Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost

Wikiproject Report

Hello I am interested in reviving the Wikiproject Report. I am very active within wikiprojects and most of my edits can be traced to either wikiproject television or wikiproject Doctor Who. I feel that WikiProjects are key to wikipedias growth and deserve more recognition. What steps would be required in order for me to join the Signpost Team. Some of the projects I wish to cover include WP:COMICS, WP:Wikipedia, WP:DISNEY, and WP:AUSTRALIA. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant: seems nobody has gotten back to you on this yet, apologies on behalf of the Signpost team!

To your question: Just go ahead! I assume you might already be familiar with the section's usual format, but it can't hurt to take a look at earlier issues (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Series/WikiProject report); there is also some potentially useful material at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Resources#WikiProject_report. Once your have posted your draft report (e.g. via the Newsroom page), others will take a look to review and copy-edit it before publication. In case you want to solicit feedback in advance on e.g. your choice of WikiProject to cover, draft interview questions etc., you could post at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there plans for using "piccy" in archives of The Signpost?

Page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2024-02-13 looks very different compared to how the 13 February 2024 issue looked like on the landing page. Are there any plans to integrate the |piccy-*= template parameters into the archives of The Signpost? —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The landing page has been very broken since the introduction of the new format a few issues ago, and it has not been fixed or reverted. I am in awe of the improvements that have been made to the Signpost infrastructure over the last year or so, but this change is definitely still in early beta. I don't think I have the skills to fix it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-02-13 is a third presentation of the table of contents. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Can we please revert to the previous layout for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost? We have black text on black backgrounds (accessibility problem), overlapping images, and images that exceed the cell-like spaces that they are being put in. The large images are not aligned vertically when the captions are different lengths, and the images overlap some of the text. It has looked bad for a few months now. I tried to insert a {{clear}} template after the first row of images to vertically align the next row, but it looks like the images are not set using divs or a table. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Signpost has degraded in quality

Have anyone here noticed that The Signpost's quality has downgraded since around last year? Articles on the Signpost now have clickbaity titles, AI-generated photos and no actual substance in its body, a far cry from its former glory. I would much rather have a monthly but quality Signpost rather than this steaming bi-weekly pile of sensationalist reporting. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain in more detail why you see no actual substance in this issue's News and notes, In the media or Recent research, say? Or else be more specific. (I'm not defending certain other recent low-effort stories and contorted insider humor pieces, but such a sweeping judgment isn't very actionable.)

As for former glory and monthly but quality, a reminder that 1) the Signpost has been published bi-weekly or even weekly for much of its existence, 2) it doesn't have a pre-set number of stories to fill for every issue, 3) a big problem with the monthly schedule around 2022 or so were humongous 20+ story issues that were both hard for the average reader to digest (we only get subscribers' attention once for each issue) and actually presented more work to curate, fact-check and edit than two <10 story bi-weekly issues. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Well the current frontpage is useless to find out what is the content of the artices. If you say it loud enough the views will come your way! -oh, really? Plus, naughty politicians, Federal judge not a fan, UFOs and beavers. --Huh? As for actual content, the current issue did have some interesting for me content. Of course, something was boring for me, but I admit I am not the only one reader and some will find it useful as well. - Altenmann >talk 20:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Making the titles less sensationalist and making the content more professional would improve the Signpost significantly. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane:

1. Help to recruit more contributors
2. Fundraise, so we can hire someone to support more contributors
3. Come up with any other idea than getting more out of the existing volunteer labor pool

I really appreciate your attention, critique, and your speaking out, but this publication has always been precariously close to failing. If it ever did fail, I do not think anyone would ever overcome the barriers of establishing a new community publication. The mainstream news options are Wikimedia Foundation publications such as

• https://diff.wikimedia.org/
• https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/
• https://twitter.com/Wikipedia

which have the backing of several hundred thousand dollars in annual development, and are much more stable.

A dedicated team of contributors is working hard to put this publication out every month, and from my perspective, there is some stability, consistency, and quality now that has not always been present. But please, I am begging, find help for this publication. Things are desperate and this publication can only be healthy with more volunteer organization.

If there is anything you want to talk through, then ask anything. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Please be my guest and pitch in to improve the quality of the Signpost. (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but over the years I have sometimes wondered why people volunteer for this publication. Nonetheless, if it matters, I thought the old one-page was easier to understand and get a sense of what I might want to click on through to, rather than the large pictures and the little words, whose descriptions seem decidedly vague or puzzles to me, but YMMV. (I suppose someone can do a click through frequency analysis of the styles, should it interest anyone.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think people volunteering here is any stranger than volunteering for WP in general. I'm happy to enjoy the parts of SP I enjoy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, I would say that the 29 March 2024 issue is far better in my opinion. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Aoomers vs Zoomers – typo in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29?

JPxG, it seems that there is a typo in the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29. In the parameter |sub= for the Op-Ed. Quote: Can we compete with social media? Will aoomers forget Wikipedia? —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Zoomers are all like 25 now, aoomers are where it's at ;-), jp×g🗯️ 16:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

i changed all instances of "aoomers" to "zoomers" last night not realizing it was intentional. TIL "aoomers" is a redirect lol ... sawyer * he/they * talk 19:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

A redirect made by JPxG himself when he said i was going to bed but then when i was lying in bed it occurred to me that i needed to make this redirect. And in a quick Google search I didn't encounter anyone on the Internet using the term in this meaning apart from JPxG, so I opened a RfD. Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbcom

Any reason why a recent arbcom case that resulted in a de-cratting got zero coverage? ~~ Jessintime (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jessintime: Can you draft an article? Can you find anyone who can? Post notes to Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom to get started.

One answer to your question is simply that there was not enough volunteer labor to write the article. Anyone can still cover the story. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

As someone who participated in the case, I don't believe I should be writing about it. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Front page

As long as everyone is complaining, I might as well voice my own gripe. In the good old days (yeah, former glory, wooden ships and iron men) the front page was a list of headlines, or rather sections and subsections. It was easy to read. This year, half the text is superimposed on a background photo. This degrades both the photo and the words, making them less easy and pleasant to read. It was a brave try, but it didn't work, at least for me and I'd like to click an option to show the old version, without pictures. Or words all below, above, or beside the picture; whatever. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Like this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-04-25? Or more like this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2024-04-25? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I made a similar note above. The two pages that Bri linked to are fine. It's Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost that has been a problem for a few months. It can't possibly comply with our accessibility policies, for one thing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to improve the layout/readability. I got something decent ish here I think, but I can't for the life of my find how the hell to adjust padding/margins so that things don't overlap with each other. I'd get rid of text shadows on the In the media etc. sections, but that would mean playing with the live version since there's no CSS sandbox. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the only way to make the text accessible with arbitrary images is to separate it the text from the images. Black on translucent gray on an unknown image background is probably not accessible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The latter version with more details as given by Bri is my preference. But either of these no-picture front page versions is better than what we've been getting the past couple months. Jim.henderson (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I too prefer the pictureless version. But only because the picture-full version is badly aligned and legibility is compromised. I'm not, in principle, opposed to pictures. But the layout needs improvement. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

agreed; i think pictures are good and well, but i also don't like that the text goes over them. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 22:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The Big Pictures are a distracting, less than good (trying to say that gently) use of space requiring extra scrolling and making skimming very difficult, so the amt of time I care to spend on it is less- to un- informative, imo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Another place to consider is Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue. One of the advertised methods to receive notifications for new issues is to put Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue on your watchlist. However with the current format, the items are overlapping each other within each row. isaacl (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)