The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2017-06-09. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• While the Magioladitis case was handled well by the committee, on the whole, the last ruling (7 above) was a reversion to the "good old bad old days" in two respects: Firstly it made a rule out of something that had been agreed voluntarily, and secondly it was proposed on 22 February 2017, over two weeks after the nominal closure date for the case. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC).
  
• "seek consensus to perform a specific type of semi-automated edit that would normally fall under this restriction at the administrators' noticeboard." Bad move. The admin dramah noticeboard is not the right forum for making content-related decisions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

A heroic achievement ... thanks Armbrust. - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. It's quite glorious when presented this way, over months. More interesting than many things that have their own quarterly print publication. – SJ + 05:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to see fewer of them at a time. By the way, why is it not mentioned that Peter Dinklage is short? That influences the type roles he can gat.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure you received my email thanking you Armbrust (no access to the mailbox I sent it from), so I'll thank you again! I've used your work as the basis for a more detailed analysis of the successful FA nominations in the last quarter. Using your initial work, I've further organized the articles based on subject matter and noted the "importance" levels indicated on the talk page for each (most articles overall are of either low or mid importance on different projects).
The only talk page indicating a successful FA nomination of a top-importance article was strangely the article Monnow Bridge for project MonmouthPedia. Check the categorization out, en.wiki did well by "boats" & "birds" these last months, but didn't do that well closing the gender gap. SashiRolls (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

If anyone wants to assist in working on the Arbitration Report, that would be much helpful. Would love to get a helping hand with those. GamerPro64 02:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Drop me a note. I'm interested but would like to know about work load, article expectations, and etc. --Izno (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in helping out if you need it. Mz7 (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I would gladly help. I'm not sure how much I can help, but I will try. Just tell me what I can do. Eddie891 (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Has the readership of the Signpost dropped significantly or are you just short of editors? It's been a long while since I was a new user, and I'm not really sure how people find out about the Signpost these days. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 16:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Philosopher: Readership is still pretty good for this issue, and really good for the Op-ed, see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2017. Compare the current graphs on that page with the ones for earlier issues this year, in the collapsed box. I also add graphs for several issues from last year on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2016, and the pattern is pretty similar: A peak of a few hundred views the first day it is published, dropping down to and generally staying around 100 views per day by the second or third day. - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the Signpost would be interested in analysis of the $436K paid out in 2015-2016 to Minassian Media, Inc by the WMF according to their 2015 990 form. (The company is registered to Craig Minassian, Chief Communications Officer of the Clinton Foundation). Another story I'm working on is the superhuman effort of an editor who has written 17 book reviews this month. The two stories may even be loosely related based on political affiliation and strategy. SashiRolls (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@SashiRolls: Perhaps this is what the payments were for? meta:Communications/Wikimedia_Foundation_messaging_strategy/2014-16_audit Adamw (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's not all, because such a document (interesting as it is) isn't worth anywhere near that amount. There is also talk of training staff.SashiRolls (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind helping out a bit  TUXLIE  10:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

• The naming of this article after a transphobic and anti-feminist meme leaves a sour taste, especially given the English Wikipedia's history of hostility to trans people. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to draw the line somewhere. Maybe your user name could be offensive to people without arms or hearts. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• I share Arms & Hearts's concern. Even aside from the fact that this particular meme is rather distasteful, internet culture is hyper-transient and hardly universal, meaning that meme references may not be the best choice for Signpost stories. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• I'm also disappointed by the tone-deaf headline used here. You can do better. 75.12.90.111 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• Responding to Arms & Hearts, Josh Milburn, and the IP: As the author of the title here, I must confess I had no idea it could have negative implications. I certainly only meant it to be humorous; my knowledge of the term comes from a sarcastic teenage son. I'll try to Google better next time (and consider Josh's point about adapting memes).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Response to Wikipedia has cancer : the response is ludicrous: Wikipedia is not about "profit margins" indeed WMF does not have "profits" it has excess of income over expenditure. And despite Guy's (not unreasonable) concern that the expenditure line may cross the income line at some point, the main concern, I think, its that the money is used well. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC).
  

