The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2024-09-04. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• HubertGlockenspiel42, my life-long nemesis. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 14:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• I don't often read the humour section, but this one tickled me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Do you recognize this behavior? Maybe you haven't thought about it in a long time, until this story jogged your memory and you're still not certain of the details, but the behavior of Glockenspiel does ring a bell. DMacks (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• God forbid that other editor makes a good point—then you're really in a pickle. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• It doesn't always work, but I do find that the Editor Interaction Analyzer is a pretty good way for me to remember why I remember you. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Haha this is hilarious -- Cosmic6811 🍁 (T · C) 01:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
• D'oh, I forgot why I hate this story. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Forgive me, but under the third-to-last item, shouldn't that be Stephen Harrison? (As a fellow holder of the name I am always incredibly sensitive to correct spellings. :-) ) Also, as I recall, Lane Raspberry was also on the program. I tried to listen - WAMU is my hometown NPR station, after all - but as it was during the workday I wasn't able to get much. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  You're quite right. I've corrected the author spelling. * Bri (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Ironically, you misspelled Lane Rasberry's name, itself originating in an ancestral misspelling. :) Ijon (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Ijon: Hey, look, do I come in here and correct your spelling? Well...evidently I do, but that's beside the point.

  (This is what comes of freebasing when I should have my sources in front of me. *sigh* When will I learn?)*

  Apologies to all involved for the error.

  _{*Never. The answer is never.}

  --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the International Boxing Association, the XY chromosome test result is correct, as reported in multiple media sources: [1] etc. The IOC chose to disregard the IBA test, but considering that the IBA are the only ones who tested for this, it seems quite biased to state the exact opposite as a fact. AnonMoos (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I believe @Oltrepier: wrote that section, so I'll let them answer if any details are needed. The best short answer is IMHO

• The are 1000s of words at Talk:Imane Khelif which I hope we won't expend over here.
• The International Boxing Association is not held in much esteem these days, having been "de-recognized" (or whatever the correct word is) by the International Olympic Committee.
• IBA didn't publish the genetic results (as far as I can tell), and
• Genetic results aren't always conclusive, in any case, according to the BBC

But this isn't something we can solve on this page, see my 1st point. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That's nice -- the IBA can't release the full lab results without violating medical legal privacy rights. The Algerian and Taiwanese boxers could release the results if they wanted to, but have chosen not to. Meanwhile, none of this changes the fact that the IBA was the only entity which tested for chromosomes, and they reported XY. Confidently asserting that XY is impossible goes far beyond ordinary "original research" into constructing a parallel fantasy world. AnonMoos (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that Signpost people are aware that XY chromosomes is not a false claim, but is the best available information (though its significance is subject to interpretation), continuing the text of this piece unaltered is basically the same as lying. It would be rather unfortunate if the Signpost had no concern for truth and falsehood. By the way, claims that the Algerian and Taiwanese boxers had elevated testosterone levels, and claims that Algerian and Taiwanese boxers DID NOT have elevated testosterone levels are equally unsubstantiated, since no testosterone tests took place. Only chromosome tests took place, and the reported results were XY. AnonMoos (talk) 10:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Long-lived hoax article removed: "Pratylenchus dulscus,"". Sigh. I've been saying this for years, but before we call something a hoax, we need to do due diligence. Where is a discussion confirming this is a hoax, i.e. intentional misinformation, and not just some typo or good-faithed mistake? I've been (slowly) providing some analysis for the 'false statements in articles' section of the Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia page; I haven't gotten to 'hoax articles' yet, but some are not hoaxes, just errors. Please read the definition of what a hoax is, folks, and don't assume that an error is a hoax. That "Pratylenchus dulscus" may be a hoax, or it may be some sort of a typo. We can't assume bad faith (intentional fabrification) per WP:AGF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wasn't involved in the write-up of this story, but [2] contains further information, to wit:

  • Editor Somanypeople created List of almond diseases in early 2007. On March 16 2007, the list of almond diseases was vandalized by an IP, replacing P. vulnus with P. dulscus (P. vulnus is supported by sources in the list). In the ensuing months, Somanypeople went on to create articles for species listed in the list of almond diseases, including Pratylenchus dulscus (apparently not being aware of the vandal's edit). An article was created for Pratylenchus in August 2007, which included P. dulscus in the list of species, presumably because Wikipedia had an article for it at that point. I'm going to remove the link to this article from the genus article and will restore a link to P. vulnus in the almond disease list.

