Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Features and layout

message: Hi, thank you for initiating this valuable project. 
Regarding the formt, I think it might be easier to maintain the page if you 
*date all the headlines, 
*list them chronologically, and 
*give each item some key words or categories - "technical," "dispute resolution," "policies and guidelines," etc. 
That would way, you do not have to think hard about which story to keep/remove, etc. :ja:Wikipedia:大使館(now retired) and :ja:Wikipedia:ウィキメディアニュース are basically organized in that way (though not using any subpage because reports are shorter).
Tomos 08:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of the date, it's on the page itself below the logo, in the right-hand margin. The same date applies to all headlines, and the stories themselves are dated in the bylines, so chronology is less of an issue. Granted, the news items themselves happen at different times, but some happen over the course of days, so I'm not going to try and organize by which came first. Stories will be rotated by moving all of the current stories to an archive when a new issue is published. --Michael Snow 17:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "News update" approach

message: It would be nice to have a direct link to older issues on the article-page. It is possible to use the history of course, but that's not very comfortable. --Adornix 12:57, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now organized the last issue into an archive at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives and linked it on the page. Sorry about the delay, my immediate priority was getting the new issue up, and the technical problems haven't been making this project terribly easy. --Michael Snow 20:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive of older issues 

message: There should be an introduction that talks about what the signpost is. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 00:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
*That's probably a good idea, but I like the minimalist layout of the paper as it is.  I think the best idea would be to add a link to a separate page, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About.  I have gone ahead and done so.  My "About" writeup was done really quickly, though, and is really bare-bones, so have at it. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: I was just reading the substubs article and thought that it might be useful (or failing that, look neat) if the stories were divided by their content under headings or a background colour scheme or both. Say one section for "Wikipedia style, policy and guidelines" one for "Wikipedia in the press" one for T.R.O.L.L. articles etc.
Or maybe I think too much, heh. - Lucky13pjn 20:01, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
:I think we may head that direction in the future, when there are more articles up at any given time. Then having different groupings, like the sections of a newspaper, will be more useful to guide readers to what they're most interested in. For the time being, I don't think it's that hard to glance at the page and find what you want to read. Also, waiting to take this step will give us a better idea of how to divide up the sections. --Michael Snow 04:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any chance of a sport section any time soon? smoddy 18:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sport section? Meaning a section on articles and projects related to sports? Or dealing with what one might call WikiSports (the sort of stuff at the Wikipedia:Department of Fun)? --Michael Snow 19:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stories by the type 

message: I've been bold and turned it into one main page, similar to the Wikipedia help desk, to help clarity (way too many people didn't know where to post suggestions, etc.)  Tell me if you like it, hate it, want to kill me, think kittens are cute, etc.  Ral315 (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the coloured background, because it serves no organisational, functional or other (such as colour-coding) purpose whatsoever.  Otherwise, the new layout is excellent, due to its organisation.  I've been bold myself and removed the background.  Ingoolemo talk 06:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It had no purpose, but I thought it looked slightly better in color.  Nevertheless, I like your edits, and yours is better, now that I look at it.  Ral315 (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Being bold with the Newsroom 

message: Format: It would be a great addition to have the weekly frontpage also provide a link to a single-page Signpost, with all articles stacked on it. For people like me who read (or browse) each article, having to open 6 to 10 of them one after another gets tedious.  (preceding unsigned comment by 62.147.39.221 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 9 November 2005)
:A good idea, and easy with transclusion.  violet/riga (t) 22:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing you mean something like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single.  Sam Korn 17:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They do, though I only created it after they made these comments :)  Ral315 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now all you need to do is to use <noinclude> to avoid all those images from cluttering up the right hand side... Sam Korn 20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! :) — Catherine\talk 04:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added "noincludes" to the sidebar image and the footer in the current crop of articles, to make sure it works.  I had to "subst:" the  used in Flcelloguy's articles, so that I could noinclude the sidebar image but keep the byline.  I could add the noinclude to the sidebar image in the template itself, but that would mean it would have to be subst'd each time it was used, or the image wouldn't show up in the individual article!  :)  What do you think?   — Catherine\talk 05:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it as well! (Shouldn't this discussion be in the format or feedback sections, not the tip-line, by the way?) Flcelloguy ( A  note? ) 23:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative single-page Signpost 

message: Seriously, make hot new copies of Signpost come directly to the readers' user pages! I've prepared this little demo template,  to illustrate how this would look. Any user that would want to subscribe would simply put the bit of wikicode on their userpage, and the template would need to be updated when new issues are published. Plus, we can use [what links here to see the list of subscribers. Zocky 20:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, you could put the Signpost on your watchlist, which I do.--Sean|Black 21:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, too many pages on my watchlist for that to be useful. Zocky 21:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can understand that, which is why I do semi-regular "pruning" of my watchlist to get rid of things I don't need anymore. But hey, whatever you prefer.--Sean|Black 21:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I like it, I've added it to my userpage. Why is it a "demo"? Jacoplane 21:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I linked it in "From the editor" last week; I don't want to make it sound too ad-like by linking it in too many places, though.  I've merged the two templates; no need to have yet another template for me to update each week :)  Ral315 (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should put a link to it in the template itself. Also, I liked my version more (well, not necesserally the colour scheme). I think the design of the template should match the Signpost page. Zocky 04:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've changed the template to look like the other templates discussed above. It's fairly resistant to resizing problems, as long as you don't make your screen fonts really small. Zocky 17:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it better, definitely, though I worry a bit about the size of the template on user pages at 800x600.  Ral315 (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the template to my user page but one strange thing is that all these links are configured as external links. Shouldn't they be wiki links?? --Gurubrahma 18:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly haven't seen them as external links.  Ral315 (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduce subscription! 