• A distinction without a difference. We all agree that the WMF has too much money, has wasted money already, and will likely waste more in the future. Money can be very corrupting. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• "and each receiving roughly 80% support"—now that would be worth reporting if it were true. Tony (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Join the RfC in response to this article. —A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 06:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

• Are there two date typos in this article? 2034 and 2021 are not here yet. Otherwise, very good use of examples. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • No, those are hypothetical future states. --Izno (talk) 03:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, Joe, this op-ed is so poorly written that I had the same initial reaction as you. Pox on this whole op-ed. Blech. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, that is a logical conclusion if you don't read the Op-ed. Carl u ^talk 07:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• I am in violent agreement with this op-ed. The fnords are out of control and we need to take what steps we can to rein them in. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• +1 @Kaldari. KISS principle! All the extra information would fit neatly into infoboxes for those who need/want it (and let it be pulled from Wikidata) rather than clogging up the lead. Make it happen number one. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • +1. Given Wikidata's motive to "collect structured data", I guess it stands as a natural and great choice to stop this metadata issue. This does require a progressive change as it affects the way people write/edit articles. This does require the consensus of the community. Hope it works! - - Kaartic ^{correct me, if i'm wrong} 10:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• This op-ed should be deepsixed. I was following along until it went into political April's Fools prank territory. This is a formal request to have this op-ed oversighted; just as the Trump/Wales April Fool's prank article ended up at Arb. Thank you. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Really? Have you nothing better to do? Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I can only assume that this request is some sort of meta-joke. No, we are not going to oversight that part of the article, as it does not qualify under the oversight criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC).
• Total agreement. I don't have a solution, but recognize the same problems and have also heard 'casual' users around me mention this at times. Maybe it would be interesting to do some sandbox experiments with alternate presentation styles of the same article. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 06:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • For years, I have diverted the top pronunciation as footnote ^"[p]" (where "p" means "pronounce") to explain spoken form, and we could also have footnote "[d]" for long dates and places beyond years "1510-1588" plus footnote "[aka]" for aliases of "Ghengis Khan" in 4 other languages. So, this is a simple problem to fix, while adding extra details in footnotes or wikilinks for birthdate (like Jimbo's two birthdates), Elvis is "still alive" or nn% frequency of alias usage. We need to standardize pronunciation footnote "[p]" with "[d]" and "[aka]" (or such). -Wikid77 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    • @Wikid77: That's a pretty cool idea! I might start using that myself. Kaldari (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I agree. That's a great solution, Wikid77. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
      • There's a local consensus that some video games editors observe to put the AKAs and the Japanese names of article topics inside a note, so this isn't so farfetched. --Izno (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• We've had this problem for a long time on medical articles as well, and we've been trying to move this type of data into the infobox. It would be nice to look at some of those articles as well, to see if the trend is any different. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Couldn't agree more. You could also have mentioned the unsightly and patronising proliferation of the respell templates which means that even very obvious words often have their pronunciation glossed in two different ways. I would get rid of respell completely, as it serves no real purpose and clogs up the leads of articles. --John (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Another +1 from me. If the purpose of this information is disambiguation, it should form part of the article title. If the purpose is to serve metadata then it belongs in the article's infobox. By using those two principles we can solve the problem completely. WaggersTALK 13:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• +1 I have been vigorously moving pronunciations of medications and diseases to the infobox. I have been moving etymology to the end of the lead or to the body. The first sentences of our article MUST be in English as much as possible on English Wikipedia. All pronunciations belong outside of the first sentence (in the infobox maybe) for all topics IMO. So do non English spellings. Only common alternative names and at most two should be allowed in the first sentence. Maybe we need a stronger policy about readable language? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• This is described as a metadata explosion issue. Wasn't Wikidata created as a solution to metadata surfacing issues? Maybe original language pronunciations etc. be toggled by the user, to go fetch them from Wikidata? I agree that this is a problem for many articles. - Bri (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• I don't see it as a problem - Once I see useless info I just skip to the next paragraph. As long as one paragraph doesn't have semi-useless info in the middle (but rather always at the end) it works OK. Ariel. (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • That seems like a dangerous assumption to make. All of the examples given in the article have material information in the first paragraph following the bracketed nonsense. And I'd argue that the fact that we have mostly-useless information that readers have to skip over is a problem in itself. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It pretty much is in the middle of the first sentence. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC).
      
