The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-08-30. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

I'm posting a few comments here as I did last week. One of the points I wanted to raise this week is that the discussion on the climate change case proposed decision talk page, although it is indeed rather large, is actually rather structured now (certainly more structured than it was last week). There is a section for statements, a section for new proposals, a section for miscellaneous discussion, and lots and lots of separate sections for each proposal in the proposed decision where comments have been made. Possibly the report was written when the discussion looked less structured. The other point I wanted to make is that there is more going on on the arbitration pages than just these two cases. Does the Signpost intend to cover the current amendments and clarifications, or do you only cover those once they have been completed? At least one of the clarifications concerns the recently closed case, which may be of interest to Signpost readers. Carcharoth (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as of this timestamp, in the discussion section there are 108,617 words (plus 10,737 words which are archived) and 8914 words in the statements section. As the report would suggest, the version of the page was being looked at was when participants (I think primarily Tony Sidaway) started managing the page more aggressively to bring it into the state that appears now. I'm taking your comment to mean that the management and archiving process is complete now? While you're here, perhaps you could also clarify why much of this task (including archiving) was being handled by active participants of the discussion rather than clerks or arbitrators?

Re: motions, with one possible exception, we generally cover them after they have passed rather than while they are in progress (especially as some matters can be too trivial and boring to readers). But it was very good to bring this up because it seems sensible to cover them (at least in brief) while they are in the more raw phase of clarification/amendment requests - will start doing so from either next week or the week after. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There is actually more to this matter of managing the discussion on the climate change proposed decision talk page than you might be aware of. If I have time after checking in on the discussion page again, I can provide diffs and links for much of the following (though some of the information about availability of clerks is from e-mails), but the sequence of events went somewhat like this:

• (1) Preparations were made in advance to ensure discussion of the proposed decision was reasonably orderly. This included making sure that at least one clerk (Dougweller) was available, as the main case clerk was away the week the proposed decision was posted (we would have liked more clerks to be available, but that wasn't possible). I also tried to start an on-wiki discussion on how to prepare for the discussion, but that didn't get far.
• (2) The talk page was set up with the "statements" and "discussion" sections (you can see all this in the page history). The proposed decision was posted and discussion commenced, with a high volume, as we knew it would (it is genuinely difficult to manage high-volume discussions like this).
• (3) At some early point, User:JohnWBarber initiated the "section by section" discussion structure, which was a good move by him. A similar structure had been considered before the proposed decision was posted, but I wanted to see how things would go at first with the simpler structure. I was uncertain about the more complex structure at the time, but it turns out it was needed. I would later make changes to this structure, but it should be noted that it was JohnWBarber who set it up initially.
• (4) It soon became apparent that the volume of comments was such that better management of the page was needed, and that those paying most attention to the page (me and Dougweller) would probably not be able to manage it fully, at least not during the week (during the week I was only able to check the page for a few hours each evening). I suggested that those posting to the page should manage the page themselves, but only NuclearWarfare and Tony Sidaway really did anything along those lines, and it soon became apparent that asking participants to manage their own discussions was not feasible.
• (5) I also posted to one section that it was resolved and should be archived. Tony Sidaway then did some more archiving, and did several collapsing of off-topic threads. However, as he was participating in the discussions, several people objected to this, and I posted to his talk page saying that he should note concerns and leave arbitrators and clerks to take actual action. For other reasons, he withdrew from editing the proposed decision talk page, so this became moot.
• (6) Over the long weekend (it was a bank holiday in the UK) I spent a fair amount of time going through the page and moving sections to fit in the "section by section" discussion area and retitling them and leaving notes about the moves, and including redirects using the "see also" template, as needed. That wasn't completely finished (the administrator bits are still all in one area, which is probably best), and it is an ongoing task because people post new sections without realising that they should be posting to a section-specific area of the discussion. I also split the findings and remedies discussions apart, and added links to the archived discussions and unarchived some of them. Overall, I probably did most of the discussion management in the end (not the case participants, as you said above), and I ensured that all the archived material was linked to from the main discussion page, so none of it is missed by other arbitrators reading through the page.
• (7) The case clerk (Amorymeltzer) was meant to be back this week, but informed us by e-mail that he has been delayed, so we have asked for another clerk to step in and help Dougweller, and I and other arbitrators will be continuing to help where needed (though I will be away myself this weekend).
• (8) The drafting arbitrators have been following the discussion and changes have been made (as you said) and more changes are planned. The volume of the discussion did surprise me somewhat (though as I said, we knew it would be high), but I think it is reasonably manageable in terms of reading through it, and I for one will be reading through the whole discussion page as I vote next week, though I hope the volume has died down somewhat by then.

