The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-04-30. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• How on earth do you "ship" a plan? This article needs serious editing. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Congratulations Lila! I look forward to watching the announcement video and seeing what you can bring to the Wikimedia movement for several years to come. You have big shoes to fill! Zell Faze (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  Welcome, Lila. It is wonderful to have you join the WMF; I wish you every success in your upcoming work. – SJ + 22:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

  What SJ said ;) Pundit|utter 07:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What is her username? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: It is User:LilaTretikov. Zell Faze (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it? The userpage exists, as does the User talk, but there doesn't seem to be a registered user behind them. Powers ^T 18:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have been put up there by an employee of the WMF, User:JTrias (WMF). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a copy of a page on the Foundation Wiki as well. If we are blanking the page here, it might be worth doing there. Zell Faze (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the policy rules on the Foundation Wiki, so couldn't really comment - but I do feel that paid staff creating a user page and then putting up an unreferenced biography of their boss on the Wikipedia doesn't seem quite right to me. (NB: as per WP:NOPR) Hchc2009 (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Powers, the account is registered globally (from meta.wikimedia.org). It will become locally registered once Lila starts using it here.--Eloquence* 05:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Has she ever edited? What did the Board think of her software and business method patents? EllenCT (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I too would actually be somewhat interested in if she has ever edited Wikipedia prior to this. It would be a strange decision if she had not I would think. Zell Faze (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Apparently she is not an editor. She says so at about 29:45 into the Wikimedia Metrics May 2014 video. Zell Faze (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Some fresh eyes might be good. See my discussion here:

Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/Archive 6#Newsletter template for user pages? - it is actually a discussion about the VisualEditor (VE), and the need for true section editing before VE can be as revolutionary and fast as the wikitext editor. From reading her bio I doubt Lila Tretikov will be intimidated by the technical aspects of the Wikimedia software and developers. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know sports either, but I looked to see how Wikipedia explained the concept and I think Reception (American football) could stand some improvement. It seems that if you are throwing the ball from behind the line of scrimmage and the person catches it twelve yards away from the line of scrimmage and is immediately tackled, that's a twelve-yard gain. The article doesn't reall explain it. The featured list, I guess, doesn't have to.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  That's correct; if the ball is caught (and the receiver tackled) behind the line of scrimmage, even if it was a forward pass, the receiver is credited with a loss of yardage, and his cumulative receiving stats would go down. (In practice, it's rare for a completed pass to result in a loss of yards, but it is possible.) Powers ^T 18:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  Also of note is that yards after a catch (between reception and tackling/scoring/going out of bounds) also count toward receiving yardage. Powers ^T 18:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Great pics this week. Thank you. Tony (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

king Kohli Power of iron man 47.11.237.45 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

• Nice interview, and I am looking forward to participating in the PEM Edit-a-Thon tomorrow! Just one correction -- the interviewee's surname is Rodley, not Roley, as it displays here. Elizabeth Thomsen (talk) 23:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• I fixed the Adrianne Wadewitz Memorial Prize link at https://fundly.com/adrianne-wadewitz-memorial-prize-in-the-digital-humanities. — Cirt (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• The same (lengthy) sentence appears in the first AND third paragraphs: "The FDC is supported by WMF staff ...". That seems incorrect. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for your keen eyes. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Sentence "The study provide some interesting findings regarding academics view of benefits of Wikipedia-style peer review and publishing." should probably read "The study provides some interesting findings regarding academics view of benefits of Wikipedia-style peer review and publishing." Zell Faze (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Feel free to correct such minor errors yourself (see also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About). Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• The DOI for reference 9 is not found. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Good catch - that was imported from the ArXiv page where it is defective too. I have removed it here. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The study that famous academics live longer than famous artists and athletes neglects a major confounding variable: Athletes pretty much solely become famous by deeds done before they're thirty or fourty. Artists often become famous at a young age. The only way academics get famous is by a major discovery or decades of respected work, both of which mean that most academics likely would not qualify as famous until they were quite a bit older. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Plus the deaths of older athletes successful long ago may well not even be recorded on WP. When did you you last see a news report on, say, an Olympic bronze medallist of 40+ years ago? Also many biographies may well only appear after the publicity around a death, and handy sourcing from obituaries. Johnbod (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, Game of Thrones is always popular. Epicgenius (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

People read over season pages of a TV series not for the air dates (which are predictable) but for the episode recaps and guest cast information. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

So, they read these articles just for the recaps? (They can always re-watch it... ) Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Amazon is near the top because it's a huge company that affects everyone's lives. Their latest product isn't really a big deal and probably has nothing to do with it. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Amazon only rarely entered the top 25 before this year. Serendi^podous 10:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

"There is pretty good interchange between WikiProject Genetics and WikiProject Genetics, as one would expect," One would almost have to expect that a project communicates with itself. Is this a typo? Zell Faze (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

My first thought was WikiProject Biology, the parent project, but perhaps it's one of the other daughter WikiProjects? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on the later part of the sentence, I assume @Zellfaze meant to say WikiProject Human Genetic History. I'll let them change it if that is the case. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I've been bold and made the change (correction). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)