The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2013-11-13. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-11-13/Discussion report

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-11-13/Featured content

We can't turn off VE and then "expect to be the main focus of development"? Seems petty. And pointless. How does the language of a wiki that a VE bug was found in bear upon the importance of that bug? In most cases it doesn't. The bug could reoccur on any wiki. A bug is a bug, end of story.--greenrd (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

However in practice the bug/feature line tends to blur a bit so its fairly reasonable that features for other projects be given priority. If their work squashes some bugs in the process thats all to the good for when we next look at VE.©[[user:Geni|Geni]] (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

If the WMF concentrated more on issues brought forwards by the community than we would likely have more successful projects. For example I brought forwards one significant issue I see (not enough technical tools to deal with copyright infringement [1]). Not sure if it will change anything though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I read : "the current figures are staggeringly lower—almost universally in the 200,000s—for unknown reasons". There is a simple explanation, stats.grok.se only counts the hits in HTTP, not HTTPS. If you are not convinced, see the stats for this Signpost issue [2]. Many anonymous readers use HTTP, but not the registered users anymore. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah so you mean this might simply be a technical issue with counting? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the software guy who wrote that program never expected to count anything else than HTTP requests. He can modify the program, but if I am right, he has no intention to enhance the program in order to count the HTTPS requests. I would guess that he knows the problem, but cannot figure out an easy way to change the program. Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Nope does not appear to be the issue [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought the summary chart was particularly useful and raised it for Wikimedia UK member's attention at wmuk:Water cooler#WMF assessment of WMUK's $707,000 bid.

For Wikimedia UK, the FDC process clarified that less than 48% of donated funds go to projects with outcomes in line with the charity's mission, the rest of the funds going on administration such lawyers, employment costs, rent, and local fund-raising.^‡. Despite asking several times for the cost of administration to be published by chapters, very few publish anything like these figures, or make them impossibly complex to work out and strongly resist the proposal that this become a hard measurement; so Wikimedia UK was not alone in making this tough to calculate.

Speaking as a past Chapters Association Chair and Wikimedia UK Chair, with a good awareness of the value and organization of chapters, if there is one key improvement I would like to see the FDC put in place, it would be to firmly insist that all chapters submitting proposals make public an easy to understand ratio of "administration : fund-raising : programmes" so that anyone can compare the efficiency of one Chapter with another. There would be obvious benefits to learning from each other, and to judge if our "maturity model" inevitably means increasing employee numbers and indefinitely increasing demands for more funding, or whether organic and (unpaid) volunteer-centric ways of growing Chapters can become a strategic goal.

‡ Reports do not count the cost of the WMF doing its global fundraising which creates the main income for the chapter, as this is effectively a "free" service to Wikimedia UK regardless of the equivalent employee costs. The declared fund-raising costs are in addition to this core cost, so if efficiency were measured movement-wide, it would fall significantly below 50%. --Fæ (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hello Tony1, thanks for the article. I'd like to make one correction, which is that the FDC recommendation to the Board is due on 1 December, and the Board will make its decision on 1 Jan 2014. I see it has been documented incorrectly on the FDC Portal, and we'll make that change. Thanks for making the correction to the article. KLove (WMF) (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Corrected; thanks, Katy. Tony (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Competitiveness is good, but sometimes the rating given by staff who doesn't know much is like asking a fish to climb a tree... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.97.61.64 (talk) 12:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Is there any chance that Dennis Hwang can give us a heads-up a month or so in advance, so that we can improve the coverage of a start class article to something more appropriate for 9m hits? Josh Parris 10:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

@Josh Parris: Yeah. It is really required for sure. - Jayadevp13 11:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Who would "us" be in that case? They probably would need a trusted set of contacts who can drive interest/editing to the right articles without spilling the beans, and I'm wondering who that would be in this case. -LuisVilla (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's pretend the forthcoming doodle subject becomes public knowledge. What would happen? Competitors would change their doodles, to bring one up a day early? Josh Parris 21:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• 3 India related articles. Seeing after a long time. - Jayadevp13 11:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• You realize that Devi was recently on a Google Doodle too, right? And worldwide. Ego White Tray (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that was the point. Serendi^podous 17:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
• Don't underestimate the power of Indian Viewers :-P - Jayadevp13 04:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• AFAIK, Google Chrome has also made some changes (a few weeks ago) that result in the doodle being seen in the new tab page in Chrome (at least for some users with some particular combination of settings), so I guess more people are going to see Google Doodles than before. Shreevatsa (talk) 04:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• It's interesting that Doodle drive so much traffic to Wikipedia articles. I was thinking that, since Google started taking excerpts of articles and facts/figures to provide snippets of info at the top of results pages, Wikipedia traffic might slightly decrease. With more and more doodles, however, I've been wrong in my theory. Killiondude (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

For me, it started a few weeks ago with Chrome. I use to do Google searches from the toolbar but now I get a miniature version of Google.com that shows me the day's doodle. I use to only find out about unusual doodles the day after they were posted but now I've seen all of the recent ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Going on this evidence, I'll predict that Sachin Tendulkar will make next week's top ten. --Roisterer (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again to user:Mabeenot for this interesting feature. One thing I learnt here is that the Brits also use the term "soap" - which I believe has a negative connotation(?). XOttawahitech (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, soap, with regard to a soap opera, isn't used with a negative connotation here in the United States (not usually anyway).

And, livelikemusic, you answered the questions extremely well; no wonder other soap opera editors didn't feel the need to weigh in. Well, I'm sure that's part of the reason they didn't; I commented on my talk page about whether or not I'd participate. Laziness is another reason I didn't. Flyer22 (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Flyer22. I wanted to make sure soap operas were displayed well within my own answers. Nice to know someone appreciates them. :) And Ottawahitech, the term "soap opera" got its origin from the sponsors of the original radio broadcasts of the serial dramas. I would hope to the British that it doesn't have a negative meaning. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The only times I can think of when the term soap opera, or simply using its simpler version "soap," is used negatively is when a person suggests that the writing for a primetime show or film is over-dramatic and/or over-the-top, that it's not what is expected of a primetime show or film (because, you know, a lot of people consider primetime dramas and films superior to soap operas, though, yes, primetime soap operas also exist). Flyer22 (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)