Hopefully this is sufficient to answer any questions you or readers of the Signpost have. Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to take too much of your time on this, but there are a few diffs that I think would add some value with respect to (1), (4), and if I'm mistaken, (5). I've responded to those points that may require a bit more information/clarification.

• (1) You mentioned that preparations were underway in advance - do you mean between the time when the workshop was closed (19 July) and the PD was posted (23 August), or do you mean earlier than that? At which point in time did you try to start that discussion you refer to?
• (3) So beyond the distinction between statements and discussion, it was another participant, JohnWBarber, who set some structure, but you later made changes to this?
• (4) At what point in time did this become apparent? How much time had elapsed from the moment you suggested participants manage their own discussions?
• (5) Rather than some archiving since the PD was posted, my understanding is that as before the report date, all archiving that has taken place was done by Tony Sidaway (except for a single unarchiving by you some two days later, which was during the time you refer to in (6) - after midday on the 29th). That, as I suggested above, was 10,700+ words. Is my understanding accurate?
• (8) Indeed; in some ways, the PD phase (with its talk page alone) has represented tricky and lengthy dispute resolution on many levels. :) I'm sure that many readers and participants are also hopeful that you and the other 7 arbs will, in addition to PD talk page, also revisit other relevant venues/input (eg; arb talk pages, workshop, community comments, etc) before voting; that is, some points may have been made more effectively there while others tried to avoid partisan bickering and certain influences.

