Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Feedback

message: Congratulations. A great idea implemented well. Wikipedia has got to big to keep up with, without wasting too much time looking. I'd be interested in writing the occasional article. :ChrisG 20:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations from me as well. I expect to be an avid reader.-gadfium 21:23, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My congratulations too -- I really enjoy this, and look forward to seeing it develop.  I'll keep my eyes open for things I can contribute. Catherine\talk 07:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Congratulations from me too. I look forward to contributing sometimes. Are we to go all the way with a gossip column, small ads and a letters page??? Apwoolrich 08:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Want to make Wikipedia wealthy?  Start this:  Wikipersonals, and charge $4.99 to be listed. Blair P. Houghton 21:15, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: I stumbled onto Signpost today (I must have missed the memo) and how very nice it is. For the casual user (vs Wikiholic) it provides concise info about goings-on that "Goings-On" lacked. I feel more like an "insider" without having to expend my energy/time for example on arbitration pages. I like your NPOV editorial style - it reads very much like a newspaper. Well done and thank you.  hydnjo talk 23:41, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Signpost Found

message: Is there going to be a new edition this week? Just curious—I always look forward to reading the Signpost each week! — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  May 9 edition? 

message: I'm just wondering where this week's issue is? Thryduulf 16:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been delayed a bit because Worldtraveller had a technical glitch mess up his piece, and I'm still trying to figure out whether one other story is going to happen. Looks like it will be a smaller-than-normal issue once it's ready, which will hopefully be soon. --Michael Snow 17:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[1 August]] issue

message: Congratulations to everyone for the larger-than-usual events coverage in this issue.  Keep up the good work!  Ingoolemo talk 22:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I loved the generous length of the edition this week. Fantastic. Babajobu 23:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Largest issue ever, in fact.  Nice work to everyone else...Michael Snow wrote a ton of articles this week, Flcelloguy continued his ArbCom series, and Karmafist wrote an article for the first time this week.  Ral315 (talk) 04:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of current issue 

message: Just a thanks from me to the guys/gals who write for the signpost. I usually drop by to see what's going on in the Wikipedia world. Keep up the great work. - Akamad 12:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you 

message: I just wanted to say thanks for everyone's excellent work on the signpost! -Ravedave 03:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your thanks! It's good to know the work is appreciated.  — Catherine\talk 20:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Hey, I'd just like to say that this week's Signpost is the most well-written issue I've seen since so far! (I guess I can forgive you guys for being behind schedule with it lately.) May I suggest that you start saying that new issues come out on Tuesday, so that when they don't come on Monday, people won't be disappointed. Its kind of a stupid suggestion, but whatever. JaredW 12:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the compliments; all of us who contribute appreciate it. I'm not sure about the changing of the date - that would be something for Michael Snow or Ral315 to decide. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We just need to do a better job of sticking to the schedule. --Michael Snow 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  Ral315 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Job! 