• I sense this is an issue that deserves a more extensive discussion that the Talk page of a Signpost article really isn't the best place for. Would someone like to start a thread at WP:Village pump, where it will attract input from a wider group? -- llywrch (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• +1 Send to Infobox. Failing that, to a later paragraph Jim.henderson (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly agree - Doc James' solution is correct. But often there isn't an infobox, or you don't want it there, and most leads are too short, so a quick para at the end of the lead can hold it. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Where there isn't an infobox, why not use {{note}}? Putting this information in an endnote isn't ideal, but it's a lot better than cluttering up the lead. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
    • one can also put it in a section called pronunciation and etymology lower in articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• I would favour reducing this to years only for biographies. For towns, significant alternative names are fine, but pronunciation guides could be moved to infoboxes. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC).
  
  • I note that some content mining software throws away the parenthetical in the lead. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC).
    
• +1 infobox, -1 footnote. Keep it as structured as possible. Widefox; talk 17:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment expressed in the editorial. I also think Wikid77's idea of using explanatory footnotes is a great solution. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• Also agree it's a problem. The dates of birth and death are useful, and an occasional "must have" tidbit) but otherwise it belongs elsewhere than the lead. Jason Quinn (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • The years of birth and death are useful. The dates in more detail than that are clutter that belongs elsewhere in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Back in April, I went through all the FAs and GAs I'd worked on and moved much of the "clutter" to explanatory notes. No one's objected, and I think they look and read much better. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed with the sentiment here. I suggest a proper RfC and then we can start to trim the lead sentences back to shape. The metadata could be moved to infoboxes, or section on, uh, 'alternative names and related details'. Btw, I support keeping day and month of the birth and place for bio articles, it seems fine. No need for all the alt names, pronunciation, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Some alt names are certainly needed in the first sentence, but common sense needs to be used, which our keener crufters tend to lack. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• Spot on. Infoboxes are the place for this sort of thing. If only there weren't a minority opposed to using them in some articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• Glad to know I'm not the only one bugged by this. Move to infobox sounds like a good idea. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
• Agree. Superfluous info in lead sentence can be placed in the infobox, in the second sentence/paragraph of the lead, or in the body of the article. Also, both infobox and body might be used, and the metadata in the body could be expounded upon when appropriate (to address the "growing metadata" concern), some of which might not be needed in the infobox.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• Seconding Doc James's comments earlier above. He and I have worked through this issue on WP:MED articles to the point where all you need is any sensible combination of (1) infobox parameter values (for example, Synonyms, OtherName, Pronunciation, Pronounce, various date parameters) and (2) a section down lower in the article (for example, Etymology and pronunciation, History, Nomenclature, or Society and culture, depending on the instance), and you can include *all* information without clogging the lede *and* without sacrificing anything. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
• From a wide, reader-friendly (and sleeker metadata) outlook, I wholeheartedly and way thoroughly back the pith of this well-written op-ed. Give them a smooth shave by all means. But. I've always had a half-crazy, wonkish, fawnish fondness for those long and winding roads, those parenthesis-sliced, comma-delimited, italics-littered, IPA-riddled, hyperlink-hived lead sentences on en.WP, which I find even more fun in biographical articles. I'm down for 'em like nifty-quick little crossword puzzles! Gwen Gale (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• What this op-ed terms a "metadata virus" looks like a simple tendency to include as many translations of a name as possible, and is often easily solved using {{Infobox Chinese}} (misleadingly named, as it has options for all sorts of other languages). I'm ignoring the hypothetical example because that's never going to happen. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
  to reply to me 17:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
• I have seen quite a lot of activity in the past year of editors cutting lead sentences down to size. In fact I imagined that we'd already reached a consensus to have nothing more than dates in the parenthesis, so I use infoboxes for other stuff. If that's not already the standard, it should be, as the article implies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
• (copy of my RfC !vote) strongly support - more and more of a readers use mobile (up to 60% now) - clutter in the first sentences means absurd amounts of scrolling to get to anything meaningful. As a result the WMF started inserting the description field from Wikidata (unsourced, mostly unpatrolled) at the start of articles, to give readers a sense of what the article is about with reasonable efficiency. Vandalism that appeared in an article via the description field led to this ANI thread, which led to this RfC to ask WMF to stop using WIkidata this way (succeeded and done), which led User:Dank to open this thread at WT:FAC to make tight lead sentences part of FAR. This is important - we should not have clutter in the first 2.5 paragraphs - we have a responsibility to keep these sentences focused on content that summarizes the article. We have infoboxes and sections below for the details like etymology, pronunciation, alt names, etc.Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

