The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-11-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• The Ontario Highway 403 blurb is a joke, right? If so, it's not a very funny one. TCN7JM 03:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think I'll edit that. --Pine^✉ 08:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, my mistake: I forgot that humour is not allowed under any circumstances. My commiserations on the loss of yours. - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Humor is fine, SchroCat, but you have to be very careful in its use in something that's designed to be a listing of our newest featured content. Lots of hard work goes into research and writing FAs, and then for the subject of an article to be so flippantly dismissed as it was... well, let's just say it comes across as a flippant dismissal of that hard work writing and researching the article. Imzadi 1979 → 05:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• It's utter nonsense to say that describing a road as "large, grey and made of tarmac" is dismissive of the article or it's writer: the connection doesn't exist, so don't try and force it. I'm not sure why the need for your further comment five days after the hugely offensive text was altered – there's enough drama on wiki as it is, without stoking the fires of a dead non-issue. There is also no need for the patronising note either: considering the featured content I have been involved with, and the role I take as an FL delegate, I am fully aware that "hard work goes into research and writing" any featured content, so please don't include such a condescending note – try using humour instead... – SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Try self-depreciating humour. The number of times I've been working on one of these, and realised I had to write a blurb for (say) some complicated sporting event which I knew nothing about, and the only way forwards was to make a joke about how I really shouldn't be writing the blurbs for complicated sports articles... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how this page is put together, or where the following text is (evidently) transcluded from, so I can only comment here. @Lady Lotus:? Boldface added.

Robert Downey, Jr. filmography (nominated by LADY LOTUS) Downey Jr. has had a colourful past that saw a promising start to his career take a dip in the late 1990s before he came back stronger than ever to become one of Hollywood's hottest properties. His early career saw him appearing in Weird Science (1985), Air America (1990) and Chaplin (1992). He received several nominations and awards for his portrayal of Charlie Chaplin. After drugs issues, leading to arrests, time in prison and rehab, Downey, Jr. gave up drugs in 2003. Since becoming clean, Downey, Jr. has appeared in a series of blockbuster films, including as Tony Stark / Iron Man in Iron Man (2008), a role he later reprised in Iron Man 2 (2010), The Avengers (2012), Iron Man 3 (2013) and The Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015). He has also played Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock Holmes (2009) and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011).

Since when has "Jr." been treated as part of the last name? Never, as far as I know, and certainly not in the article this paragraph is about, which refers to him three times after the beginning, each time as just "Downey". --Thnidu (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Thnidu that the "Jr." is unnecessary. It would be relevant if we had difficulty distinguishing in the paragraph between one Downey and another. --Pine^✉ 08:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The ¶ about Franz Lehár says

for example, the waltz from The Merry Widow was used in Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood for that show's variant of a "Happy Birthday" song.

Fred Rogers would have not have been happy. His show was titled Mister (not Mr.) Rogers’ (no d, and with an apostrophe) Neighborhood. --Thnidu (talk) 07:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thnidu yes, that's an error. Thanks for fixing it. --Pine^✉ 08:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was kind of working through a cold and thought, "Hmm. Is this right? Well, it's not redlinking...." Adam Cuerden ^(talk)

I fixed it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: ...I really shouldn't presume people fixed it already without checking. Thanks! Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Neutral Ireland"? Err, no, at the time the whole of Ireland was part of the UK. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think someone misread the article when writing that summary. I'll remove "neutral". Thanks. --Pine^✉ 08:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Take Me To Church," finally! Smart people are Lithuanian. LonelyLaura (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

" Despite this, there are 328 images in the Wikimedia Commons category Eiffel Tower at night.". So how long until some copyright-paranoia-fanatic starts some deletion discussions on Commons? Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Though the Eiffel Tower light show is copyrighted, now and then just the safety lights are on, which are *not* copyrighted, therefore, those images may reside on Commons. I suppose we could also supplement our "blacked-out" Atomium picture with an artistic night photo where the safety lights are off on the Atomium and only foreground objects are visible. I am hoping that the new Wikimedia Belgium chapter will be able to do a bit of lobbying in Brussles on this issue, starting of course, with the Atomium itself. Jane (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Piotrus. As Jane says, saying that “The more recently installed lights on the Tower mean, however, that photographs taken at night fall under these copyright restrictions.” is quite inaccurate. See the explanations in c:Category:Eiffel Tower at night, as well as the pages linked there, such as c:Category:Eiffel Tower-related deletion requests , and if you read French this piece “Photographie de nuit: ce que l’on sait sur l’éclairage de la tour Eiffel” by User:PierreSelim. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyrighted panorama right is a huge issue in Indonesia-related wiki article. I have no idea that France adopted the same principle. It's a selfish principle in my opinion.--Rochelimit (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Despite the heartfelt and scathing appeal in The Signpost, I note that Wikipedians have resisted changing one jot or tittle of the article on Hedy Lamarr, insisting that a brief nude scene in a 1933 foreign language film is more familiar to the readers than their cell phones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-11-12/Traffic report

• I am not sure we would meet the WP:GNG notability requirement for most hospitals. The review sources mentioned by Bluerasberry would probably be considered indiscriminate for the purposes of notability. They also would be considered primary sources even if reprinted by other organizations, and would therefore be subject to the objection that the data needs interpretation. And I've found it quite difficult finding other sources for most hospitals that were more than incidental mentions or press releases. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

DGG I also am unsure of the use of these kinds of sources. It is a difficult situation. The sources I describe are generated by third party oversight organizations of the sort which are supposed to detect mismanagement of taxpayer funds and hospital safety, but I agree with DGG that the nature of their publication puts them in an odd space where they simultaneously meet and fail to meet WP:RS in atypical ways. I agree with DGG that most hospital coverage is incidental mentions. I could be misguided about what I am thinking and would not take action in this direction without a lot of community consultation. Right now, what I described probably is not even possible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)