The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2017-11-24. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• What does "opener tban blocked 7 November" mean? Typo or internal enwiki jargon? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  Jargon. I'm pretty sure the fully-expanded is "The user who submitted the arbitration request was blocked for violating a topic ban on 7 November" (which may have been unrelated). --Izno (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  As this is a multinational project, I would really appreciate if people refrained from usign slang, jargon, unnecesary abreviations, etc. Why? Well, I could have expressed my last sentence in something like: A vel si sus dejáis de rajar en una froma to chunga de fablar, que no sus entiendi un piho, odo. I bet that you have found the last sentence I at least a bit hard to understand, even if you know Spanish. Well, the same can happen with the English language. So, please, keep it simple if it can be. B25es (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  I've been bold and replaced the problematical word. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

  I made the report and apologize for the brevity. We were under quite a bit of time pressure especially with the US holiday in the background. It was also my first arbitration report writeup for Signpost. Which is a good time to plug joining the staff if you are interested in matters of writing. We can always use more hands. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-11-24/Featured content

• I'm sorry, but I'm not laughing. WP:SOFIXIT applies to the poor English ones; this is a collaborative project, and although I frequently wish those with poor English would write more simply so it would be easier to figure out the intended meaning, we need their enthusiasm and knowledge. The maths, engineering, and computer science I can't judge because of my own ignorance in such subjects, but I'm informed on a site that should not be named that two of the examples are by a distinguished expert. Wikipedia very much needs experts, and my impression is that that is how mathematics is written about. Not all our readers share my ignorance. We need articles on advanced topics, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Yngvadottir. Do you know where the shortcut SOFIXIT shortcut leads to? It leads to a Wikipedia namespace article entitled Be bold. Why shortcut to a six letter article via an eight letter shortcut? That is like spending $8 for $6 of value. It is very mean, condescending, and misconstrues the target article. It is not humourous. I am not laughing. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax:? They're both seven keystrokes. And you misspelt "humorous". Yngvadottir (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

...um..If I could understand the content, I could probably fix it. I love distinguished experts, I spend a lot of time hanging out with some. I am poking fun at the content not the contributor(s). I am perfectly fine if you don't laugh. Welcome to the majority. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• The poor English ones, I agree should just be fixed rather than mocked. The sci/tech ones are a serious problem though. Not because they're incorrect, but because anyone who can understand articles so dense with jargon and shoptalk has no need to consult a general purpose encyclopædia. In the meantime, they erroneously project the impression to laypeople that these topics are "hard'. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC).

But we're not just a general encyclopædia; we're a comprehensive one. Links make it much easier for readers than it was with print works (and we also have more pictures). And we should of course have basic and survey articles (and do). But difficult topics exist and we should cover them; for another example, we are consulted by medical students, so we should have specialised medical articles (like one of the other examples here) and not just basic material for laypeople. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion of some advanced materials, but to use Context switch as an example, that gobbledygook is in the article lede. I don't think it is unreasonable that articles should at least start off with some text that is comprehensible to a layperson, or even a first year university level student, before getting into the heavy jargon. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:17, 26 November 2017 (UTC).

