The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-03-12. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• Adam, I love how you're linking the nomination to "And nominated by x". Very cleaver, much better than the way I used to do this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure I've seen it used before. The layout of this feature changes all the time. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's I think me who have used it 1st time. Herald talk with me 16:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Is a Marine Corps Drill Instructor assigned to OCS properly addressed as a platoon sergeant? That's not how the original photo description from the Marine Corps reads. This little tidbit was added into the Commons description by High Contrast in 2010. The image itself was nominated by a blocked user who probably knows nothing about it. This assertion of title was recently added to the Drill instructor article by Matthew Proctor with no citation or edit summary. Neither anyone voting on the image nor anyone at The Signpost questioned the veracity of this "platoon sergeant" title.

Now I realize I might accomplish more by helping Signpost volunteers write entries rather than publicly finding fault, but I think this is a teachable moment. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

In the end, none of us can be experts on everything Wikipedia covers, and if an error slips in, we can apologise, but we can't re-research every fact; Assume Good Faith has to have some rôle, particularly for summaries such as this. It's why articles are generally written and improved by experts, or, at least, well-informed amateurs. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Chris. It is an example of crowdsourcing at work. :-) I'll also second Adam's comment. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

And let me second that thanks. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

 Question: What did I wrongly??? --High Contrast (talk) 01:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@High Contrast: You introduced an unsourced statement, which an IP later tweaked. Wikipedia wants massive content at the expense of most of it being unsourced and some percentage of that info being incorrect. It seems odd because you had been reverting changes by IPs prior to that. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

In order to hold up the truth. This edit was not my idea nor is it based on my knowledge. Another user contacted me to make this edit. Unfortunately, I cannot find where (page link) this edit request was done. --High Contrast (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to Wikimedia Azerbaijan. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, if a national wikipedia gets supported by the government one of these Asian post-Soviet states, I'd rather get worried. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting to see Ash Wednesday snubbed as, essentially, not being popular. Obviously there is a great deal of discussion or it wouldn't be one of the highly viewed pages for the week. Killiondude (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The point was that, in the recent past, this would have been the top topic; of course, people are still curious about it (modified commentary to clarify that). Serendi^podous 23:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure there has been a time in the last 50 years when Ash Wednesday would be a more popular topic than the Oscars or a developing international crisis. Powers ^T 14:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking, late 19th century. I speak Anglo-Saxon and Ancient Greek, so perhaps I have a slightly elastic definition of "recent". Serendi^podous 15:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to hear about the insets in other parts of the world! Jee 05:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)