message: I hate to be a party pooper, and I do appreciate the work of the people who write this, but would it be possible to change the name of The Report...?   It smacks horribly of caballic in-jokery, which rather defeats the splendid work on improving openness which the Signpost otherwise does.  It took me a long time to work out what this section was meant to be, and I've been here for ages.  I can't imagine what the noobs make of it. --Markyour words 19:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions would be good. "RFAs and Arbcom cases in progress" doesn't sound very euphonius, and at least this one is semi-amusing. --maru  (talk) contribs 19:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally like TROLL but how about "Arbitration Digest"? --Thryduulf 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought TROLL was about RFAs in addition to Arbcom cases? (I could have sworn I saw a few...) --maru  (talk) contribs 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TROLL = The Report On Lengthy Litigation. Aren't RFA's (Requests for Adminship) covered in "Features and admins"? Arbitration is RFAr. Although I suppose TROLL could cover RFCs and Mediation but I don't recall it doing and AIUI those processes are in a bit of a mess at the moment? I see TROLL as the Wikipedia equivalent of a court reporter. Thryduulf 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect Maru means RfCs. --Markyour words 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Er, yes, that is what I meant- I suppose I've been hanging around the durn Internet so long I can't associate an RFC with something bad. --maru  (talk) contribs 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: TROLL currently only covers requests for arbitration (sometimes abbreviated RfA), and Features and admins covers requests for adminship, which is much more commonly abbreviated RfA. Covering mediation and RfC would be a logistics problem; first, speaking from my position as a mediator, I wouldn't wish for the dispute to be covered, and it probably wouldn't be a good idea to cover RfCs either. Regarding the name "T.R.O.L.L.", the issue would be up to Ral or Michael Snow to decide; please continue to give feedback, though. Personally, I like it, but I can see why some people would be confused and/or offended. However, note that the acronym is no longer actively in use; from the main newspaper page, it's spelled out, and the subpage is now always at "Arbitration report". Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: On an optimistic note, perhaps 'Dispute Resolution'? If it is just meant to be Arbcom matters, then something like 'Arbcom Digest', 'Arbitration Cases in Progress'?Markyour words 22:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I like "T.R.O.L.L." It's community news, we can cope with community in-jokes. My 2 pennies. — Matt Crypto 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here here! Raul654 22:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I like this too. The name is a bit of a chuckle for me. (Hm, as an arb, perhaps I shouldn't admit that...) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  When I first figured out when TROLL meant, I started to ROFLMAO. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What was hard to figure out about what this feature is? It is and always has been a report about arbitration cases, and I can't imagine anything that could have given an impression that it's not that. As for the joke, not everyone figures it out right away, but explaining it every week would spoil the joke. If you think it's snarky, keep in mind that the snark here can cut in all directions. A reader can see in it what they want, but that comes as much from their own preconceptions as anything that's inherent in the name. --Michael Snow 22:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed it was about some actual litigation which the foundation was involved in.  And I don't thiink I'm more than averagely obtuse. Markyour words 22:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We all have our blind spots. Apparently mine was that, knowing what real litigation is, it didn't occur to me that anyone would actually think that's what I was talking about. Rather that was part of the joke, and it's interesting to learn that it did get misunderstood this way. --Michael Snow 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The only place the acronym gets used is the navigation links at the bottom of each story, which need to use shorthand titles. If we found a suitable substitute there, would that be satisfactory? --Michael Snow 19:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that would be fine, and I really don't have a huge problem with it, I've just never thought it was a terribly good idea either. - Taxman Talk 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Taxman, I don't have a huge problem with it either, which is why I've not brought it up until someone else questioned it. I certainly don't mind keeping the name if the acronym's not used. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TROLL (The Report On Lengthy Litigation) 

message: The signpost seems to be released on the day after the date stamp of the article. For example, this weeks signpost has the time stamp Feb 27, but were not available until the 28th (possibly it was available in the evening in the US=the night in the EU). It would seem more intuitive to me if the signpost was available on the day of its time stamp, just like newspapers where the Feb 27th issue is the issue availble on the morning of the 27th. Thue | talk 15:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Signpost is released weekly, summarising the events of the previous week, and Monday is the copy date and date stamp.  Inevitably, some articles are not ready by 0:01 UTC on Monday, let alone 0:01 local time for New Zealanders, etc, (some Wikipedians do have lives at the weekend, some authors are in the US) and things slip a bit past the deadline, as is the way of things.  Like most readers in Europe, I suppose, I generally read it on the Tuesday, but I think the Monday date stamp is fine:  think of it as identifying the week of the issue, rather than the day of the issue. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why not release on tuesdays? -Ravedave 17:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, precisely. When at first you don't succeed, redefine success :). I mean that seriously, just change the official weekly release date to tuesday, and otherwise carry on releasing as you have done. Thue | talk 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure why this is a problem... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the current release date is misleading. People looking for the next issue of the signpost will be expecting it a day before it is available. Thue | talk 08:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I could do that.  Ral315 (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weekly release date