Perhaps I am making fun of my own ignorance.Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not a techie, but I live among techies, and I don't find that excerpt objectionable. It endeavours to explain or contextualise each term a little, and presumably the body of the article clarifies further. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Not sure if this challenges the point or proves it, but the "holiday decoration" isn't DNA at all. It's a protein (or actually, three copies of the same protein) that interacts with DNA. You can see that in this picture - all three protein copies are green, the candycane in the middle is the DNA (double-stranded; one strand is white and one is red). Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It still looks like a holiday decoration and I am tickled that DNA can be synthesized by mind control. It will make a marvelous barnstar. I am putting my image as I spread Christmas cheer on talk pages. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia has the perennial problem of being not sure of who the "implied reader" is for an article. I did not find the lead for the "Context Switch" article to be particularly dense: according to this readability analyzer, it is about "college graduate" level, which is roughly when the material would typically be taught (maybe college undergraduate, but close enough). Incidentally, it has roughly the same readability as the lead for Rhetoric. The lead for "Context Switch" does contain jargon; but the words are all wikilinked, and one really needs some background before one can understand the concept. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Kingsindian. According to surveys, 25 percent of English Wikipedia readers/editors are between the ages of 10 and 17. The average reader/editor has a sixth grade reading level. The lead of an article is supposed to be a hook. It should include running prose from each section in the article. A good distillation of the lead creation guidelines can be found here. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: According to which surveys exactly (link)? Not the 2012 editor survey, where only 15.6% of editors were 18 or younger. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Tbayer (WMF). The survey that I read, silly. LOL. It blended editors and readers as "cohorts". Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Read where? Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia humor is like golf humor. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Remember folks, this is humour (in theory). Like I said before I created the list of articles that readers were supposed to guess, I mentioned that Wikipedia can be (probably not meant to be) a form of entertainment. BTW I like writing for eighth graders. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Daily page views Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Not only are people amusing themselves to death, the rest of the time they are spending time gumming up Wikimedia's servers with incredibly detailed and inane content describing what they just watched on television. I love the X-files but why when Scully scratches her nose why we have to read that in an article? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want to read detailed summaries about X-Files episodes, then don't read articles about individual X-Files episodes. There about 5 million alternatives that might interest you more. Abyssal (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks Brianboulton for producing so much wonderful work. And the interview shows you're pretty wise as well! Congratulations on these achievements. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks to Brianboulton but also thanks to The Signpost for this very enlightening interview. Am I mistaken but it seems as if individual interviews in The Signpost are pretty infrequent. There must be plenty of people whose interview would make interesting content. Thanks for persistent existence! - kosboot (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• What a wonderful article! I would love to meet you. Thank you Eddie891 for writing this piece. I think I also had Ms. Tinkler as my piano teacher. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Brian and Eddie, thanks for the very interesting interview. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Congratulations on the milestone! There are so many gems in that list—quite the inspiration—but even that effort may be outshined by your continued FAC reviews, helping others achieve the same. While I appreciated the interview, I can't help but feel that the trivia questions (favorite contribs, pet peeve) belie the actual wisdom behind writing 100 featured articles... For anyone who's listening, I'd be interested in a compilation of research and writing tips/reflections from FA stalwarts: what they've learned about sourcing, revision, working with other editors, killing your darlings, even choosing topics based on available source material. czar 15:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Glad to see I'm not the only oldtimer still around & active. -- llywrch (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• I would simply like to congratulate The Signpost staff on a very fresh and informative edition. The COI/paid editing bit was very interesting to read. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Seconding Indy !! Thanks people—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• We also have this RfC on Meta looking at further efforts to decrease impersonation and undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

• I would be very grateful if anyone can forward to me a pre-print of Emotional content in Wikipedia articles on negative man-made and nature-made events. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC).
  
• Thank you, Tilman Bayer. I didn't know about this dataset, which is very interesting to check the provenance of the text of English Wikipedia. It could be interesting to make the same with the another wikis with more contributions (as Spanish and Italian wikis). I am sure that we can contrast both datasets, if it exists someday. Yours Sincerely, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 19:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Ivanhercaz, we are currently producing this dataset for more languages and already have an API running for EN, DE, TR, EU -- Spanish will be added soon as well. Check out https://api.wikiwho.net/ for the APIs and https://f-squared.org/whovisual/#color for a visual tool that shows you the provenance of words (so far in the 4 languages mentioned above) FaFlo (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-11-24/Technology report

Why is the XXX franchise excluded? Why was it on the list to begin with?Nikki Lee 1999 (talk) 21:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• • @Nikki Lee 1999: It would've been in the WP:TOP25, if not for the fact that we exclude articles with almost no mobile views, almost all mobile views... and articles that have no excuse for having such high views, such as XXX. igordebraga ≠ 15:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Dear people of the Signpost (or at least Evad37), this article answers the age-old question posed here: Talk:Richard Wagner#views. Perhaps you'll include that in your next issue. Softlavender (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Very interesting. I would like to be notified when this is available for other languages. --Nattes à chat (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• Amazing creation Bobo.03! It definitely is good in an age where 95% of valuable newbies get discouraged by veteran editors... J947 ^{(c · m)} 21:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
• The creator of this tool used it for WikiProject Women's health and it works extremely well. It also seems to identify a project's most active contributors. This is a good way to determine who are the editors that probably deserve a barnstar or two. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• I'm really excited by the potential for routing editors towards active, subject-focused working groups. Sometimes Wikipedia can feel like an empty desert with an occasional thorny critique. I think this project has the potential to help people find others to work with and a larger purpose to their effort. I'm really excited by the idea that WikiProject Recommendations might help revive some struggling/inactive WikiProjects and help new initiatives grow quickly. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
• Thank you all for your encouragement! We will keep improving our system to provide good recommendations. Hope it would help newbies get involved in the community, and help WikiProjects find helpers! Bobo.03 (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
• Very interesting! Thanks for your work :) Jean-Fred (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)