The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-12-24. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• "Battlecruiser operational"—sounds familiar. --Izno (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

   — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  @Izno: Thinkin' the same thing. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  Somethin' on yo' mind? Buggie111 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Wadya need? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  I don't have time for games! --Izno (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  Easily amused, huh? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

  You want another physical? Buggie111 (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Cite4wiki "on e-death's door"? Come, come. The Signpost would do well to resist the urge to overdramatize. It was a trivial bug, and I have been able to fix it, and all is well. Ijon (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The story states: "AffCom, traditionally dominated by chapter functionaries (...)". I'd like to point out that this might give a somewhat wrong impression. At least at this point it is not true (I know for sure at least four members are not on any chapter board at this point) although it happened to be true in the last appointment round beginning 2012. Before then, it was a small majority of functionaries and begin 2010 even a minority. It is true though that most members have experience in one of the Wikimedia organizations - be it the Wikimedia Foundation or one of the chapters. The can be as current or former board member, or in another way (active volunteer). effeietsanders 23:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or has the WMF stopped acting in good faith when it comes to the creation of chapters and chapter-like groups? I know that they can't get along with some of the larger regional chapters, but the latest proposals on their end seem to focus on making group formation more confusing for everyone (in the name of making things less confusing, ironically), and trying to create a great deal of distance between chapters and the foundation. If the WMF wants to get rid of chapter groups, they should come out and say it, instead of using a long, drawn out, campaign of passive-aggressive behavior to make people feel unwelcome. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, it's just you. WMF is interested in the creation of chapters and chapter-like groups, and is actively supporting the creation, or work towards the creation, of such groups. Such groups will tell you that, as will AffCom. WMF also gets along just fine with "the larger regional chapters", AFAIK.

  So, if instead of vague suspicions you'd like to propose improvements, by all means do so (but please consider doing so in appropriate talk pages, on Meta, rather than here. Ijon (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That is good news in this Holiday season! Everytime I try to understand the whole Toolserver problem I keep thinking of that line from the movie Cool Hand Luke where the guard beats up a prison inmate and then calmly explains "What we've got here is (a) failure to communicate". Jane (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No offense, and I'm not sure what engvar applies to the Signpost but it's normalise, quoted, in the header, and normalize, in an unattributed quote, in the body. Perhaps it would be best to avoid both usages.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I'm pretty sure we're not permitted to change spelling variety in quotes (MOS). It does lead to clashes within text, but there's no perfect way. Tony (talk) 13:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

But my point (badly expressed, I'm afraid) is that you did just that. Which is the quoted word? Normalize or normalise?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Quite. I'm afraid I was sufficiently ambivalent about changing the original z to an s (all Tech Reports I write are in British English for personal convenience) that I changed my mind halfway through. Correct now though :) Happy tidings, - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• The way I look at it, as interested person but not a developer of any kind, was that I was rather a bomb that was dropped, then a bit of negotiation about the end of the Toolserver. But I am aware I don't know all the ins and outs. Main question is, why the tight schedule of conversion? That Wikilabs will be live soon, okay. But why immediately closedown Toolserver? Can the transition period not a bit longer (an extra year or so) to give less pressure and stress? When tools and bot are gradually moved to Wikilabs, the load on Toolserver will also gradually get lower. Most likely, that will make investment in new equipment superfluous, reducing costs for Toolserver. The way I look at it, Sumana Harihareswara has a nice challenge on his hands. First, she will have to restore confidence between the Toolserver lads and lasses. Second, she will need to start a kind of Outreach and or Helpdesk, to assist the tool and bot managers to move over. I have every confidence that she will be able to do that, but not in the present, limited time schedule. The Banner _talk 11:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If the production database replication and access (i.e., cross-database joins and joins with user databases) turns out to work better, faster, more reliably, or with less lag on Labs than the Toolserver, I suspect volunteers will quickly flock to it in droves. But that remains to be seen. We should know in the next three months. 70.59.14.20 (talk) 13:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• I am a Toolserver developer who runs a handful of tools from the system. I'm used to the way it works and it's fairly simple to get things done. However, with the downtime in 2012 and the prospect of it being gone, I thought I would migrate to Labs. I talked with the Labs team and set up an account and a million other things in a complex system of projects, instances, permissions, keys - at the end of the day the idea of running tools on a LAMP stack was really a lot of work. I'm still at the Toolserver. Mono 18:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• WMDE? PEAOFU (Please explain acronym on first use) - Nabla (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Jarry1250 - Nabla (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have always been a bit worried that Toolserver was a risk point for the project. I am however more worried that WMF is trying to Borg it. Freedom to fork is critical, having Toolserver independent helps that freedom. I am also concerned with the bureaucratic overhead Mono mentions above. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC).
  

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-24/WikiProject report