The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2015-06-24. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• I find it sad that otherwise helpful editors find themselves mired in controversy especially those that had been previously warned. I can only assume they draw a different manner of satisfaction from editing than the rest of us that eschew such drama. Edit warring takes all the fun out the process, to my mind. As for the political angle, ARBCOM might have done well to set the applicable ban to start with the dawn of progressivism post Civil War as much hay can still be made in articles about early 20th Century events. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • If the problem expands, they can always adopt a motion to modify the date. I didn't follow this case closely, but from what I saw, the disputes related primarily to modern politics and much less to earlier years. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• You say the printed volumes have "a total of 5,244,11 pages". This makes no sense. Can authors of the article complete the exact number of pages please? werldwayd (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• This typo is present in the original article as well, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• 7473 volumes×700 pages=5,231,100 pages+13,010 pages=5,244,110 pages? }I6ixce93IxI{ 04:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Is the total numbers of volumes really "7,473" or smaller? }I6ixce93IxI{ 04:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Is it possible to read every single page of Print Wikipedia in one year? }I6ixce93IxI{ 02:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, if you can manage 1437 pages a day, which is 60 per hour. So a page per minute for every day of a year and you can read it all. Rcsprinter¹²³ (say) @ 20:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I was surprised do see that each page has three columns. My 1943 Britannica has much bigger pages with two columns and I think that's easier to read. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• I wonder how many pages contain vandalism. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A daruma doll is a pretty nice representation of Wikipedia when you think about it. GamerPro64 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Except we'll never get a second eye. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I admit, the teapot made me laugh a bit too hard. ResMar 15:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

This is great work, Resident Mario! It would be nice if this functionality could be built into the MediaWiki software. The search function is very poor compared to what it could be. Antrocent (♫♬) 01:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