As always, thank you for your input (this is very helpful). It is likely that the next report will be written before the PD is complete. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I can provide more diffs, but I don't have time right now until Wednesday for anything more than the following (and even then I will be voting on the case for most of next week). For the preparations, see what was done to the evidence and workshop pages and talk pages to update them. The discussion regarding the PD talk page was on the 'general discussion' page (and its talk page) and linked to from the PD talk page. Regarding: it was another participant, JohnWBarber, who set some structure, but you later made changes to this" - that is correct, though the possibility of a more detailed structure had been considered (in hindsight that was overly complicating the statements section and not paying enough attention to how the rest of the discussion would be structured). In the end, after taking advice from other arbs and clerks, I decided to take a simpler approach at first, as starting off with a complex structure could have been seen as trying to over-manage the discussion. The suggestion that participants manage their own discussion was made by me here (though I may have suggested it earlier as well). The archiving comment was a few minutes earlier and was here. Archiving discussion that took place after the PD started turned out, in my opinion, to be a mistake. I had intended to unarchive more than I did, but only ended up unarchiving one section and ensuring that all archived sections were linked from the current discussions. In general, meta discussion or notes about managing the PD talk should be available in the 'meta and preliminaries' section on the PD talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, interesting choice of editor for the FA choice of the week (from de?). I like it. Way to think outside the box! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I am extremely, extremely dissapointed at the liberal, unapproved lynching of my writing, and at the direction the Signpost is taking with it. ResMar 18:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed what little of my writing was included. In the future I demand I be notified of such major desecration. ResMar 18:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, yes it is? oO ResMar 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I just pointed out the same thing at WT:POST, just with a less elegant link ;) Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Readers should know about WP:FCDW/3000. ResMar 18:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, for anyone who wonders: What happened was that ResMar wrote up summaries of several featured articles in a draft for the milestone story which were not included because these had already been summarized in last week's F&A, in an attempt to avoid duplicate coverage. The other part of the draft (authored by him and, see above, other users) was included here by Tony1.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming :) Congratulations to all the nominators and reviewers who contributed to reaching the 3,000 FA milestone on Wiki! I also note that FAC has reached a two-year high on monthly promotions, in spite of increasing standards, and congratulate all of the dedicated contributors-- both writers and reviewers. We can always use more reviewers (without reviewers, we don't have FAs): see Reviewers achieving excellence for ways anyone can help out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok for anyone who wonders: Said actions consisted of a shoddy copy & paste job that minorized a major Wikipedia event (3000 FAs) in favor of "avoiding duplication." As such the question becomes, "What duplication?" and "Why was there no such issue in the past?" ResMar 19:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I too would like to congratulate everyone involved in creating and improving everything mentioned on this page. And celebrate the fact of 3,000 FAs. Hooray for us! --bodnotbod (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose so. You might want to read the real 3000 post, it's not quite finished but at least it provides some context. ResMar 01:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I continue to miss the complete gallery of WP:FPs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As has been pointed out by others here, a gallery renders the pics in very small size: you effectively need to click on each. This week, we included this advice at the top of the featured picture section: "Each can be viewed in medium size by clicking on "nom"." Do you not think that is the ideal way to access the material? Tony (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Congrats to all on the 3,000th FA; and a note to say that I really like the new style of the Features & Admins section, especially the brief bios of the new admins and the "pick of the week." Very nice! And Resmar, don't take editing personally -- the Signpost runs as a newspaper, which means material isn't duplicated from week to week and the editor in chief's job is to help ensure this and make sure the whole issue is coherent. Bottom line, they may choose not to include things or rewrite them. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 05:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's the stance that the signpost is going to take, then you might as well close Dispatches up and mark it as historical. For some reason, these milestones were worthy of a major news story 4 times before, but aren't now. It's very dissapointing and highly unfriendly. ResMar 16:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

also from the german wikipedia I want to congratulate you for the 3,000 featured articles - I posted a small passage on this in our Kurier to spread it to our german contributors. Thx a lot to all of you involved as authors, reviewers, ... of this process. Cheers, -- Achim Raschka (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Achim! Tony (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I love that album which was released under CC-by-SA, it is absolutely magnificent. And I would never have heard of it if it wasn't for the Signpost, so thank you very much! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to save everyone from reading the article, the murderer is apparently John Seigenthaler. JK. Kaldari (talk) 17:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The murderer's name has now been hidden - you must click on "Show" on a bar there to see it. For non-tech-savvy people, shouldn't there be a quick instruction to click on "show" if you want to see the name? -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Everyday tasks done on the word processor become difficult and bothersome." I concur wholeheartedly! I have always found it difficult and bothersome to type apostrophes in rapid succession. My fingers hurt when I do this. I am glad to see that I am not alone. </sarcasm> --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Myself, I have to agree with the intern. It's like going back to the days of Wordstar, with 5'25 floppies and green-over-black monochrome screens. In these days this formatting looks like rational because you only have to hit the "preview" button to check if you had forgotten to close a bold tag. In the old days you had to print the text in the printer. And those printers were sllloooowwww. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Markup has its disadvantages, of course, but the WYSIWYG systems to which everyone is accustomed these days require much more time and effort to code and produce less consistent results. Powers ^T 19:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I use a bit of javascript (code at the bottom of the post) to have these ctrl+b/i/etc. shortcuts work during editing. unfortunatly, it seems that won't work on IE :D DarkoNeko x 10:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful javascript code. I wish I had this years ago. Thank you --Mahanga (Talk) 19:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mostly, I enjoy the fact that she's writing about our large pack of rules while posting an article she really shouldn't be creating in the first place :P --King Öomie 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of formerly secret documents cited in Wikipedia, and there were before Wikileaks ever existed. Are we now trying to let everyone share in the sum of all merely politically comfortable knowledge? If leaders like Jimbo and Sue don't stand up for volunteer journalism, they may find Foundation volunteers on the wrong end of the shield law working its way through Congress. Why Other (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