message: For recently featured and defeatured images, articles et al, I think you should link to the nomination as well as the item itself, similar to how you link to both userpages and nominations for RfAs. I lime to read nominations. :) pfctdayelise (translate?) 13:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can do. - RoyBoy 800 16:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features & admins 

message: The Bugs, Repairs and Internal Operational News section is nice for users who want to keep abreast of some of the administrative issues going on behind the scenes, but it seems to cover hardware with quite a bias. What's the harm in adding something to report on changes to the software; which occur often, and which end users often aren't informed of? Rob Church (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure Ral315, who writes that section, would be happy to report on such changes, if he were made aware of them. Raul654 17:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed the coverage of technical issues, whether by Ral315 or myself, is always coming from people who simply aren't heavily enough involved in those matters to do them justice. We'd be happy to have anyone more familiar with that side of things who can feed us information or even help in writing these reports. --Michael Snow 04:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I'd love to.  Is there an easy way to get new fixed bugs, like the server admin log?  Ral315 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of these has the details needed, which one.. dunno -  according to Consanguinity in #wikimedia-tech its  -Ravedave 05:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Would also be very interesting to hear if there has been purchased/installed any new servers. As far as I can see from the serverlist there has been no new servers since last year, even though there has been a major fundraise in the beginning of this year. Ulflarsen 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be greatly appreciated, Rob -- thank you!  Wherever you build your list, drop a link in the Newsroom, and the info will be included in the Signpost's next issue.  — Catherine\talk 15:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  B.R.I.O.N. - Software 

message: Just a heads up that Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-10/Wikimania report isn't linked from WP:POST. I don't want to stuff up the pretty formatting so I haven't done it myself... enochlau (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a link on the main page to me... - Pureblade | Θ 16:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is too. What was I thinking... enochlau (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimania report 

message: Is the signpost ready to be published?! If not, what is the time it will be published (it's 11 1/2 hours late). 
--Primate#101 04:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair go... it was just Easter! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PUBLISHING! 

message: I don't find the vaguely humorous but very contrived acronyms (such as T.R.O.L.L.) on the contents page to be particularly helpful. In the interest of wider accessibility, it would be better to scrap the in-jokes and rename the titles to the names of the pages to which they point (such as Arbitration Report).  This is particularly because the contents list, as it appears in Wikipedia:Community Portal, is one click away from the main page, so ought to be more outsider-friendly. Thanks. Arbitrary username 21:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been some previous discussion on this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there was, but I have to say that I agree with Arbitrary username. It isn't particularly funny and it looks unprofessional. Rebecca 02:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, the acronyms are very contrived.  But that's what makes it fun.  I'm not personally trying to make this the Wall Street Journal or The Times.  It's a community in-joke that's been around for nearly a year and a half, and one that most people gloss over without recognizing its significance.  I guess I don't see how someone recognizing an acronym as "TROLL" (if they did) could be unfriendly.  Ral315 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I used "outsider-friendly" in the context of accessibility.  I don't of course think the acronyms are "unfriendly" in the sense of hostile, but they are less helpful than more descriptive titles would be. Arbitrary username 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:Arbitrary username and User:Rebecca that the acronyms are contrived and unprofessional. Also, I was not aware at first that they were acronyms, and I changed the capitalization  only to be reverted and told that they were acronyms. Well, in that case, they should be explicitly shown as such, and I made this change instead , only to be reverted again. I don't understand the reasoning behind this. If editors support the use of the acronyms, then why try to hide them, making the capitalization look extremely odd and unprofessional to viewers of the Signpost who are not aware of the acronyms? And if my change was reverted because explicitly noting the acronyms makes the Signpost look unprofessional, then does that not raise questions about whether we should be using the acronyms at all in the first place? —Lowellian (reply) 11:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested to know why you would think that an internal newsletter for the enjoyment and enlightenment of contributors to Wikipedia should need to look "professional". This is not the sort of road down which we want to start travelling, because the next thing will be edit-wars between groups of people with their own ideas about what constitutes "professional". This is not the place for enforcing strict nomenclature, it's supposed to be fun and informative. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto Phil. I don't see what's wrong with in-jokes, considering this is a publication for in-house consumption. It's like suggesting the company newsletter shouldn't make references to internal terminology that an outsider wouldn't get. (Of course, this newsletter is unabashedly public, but nevertheless, its first audience is the editors of Wikipedia.) If we want to change the acronyms, then we should find a better reason to (e.g., better titles?) than just them being in-jokes or self-references. Johnleemk | Talk 13:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Keep the titles they are fine. The signpost is not press releases nor is it wikinews, so in-jokes are prefectly fine. I remeber getting a chuckle when I figured out the title was B.R.I.O.N and Brion Vibber is one of the main developers. -Ravedave 14:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's supposed to be fun and informative, how about coming up with something that is either a) fun or b) informative? These are just irritating. Rebecca 06:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the Signpost a lot. It's generally well-written, and I greatly appreciate the work of those who contribute to it. It plays a invaluable role in keeping the most-involved Wikipedia editors well-informed, but it is more than that: it is also a newspaper for the larger Wikipedia community of casual editors, and is increasingly extending beyond that, to the point that occasional viewers of Wikipedia read over it and outside bloggers and media/news agencies use it as a reference and a source of information. As such, I want it to be as good as possible. Of course it should look professional! Otherwise, let's just throw good grammar and spelling out the window as well. —Lowellian (reply) 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  in-jokes 