message: Just to note: I've been approved for an account on the Wikimedia Toolserver; I'll have an RSS feed up by the end of the week.  The feed itself is written; I just have to get to bed now :)  Ral315 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kudos to you :) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  How does the feed work?  I need something like that for specific subsets of articles...  +sj + 18:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this point, the feed is updated manually.  I'm going to make it a bit more automated, but at this point I don't want to do it fully automated (too complicated, and prone to vandalism).  Ral315 (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS feed will be up for the December 12th issue 

message: I would like to see back/forward links to page through the archives --  "<  12 December 2005  >"
...along with archive views that look just like a proper signpost, with a table-of-contents and header.  Perhaps each archive could additionally be a single-page view, with the TOC at the top.  Right now it is not easy to search for/find something in the archives. +sj + 18:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be able to do that; I've been trying to find a good way to do it.  I'll work on it over the next week or two.  Ral315 (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicer archive views 

message: AAAAAH! Am I missing something? —Ilyanep (Talk) 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be published shortly, if that's what you mean. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's for those who are using the RSS feeds, I presume. æle ✆ 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah; I occasionally create pages like that specifically for RSS readers when appropriate.  Ral315 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 9, 2006? 

message: I want to add the signpost to my userpage but cannot find the code for it can I have it? - Mike Beckham 04:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, adding  to your user page will acheive the result. -- Longhair 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding 

message: This project page should contain a link to an archive of past issues.  I would add it, I just can't seem to find where this archive is.  --Cyde Weys 08:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look for an archive link here, bottom left, or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives to link direct. -- Longhair 08:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signpost Archive 

message: I was going to post here about duplicating the look of the main Signpost page on the Archive subpages such as this one for issue 2.8, but then I discovered that these pages are being used to contruct the Archives page by . Is this really the best way of doing this? The current system seems weird to me, since I expect to be able to browse to the per-issue archive page, such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20, before going to the individual articles. I'd also like to be able to bookmark (or otherwise link to) individual back-issues. The only way to do this currently is to go to the first article in the desired issue and follow the < parent-article link at the top of the page back to the article list for that issue. That's just Not Good... So I propose we abandon the template-inclusion approach to the yearly archive pages and instead link to "proper" index pages for each issue modeled after the Signpost front page (note that the appearance of the yearly archive pages would remain essentially unchanged, apart from linking the issue numbers). If anyone is unclear about what I'm proposing, I can mock up an example. - dcljr (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the simplicity of assembling the yearly archive pages still has much to recommend it. However, I fully understand the point about navigating between individual issues in the archives. Perhaps the best way to go about this would be to add Previous Issue/Next Issue links to each of the individual index pages, but do this with "noinclude" tags so these links don't clutter the full archives? I'm not completely clear on what your proposal is, but that seems to me like the best solution at present. --Michael Snow 21:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 
The Wikipedia Signpost is published every Monday. Below are archived stories from 2006.
Archives for previous years: [[/2005/]]
See also a [[:Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives|category-based view]].
==January==
===[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02|Volume 2, Issue 1]], [[2 January]] [[2006]]===
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/Reporter plagiarizes Wikipedia|Wikipedia ... plagiarism]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/ArbCom update|Arbitrator elections set to begin in a week]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/News and notes|News and notes: Appeal ... controversy]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/ArbCom candidates|ArbCom candidates]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/Arbitration report|The Report On Lengthy Litigation]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-02/Features and admins|Features and admins]]
===[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-01-09|Volume 2, Issue 2]], [[9 January]] [[2006]]===
...
===[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20|Volume 2, Issue 8]], [[20 February]] [[2006]]===
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Jimbo interview|An interview with Jimbo Wales]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Arbitrator resigns|Arbitrator Mackensen resigns]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/China revisited|Access issues in China revisited by media]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Wikimedia UK|Wikimedia chapter incorporated for the UK]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/News and notes|News and Notes: ... milestones]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/In the news|Wikipedia in the News]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Features and admins|Features and admins]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Technology report|Bugs, ... Operational News]]
*[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20/Arbitration report|The Report On Lengthy Litigation]]
[[Category:Wikipedia Signpost archives]]