For those interested in helping out, I will be present on the Signpost IRC channel at #wikisignpost ^connect all of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday EST. ResMar 01:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you a ton to the Signpost community for this effort. You are by far my favorite community project :-} Hashar (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding use of the archives, I went back through them after discovering the Signpost, a week at a time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• "And no one's kept better track of the progress than the Signpost has."^{[citation needed]} :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• On your story regarding new Wikipedia offices in Armenia, you mention "[Armenian Wikipedia] is currently the 40th largest Wikipedia, with over 170,000 articles. Yet its listing is glaringly absent from our lead page that lists language Wikipedias that have even 50,000 article, but yet fails to mention the Armenian Wikipedia with its 170k plus articles. werldwayd (talk) 22:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I wonder if that has to do with AW's recent acceleration of article creation. I think they've jumped quite a bit in the rankings just in the last two years. Gamaliel (talk) 03:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• "[T]he community of Wikipedia is completely against censorship." Not at all. --Fauzan^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 01:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I would be a lot happier without the F-word and other profanity in some articles. I don't think even if someone used the F-word when talking about Taylor Swift that the quote should be in her article. After all, she's G-rated when she performs or at least her fans are in the age group that expect that.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • There's a difference between censorship & editorial sense. I honestly can't think of a reason to use the F-word in any article in Wikipedia -- except, of course, for this one -- which is editorial sense. On the other hand, being denied completely to have that linked article in Wikipedia is censorship, plain & simple. -- llywrch (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
      • There are a lot of other articles where it's necessary to use the word "fuck", or another profanity. Alternatives such as "f---" cause more problems than they solve. Powers ^T 02:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe if the WMF wanted more mobile editors, they'd create a non-crappy mobile editing interface. Having the talk page link at the bottom of the page makes it tedious to navigate to on longer articles, and the lack of any real anti-vandalism abilities hinders those who work on that sort of thing. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 01:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Not to mention the complete lack of navboxes and/or categories to help mobile users navigate around. SounderBruce 03:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I have a hard time seeing this as an issue that is significantly defined by an absence of the right software; even with brilliant and dedicated innovation in this area, mobile editing is always going to be more limited and time-consuming. I agree that the current options don't exactly do us any favours in mitigating the complications, but even if we had scaled-down or reformatted versions of basically the exact same interface and toolsets as are available in conventional editing, there would still always remain a decreased likelihood (and a significant decrease, I have to think) that a user is going to hit the edit button while on a mobile device, compared against inclination for users on PC. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The simple fact of the matter is that mobile users with modern smart phones can edit at will without problems on the misnamed "desktop site". Billions of social media users confirm that typing with one finger is not that big a deal. I am making this edit on an Android HTC H-1 smart phone, and have made well over 10,000 edits on Android smart phones in recent years. The mobile site is a failure for collaborative editing, while the misnamed "desktop" site works just fine. Let's stop redirecting mobile users to a failed mobile site, and instead rename the desktop site to something accurate, like the "useful site that anyone can edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I agree that there's an argument to be made for that approach. But even with the same basic interface, I still think that the assumption that mobile editing plays a part in our declining editor recruitment rate is essentially accurate. I'm thinking specifically here of that crucial moment when a user first decides to click on the edit or talk button of an article for the very first time. I just don't think that's as likely to happen for a reander on the go with a smartphone as it is if they happen to be sitting at a desktop. Snow ^{let's rap} 10:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
        • We make mobile editing far less likely when we redirect mobile users by default from the site that is useful for mobile editing to the site that impedes mobile editing.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
          • I never did any editing on mobile. Even when I browse, I always switch to desktop version because mobile version just lacks a lot of features. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Again, I do not disagree that improving on the UI for mobile editing is desirable -- indeed, I think that goes without saying. The point I am trying to stress is that, even controlling for that factor through development of an identical or equally utilitarian interface for mobile users, it is my belief that mobile editing will still yield weaker numbers of recruited first-time editors (relative to overall numbers of users utilizing this mode of access), simply owing to the context and complications of that form of usage. My comment was never meant to decry your position on the current UI or endorse the current state of affairs with regard to the mobile access architecture. I'm saying even if that UI were as ideal as we could make it, I still don't think it would be enough to cause the recruitment of new editors to be as high amongst mobile users as desktop users. For better or worse, there's currently a bit of a barrier of entry for first time users, and I don't think as many users are likely to take that plunge for the first time when browsing on their smartphones as they would if sitting at a desktop, for a lot of different reasons, of which the UI is just one. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Mobile editing on the main site may work on phones with 7- or 8-inch screens, but a 4- or 5-inch screen is much more limited. Powers ^T 02:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
              • I am not sure what you mean LtPowers. I use the HTC One (M8), which has a 5 inch screen, and have no screen size issues at all. I find the screen size ideal for Wikipedia editing. Try it, you will like it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
                • The difference between your 5-inch and my 3.7-inch may be enough to account for different experiences. I find just typing on a mobile phone to take at least three times longer than on a computer keyboard. I couldn't imagine writing any significant amount of prose. The limited screen real estate also makes writing template code tedious at best. The absence of keyboard shortcuts for finding text and copy+paste; the inability to easily manage multiple tabs for cross-referencing and bulk editing; and the clear disadvantage of being unable able to preview how layout and image edits will appear on a large screen all would seem to limit the utility of mobile phones for editing. I'm curious how you compensate for these limitations. Powers ^T 21:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
                  • @LtPowers: There are mini keyboards which may be plugged into smartphones. They may be used to make typing easier. Also I think the WMF should encourage editors to use tablets, which have larger screens, in case they are unable to use a laptop or desktop. It may assist editors who are frustrated with small screens on regular smartphones. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                    • "Easier" is not the same as "comfortable". Powers ^T 21:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
                      • If you are interested in comfort then it depends on which mini keyboard you use. Are you interested in using one with a tablet or smartphone? I haven't tried any myself but I can imagine the comfort level may differ between manufacturers and models. I would not be surprised if people are making full sized keyboards for use with smartphones too... As for viewing the material the WMF can encourage editors to use tablets with larger screens if they wish to edit Wikipedia from a mobile device @LtPowers: WhisperToMe (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we could dispense with the "one Founder" place for starters. It seems to be purely honorific. That position, or rather the prestige that remains attached to it, is more trouble than it is worth and is frankly embarrassing at times. Not that we are incapable of embarrassing ourselves in umpteen other ways, of course. Why one person who has never been appointed to anything here somehow carries so much sway in an open project a decade and more after its creation simply baffles me. As do their favoured terms, such as "moral ambitiousness". I guess my inability to comprehend all of this is an indication that I live in the sticks, a simple country boy. - Sitush (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Where is the link to the proposed changes? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Dropped it in there in bold a little earlier, you're right it was a little buried. Usually you want to give a summary paragraph in the first section of these things, but this is such a complicated topic I needed two paragraphs just to introduce it. ResMar 12:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent initiative. Great to see this going live in so many languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Waitaminute: the English-language Wikipedia is already the most bloated in the entire Wikimedia family, so you're giving us a tool to make it even larger? I thought this was going to be a tool for translating out of English into languages where articles are more needed! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Many users can only write fluently in English anyway, why exclude them? The article count gives only an impression of better coverage, the English Wikipedia has a lot of stuff (much of it possibly of questionable interest, "bloated" as you say) but it's lacking on many important topics where other Wikipedias have better coverage; Mix'n'match is one place where you can find a list of todos. --Nemo 06:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