message: I just wanted to drop you guys a note and say that, generally, I think you all do a very good job with this thing.  People tend to focus on the problems with this free, non-paying, Wikipedia newsletter instead of on the interesting stories that are put out weekly by this free, non-paying, Wikipedia newsletter.  Anyway, that's it, keep up the good work :) - Jersyko·talk 13:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In light of other comments . . . 

message: *1: You do a great job!
*2: Thanks for mentioning the two logo contests I initiated, I hope we'll get more input soon now. =]
:—Nightstallion (?) 06:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laudatio 

message: There hasn't been a B.R.I.O.N. for two issues now… I miss it…  Jon Harald Søby 14:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. -Ravedave 16:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you tried diffing the release notes every week?  If you download a Subversion client, you should be able to do that, and since every nontrivial change is supposed to be added to the release notes, you should get a reasonable list of things changed. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Anyone try emailing him for how he assembled it? -Ravedave 01:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can ask Brion Vibber, or Tim Starling if they will give you any software info. Carmelapple 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems you don't need an SVN client after all.  Here's a link to changes made to the release notes since July 17.  Is that useful? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To some extent.  The only thing is it's not weekly.  Someone bugged JeLuF about this a day or two ago; if nothing happens, I'll poke Brion or Tim.  Ral315 (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can make it weekly.  Just go here (takes a long time to load), find the version prior to the one you want the earliest changes from (namely, the latest change that was included in the previous BRION), click "select for diffs" next to it, wait a while for the page to reload, find the top revision, and click "diff to selected #####". —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's B.R.I.O.N.? 

message: Is everything OK with the Signpost? When is the next issue due? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ral's yet to log on yet; and if he doesn't log on in the next few hours some one may have to cover him. All stuff has been proofread, and moved for publication, it's just that he's yet to log on to finish his articles and do finishing touches to aritcles. Issue should be out by 03:00, if Ral's not one. Should Ral log on before that he'll publish. Several stories that can be seen at the newsroom have not been finished such as wikicharts etc. ForestH2 t/h/c 00:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Published. ForestH2 t/h/c 02:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bumper issue: well worth the wait! Great work folks. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next issue 

message: Almost every single report on foreign Wikis has mentioned that they do not have an equivelant of our or deWiki's Good Articles.  It's obvious that almost everyone has some form of Featured Article standard, but almost no-one has anything like GAs.  So, why continue to mention it unless they do?  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point, though I think the point was partially to emphasize that the GA standard is in its infancy in that it hasn't yet been adopted by many languages.  I fully expect it to take hold on many other wikis in the next 3-6 months.  Ral315 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could also illustrate that GA was never a good idea and was simply ignored by the other 200 wikis... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets drop the "Good Article" mentions, eh? 