  So it appears indeed that the article was not created as a hoax. Thanks for mentioning it. Andreas JN466 15:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  I wrote the comment that is being quoted. I wouldn't call Pratylenchus dulscus a hoax myself. It was a sloppy good-faith creation that was ultimately rooted in vandalism. Meloidogyne gajuscus and Meloidogyne fruglia were two other 17 year "hoaxes" I found a few days later that were created in identical circumstances; Somanypeople created a list of plant diseases, it was vandalized, and Somanypeople then created articles for non-existent species based on the vandalism. Plantdrew (talk) 16:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  Seems like an odd take to call it a hoax when it's merely a byproduct of vandalism. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  @OhanaUnited @Plantdrew @Jayen466 A common type of error (i.e. it is sadly common to call a regular error or vandalism a hoax, even if there is no proven intent to mislead). Is there any chance of correcting it in The Signpost, at least? I'll also @TenPoundHammer who added it to the list of hoaxes. We could really use more folks reviewing entries there and separating confirmed hoaxes from plausible or unlikely. Here, there is no reason to assume anon was vandalizing - it could be a typo, accidental page save, or some good faithed if wrong error fixing ("I think it sounds better in Latin this way", whatever). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  I've rewritten the entry per the discussion above. Look okay? Andreas JN466 07:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Jayen466 May be adjust the article's title as well. It still says hoax on the start of News and Notes Soni (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Above my pay grade as changing the title would affect other pages as well. @JPxG: Could you take a look? Andreas JN466 08:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Even if the hoax would be correct (and we pretty much agree here it wasn't), I found it weird from the beginning that this made it into the heading despite being just a small note at the bottom. A bit too clickbaitish for regular TS style anyway... WP:TROUT should be applied somewhere, perhaps :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  It doesn't even need vandalism to get something false into WP. A while ago I sent an article called Snake Bight, Florida, which was described as a ghost town, to AfD. "Snake Bight" is a bight on the coast of Florida Bay in Everglades National Park. A prehistoric canal called the "Snake Bight Canal" runs inland from Snake Bight. The National Park Service maintains a hiking trail along the canal called the "Snake Bight Canal Trail". The ruins of a former fish factory can be seen from the trail. That all led to the ruins being labeled the "ghost town of Snake Bight" on a web site listing ghost towns, even though there was never a populated place called "Snake Bight". A source existed, so of course there had to be a WP article. Donald Albury 13:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to all the candidates putting themselves forward. Readers, please take advantage of the materials provided (there's more on meta) and GO VOTE!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about general materials, but I had attempted a review of all candidates to make a "voter guide" for people to compare the candidates. I do not know any other voter guides that currently exist. Soni (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Note that Fjmustak's answers to the community questions can be viewed on his user page. --Andreas JN466 15:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"WhatTheWikiFact: Fact-Checking Claims Against Wikipedia" is a 2021 research paper, so not quite "Recent", yes? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct, we don't interpret "recent" too strictly here ;)

Covering things sooner is generally better, but (as the section intro indicates) that is not always feasible, and on the other they will usually still be of interest to our readers even after a while.

In case of this particular paper, it might be interesting to compare it with an experiment that the Wikimedia Foundation devoted a large part of its AI product resources to recently: m:Future_Audiences/Experiment:Citation_Needed.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

• Great read! I had no idea there were so many things going on at Wikimania! Reconrabbit 14:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• Very good article! Congrats! —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
• A fascinating travelogue which, as all good travel writing does, tells your readers a lot about you as well as your trip. I am glad we share an interest in mobile editing, and also that you had a great time. Way back when I was in college well over 40 years ago, I did some fairly serious research comparing and contrasting the teachings and practices of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mennonites and the Quakers with regards to military conscription. Cullen328 (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• @Clovermoss: This was just great to read (and review). Once again, congratulations for your massive achievement! I don't know who "Natasha" is, though... Oltrepier (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  Oh no! I totally misspelled her name. It's Natalia. I think my phone autocorrected me there. I'm going to go fix that now. But she's one of the organizers of the conference. [3] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Clovermoss: No worries, and thank you for clarifying! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• A very well-written personal account of Wikimania, Vulcan loves this!--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 14:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• Love seeing the ketchup chips mentioned of course! We’ll have toast to you and this award at the next WikiClub meeting. SophieWMCA (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• @Clovermoss: Excellent indeed. Of course, now that you're world-famous it took slightly more effort to talk to you than last time in Toronto, what with my own minor illness also slowing me down this time. Yes, I saw other bright young people besides you, doing more, learning more, getting a little scared, a bit dizzy with absorbing the many novelties. They were all a delight even though I couldn't hope to keep up. Ah, if only I could be merely thrice your age again, but clearly Wikiism is falling into good hands. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
• I received a comment off-wiki disputing the accuracy of I found out that the Wikimedia Foundation owns their data centres for privacy reasons, that this practice is incredibly expensive, and that it's unusual for tech companies to do this. They said that while it is better for privacy implications, hosting Wikipedia at the scale it is now would be prohibitively expensive if they didn't have their own data centres. I'm not a tech person and this piece just repeats what I remember being told that day. But I do think it's worth mentioning that the accuracy of something I said was disputed. One example that was given was Dropbox. [4] Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

• I can't describe how good it feels to see a month of traffic reports without the name of Donald Trump on the reports. There is hope for the world. Smallchief (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

  It is noteworthy that Walz and Harris (and her family member) appear a total of five times, and Trump and Vance collectively zero times. Plus the list-topping List of Kamala Harris 2024 presidential campaign endorsements in most frequently edited articles. Interesting. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

• a case where he had just a 0.5% chance of acquittal. Yeah no. The figure seems to come from, like Sky says, the statistic that less than 0.5% of federal criminal cases in the United States end in acquittal. but realistically that number probably goes way up if you are a white male who just happens to be a billionaire. So we shouldn't repeat it as if it makes any sense. Polygnotus (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Why the section Most edited articles has a different font styling; why isn't it wrapped within {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-start-v2}} and {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Signpost-block-end-v2}} Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 06:31, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: When creating that section, I just put it after the exclusion thresholds to indicate it's shifting from "most views" to "most edits", thus it goes between "block-end" and "article-end" simply because I don't remember to use the two templates you highlighted. Think I should change that in the upcoming one(s)? igordebraga ≠ 00:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I guess. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'm very fortunate to have been to four Wikimaniae and I've loved them all for different reasons. I was part of the organising team in 2012 in London so I know how much work goes in behind the scenes and you guys did a fabulous job. Well done. You should be proud. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
• By the way, did you know... that there's a football club from Katowice that got promoted to the national top-tier while celebrating their 60th anniversary? Maybe improving this article could be a cheeky way to pay further homage to this edition of Wikimania! : D --Oltrepier (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)