We need to have a warning on the front page of Wikipedia. If you DO NOT want to know something please do not come to Wikipedia and look Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A noble suggestion, but it doesn't always work. For example, one doesn't know that The Moustrap has a surprise secret ending that one might not want spoiled until one is already reading the article. Powers ^T 20:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Agatha Christie—whose book sales are surpassed by those of only the Bible". According to our own article List of best-selling fiction authors, and the relevant source[1] used in it, her book sales are also surpassed by William Shakespeare. Fram (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor note: Spelling mistake. Zomg. ResMar 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• It seems like bad timing to add the Fly me to San Francisco bit when the deadline is the day after the signpost report is made.--Rockfang (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• The Portuguese Wikipedia wouldn't be in such a dire need of administrators if they didn't have such a stringent inactivity policy: even if an admin is actively making edits, they will lose the rights if they don't perform 50 or more administrative actions (deletions, blocks, etc) in the past 180 days. --Waldir ^talk 07:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, such a significant quota for using your tools CAN'T be good for making sure tools are used responsibly. Yoshi348 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, many admins started performing administrative actions only to keep their user rights. I feel sad that I was one of the original proposers of the inactivity policy, but at the time it was about people who made no edits whatsoever in 6 months, or something. Ironically, that proposal was rejected. The new one, I believe, gained traction after many older editors grew disillusioned with the project as several newer editors started trolling the administrators, requiring votes for bold changes and then piling oppose votes, etc. These new editors used the absence/indifference of many respected older editors to drag the community into a rushed decision. But of course, this is my POV as one of the desysopped admins, so take this with a grain of salt. If you can read Portuguese, the main discussion is here. Note, however, how the "consensus" was declared with 23 support votes against 20 oppose ones. --Waldir ^talk 21:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• The graphs look like medical swabs about to be examined under the microscope. Tony (talk) 10:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, there was no time to find a better layout solution. I thought about using scrollbars, but wasn't sure how it would look like in other browsers:

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to say it's a good idea you didn't try that, because it pukes all over the place on IE8 here at work. The images are full size with useless scrollbars of what's supposed to be the display height on the side. It'll probably coverup this comment, too. Yoshi348 (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

What is edwardbetts.com and why are there 160,000 external links to it? Ginger Conspiracy (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This question was discussed on the Wiki-research mailing list, see e.g. Edward Betts' comment here: It is linked on Template:Orphan.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lol, it is my fault :P --Waldir ^talk 21:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Why not, infoboxes? It would be nice keep versions synchronized by storing them centrally, but the chief impediment is not really copying the templates themselves. Templates are easy to copy and paste, though it can be tedious for large suites of interdependent ones. The more fundamental problem I often encounter is dependence on project-specific custom CSS or Javascript. Sorting out those dependencies can be non-trivial, and requires access to the MediaWiki namespace. Many's the time I have rolled-back or re-worked an imported template because it refused work away from home (and because I didn't have the patience to hack the CSS).

  It would be nice if a tool could automagically render them as seen in the source environment, but this is not merely a matter of transclusion. Is the tool up to it? Can we have a link to the mentioned prototype that "anybody" can try? ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• If Wikia's interclusion model is an accurate picture of the current built-in interclusion (interwiki transclusion, if I may coin a term) support in MediaWiki, when it is enabled, an intercluded template currently appears to be parsed prior to intercluding - this means if it relies on other templates which are not on the calling wiki, it will still render correctly, but also means that the template's output cannot be controlled on a per-wiki basis, whether by ParserFunctions or parameters passed (it would be possible to do with span/div classes and IDs, but would be messy). Does the new interclusion model provide any mechanism for such control, or does it work the same way? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 23:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• The most important effect of such transclusion is the possibility to create a central repository for the interwiki links saving a large amount of bot edits. --Nk (talk) 08:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-08-30/WikiProject report