message: Just wondering why the Tech report is no longer a regular beat. Not enough notable stuff? - RoyBoy 800 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More like nobody with the time and talent to write it. We'd love to resurrect it if somebody capable wants to step up and volunteer. --Michael Snow 06:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tech report 

message: Is it possible to change the name of the "Litigation" article something in regards to Arbitration Committee? When I saw that I thought it was talking about real litigation and somebody had sued Wikipedia... Just H 01:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a somewhat humorous (depending on the person judging) acronym.  Arbitration is, in practice, roughly equivalent to litigation, actually, though it's not referred to as such.  Ral315 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Litigation"

message: Didn't know where else to ask but my subscription to Signpost seems to have stopped.  Curious as to what might have happened.  I've missed the read.  Thanks. Ekotkie 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subscription 

message: ...to whoever made the comment about the color of legal writing. 68.39.174.238 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be a reference to the recent article on court citations written by Michael Snow.  I figured that, as a lawyer himself, he may have been having law school flashbacks and needed to work out some issues. :p - BanyanTree 19:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My approval... 

message: Just wanted to say thanks to all those who write/edit/publish the Signpost- it makes great reading, especially helpful for keeping up to date with the big things while I'm not very active :) Petros471 14:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: I do not know whether you people get enough credit for what you do, so here's a little something from an appreciating reader: I wait for the Signpost every Monday and read it with pleasure. I'm yet to read this week's book review, but will definitely do it. Thanks for your great work! Cheers from Kraków, Ouro (blah blah) 20:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kudos 

message: First off, I want to be clear. I love the signpost.
However, this latest issue was definately different - it had the regular features etc, but no stories. I know they do not write themselves, but in cases like this you should consider rerunning updated stories from archives, or something similair. It becomes boring to read, like a newspaper with only the comics and movie listings. I'm assuming there was just a few editors inactive, but I believe you should take steps and consider re-running stories, or running smaller ones. I was a bit disappointed.
Anyway, keep up the (otherwise) fantastic work! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, nothing that notable happened, as far as I could tell.  I tried in vain to find something that I could write more than a paragraph about, but couldn't find anything.  Next week will have at least a few stories.  The problem is that rerunning stories doesn't make much sense for us, since they're often out-of-date very quickly.  If you ever have a suggestion for a story, we always welcome story ideas at the tip line.  Ral315 » 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know that often not many things happen. I would recommend, in cases like that, having several stories a paragraph long. They won't be the best, but better than nothing. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This issue 

message: Not sure where feedback goes exactly, but just wanted to say I really appreciated the article on the top 5 bugs. It's really nice to know why certain bugs haven't been implemented, what their status is etc. Please do this again, maybe with the top 10 or 20, perhaps every 3-6 months or so. Thanks! Stevage 01:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - It was nice especially the SUL update. - Ravedave 02:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: In the time I've been editor, I haven't received a ton of specific feedback on the project itself, what people would like in the Signpost, etc.  Anyone think an optional survey would be good?  Possible questions might include:
* Which regular section(s) do you find most important:  WikiWorld, In the news, Features and admins, Technology report, Arbitration report?
* Which of these options do you use to read the Signpost:  Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, single-page view, the Signpost transclusion template, the Signpost spamlist, and/or the e-mail list?
* Which do you prefer:  Bundling short, two-to-three paragraph articles together in News and notes, or splitting them into their own story pages?  (NB:  I've wondered about this because when I first took over as editor, I ran a lot of short stories that I'd probably combine into News and notes today, so I'm curious as to users' opinions).
* Have you ever suggested something for us to cover?
* Are there any stories you thought we should have covered (or covered better), but didn't?
* Are there any stories you thought we should NOT have covered, but DID?
* If the Signpost were to interview people on a semi-regular basis, who do you think we should interview, and why?  Wikipedians, non-Wikipedians who affect Wikipedia (i.e. Andrew Keen), Jimbo, board members, staff, etc.
* Plus, an additional comments field for anything else.
I'd like to know what's useful, and what's not; I'd also like to know what stories are useful to Wikipedia readers.  Any thoughts?  I'm thinking about running the survey with next week's Signpost.  Ral315 » 05:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a survey is a great idea.  If there were a survey, I might make these suggestions: try ahead of time to find people to cover certain stories for the Signpost such as meetups and other real-life events that are relevant to Wikipedia.  Another possibility: a new column covering policy discussions and proposals.  For developing and getting feedback on new policy proposals, announcements on the Community Portal and Village Pump generate too little attention, while watchlist notices (e.g., as was done for a few hours with WP:Flagged revisions) generate too much attention in a short period of time.  Signpost coverage might split the difference.--ragesoss 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey? 

