The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-07-18. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• I have a strong opinion on the motions, and I'm sure many, many other users have strong opinions on the motions. Let's keep them off this page please. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Concur with Sven. This has become a running trend with the Signpost. Either make a separate section and label it clearly as "Editorial Opinion" or keep that stuff out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If this current report includes opinion, I don't see it -- though I haven't checked the linked information, which may show bias, perhaps. (I did check the history of this page and its talk page in case the "opinion" had already been edited, but I didn't see it there either.) Mark Hurd (talk) 02:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• You mean people have strong opinions about tree shaping? And they've been ranting about it here? I'm truly sorry. -- llywrch (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor clarification: For the sake of discussion, Hayley McFarland (Emily in the show) is not the main actress, she's the third or fourth most important actress in the series, and is somewhere in the range of sixth on the list most important characters. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Just changed that myself before noticed your comment. NW (Talk) 01:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oregon has a "oregon encyclopedia", since they thought the Wiki model was too fast and loose. It's called The Oregon Encyclopedia. User:Peteforsyth has discussed the project on local radio, and it also led WikiProject Oregon to create a faux article about every Oregonian's Aunt Betty. tedder (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• If Matthew Lewis wants a better image in his article, by all means he should send Wikipedia one (under a free use license, of course). I would have to believe that he has several commissioned professional portrait photographs to choose from. All he has to do is follow the easy steps at WP:IOWN. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I doubt he reads our internal newsletter. I found a new image, but the best thing to do would be to contact him. I tried searching for his FB account, but no luck. Perhaps someone can (politely) contact his agent.--Chaser2 (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • If I were Matthew Lewis, I'd be even less pleased with the pic of the nerdy-looking 14-year-old than with the pic of the hot 20-year-old with the slightly derp expression on his face. Angr (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Well thanks to the current round of PR for the last movie in the series, Matthew's getting to a number of premieres and interviews which means there's photos being taken of him. I found one nice image on Flickr and got the account holder to change the license so we can use it. <G> Tabercil (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Ah, good. Thanks for doing that Tabercil.--Chaser2 (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• "Wikipedia now flags pages that have fewer citations" <chuckle> nice to have that recognised in the Sci Am blog, we have been flagging such articles for at least four years. Rich Farmbrough, 02:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC).
  
  • Though when you read the article, the impression is that there is some sort of system (human or automated) that takes care of this: Some individual pages may still need caution, but for these, you will get a warning right at the top. (As we know, whether or not an article has a tag/template at the top, regarding its quality, depends simply on whether one of the Wikipedia editors has decided to post such a tag/template, or not.) It's quite counter-intuitive (to someone not involved in editing Wikipedia) that there really isn't anyone in charge, let alone someone (or a system) that is able to ensure consistency. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• When you try to access Tennessee's "free rival encyclopaedia" you get this message: "You must be a resident of Tennessee in order to access these databases. Please click here to validate your Tennessee zipcode and telephone number." --Guy Macon (talk) 11:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

So may be not so free. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

On the plus side, that means that this dubious "rival" is rapidly on its way to being obsolete. Dcoetzee 18:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Article Feedback" - I hope that it can be stopped from entering on plwiki (In the worst case it can be hidden in all skins) Bulwersator (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"one of the benefits of the tool is its increase in the number of people editing" -> "Once users have successfully submitted a rating, a randomly selected subset of them are shown an invitation to edit the page. Of the users that were invited to edit, 17% attempted to edit the page." - so maybe invitations caused this effect? Bulwersator (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah! I've always been a fan of article feedback. We'll have it on every article in no time. --Nathan2055^talk 17:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "attempted to edit" is a little worrying. Rich Farmbrough, 09:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

I've come across this before, I think it means we have stats on people who click on edit, but not everyone who does so successfully saves. For busy articles such as brand new ones that could mean edit conflicts, popular wisdom has it that a large proportion off those who click edit but don't save are thrown by the html. Some of course will simply be defeated by the slow connection speeds, particularly in parts of the world where Wikipedia access is slowest. I hope quite a few are dissuaded by the editfilters, and of course some people will have second thoughts and decide that maybe the existing wording is the least inelegant way to express something. I don't think we should expect that every time someone clicks edit they will go on to click save, but its good to see that for this group it is a large majority. ϢereSpielChequers 12:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage of the feedback tool: http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1030099--you-can-now-rate-wikipedia-entries-not-everyone-is-pleased?bn=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.10.35 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we are not going to be running a MoodBar trial this week. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Could you update the wikitech page with a new date, perhaps? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 00:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Would love to, but I'm not the guy who makes for dates, as it were. I can say that development is underway, and that test deployment is probably next week. I cannot speak to when a "real" deployment happens, though, as we have to run user testing. And I'm going on vacation for a week starting Wednesday.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 04:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.18 was rebranched. --Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 03:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious title. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It got me too. First I was like: :/, but then I :D'ed. Resolute 01:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent headline! Made me laugh. – SMasters (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I thought it could have been vandalism for a moment. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too. I was even going to change it. 76.11.11.253 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I was "rolling on the floor". Funniest article here in a long time (perhaps even April 1s) W Nowicki (talk)

By far. 76.11.11.253 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The content of the article is also rather good. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• It was better. I'd love to use something like this as a DYK hook. (I thought we got hacked for a bit) Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Great title, and it's purely great to see how active MER-C has continued to be (since 2006 to my knowledge) in this essential defense of Wikipedia's validity against vanispamcruftisement of all sorts. – Athaenara ✉ 02:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• I saw the title at the signpost mainpage and my first thought was: "Oh great, now vandals are hitting project pages." Happy to see I was wrong. :) –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• Am I missing something? I read the whole article, but it didn't tell me where I get the Viagra and replica watches from. Surely some external link should be provided? </irony> —An  optimist on the run! 16:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You need to open a Bank of WP account first, then post your account details on the talk page, along with scans of three recent utilities bills and your social security number. We'll be in touch. Please read our "Buy Excellent And Nice Stuff" promotional material at WP:BEANS for more bargains. Brammers (talk/c) 14:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, I really enjoyed reading this article. It is light and fun reading yet it does serious work for the project. It's nice to know that serious things around here can actually at times be enjoyable. Good work everyone! --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)