See also the Meta-wiki talk page of this research newsletter issue

• I'm more concerned about bots second-guessing and repeatedly undoing the work of humans. There's a certain class of bots that dedicate themselves to reduce the quality of non-free images. This is OK for photographs, but they often turn screenshots of software into piss-poor quality, or even an unreadable mess (recent examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]). Even when a human reverts the mistake, the bot often comes back some time later and redoes the foolishness. Diego (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• I recall having read somewhere that most people outside of Wikimedia aren't actually sure of how internal Wikipedia processes work, hence the frequent misunderstandings. I can't find the source for that now (But if you know where it is, feel free to give me a shout), but it makes me wonder just how difficult is it exactly for outside reporters to actually find our internal processes to see that we're not the Barbaric website some school teachers want me to believe. For Yasseri to not mention the BAG even once in that article is surprising. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Heck, there are some 'academics' who think Wikipedia is a for-profit enterprise. There is a lot of research about Wikipedia written by people who don't know much about its internal process, and fail to even mention the existence of relevant policies/foras. Ex. I sometimes review papers on the educatonal approach, and half of them don't seem to realize the existence of the entire WP:SUP and related support framework. Perhaps even worse those papers sometimes fail to cite years of relevant literature in the field. Sigh. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• It's a little disturbing after all these years that there are still academics trying breaching experiments. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC).
  

@Rich Farmbrough: Hello, Rich. Which paper are you referring to? NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Trusting Wikipedia. Vandalism attacks and content resilience: an analysis model and some empirical evidence All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC).

• Jewish, Christian and Islamic in the English Wikipedia is an interesting paper. There are a few obvious but minor errors (such as "Jewish" where "Christian" is meant on P134), but one facet that attracted my attention was the statement that "Conservapedia-style" is a top collocate for "fundamentalism" - s far as I can tell the two terms only occur together on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 7, which suggests that there may be some issues with the text processing pipeline.

More interesting is the failure to see the wood for the trees: as an adjectival modifier Jewish/Judaic has the highest occurrence, followed by Islamic/Muslim, and Christian in distant third place -

Jewish/Judaic	207,283
Islamic/Muslim	176,592
Christian	134,650

What is the reason for this disparity? Possible reasons that spring to mind include treating Christianity as normative, boosterism (see the still unresolved issues with the contributions of User:Jagged 85 for example), a reluctance to label people and things as "Christian" and recentism in terms of coverage of 21st century events.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC).

• I am not fond of traditional peer review, but PLoS ONE seems to be almost like a self-publication platform. At least, I doubt that the quality of an average paper published there is better than the quality of an average conference paper. Given that even traditional peer review produces its fair share of bad papers, well... I wonder if there is any research on quality of PLoS ONE model? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've cleared 71 pages from Category:Pages with template loops, leaving 19. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC).
  

• Any chance we could have more of these?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)