message: Is this the largest issue, by number of articles, ever?  Nice job, writers and editors. - BanyanTree 19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a record, yes. Though really it was a busy week, and several things come to mind that didn't get covered, or could have been covered in more detail. More help needed, always; but definitely thanks to those who did so much work. --Michael Snow 19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly.  A lot of it was the busy week, but certainly it's an improvement.  10 different users (11 including Greg Williams) wrote at least one article; that's another record.  It's nice to see more people helping out.  Ral315 » 20:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats, and thank you for this great feature! Bravo. Jon Harald Søby 12:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  it's a monster! 

message: I currently find reading the WikiProject reports slightly dull and bland - perhaps we could spice it up by adding a short (2-3 questions) interview with someone who is heavily involved in the project? enochlau (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome idea! I'll add that in :) ( arky ) 01:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject reports - add interview questions? 

message: What would you think of expanding on the current FACstuff by introducing each one (if its subject is not apparent from the title) and giving a report on how it fits in with other feature content? Like this:
*Knut is an individual polar bear who became the subject of international media attention because he's exceptionally cute, and is the first polar bear with a featured article.
*History of Baltimore City College is the third featured article on the history of a specific college or university, joining History of Michigan State University and History of Texas A&M University.
I think one benefit of this is that it would give a tie-in for reporters interested in a local interest story (first town in the Yukon with a featured article, for example), and give publicity to the FAC process. I'd be willing to help out with such a thing, but I probably couldn't actually complete it reliably. Would there be interest in it? Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd definitely be interested in seeing such a thing, if it's feasible.  Ral315 » 02:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the more prose the better. When starting out I wrote actual stories about particular articles going through the process, and while I trust people find the current data-driven compilations useful, I think there's untapped news value we could do more to bring out. --Michael Snow (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to see a one line explanation for each bot approved, saying what it will do.-gadfium 05:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Content Details 

message: I edit under my own name. Can you please report this case a bit more neutrally, and not go talking about proposed decisions about how awful I am before I have even had a chance to write my evidence, like you did on the 3rd?   Adam Cuerden talk 20:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem exists in the attempt to balance reporting on proposed remedies and making it clear that such remedies are proposed, and not effective unless they're voted in by arbitrators.  The article's here -- any thoughts as to how I could improve the wording?  Ral315 (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, I suppose it's a case that's gone rather strangely, with the rush to voting and deciding punishment a day after it opened, and so on. I'd have been inclined to just leave out the remedies, but, I don't know. Sorry, the whole thing really is stressing me out, particularly as it happened over exam time, with no delay to give me a chance to make up evidence. Hell, there were proposals asking for my head when the only thing I had been able to post was "I have exams, could we delay a bit?" I don't know... Adam Cuerden talk 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoffman Arbcom case 

message: Featured articles in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-17/Features and admins are the same as in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-10/Features and admins. Visor (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has now been fixed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured articles