The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-10-22. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-22/Featured content

Why use the pull-quote format for block quotes? This sets a terrible example. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Block_quotations. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:MOS, "The Manual of Style ... is a style manual for all Wikipedia articles." The Signpost is in the Wikipedia namespace, not the (Main/Article) namespace (see WP:PRJ). As WP:ARTICLE states, "Disambiguation pages, templates, navboxes, user pages, discussion pages, file pages, category pages, help pages and Wikipedia policy pages are not articles." Therefore WP:MOS does not apply. Furthermore, the Signpost is a newsletter, and necessarily employs a different style. Even the methods for the Wikikpedia namespace are different at the Mediawiki level; for instance, external links are represented differently than in the (Main/Article) namespace. Peaceray (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I use the {{pulled quote}} liberally in the Signpost, but at the same time, if I encountered it in an article, I would be among the first to make an edit converting it to a quote template that did adhere to WP:MOS. Peaceray (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

New challenges to come: Charter of WikiMedia Movement (WMM-Charter). 84.62.180.179 (talk) 22:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a link / wikilink for this? Peaceray (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

here. --84.62.130.14 (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Before five minutes ago I had never heard of this movement.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know what part of the world you live in, but anyone in the U.S. paying attention to news has heard of it many times... AnonMoos (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

You can blame not hearing about this on a combination of the Ebola Outbreak, Media Bias, and the precedence given to more local news over national and international news. I'm sure another part of the equation here is the fact that Hong Kong now belongs to the People's Republic of Chine, and I am certain that their censures are moving heaven and earth to keep this out of the media's eye(s) as much as is humanly possible for the communist government. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It gets plentiful attention on evening TV news except in, mainly, USA and China. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

for that matter, there is a link on the MAIN PAGE since 2 weeks ago.... SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any mention of famine? SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

• If we required all new articles to be created from a red link, there would be very few orphans in the first place. (Doesn't help the existing orphans, but can prevent making the problem worse). Kerry (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Its a slippery slope. If we required all articles to have categories, we'd have less articles needing categories, etc.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Scarily describing "a huge task" in the headline may be off-putting. While there are indeed a lot of such articles, de-orphaning a single article is a small task, and ideally suited to those with small amounts of free time, or those making tentative first contributions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can always edit the title if you feel you want to - this is a wiki. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (commune) @ 11:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

We want people to read these articles too, i would have preferred "Project may be drowned by orphans unless you help now!!" but they didn't ask me.  :-) --Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Glad to read this report -- didn't even know about this worthy project!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• Evidently, there is much, much more activity on this project than is apparent at first glance. In just one category alone, Category:Orphaned articles from February 2009, the month that articles were tagged by a bot, the backlog has been reduced by 90,000 articles !!! It was at 114,437 in 1 March 2009, and today, 26 October 2014, it's down to 24,940.

Congratulations, de-orphaners! -- Djembayz (talk) 21:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)