Then the "current" (at the time) version of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost would simply be copied (or moved) to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-02-20 (or whatever subpage is appropriate) and probably altered slightly to indicate it's an archived version. Finally, the version at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost would be updated to the new issue. I don't think this actually adds significantly to the work involved in archiving the issues, but results in much nicer looking single-issue contents pages and a slightly improved (IMO) navigation system (I'm not actually talking about previous/next links between issues, although they could be added when the page is archived, if desired). - dcljr (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I didn't realize you were looking for a way to navigate directly to a given individual issue from the basic archive page. I thought you were suggesting a way to deal with what sj asked about above. --Michael Snow 01:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't particularly like the idea of moving/copying it, really.  What I'd be more in favor of is a text at the top explaining that it's an archive, a table of all the stories, and the stories, included like the single-page view.  This also makes it a lot more obvious that it's an archive.  Ral315 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nicer archive views revisited 

message: The following email was sent to Jimbo Wales and forwarded to the Wikipedia information team. I think it would be more likely to be addressed on this page.
Subject: WikiNews RSS feed
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 12:47:51 +0100
From: 
To: jwales@wikia.com
Hi!
I tried to get the RSS feed:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~dapete/wikinews-rss/rss-de.php
it looks like "utf8" is not a valid encoding name
i guess it has to be utf-8.
I am using RSSOwl 1.2 : http://www.rssowl.org/
bye
// Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the German Wikinews feed, not the Signpost feed. æle ✆ 21:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble with RSS feed 

message: After skipping last week? Osomec 00:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost for Volume 2, Issue 10, dated 6 March ... -- ALoan (Talk) 01:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think this may have been regarding the RSS feed, which hasn't been updated in a while.  It's something that seems to get easily forgotten.  I apologize.  Ral315 (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I've had trouble with SSHing to the server recently.  Probably human error on my part; I'll see what I can do.  Ral315 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Right now my laptop, which had all my stuff for connecting to the server, is basically dead.  I should get my new laptop Tuesday or Wednesday; then, I'll work on getting the RSS feed back up.  My apologies on this.  Ral315 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, that's crummy news!  I hate it when that happens :-(  Anyway, your efforts are greatly appreciated.  I'm wondering, why isn't this automated?  I was very surprised to hear that a human was responsible for updating the feed.  --C S (Talk) 03:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's the process for sending out the RSS feed?  +sj + 19:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Will the Signpost be back this week?

message: What is the template that is used for the spam list (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Subscribe)?
--Primate#101 06:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually not done through template; I take the plain text, modify it weekly as needed, and paste it to the users who request it.  Ral315 (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam List 

message: I just tried adding it to Firefox and found it had very little. I checked things out, look at the URL myself and...
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~ral315/signpost.rss has not updated itself since February, despite it stating "This feed will update itself weekly".
The RSS feed is broken, does anyone have the technical knowledge to fix it or set up a new, working one? --Col. Hauler 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A RSS to HTML parser, or manual? Computerjoe's talk 16:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above; we've had issues with the RSS feed for a while now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this be handled by the Wikipedia servers and not rely on individuals having to update it manually on laptops? That would be a much better way of running things. I'm surprised such a large organization can find it so hard to set up something as simple as a working RSS feed. --Col. Hauler 22:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm... Wikipedia Signpost is run by Wikipedians, not the Wikimedia Foundation. — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 23:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they could at least help us. I mean, they provide the server for Wikipedia. --Col. Hauler 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By "they" you are referring to one of the three full-time Foundation employees.  One is responsible for dealing with complaints and legal threats from the irate public and the other two upgrade software and try to keep the site running on a budget that's laughable considering Wikipedia's prominence.  I consider all these activities significantly more important than an RSS feed of the newsletter of one of the project editions that most readers appear to access through the template anyway.  So, you see, there is no "large organization" - just servers, a few people to keep the essentials going and a lot of people who volunteer their time, skills and occasionally server bandwidth.  You have posted notification that you cannot access the RSS to a large number of prominent pages. The combined tone is, to me, one of insistence that it be fixed, which may be counterproductive considering that you are in effect asking for someone with the relevant skills to volunteer their time. - BanyanTree 00:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll see if I can do something. You might or might not hear something from me about this. Bryan 14:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is back up! Well, sort of... I am quite busy now, so I don't have time to finish all, but there need to be some things done. I neeed to find a server so it can autoupdate, and have the bot account approved. Also there are some things that need to be updated in the feed. But so far :) Bryan 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've commented it out for the time being. Sorry, as most of us operate more using wikis and watchlists, we're not that heavily focused on RSS. If somebody wants to take the time to bring this back up, it looks like that would certainly be welcome, though. --Michael Snow 17:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Working on this.  Hopefully by this issue.  Ral315 (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm just waiting on a developer on the toolserver to process my new key, so I can FTP to the server again.  At that point, the RSS feed will be updated.  Ral315 (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  For the time being, I have some sort of backup RSS :)  Bryan 08:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS feed IS BROKEN 

message: This week's dose of M.A.N.I.A. is currently interactive.  Is there any reason not to do this?  I turned off the __NOEDITSECTION__ and asked readers to contribute; since the point of the column is to highlight conversations suggested for Wikimania 2006, and note that the list is dynamic and open to change.  Next week will be back to normal, for better or for worse.  +sj + 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem for me.  Ral315 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interactive M.A.N.I.A. 

