The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-10-24. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-24/Arbitration report

• What happened to the discussions about the editor's favorite FA? Buggie111 (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • We did it for six months, and it was worthwhile IMO, but there was a lot of flack about it from FAC ("culture of reward"), and it was an awful lot of work. I felt the new year was a good time to give it a rest and explore different ways of appealing to readers. It can always be revisited if people want it. Tony (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'd be more than happy to coordinate the Dispatch and Opinion sections. Since it mostly involves finding other people with interesting and important things to say, then placing everything in their proper Signpost templates, I don't see it as being a particularly major time commitment, so it would be easy to fit into my current schedule. Also, since I spent large amounts of time on Wikipedia on a nearly daily basis, I can have things ready well before publishing. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Per this thread, I am withdrawing my willingness to get involved in the Dispatches section. We haven't even done anything yet and the work environment is already so hostile that I know that I'll get sucked into some pointless factionalistic brawl sooner rather than later if I stay, and I'd rather avoid that. If anyone else wants the dispatches, you should know that it's got serious history, and not in a good way. Perhaps it is better off staying dead. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Since Dispatches fell through, I'd be willing to help out with the Discussion Report, unless, of course, that also has an unseemly backstory. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
• I could tentatively write the better chunk of N&N again, once in a while, when I have the time on the weekends. Maybe every couple of weeks. We shall see. ResMar 03:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• "News & Notes" is the best part of the publication. Carrite (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• I can re-activate sister project (which was started by me) but the earliest time that I can re-activate this section is mid-December. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 12:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical was written up here and here. I hope that we attracted at least a half dozen new Wikipedians into the fold. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a heuristic that basically looks at text in BLP and checks for "death" and "departed" or whatever euphemisms to alert editors to changes that show this, and place it under review before approval? That way, people can't be reported as deceased unless it's confirmed by at least 2 other editors...Hires an editor (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

We literally have no infrastructure for doing that. Well, we did kind of have an infrastructure (pending changes - love it or loathe it) but it was met with a lukewarm reception by the community and is now not being used. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 23:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I welcome this appointment. I have complained long and hard about the vague line between the community and the WMF, the lack of transparency, and the oblivion as to who is really in charge of anything. The issues surrounding the ACTRIAL and the India Education Program were prime examples. When I drafted and proposed the New Page Patrol Survey, I almost took for granted that it was going to be another lost cause, but working with Oliver and Howie has restored some of my confidence that the community's voice will be better heard in the future. Congratulations to Oliver on his new post. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung! It's genuinely great to know I've started to help improve things. As always, a lot of credit has to go to you - your workload is phenomenal. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oliver is an excellent choice as a representative of the community and I am pleased that the low value, space-hogging atrocity that is the feedback bar is being remade from the ground up. Keep the vertical height tiny, please! And we particularly don't need the "I am an expert on this subject" box. Carrite (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  I'll take that into account! You know, we've got an Office Hours session tonight to discuss it - want to come along? If so, I can ping you the details. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

An interesting feature of WP:V, which is really only explained in the additional WP:Published page is that once the last known copy of some work disappears, it can no longer be cited in Wikipedia. The boundaries are even more obscure when it comes to other type of items that must be considered publicly accessible to be verifiable. Uʔ (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting opinion, but what's the frog doing there? It's extinct, and a wikipedia article won't bring it back. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

November @ Wikisource: is validation month. Rather than the usual project of undertaking to transcribe a work, it is the month where the focus is on progressing works that have proofread once, to proofread twice or more. Always open for new participants! — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's emblematic of the species that are becoming extinct everyday, many of them without humans ever discovering their existence. In the Golden Toad case, we managed to get some science done. Perhaps we can learn from their extinction. But, if we don't preserve knowledge about their extinction, there is no opportunity to learn. Do you cry for what is lost that was never known or only for that which is known? Is it then better to not know at all? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

This article underscores the importance of the offsite backup program discussed in the last issue of Signpost. The engineers for WMF should have plans for worse-case scenarios such that Wikipedia is not lost. Wikipedia should survive even if a nuclear bomb were dropped on a WMF server farm or two. As the article shows, libraries do not survive wars. Wikipedia should be able to survive even a nuclear war... literally. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• What astonishes me is that it took the WMF ten years to think "Hey, maybe we should have an off site backup?" --Hammersoft (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Why don't we sell DVD sets of the backups for the fundraiser? Actually anyone could do that, as long as they can download the mirrors. Dualus (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• • Part of that is that for a long time getting dumps at all was patchy. Wikipedia experienced very rapid growth, and it became really hard to package it up and give it to someone else to keep hold of, especially with the expectation that their copy be kept up to date. The technology needed time (and a lot of hard work) to catch up. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 23:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

• I like the addition of an opinion column in the Signpost. I hope it sticks.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Starting with the issue on October 31st, I will be the Opinion Desk manager. I intend on trying my very hardest to ensure that the column does, in fact, continue. I've got one piece for the 31st, a tentative piece for Noverber 7th, and an interesting idea for column for the long term, which I'll roll out the first week that no one's brought anything in. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:43, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

People interested on this topic can read more here Lost Memory - Libraries and archives destroyed in the twentieth century (Archived August 30, 2011, at WebCite). Regards. emijrp (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Also read an interesting related discussion at the Reference desk archives: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 14#Knowlege. -- œ^™ 04:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The current way in which interwiki link synchronization is handled is pretty poor, so even a minor improvement would certainly help. The meta pages on this are practically abandonware. There was a brief academic project to do some semi-automated graph analysis in late 2008, but it died out. Uʔ (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• Les deux! ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
  _Contribs • 15:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
• The WikiProject Japan logo also includes a representation of the Pleiades as well as the ubiquitous "rising sun". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
• "Regardless of whether you love or hate her, she's the most influential icon that Wikipedia has ever seen" hmm - I rather think the wikipedia logo itself is the most influential icon that wikipedia has ever seen :P Ajbpearce (talk) 12:54, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that comment is referring to the fact that Wikipe-tan has been the subject of newspaper reports and other discussion outside of Wikimedia projects. Generally, the logo isn't discussed outside of Wikimedia forums. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
• Great article and a very eye-pleasing addition to Signpost. --bodnotbod (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the logo for Wp:WikiProject Breakfast which did not exist when this feature was published. I believe this logo was created by Northamerica1000. XOttawahitech (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's the image being used on project pages, since it conveys breakfast foods. However, I didn't upload the file itself. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)