"Bloated"?! So, how many articles is supposed to be too many? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some greater coverage of Africa or Asia on En Wikipedia would be useful? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed incredibly bloated as far as pop culture and remote American villages with a population of 3 go, on the other hand there are crucial subjects regarding history and culture that are barely mentioned.--Catlemur (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I read a while ago (but I cannot remember the source - help me if you can) that something close to 50% of the articles in the German Wikipedia don't exist in the English Wikipedia. That is, there is surprisingly low overlap of coverage even among the "big" languages. Also, as a side point to Orangemike's concern - translating an article from a small wikipedia into English (or even Simple English WP) is an excellent way to encourage that article to then be translated back "out" to other language wikis. Wittylama 12:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Marvelous. I look forward to fiddling around with this some. Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
• This is very exciting. I can read French reasonably well and I look forward for translating French articles into English. Harej (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• I've got my first target article already decided on, just waiting to get going! Looking forward to it! Wittylama 12:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
• Content Translation is now available. The announcement has been posted on the VP (technical). Thanks.--Runa Bhattacharjee (WMF) (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You can follow all the articles published in en.wp with this special search on recent changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&tagfilter=contenttranslation It appears I missed out on my article Piazza Santo Stefano being the 1st mainspace article translation by a matter of seconds! Wittylama 17:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• "We hypothesise that when a notable event happens to a person, traffic to their Wikipedia page peaks abruptly, and an edit is made to their page describing the event." Really? --Dweller (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• I was looking to see what had been done since my edit and I found this. Is this an acceptable addition?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not to make a big drama about this one, but in general such additions that significantly change the (bylined) content (in particular a review's overall assessment of a paper) should be made before publication time, whereas "post-publication edits such as grammatical and spelling corrections to articles are welcome". In the case of this Signpost section, there is also the additional problem that it is syndicated here and here; those versions are not being updated automatically. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In summary Google spent $750,000 doing jack-all. Seems to me that the content translation team (also presenting their work here this week) is primed to do a far better job, taking to heart how completely wrong Google's approach here was. ResMar 02:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

In fairness (though the problems were predictable) it may be money well spent to learn how not to do it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC).

Yes, this is one of the well-known failures which have been considered to design the tool. See m:Machine translation for a list and http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01914 for some short information. --Nemo 08:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Finally 1808 Google translation project pages on tewiki, that could not be improved were deleted on 5 Feb 2020.--Arjunaraoc (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Are red and green often going to be in close proximity to each other? This may cause problems for color-blind users that the greenish-yellow and blue didn't. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)