message: It's convenient and enjoyable for me to read/skim through all articles for an issue on the single-page view, rather than clicking back and forth for each headline. I'd like to have that option for the archived issues as well. Presently the dates for each issue go only to the day and year articles. Does anyone mind if this is an option, and how can this be accomplished? TransUtopian 20:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd really enjoy a single-page subscription option. Currently, I just keep WP:POST on my watchlist, and then click-through when they're published. Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just look at the single-page view page every week.  Ral315 (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: To TransUtopian:  I'll look at doing it.  Ral315 (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ral315! TransUtopian 23:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single page view for archives possible? 

message: *WP:POST comes here, obviously. ;)  Can an  be added here to include a link to WP:SIG to help people find their way to that page, a la "sign (verb) your comment"? — MrDolomite | Talk 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signature disambig? 

message: I have recorded an audio version of the Signpost for the Wikicast project still in alpha development, and I am curious as to why the link was removed (edit: nm -- just now saw header and contacted Ral315).  I can understand if people might think of a better position for the link, but I think it made sense placed between the RSS feed  and single-page version as an alternative means of receiving the Signpost.   I intend to update the audio feed weekly to reflect the Signpost's latest content.  I have also done work for Spoken Wikipedia, and I was hoping that even while Wikicast is still in development, people can still benefit from an audio version of the Signpost as a standalone offering. --Omaryak 20:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea, but if we use it, we should use something like the audio icon, because there are a lot of links already.  On another note, I originally placed that note because the way I'm trying to get Ralbot going, I'll revert any changes accidentally I update.  Please don't revert for the sake of reverting.  Ral315 (talk) 05:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Audio link 

message: Not to sound like a broken record, but the RSS feed is broken again. (Issue 32 was the last one that worked.) - dcljr (talk) 07:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll investigate; I thought I successfully FTP'ed it this week.  Ral315 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uploading it somehow failed, the file was there, but completely empty.  In any event, it's fixed now, and sorry for all the troubles :)  Ral315 (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not what I see. - dcljr (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now that's really, really weird.  I uploaded it again, and even checked it after uploading it to double check that the file was there.  I'll investigate in the morning, but I have no idea why it wouldn't be working.  Ral315 (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ral315, I am still seeing issue 32 - are you uploading as Feed.rss, feed.RSS or some other capitalization? thx in adv --Trödel 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm having trouble uploading the feed- it's being uploaded, but the content is immediately removed from the file.  I'm talking to my provider.  Ral315 (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good luck --Trödel 13:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS MIA YA 

message: I suggest something such as this ready-made code to be added at the bottom of each article:
 <DIV ALIGN=RIGHT><SMALL>— Permalink</SMALL></DIV>
This would make the single-page version (and whoever else include Signpost articles elsewhere) display a permalink at the bottom-right of each article, like this:
<DIV ALIGN=RIGHT><SMALL>— Permalink</SMALL></DIV>
I just had the need a few minutes ago: I usually read the single-page version, but I needed a direct and permanent link to Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-02/More_CSD for reference on the VPP -- no permalink available on the single-page version, and the latest Signpost wasn't listed in the Archives, so I had to go back to the old version to find one.
I've checked the basic code above seem to work, but it may need some tweaks, I'm not a specialist of variables and subst. 62.147.86.81 01:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permalink suggestion for the single-page version 

message: At one point there was an interwiki template (this one Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Templates/Interwiki_Report I belive) does anyone know why it was removed? It would be nice to be able to get to any interwiki report from any other one.-Ravedave (help name my baby) 04:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  interwiki template 

message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost still has the link to Single page view, but it has misteriously disappeared in my spamlist version from the October 9th edition.
October 2nd: Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View
October 9th: Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line
Who decided and why to remove link to Single-Page View? I want it back >_< Shinhan 21:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because it was added accidentally a few months back, and I reverted to my original layout.  I'll add it back next week.  Ral315 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks :) Btw. Single page view is usefull b/c then you need to load the page only once. Shinhan 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-page view 

message: ... Can we make this somewhat smaller? Currently it looks awful under Internet Explorer 7. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heres an answer. Get Mozilla Firefox 2. Culv e rin ?  Talk  07:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is for it to look big. Use the shortcut "WP:POST"; it doesn't have the disambig, if you want to avoid it. Ral315 (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to Ral315 for pointing me in the right direction. Culverin, I would use Firefox 2, but short of changing the HTTP referrer variables to disguise it as Internet Explorer, I can't use it on our corporate network due to lock down policies. It's not helpful to recommend another browser, especially as Wikipedia is meant to be pretty much browser agnostic. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [Modify Headers], [User Agent Switcher]; you can also do this through about:config I've heard. --Gwern  (contribs) 15:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig up the top of the page...

message: I've added the code style="background:none" on each of the three tables so that on my user page it appears transparent. Harryboyles 04:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to signpost main page 

message: Was just wondering, would it be possible to have an include for the From the editor section, that you could press "show" and it would pop out?
Like this:

From the editor:  New feature




</div>
Where the date would change accordingly. Of course, in the actual From the editor page, the heading would have to be removed. ~ EdBoy[p]\[m]/[c] 21:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's somewhat similar to the single-page view section.  I'm reluctant to make this page too crowded; I got a negative response when trying to change this page once before.  Also, for what it's worth, the editor's note is a rare thing- though I'll be doing one next week, it's quite possible there won't be another one until February or March.  Ral315 (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd vote for at least something that sets it out a bit more than the bold does...A bright color, perhaps? I know I would have totally missed it if I hadn't seen this section of the talk page pop up on my watchlist. Essjay (Talk) 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the editor 

message: Hi,
[Wikicast http://www.bitshuffle.org/wikicast/Main_Page]- the free content broadcast
is considering an audio version of The Signpost to accompany the printed version
here.
Are there any volunteers to assist wiki related journalism on radio/podcast
as well in print?
ShakespeareFan00 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiCast: Signpost - Volunteers needed. 

message: Can there be a one page setting. Not like the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single page but has all the stories layed out on one page. with the sign post header up top? It is very close to what user:Primate/Signpost/Single is but is updateable and easily addable with a [{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Fullpage}] or some other name... --Darkest Hour ǁ 18:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really; we have too many settings as-is.  Ral315 » 11:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One page 

message: I've created an RSS feed for the Signpost. You can subscribe to it with http://feeds.feedburner.com/WikipediaSignpost. Feedback is very welcome. Thanks, --dantheox 02:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it should link to WP:POST until the archive page exists. I don't think it's that big a deal though... the page it would take you two is completely identical to what you're seeing in the RSS feed. The links to individual articles all work. I'll try and fix this by the next signpost... --dantheox 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's necessary, I'll make sure the archives are populated immediately upon publication from now on.  Ral315 » 09:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that would be ideal if it's not too much trouble for you. --dantheox 17:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS feed now available 

message: Is there anyway to get Signpost articles into Planet Wikimedia, without creating a seperate blog to post them into?  --  Zanimum 12:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the experimental Signpost RSS to User:Nickj/open-wikiblogplanet-config.ini, which means it'll show on http://open.wikiblogplanet.com/ soonish ... we'll see how it goes - David Gerard 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've actually created a blog that should show up on Planet Wikimedia soon.  Ral315 » 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet Wikimedia 

message: Would it be possible to publish the Signpost with hideable/expandable sections? So that instead of having to click each link to read the relevant column, it would actually transclude that column then  it? Stevage 06:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer not to do so because some people have browsers without JavaScript, but you might be interested in the single-page view, which shows all of them on one page.  Ral315 » 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, if javascript is off, the text doesn't display at all, rather than not hiding. Stevage 07:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe that's true.  Regardless, I don't plan to do anything like that on the main page; the one thing people have pounded into my head throughout the time I've been editor is that they like the Signpost simple and nondescript.   Ral315 » 18:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format (show/hide) 

message: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:En-WPSignpost_2007_04_02.ogg 
ShakespeareFan00 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio Version-  

message: On the delivery page substitution, there is a missing </small> tag following the date at the end. I've noticed this for some time, but it hasn't been an issue until recently, when the site apparently stopped automatically closing open tags. Now, anything on my talk page following the Signpost displays in small text. Is it possible that this could be fixed before the next Signpost is delivered? Thanks. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a error that everyone had during that specific publication. This will not happen again as it has been edited in the bot delivery commands. If you wish to fix your own pages, append </small> to the bottom of Ralbot's timestamp. This particular error was malformed HTML. It was not a big issue until HTML Tidy was updated, at which point things broke on the delivery of the Signpost. Many thanks, Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 07:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delivery page 

message: Two little things:
* The Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/SPV/2007 hasn't been updated for March 26 and April 2
* On the main page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single the link "Archives" should maybe link directly to the single-page archive, and be named "Single-page archives"
Thanks,
62.147.36.241 11:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will get someone (most likely Ral315) to follow this up for you. Kind regards, Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 07:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single-page view archive late, and link 

message: In the single-page view, the references display cumulatively for the later articles.  Thus, imagine this scenario:
Article 1
Ref1, Ref2
Article 2
Ref3, Ref4, Ref5, Ref6
In the single page view, article 2 has Ref1 and Ref2 even though those references were from the preceding article.  It's necessary to break up the coding so that "reflist" only applies to the most recent article. YechielMan 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not possible to do so with the current software. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's wrong with putting <noinclude> around the  on each page, and then putting a  tag at the bottom of the single page view? Tompw (talk) (review) 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical note 

message: Xpost: Copied here from Squeakbox's idea of 11 June '07 on User_talk:Ral315.
re: this delivery
:(Added pre-closing: I see from that talk link, that there is some narrow right floated formatted version... and perhaps some of these points/suggestions have been implemented as well?... which means you need a link to a How-to page on your subscribed delivery (full width), and perhaps an additional prominent mention in the About page on much of these matters! Some link such as "Signpost options" on all the versions.)
:* Is there a selection, option, seperate list, or capability to get a much condensed Signpost on talk page deliveries? 
:* T'would be good if were right floated and somewhat similar to a generic infobox. "Jest de facts" sort of formating, a very muted "mast head" graphic, and just one column of links similar to a page TOC, as it were but using a small font (80-90%). I'd use a maxwidth: 200px in a div style around it, and such self-wraps long titles. (I belatedly see that  already does this... so the story needs told on "how does one get "" vice the page hog so that one doesn't have to A) find the templates, B) parse the text in the first, C) See the second on the talk, and D) finally reason out that one needs to take oneself from the subscription list, and place the template on one's page instead! Poor customer service that! <g>)
:* Similar idea (along the lines of Squeakbox's idea of 11 June '07 about an email notice feature) would be an option to just receive a link to the issue's source page without headlines-- something like:
  :... that'd be a desirable feature to have along with the fixed small template, as will alert one that the page is new content.
:* Some may want one or the other format to appear, but in a fixed location... suggesting a delivery method by placing a template on the users talk page in said location. (Looks like you've got this covered--just not well documented!)
:* All the above taken together suggests an alternative delivery method-- Have the BOT parse whatlinkshere for different templates instead of a sign-up page. A user wanting the Signpost just adds the template to their talk, with the proper parameter to control the delivery mode.
:* Being a periodical, I'm sure the subst'd version (in the technical sense) (this change) is an exception to the reasoning behind the rule of substing templates on user talks... this is far more wasteful of Foundation memory resources  than would using a separate template on each users page for each issue, and since your "Issues" are static, update que factors are hardly germane--the talk pages update fast, not the source page. This in turn suggests composing your news page as a separate template for each issue and minimizing memory consumption by including only that template on a user talk page.
 
:Just some stray thoughts, as the big block delivered format while nice, does tend to use up a lot of a users talk page. Even were the Signpost the New York Times, answering these issues for a new (or old) subscriber ought be easy to find and clearly presented as delivery options. Cheers! // FrankB 14:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User information needs 

message: Is there an rss feed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.233.147.188 (talk • contribs).
:Yes, there is. +spebi ~ 06:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's out of date; there is no RSS feed.  Ral315 » 18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only RSS feed we have is: History of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost as an RSS feed --Kjoonlee 20:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you go into a page's history, there's always an RSS link and an Atom link in the toolbox section. --Kjoonlee 20:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rss 

message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives seems to only go up to the 4 June issue. Can someone fix this please, as I have a bit of reading to catch up on... :-) (I know, I could fix it myself, but I thought I'd let someone else try). Carcharoth 12:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Caught up through the last issue now, sorry about that. As you might know, I've been a little busy with an election. --Michael Snow 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! No problem, and thanks. Carcharoth 09:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives need updating 

message: Whenever I read this week's issue, I like to pop back to the previous week to check I haven't forgotten to read it. I usually use Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives, but last week's one is not there yet. I eventually worked out how to find the articles by rummaging through the page history. Would I be right to say that a prefixindex for the date will find all the subpages for a particlar issue? See here for this week's issue and here for last week's issue. However, while Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-09 exists, neither Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-16 or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-07-23 exist yet. Is that page the only archive for the Signpost? Is it possible for updating the archives to last week's issue to be part of the stuff done before the current issue goes out? Carcharoth 12:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And they are there now. Many thanks. Carcharoth 11:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: I just discovered the The Wikipedia Signpost, and wow! What a great resource. And much-needed too. What it's sorely lacking, however, are regularly-featured "editorial" and "op-ed" pages devoted to showcasing a variety of opinions from responsible Wikipedians of all stripes. Seraphimblade for instance, due to the importance of the issue he discusses, should have a wider forum for his rant than just his own talk page. ô¿ô 16:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're interested in hearing more from opinionated Wikipedians (and Wikimedians from other projects, and a few wiki-enthusiasts from elsewhere), you should check out the two blog aggregators: open.wikiblogplanet.com and en.planet.wikimedia.org .--ragesoss 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedians? Opinionated? None that I've ever met. Don't you know we're one-and-all NPOV? But seriously, thanks for the URLs. ô¿ô 14:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the idea also, and I too have a bunch of short opinion pieces on my user page.  So how do we create an op-ed/editorial page for the Signpost? Timothy Perper 07:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editorial and Op-Ed Features 

message: Would it be possible to copy the convention of the wikiworld pages and include prev/next links on all of the regular pages? If this is hard, then I'd at least like to see such links on pages such as Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-08-27 (ie those linked to from the archives). Lupin|talk|popups 06:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More prev/next links, please! 

message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV/2007 was 5 issues behind. I added issues 34-37, hopefully correctly. Please check, and watchlist if you normally do :) 
The only problem I encountered was the internal subsection link for Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-09-10/SPV#Signpost_interview:_Jimbo_Wales doesnt seem to work (possibly due to the italic Signpost?), and I cannot determine a fix at the moment. Not critical, but I am curious as to the problem. Thanks. --Quiddity 04:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it. The actual title had two spaces between the colon after "interview" and "Jimbo", whereas the link assumed one space. enochlau (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ral315, where do you keep the template that you use every week? A few of us can work on improving it if you want. enochlau (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a template of sorts, but mostly I copy-paste from one issue to the next.  What you see is what you get.  I am looking into an improvement, to make the footer a complete template, that would link to all current stories, and link back to prior issues.  I've got an idea of what I want to do, and I'll post it here in a day or two at most.  Ral315 » 00:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single page view archives 

message: I was wondering if the signpost editors would mind adding "last issue / next issue" links to the weekly signpost? This would make browsing the past editions easier. >Radiant< 11:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heartily agree (as I requested 3 threads up...). See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue-nav although there are plenty of other ways to do it. ++Lar: t/c 18:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Browsability 

message: I really like the new feature - I believe that the WikiProjects are often the backbone of Wikipedia, bringing some organization and expertise to a subject area.  Highlighting a particular project may help it to recruit members, and it will educate the community on the project's contributions.  If you want another WikiProject to feature, WP:MILHIST has for some time been a gold standard of organization and activity. (I'm not a member!) Walkerma 19:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to point to the significance of the military history WikiProject in the context of other stories before, but it's certainly a good candidate for this treatment. If you or anybody else wants to write it up, by all means give it a go. Other suggested projects are welcome too. --Michael Snow 19:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll write that up for next week :) ( arky ) 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New feature on WikiProjects 

message: Why don't we interview all these editor (it's via email, right?) and then release one interview per signpost edition? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All editors

message: OK, Two previous attempts to gst Signpost in audio version failed...
Third time lucky.
Would there be any interest in there being an audio version of Signpost simmilar to the archived
examples on Commons?
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we know how much interest there is in getting an audio version? It's just that, from my experience in recording audio versions of articles, that it takes a long time to record text and edit. enochlau (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Would you prefer Festival/Flite do the reading?  -- SEWilco 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just listened to Festival reading the first few paragraphs of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-12-03/License compatibility.  I don't think I could stand to hear it read any more. --Carnildo (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio version... 

message: The Anthere interview was good, but could I propose that the colors be reversed in the future? (Red for questions, blue – or black, my preference – for answers.) Reading a lot of red text is yucky for me. Thanks for your great work on the WPSP! – Scartol • Tok 13:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It was especially poor against the beige background of the classic skin; I had to cut-and-paste the article out of Wikipedia to read it.  Just coloring the questions would have been sufficient. —Cryptic 18:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or maybe indenting the responses? enochlau (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In most interviews I've seen, the questions are printed in italic, and the answers are printed in regular text.  Questions are also indented by one tab stop, and are often prefixed with "Q", the interviewer's name, or the publication's name. --Carnildo (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That format was probably borrowed from Wikinew, which uses bold. Circeus (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red ink hurts me eyes 

message: I, like many editors, specialize at wikipedia. I write articles. I know others help fight vandals, but how exactly do they do that? What does it mean to be a bureaucrat? What's a checkuser? Why is AfD so contentious? I haven't read the hundreds of pages explaining all of these things, yet. (Shocking, I know.) I was wondering if the Signpost could run a series highlighting some of the major editorial and administrative roles at wikipedia - explaining them and their history, in essence. It is often difficult to figure out what all of these different processes and roles are unless one becomes part of them (which is not always good!). This came to my mind because I realized how little I knew about ArbCom when the ArbCom elections were announced. I am now having to gather information from other editors about ArbCom before I can vote. I'm not sure how to make such a feature fun and exciting - anecdotes? tie-ins to news stories and events? - but I do think it would be useful. Awadewit | talk 12:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems a great idea to me. There are all sorts of topics that could be explored other than roles as well, sort of an "under the hood" about roles, and techniques, and major internal pages, etc. ++Lar: t/c 12:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, that's already catchier. :) Awadewit | talk 12:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an interview with frequent contributors in certain areas, 'crats, checkusers, etc. would be pretty interesting. Cheers, ( arky ) 01:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have some interviews and those are great but that's not quite what I had in mind, "under the hood" is more about the how and the what, not the who. I can't speak for Awadewit's original suggestion though. ++Lar: t/c 04:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps interviews could be a part of it, but my initial ideas was closer to the "how and the what". However, any further information would be appreciated! Awadewit | talk 05:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I were only considering a weekly report reporting on WP:AN/I about a hour ago, but that sounds like what I were considering. I would be happy to take this, and start next week (only problem is thats my graduation week, and at the end of the weeks it's "Schools Out, Scream and Shout!"!). This would also be a learning experience for me, learning what a Checkuser is etc. -- Whiteandnerdy111 (talk) 07:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure we shouldn't wait on this a week or two, and think about it.  I honestly would consider this to be more suited to a WikiProject (similar to tip of the day -- an introduction into the more complex parts of Wikipedia).  That would be a lot better for new users, I'd think, than a weekly series -- users who show up two months from now aren't necessarily going to look in the Signpost archives for information.  The other problem is that information can change, and if people did go to the archives for information, it's entirely possible that such information would be dreadfully inaccurate.  The other problem with a weekly series is that if the main writer leaves, somebody has to pick it up, or it falls by the way side and is of little help to anyone.  My opinion is that we should weigh the pros and cons of integrating it into the Signpost on a weekly basis before we do anything.  Ral315 (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  An idea for a series 

message: I've been trying to think up something clever for users who liked the old style or would prefer a modified one. I have a feeling, though, that this might be too parser heavy. It would rely on checking if a user has a specific subpage created, then giving the correct output. For instance 
 Would, in theory, modify the appearance. With other subpages such as /text font size and face could be modified. I'm just not sure if it would make archives and /Signpost pages too parser heavy. Thoughts? §hepTalk 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the kind of thing I hope we can do for the deliveries, which have been the main concern of disgruntled readers.  It's only <1000 pages, and talk pages aren't super high traffic, so something like this applied to the deliveries would be good, I think.--ragesoss (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, I got lost. A bot could do separate lists. Users on this page get this format, users on another page get a different format, etc. It would require keeping 1 more page updated at publishing, though. The the bot could send out the new version, the old version, and the "/2009-30-02" (plain list) version, without much trouble. §hepTalk 20:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design 

message: Following Shep's suggestion, I thought I would stop by to comment on the new design. Personally I would like something nice and simple, such as the way it was sent this week. It doesn't take too much space, and it still has everything there... Of course my opinion is one among thousands. :)  Pax85 (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was coming here to say the exact same thing. The plain list works best for me. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Design 

message: Anyone know what happened with the Signpost talk page delivery format?  It used to be a lot ... prettier.  If this is a bot problem, I wouldn't mind helping with whatever is wrong.  --Cyde Weys 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a coding problem with the design (well, kind of). There were many complains (see above) about font size and it's general size and font face. The most major issue was brought up here. I believe we're more than happy to have someone look at the design to see if we can accomodate most of the complaints and major issues, but it has nothing to do with the bots. §hepTalk 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Actually, a bot solution might be appropriate... a bot that checks some bit of code on a subscriber's talk page, and delivers whatever format that user wants.  Some people have said that they prefer the plain text version that we've fallen back on while we work on the kinks in the more styled version, so a delivery bot that detected which version ought to be delivered might be useful.  User:Pretzels, I believe, is still planning on tinkering with the updated version he designed to address some of the problems, but it's been a few weeks now.--ragesoss (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Ya, that probably should have stayed somehow. §hepTalk 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page delivery format 

message: When ShepBot tosses the paper onto someone's talk page then please create a new section using == Wikipedia Signpost ==. The existing method of adding a br/h2/... meanings the Signpost blob is appended to the previous talk section. People hitting edit for that section end up needing to remember to insert their new content above the stuff added by ShepBot.
I believe you can get nearly the same affect as what you have now by having the bot append the following.
:== The Wikipedia Signpost ==
Unsubscribe · Single-page · Full edition »16 March 2009
You will need to view that in edit mode to see what gets added. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry for overlooking that. I've updated the design for next week's delivery, you can see an example on my talk page. This fixes the issue you mentioned, and also allows for an [edit] link as requested previously. PretzelsTalk! 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, that looks great. It's pretty cool in what you can get away with on MediaWiki. My only comment would be the use of the long dash, I think it's an mdash, in the title and you end up with a .E2.80.94 in the URL for section links. For example, User talk:Pretzels#Wikipedia Signpost .E2.80.94 16 March 2009. Hopefully the Signpost lead will be so riveting that no one will see the URL. :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please use section breaks when throwing papers onto talk pages 

message: A feedback link that creates a new talk section would be handy from the main page and the talk-page notices.  The tip line is useful, but most good feedback isn't in the form of a tip.  +sj+ 01:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How's it look now?  I added a link as you suggested to the footer, which appears on both the Signpost frontpage and on individual articles.--ragesoss (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like the feedback link! Nice to promote discussion. But feedback & tips are two separate things. Many of the comments that we get are in fact tips rather than comments about the 'post itself... though people usually figure out where to put the appropriate thing. We should consider restructuring the newsroom at some point. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree.  We need to prioritize the pages that get used: this one, the tip line, and the planning room (which really is the newsroom, in the analogous sense to an brick-and-mortar newsroom).--ragesoss (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make "comments" into a "Feedback" link on the main page 

message: I love navs.  An auto-generated nav from archive subpages that link forward and backwards to the previous/next week would be handy, perhaps with another link to the full year's archive.
For example: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-05-18
+sj+ 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would love to see something like this; if anyone knows how to code something like that up, please do.  Preferably, it would be a template where the parameters are the dates of three consecutive issues:  would look like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost with the 5-11 issue contents, and it would be on an archive subpage like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2009-05-11, and have links that work the same as the previous and next links for the individual regular features.--ragesoss (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've set something up and am working on populating the back-issue subpages.--ragesoss (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add forward/back links from archive subpages 

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