572: 2502:

and/or make them a bit less cold/impersonal? Not wanting to upset the applecart,

2332: 2206: 2180: 1705:

Warning: Template include size is too large. Some templates will not be included.

1580: 1544: 1524: 1471: 1369: 1096: 1053: 966: 898: 547: 413: 8369: 7619:

New internal documents raise questions about the origins of the Knowledge Engine

6825:

This means that we will not have to find someone to dick around with stuff like

4880:

Page layout, templates, confusion, happiness, life, the Universe, and everything

4157:

Severe "what da" moment. I can't see posts past those on either of those pages.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

8615: 8561: 8443: 8359: 8265: 8250: 8053: 7919: 7855: 7311: 6891: 6664: 6303: 6227: 6064: 6012: 5993: 5890: 5786: 5709: 5667: 5635: 5620: 5571: 5447: 5405: 5397: 5009: 4988: 4964: 4946: 4928: 4870: 4497: 4458: 4448: 4435: 4415: 4370: 4352: 4330: 4303: 4277: 4195: 4165: 4144: 4053: 4018: 3920: 3837:

officials. In fact I think it's this part that cemented my initial misreading.

3671: 3463: 3449: 3409: 3394: 2975: 2834: 2417: 2318: 2253: 1775: 1741: 1686: 1675: 1549: 1532: 1514: 1457: 1434: 1383:

in favour of the displaytitle method, a simpler low-risk way to get rid of the

1348: 1215: 1164: 1124: 986: 941: 888: 460: 398: 382: 352: 255: 7347:

Wikipedians question Wikimedia fundraising ethics after "somewhat-viral" tweet

1418: 830:

Simulated Knowledge seen as less credible than ChatGPT and Alexa in experiment

422:

That thing we mean by notability but absolutely no one else means by that word

296: 281: 8609: 8481: 8383: 8365: 8348: 8320: 8288: 8230: 8206: 8139: 8082: 8068: 8034: 8014: 7995: 7982: 7963: 7955: 7944: 7879: 7870: 6723: 6203: 6176: 6122: 6032: 5656: 5522: 5416: 5294: 4976: 4909: 4427: 3743: 3622: 3593: 3287: 3209: 3043: 2934: 2914: 2816: 2786: 2691: 2663: 2646: 2596: 2552: 2503: 2485: 2457: 2442: 2373: 2335: 2304: 2265: 2235: 1883: 1830: 1761: 1722: 1712: 1481: 1444:

What is the holdup on this? (The "This Month in GLAM" newsletter seems to be

560: 551: 497: 476: 291: 231: 208: 6939:

Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archive_14#Historical_analysis_(some_more)

2874: 2036:

If we do this for the header then maybe we should also do it for the footer:

7320:

And a table of the top 25 most viewed articles (7 days after publication):

6337: 5939:

undo: appears delivery is a bot message and so unnoticed in my watchlist. -

5867: 5757: 5731: 5689: 5130: 5075: 4249:

with those parameters, we see that it does basically naught but transclude

4032: 3667: 3437: 2223: 2149: 1602: 1074: 990: 518: 492: 369: 6942: 4512: 7683:

Search and destroy: the Knowledge Engine and the undoing of Lila Tretikov

6762: 6187: 6063:. Anyone not using it shouldn't notice any changes. I hope this is okay! 5985: 5940: 5923: 5585: 5552: 5042:

I see nothing wrong with including bylines and/or photos in the main page

3953: 3941:

because the text is quite squished on mobile. We can try to take a look.

3906: 3881: 3851: 3838: 3712: 3645: 3630: 3570: 3028: 2880:

I am an amateur at video production but I gave a go at doing a promo for

2369: 2355: 2249: 2134: 2003: 1988: 1920: 1896: 1860: 1814: 1390: 1303:

near the bottom of the page will have to be removed. Since the redirect,

421: 417: 346: 137: 7933: 7821:

In fact, EpicPupper and I had planned to set up a Discord guild for the

3528:

This missed the publication deadline but felt I should mention it here.

1523:

So who can provide the credentials for the wikisignpost Gmail address -

393: 6550:] ''News, reports and features from the English Knowledge's newspaper'' 6341: 5242: 5223: 5213: 3304: 3151: 3095: 3013: 2998: 1754:; I substed the template. Seems to work but admittedly it is crappy. ☆ 1365: 1121:

want to do it, it's not a bad move just...not something I'd recommend.

963: 7833:

For anyone over the age of 25: there is a good deal of information at

7290: