Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2013-08-21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The Signpost
Single-page Edition
WP:POST/1
21 August 2013

 

2013-08-21

Call for contributors

Contribute  —  
Share this
By The ed17
... some assembly required

Contributing to the Signpost can be one of the most rewarding things an editor can do. The genre is refreshingly different from that of Wikipedia articles, and can allow writers to use a different range of skills. Our circulation is up to 2000 for some stories, and reaches far beyond the English Wikipedia, speaking to Wikimedians from many native languages and WMF projects. Page view counts show that readers still visit some pages up to months after publication. The need for an independent, volunteer-run Signpost continues to grow, given the increasing complexity and financial expenditures of the global Wikimedia movement.

Writing for the Signpost does require commitment. Although we've all become used to a weekly Signpost delivered on our talk pages, the number of contributors has decreased, and this week's and last week's editions came out very late. With this in mind, combined with the limited availability of our current editors—especially during the month of September—the Signpost is putting out a call for editors who are interested in contributing to:

  • "News and notes": in brief section
  • "In the media": support
  • "Discussion report": regular and support
  • "Featured content": regular and support
  • "Arbitration report": support
  • "Technology report": support

Editors normally contribute to their section on a regular basis or arrange weekly rotations depending on their circumstances. People willing to do only parts each week, such as adding a few "in brief" notes to "News and notes", are certainly welcome as well.

I look forward to hearing from interested editors, either on my talk page or through email.

— The ed17, Signpost editor-in-chief

Reader comments

2013-08-21

Wikipedia's Manual of Style marches into Manning's coming out as transgender

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Neotarf, Emily Temple-Wood and Jayen466

In one of the more surprising turns of events surrounding the WikiLeaks saga, after receiving a 35-year jail sentence for her role in disseminating classified documents to the organization, last Thursday U.S. soldier Bradley Manning announced a change in her sexual identity with a statement read by their attorney on the

Today
show:


Manning in 2012
As soon as the statement was read, the interviewer seamlessly referred to Manning as "she". "A few moments later," writes a Los Angeles Times reporter, "I looked up 'Bradley Manning' in Wikipedia, and was redirected to a page called 'Chelsea Manning'. All the pronouns had already been switched." Her Wikipedia entry now begins, "Chelsea E. Manning (born Bradley Edward Manning, December 17, 1987) is a United States Army soldier ..."

The media was quick to note Wikipedia's actions: Slate Wikipedia beats major news organizations, perfectly reflects Chelsea Manning's new gender, Buzzfeed, Truthdig ("How Wikipedia edited Pvt. Manning's gender without spectacle", New Statesman "Behind the Wikipedia wars: what happened when Bradley Manning became Chelsea", the Daily Dot, Market Watch ("Bradley Manning: 'I am a female'")—all took note of Wikipedia's lead.

Wikipedia's use of gender pronouns is straightforward. The choice of pronouns is governed by the identity section of Wikipedia's

Manual of Style
(MOS): "the term most commonly used for a person will be the one that person uses for himself or herself", and specifically, "pronouns, and possessive adjectives that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification".

After Manning's declaration, there was rapid editing on both the related article and the MOS. At the MOS, one editor tried to insert the same change four times and was reverted. A formal warning was threatened on the editor's talk page; but in the end, the page was merely protected, which allows editing only by administrators. The Manning article itself was moved from Chelsea Manning back to Bradley Manning, and then back again, after a cordial talk-page discussion revealed that the editor moving the article was not aware of the announcement. Eventually, that page was also protected.

Three blocks, then ANI

The earlier cordial editor behavior on the Chelsea Manning talk page quickly evaporated as administrator and arbitrator Risker blocked administrators Mark Arsten, Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 for edit warring. The blocks were protested vigorously at the Administrator incidents noticeboard.

All three users were unblocked in short order. Black Kite, who unblocked Zzyzx11 and Jimfbleak, called the blocks "completely farcical": "Zzyzx11 was fixing a date formatting issue, Jimfbleak a MOS issue, and Mark Arsten reinstating a category that had previous[ly] been removed by mistake (and had been edit requested), ... That's one of the most ridiculous and bone-headed blocking actions I've ever seen on Wikipedia. …

WP:PROTECT
says that pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial, or absent an edit-request. Two of the edits were the former, and one the latter."

Risker did not agree that the edits were uncontroversial: "I'd expect just about every admin to realise that date formatting remains a highly controversial area in just about every article where it is raised… there's hardly an edit that could be made to this article right now that will be completely uncontroversial, and that goes for categories, markup, MOS fixes and typos."

Editing through protection

2012 photo of Bradley Manning, now identifying as female.

It quickly became clear that there was a difference of opinion on editing through protection. "Doing maintenance edits like correcting typos, fixing categories and such are allowed by policy and any admin can feel free to do them on any protected page," explained Hahc21 (ΛΧΣ). "Terrible, terrible blocks," said tariqabjotu. "If absolutely zero editing on protected articles were allowed, we wouldn't have an {{editprotected}} template."

Others indicated that even if it is not spelled out in policy, that with the exception of BLP violations or copyvios, administrators should not make changes without full consensus on the talk page. While it "may not be an abuse of the letter of our protection policy," Kww said, "I sympathize with desire to block: it's apparently the only thing that will get some admins to respect full-protection." "I would support blocking," said ItsZippy. "They can and should be blocked" said Beeblebrox. "Even if it's not in the rules that they can't," said The Bushranger, they shouldn't edit, "because that's a good way of feeding the 'admins are more equal than others' arguments that we see so often." "If the protection policy doesn't make that clear, then I think we should fix it," wrote SlimVirgin. "I'd personally just say reblock," said Jamesofur, "it seems we have too many admins pissy about their 'rights'".

Hidden warnings

"Has the world gone mad? I didn't even read the talk page, and I find that I've been blocked for not doing so!" said Jimfbleak after being unblocked, pointing out that he had made "one unsuspecting edit to a page with a warning hidden on a talk page". The warning, against editing "absent a clear-cut edit request," was made on the Chelsea Manning talk page, and has now been automatically archived.

Risker's reply: "Jimfbleak. If you can't bother reading the talk page of a protected article and getting stuck in to understand why it's protected and what the issues are, you shouldn't be editing that page at all." Jauersock thought differently, though, writing "You can't put a warning on talk page like that and expect anyone to see it, it's now mixed up somewhere in the middle of the page like any other thread ... If a user who outright vandalizes an article is 'warned' like that and then gets reported to AIV, it would get declined in a heartbeat for insufficient warnings."

"If we don't axe single-edit anonymous vandals, we shouldn't do the same to other editors," said Joy [shallot], adding, "If this was my first block ever, as it appears to have been the case for Mark Arsten, I would actually find such a block to be an explicitly insensitive act of destroying a previously clean block log."

The role of talk pages

The one unanswered question is why no effort was made to engage any of the editors on their talk pages. "If you went to each of those admins," wrote tariqabjotu, "and said, 'hey, [link to discussion], that wasn't as uncontroversial as you thought,' I doubt any of them wouldn't have acceded to reverting." Zzyzx11 recommended that the

edit protected
}} or any other similar admin assistance requests for fear of getting blocked by other admins.", while another editor, UltraExactZZ, commented:


In brief

2013-08-21

Proposed decision posted in Infoboxes case; Tea Party movement case continues

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Neotarf

A proposed decision has been posted in the Infoboxes case that includes statements on metadata and microformat issues. The Tea Party movement case continues, following a stalemate over the proposed decision.

Open cases

Infoboxes

A proposed decision has been posted in the Infoboxes case. Arbitrators were quick to agree on the principle that global consensus “cannot be overruled by a local consensus” and a finding of fact that “the use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited” and therefore to be determined by local consensus at each individual article. Agreement on metadata was less quick. (See the extensive discussion of metadata issues at the evidence and evidence talk pages; see also microformat).

While there was general agreement that “Anyone may edit, use, modify and distribute the content for any purpose and the re-use of the information should be facilitated, where it is not detrimental to the encyclopedia,” a more narrowly tailored statement that “metadata aligns with the goals of the encyclopedia where it is not detrimental to our content or our scope” found less agreement, with concerns expressed over whether there had been sufficient community discussion to establish clear consensus, best practices, or guidelines for its use.

The case, brought by Ched, involves the issue of who should make the decision to include an infobox in an article and to determine its formatting, as well as what is perceived to be some editors' aggressive addition or reverting of infoboxes to articles without discussion.

Tea Party movement

The committee has now posted a “more traditional decision including specific findings and remedies against specific editors” after failing to reach an agreement on the original proposed decision and on a controversial “motion for final decision” that would have imposed a 6-month article/page ban on 14 editors from “editing the Tea Party movement article, the article talk page, and all subpages of the article and talk page”. (See the August 7 and August 14 arbitration reports). Findings of fact have been proposed for 9 editors (not including the proposer of the case). Remedies, including topic bans or restrictions, and two interaction bans, have been proposed for 11 editors. Two editors who have been proposed for sanctions have not yet had findings of fact posted.

Other requests and committee action

  • Clarification and amendment request: Argentine History (August 2013): A clarification and amendment request made by Lecen was closed with an interaction ban between Cambalachero and Lecen, and MarshalN20 and Lecen.
  • Clarification request: Argentine History (August 2013): A request made by Cambalachero for a clarification of whether a topic ban on pages related to the history of Latin America applies to articles about recent politics or a brief mention of historical context in non-historical articles was closed with the clarification that events after and including 1983 should not be an issue.

    Reader comments

2013-08-21

Today's article for improvement

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Mabeenot
Your source for
WikiProject News
Submit your project's news and announcements for next week's WikiProject Report at the Signpost's
WikiProject Desk
.

This week, we spent some time with the folks behind

TheOriginalSoni, and TonyTheTiger
.

Where did the idea for "Today's article for improvement" come from? How is it different from the collaborations of the week/fortnight/month held by individual WikiProjects?
AutomaticStrikeout: I can recall proposing the idea for the project that became TAFI
at one of the village pumps. However, I can't remember specifically what prompted me to come up with the concept. I guess the major difference between TAFI and some of individual WikiProject collaborations is that TAFI seeks to improve articles covering many different topics, whereas an individual WikiProject has a much more defined scope and will focus on improving articles within its scope.
Coin945: There have always been aims to get a project like this going ahead, in some form or another. I know I have personally made at least two separate proposals for something along these lines to be put into place. I think TAFI is actually the conglomeration of two different ideas that have delightfully merged into one: the will to bring new editors to Wikipedia by editing bare articles on topics they know and love, and then an article drive that takes place every day. For me, when wanting to edit a random article, it takes forever just choosing an article from the many millions, and that is a huge time burden on me. So having 10 already-chosen articles right there, I think is a great asset. In short, the reason why this one succeeded while the other ones failed is merely due to hard work and persistence. We have an incredibly devoted team at TAFI who are not overly bureaucratic and who are open to any suggestions and improvements which I think is great (for example if the requirements for nominations became much more strict we would discourage users from taking part).
User:AutomaticStrikeout
. It started just as an idea to create a general collaboration WikiProject, but it started to gain more traction when it was proposed to put it on the Main Page and use it as a means to attract new editors. These two goals, while both possible, has led to an ideological tension in TAFI; is it a collaboration project first, or is it an editor recruitment project first?
The thing that makes this different from other collaboration projects is that it has a much wider scope. The consequence of this is that one weeks worth of articles can appeal to a wide audience of editors. The down side is that editors might not see an article they find interesting every week.
TheOriginalSoni
: As Nick here said, one of the prime reasons TAFI is different is because of our scope. While most of the "Collaboration of the Day" programs in other WikiProjects are very focused on certain topics or a certain group of editors, TAFI has no such constraint. That allows us a much more wider scope and a larger group to focus on, both in terms of the articles and the editors in focus. We try and choose everyday articles which will be of interest to a large number of people and at the same time, we try to make sure that those articles are not so good that any new editor will not be able to help around to edit it. In the same way, we try and maximize our target audience, and we hope to get editors from all fields and interests, with a special focus on having newer editors.
Coin945: I always thought that TAFI should be about the articles on obvious topics (i.e. topics that if you were to theoretically create a new encyclopedia today, would probably be created within the week) that amazingly have very underdeveloped articles. It is to refute the notion passed around quite a bit these days that "all the good topics have already been written about".
This week's article for improvement is
Exploration
A crewed submersible used for underwater exploration
Please be bold and help improve it!
How are articles selected for TAFI? Is there a reason for the order in which articles appear on the TAFI template? How is the template's image chosen?
Coin945: Anyone can nominate articles for TAFI, via the 'nominations' subpage. While the aim is to select start or stub-class articles on rather important topics that shockingly are still in a bad state, more obscure or developed articled articles are also welcomed. There is no hard and fast rule to what gets accepted or not. Essentially whatever gets 3 or more Supports, and little to no opposition, gets accepted. Which is a fairly good system considering we have 10 TAFI articles per week (we need a LOT of successful nominations). Also, Opposes tend to veto nominations, regardless of how many supports they have. At the moment, nominations have slowed down a tad, so we would encourage all Wikipedians to nominate and support the articles there. Once they have been selected, they are not discussed any further, and are moved into the Holding Area, and later put into the Schedule page when their TAFI week has been arranged. There is no secret meaning behind the order the articles are placed in the template. Sometimes (as we have 10 different categories and want to take one article from each), the articles are merely in the order of how the categories are listed in the Holding Area page. Haha maybe we should be sending subliminal messages, like the first letters of each spelling E D I T P L E A S E :D. As far as I'm aware, the template image is chosen by basically looking at the images in each of the 10 articles, and then choosing the most aesthetically pleasing of the bunch.
Holding Area
, which essentially is just a place for the articles to stay for some time. After that, a bot simply makes the schedule from the oldest of the articles, taking care to try and balance the various sections. One manual addition of the picture later, our articles are ready to be TAFI :)
discussion is located here
. I remember being highly opposed to it due to it being way too developed in my opinion; my assumption was (informed by personal experience mind you) that it was much easier to add to an article than copyedit it. So for a day-only improvement drive, we would have much better results that by working on short articles than by rearranging/fixing/etc long articles. The philosophy regarding stub/start articles came into being soon after.
How successful has TAFI been at engaging editors and improving articles? Does TAFI's format result in some highlighted articles receiving greater prominence than others? Do some articles pose greater difficulties in attracting editors?
NickPenguin: There have been some strong successes, such as the improvement of Writer (before), Entertainment (before) and Sea (before). Not all of the weeks nominations attract a great deal of interest, but there are some winners. The tricky bit is finding articles that have both a wide appeal and ease of editing.
Coin945: Fun fact: NickPenguin nominated Writer, while I nominated the other two. NickPenguin has raised a very important point. TAFI is successful, yes, but we can't put that down to a community coming together to make Wikipedia great. It is because of a small collection of dedicated editors who find these articles and completely rewrite them. Often by themselves. For example, Entertainment was turned into a GA by essentially one extraordinary editor (User:Whiteghost.ink). Of course, bringing many new Wikipedians to the project comes with some issues, like different visions of what the article should be, or edit conflicts. Perhaps some guidelines should be put into place on how the articles are overseen/handled during their time at TAFI...
It always surprises me what articles get the most attention each week. General topics always tend to outweigh more niche ones. But even so, you can never tell what will see significant improvements by the week's end. It all comes down to what our TAFI followers personally are interested in. Which is why we specifically aim to have as wide a reach topic-wise as possible. I remember one article gaining significant attention on the Wikipedia Facebook page: Islamic Golden Age. Much of the discussion was essentially on the Islamaphobic topic of "this is a lie. Islam has never had a golden age", while the rest of it was reasoned analysis of the era, the debunking of myths, and the general denoobification of the ignorant public. It was glorious to read. So perhaps that is TAFI's greatest achievement so far.
TAFI briefly appeared on Wikipedia's main page. How was this accomplished? Why is TAFI no longer on the main page? Are there plans for TAFI to return?
Coin945: My vision for TAFI was always a banner across the top of the page proudly proclaiming: "___ is today's article for improvement. [enter short quip about it that engages viewer and encourages them to edit]". The problem is that the main page serves two different purposes in Wikipedians' minds. Which comes down to what Wikipedians' views on Wikipedia actually are. If you see it as a work in progress, then you want the main page to be a portal to all the ways you can help improve it. If you see it as a work that must have a facade of excellence and perfection, then you want to shower it with FA and other well written content. That is the issue with my original proposal. So we went with something a lot more subtle. Others will no doubt go into a lot more detail, but essentially there were issues with having both halves of the main page the same length, which meant On this Day or DYK had to alter the number of selections they have per week, and then we thought we could have a whole bar to ourselves alleviating that problem, and then it all got kinda confusing and the next thing I knew we were off the main page.
RFCs
and other avenues. It was taken off the main page because the schedule was not updated in advance of the next week's cycle. That part of the weekly process has now been automated, but there was other underlying issues that has yet to be resolved. For starters, there has been endless and unresolved debate about the format and placement on the Main Page. Also, the outside participation was just not as great as expected, as roughly 50% of article improvement came from project members. It hasn't been determined if this is because of article choice, publicity, the format on the main page, or another factor. But it certainly didn't attract as many new editors as we had imagined it might.
Coin945: The fact that an essentially dead project was completely invigorated after the WMF started having TAFI-based posts is enough proof to me that the main problem was the dullness of the design. I remember saying in one of the discussions something along the lines: you can have the best product in the world, but if you market it incorrectly, it will fail miserably. Now in not sure how good our product is, but I can certainly vouch for it being marketed in the complete wrong way. Boring, impersonal, and miniscule. I always have Horrible Histories in the back of my head when thinking about TAFI marketing. How do you make something traditionally seen as dull into something exciting and fun..?
TheOriginalSoni
: We've had several CENT-listed RFCs on the village pump to add TAFI to the main page. That was done in-order to try and attract our newer editors and convert them to active editing. After months of deliberations and painstakingly moving forward with it, we hit a major wall with the design. We had several ideas for adding the new section, but the admins and editors most involved with the Main Page said we could not try to add that because of issues with balancing the left and right columns of the page, which was apparently a major problem already. Because of that, we had to implement a relatively worse option without these issues, but which also failed to be noticeable or clear enough to make some real impact. Because of this lack of impact, and other (now resolved) automation issues, we were removed off the Main Page.
There are already plans in motion for returning us to the main page. Currently, Technical 13 and I have been working on a possible full-width layout which would supersede all the other concerns. Progress on this has been slow, and would require plenty of input and update from others. But it's a start, with with luck, we can try and get a layout which is agreeable to all, and get TAFI and the bar approved through an RFC soon enough.
voting on 6 formats
began.
There has been considerable discussion about linking TAFI to social media platforms. What would be the goals of integrating social media into a project on Wikipedia? How would this be implemented? Are there any downsides to attracting attention from social media?
Coin945: I am heavily involved in the social media aspect of TAFI, along with User: Tbayer (WMF) and User: Matthew (WMF), so I suppose I should answer this one. Essentially the social media aspect of TAFI is a 3-pronged attack: facebook, twitter, and google plus. I try to write short, snappy statuses that are creative, original, interesting, and eye-catching so skimmers will perhaps stop, think, giggle, and then want to explore further. For example, as a huge fan of Disney's Hunchback of Notre Dame, I wrote this status update: "'What makes a monster and what makes a man?' asks Clopin. Well, perhaps a monster is someone who doesn't want to help improve 'Notre Dame,' today's English Wikipedia article for improvement ‪#‎TAFI‬", to which a Facebook user who I will keep anonymous said "Hmmm. I don't know who writes these little blurbs....but that was a really interesting and original introduction to TAFI". So I must be doing something right. :). A downside is obviously that you get trolls, but they are often ignored so that is not that big of a deal. Sometimes other Facebook Wikipedians request the issues to be looked into further, but then the trolls dismiss the issue, leading one to believe that they have no substance behind their criticism. Questions have been raised in regard to a heightened risk of vandalism on TAFI pages, but the simple response is that with more exposure, the pages will have any more watchers, which means vandalism should be reverted as a rapid pace. And even then, how can you oppose change and improvement just because there is a risk that some bias will come along with the huge amount of good? The same thing have happened throughout history. What if a caveman said: "no. we cannot invent the wheel because maybe someone will make large machines with wheels on the bottom and then run over someone killing them". When you get down to it, those sorts of hypothetical criticisms, regardless of how factual they may be, cannot take away the positives that come from the change. Or at least that's how I see it..
TheOriginalSoni
: One of the main priorities Wikipedia and its editors must look forward to today is to get good newer editors. TAFI's linkage to social media platforms is one of the ways we can try and actively search for editors. Websites like Facebook, Twitter and Google Plus could be one of the best ways for us to get more editors, and TAFI is one among several sections which get a post from the Wikimedia Foundation/Wikipedia accounts on these sites. This is a small step for Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects to get involved with the rest of the Internet, and attract more and newer editors; but it could be significant if implemented properly. As the situation currently stands, we get a handful of replies for every post that is made, and we're hoping it increases in the next few days with consistently creative blurbs from Coin, Matthew and others.
Coin945: Also wanted to point out that it was my idea to establish a "#TAFI" handle for both Facebook and Twitter, in an attempt to built up the brand further. It's short, concise, and memorable. Now all we need is a jingle.. :P.
Are there any ways that the various WikiProjects toiling away in distant corners of Wikipedia can become involved in TAFI? Have there been any proposals to pick a theme for a particular week's TAFI selections?
AutomaticStrikeout
: I believe the idea of a theme has been discussed in the past, perhaps for special occasions such as major holidays.
TAFI talk page
, I'm sure they would be met with open arms.
Australian Aboriginal sacred sites
was chosen when an editor was conducting a Wikipedia workshop for newer editors. The TAFI, being a topic of interest for those in the workshop, was improved by a number of them. If more of such collaborations between TAFI and Wikipedia workshops could be done, it would be excellent for all of us.
Coin945: The most important thing WikiProjects can do in my opinion (besides the great "theme" idea), is to keep a lookout for TAFI articles that fall under their jurisdiction, and then see if they can help out. Perhaps by copyediting, or by collecting sources, or by locating users who would be the most interested in the topic, or even just by raising awareness of the project through the relevant article. Wikiprojects seem such distant, individual entities these days. Why not bring us all together through our shared love for knowledge - the philosophy that I'm sure is the reason we all came here in the first place?
What are the greatest challenges facing TAFI? How do you foresee the project growing? What tasks can editors undertake that would support and improve TAFI?
AutomaticStrikeout
: The greatest challenge may be finding an article that is workable as a collaborative target for multiple editors. It's great if an article targeted by TAFI receives major improvement from one person, but the ideal goal is for multiple editors to work together on the chosen articles. This requires the project members to find articles that are relevant to a large enough group of people.
NickPenguin: Right now the greatest threat to the project, or any other project really, is participation. It is operating right now, but the project needs a fresh new perspective from some new editors. The same problems, ideas and objections keep coming up when it comes to getting the project back on the Main Page, and the way forward is not clear. The unfortunate reality is that if the standstill does not come to a close, then the project will simply die out.
TheOriginalSoni
: The most important need for the project is for a few dedicated editors to pick up from where TAFI's been left out and help us carve out a plan to decide and implement a full width main page section. Until then, we have an active Social media reach-out too, which should, hopefully, convert a few editors every week. Any editors are welcome to nominate and support suitable articles for TAFI and help improve the articles. You could also join us in improving the project and helping it get back to the main page.
Coin945: The greatest challenge is just getting a design everyone's happy with and running with it. This is an extremely important project in my opinion. I think Wikipedia needs to return its roots about the world coming together to collect knowledge and fix knowledge gaps. Not about a niche series of editors showing off their glossy perfect information for others to read and admire. This project will hopefully make Wikipedia more friendly and accessible. There was a time (after we were taken off the main page) that I seriously just thought we were done for. That despite all our hard work the project had been abandoned. But then the social media angle was our second wind, and we've been more successful that way than we ever were with our imperfect main page trial. So it's just a matter of people understanding the importance of what a project like this represents in regard to Wikipedia's "anybody can edit" vision (it's worth stating the quote from the critic in Ratatouille: "Not everyone can become a great artist; but a great artist *can* come from *anywhere*"), and giving people the courage to say "yes, i can do this if i really want to. i do not need to be afraid of a hostile environment of established users griping because newbies can't get simple things right". This is a helping hand to new editors. And also a great way for old editors to quickly and easily find great collaboration opportunities. The greatest challenge is to get people to understand this.
Anything else you'd like to add?
Coin945: It's interesting to note that this interview (at least I assume so) is wholly responsible for the recent push to get TAFI back on the main page. Which is very exciting to see by the way :).
Wikipedia_talk:Today's articles for improvement#Calling for a vote on the format that we propose
.

Next week's article should provide a variety of amusements. Until then, queue for your next ride in the archive.

Reader comments

2013-08-21

Skyscrapers, Gibraltar DYKs, Four Award, Secure login, and more

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Pine


20th century Brazilian theater director and writer Augusto Boal (1931–2009) was a nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize. Here he is seen presenting Theatre of the Oppressed. A new post in the WMF blog describes Assistant Professor Amy E. Hughes' experience in the Wikimedia Education Program with a two term graduate class on Western theater history.

This is mostly a list of Non-article page

Wikipedia:RfC
, recent watchlist notices and SiteNotices. The latter two are in bold. Items that are new to this report are in italics even if they are not new discussions. If an item can be listed under more than one category it is usually listed once only in this report. Clarifications and corrections are appreciated; please leave them in this article's comment box at the bottom of the page.

Style and naming

Policies and guidelines

Wikimania 2013 was held at the Sky100
observation deck in the building. Two RFCs about tall buildings are currently active on English Wikipedia.

WikiProjects and collaborations

Technical issues and templates

Proposals

  • All proposal RfCs are listed in other sections of this report

English Wikipedia notable requests for permissions

(This section will include active RfAs, RfBs, CU/OS appointment requests, and Arbcom elections)

Meta

Upcoming online meetings

Wikimedia blog posts

The Frecce Tricolori ("Tricolour Arrows"), the aerobatic demonstration team of the Italian Air Force, seen in a featured picture by Commons contributor Airwolf from www.konflikty.pl. Airwolf is profiled in this post on the WMF Blog.


Reader comments

2013-08-21

Bad Cat

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Serendipodous


Summary: The arrival of the final season of

another banner week for Indian viewers, with four India-related topics in the list, including no. 1, no doubt aided by the celebration of that country's Independence Day
on August 15.

For the full top 25 list, see

WP:TOP25

For the week of August 11 - 17, the 10 most popular articles on Wikipedia, as determined from the report of the 5,000 most trafficked pages* were:

Rank Article Class Views Image Notes
1 Draw (chess) B-class 950,240
The stalemate in
2013 Chess World Cup in Norway
.
2 Breaking Bad B-class 881,759
The final season of this acclaimed chemistry teacher-turned-Scarface TV series began on August 11.
3 Erwin Schrödinger Start-class 871,286 The Austrian physicist, founder of
somewhat disturbing thought experiment that bears his name got a Google Doodle
to celebrate his 126th birthday on August 12.
4 Chennai Express C-class 822,516 This
Bollywood
action-romance has broken records at the Indian box office, becoming the first film to make ₹1 billion ($16.3 million) in four days.
5 Facebook B-class 720,633
A perennially popular article
6 Schrödinger's cat C-class 685,484
The world's least fortunate and most perplexing hypothetical kitty bent many minds and continued to stump the human race in his simultaneous existence and lack thereof, thanks to the honor paid to his creator by Google.
7 Independence Day (India) Good Article 485,948
The 66th anniversary of Indian independence in 1947 was celebrated on August 15.
8
List of Bollywood films of 2013
 List 459,693
An established staple of the top 25 makes a reappearance in the top 10.
9
The Conjuring (film)
 C-class 446,658 James Wan's latest ghost story (reportedly based on true events) stormed the US, taking $70 million in its first week, and is now closing in on $200 million worldwide.
10
Breaking Bad (season 5)
 List 440,418
People will want to keep up with the show, which means this won't be the last time we see this here.


Reader comments

2013-08-21

Afrobeat

Contribute  —  
Share this
By
Hahc21 and Tony1
Lagos, Nigeria. Nigerian Afrobeat musician Fela Kuti describes the city's conditions, including a multilingual trading market, in his widely praised 1975 album Confusion
. The album is the subject of a new featured article.
This Signpost "Featured content" report covers material promoted from August 11, 2013 through August 17, 2013.


Featured articles

A scene from The Bayeux Tapestry (French Tapisserie de Bayeux, Norman La telle du conquest) showing Normans at the Battle of Hastings
Aleeta curvicosta, a species of cicada, is commonly known as the floury baker or floury miller. This photo was promoted to Featured picture in 2012.

Sixteen featured articles were promoted this week.

The quagga (Equus quagga quagga) seen in an early 1800s painting by Swiss artist Jacques-Laurent Agasse

Featured lists

The discography of American singer-songwriter Beyoncé is now featured
Irish cricketer Eoin Morgan is one of only 22 cricketers who have represented two countries during their careers in international cricket.

Three featured lists were promoted this week.

Featured pictures

Malayalam–language poet and folk-song writer Kalathil Makki Divakaran, commonly known as Chandiroor Divakaran

Three featured pictures were promoted this week.

An Albanian water frog in Montenegro


Reader comments

2013-08-21

Generating musical scores with LilyPond

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Adam Cuerden and Kirill Lokshin

Thanks to a new MediaWiki extension, editors can now use the popular

PNG
images, and can also transform those scores into audio and MIDI files automatically. An example of the extension's output, together with the corresponding LilyPond markup, is shown below:

\relative c'' { \time 4/4 \key c \major c4 g8 g a4 g r b^> c^> r \bar "|." } \addlyrics { Shave and a hair -- cut: two bits. }
<score midi="1">\relative c'' { \time 4/4 \key c \major 
c4 g8 g a4 g r b^> c^> r \bar "|." } 
\addlyrics { Shave and a hair -- cut: two bits. }</score>

More details on the options provided by the extension can be found on its help page and MediaWiki description page. The LilyPond project also offers a variety of useful documentation, including an FAQ that explains how to use a keyboard or one of several score-based editors to create LilyPond markup that can be imported into Wikipedia articles.

In brief

  • VisualEditor continues to improve: Several new features have been added to VisualEditor, including automatic display of both "edit source" and "edit beta" links on sections, the ability to edit reference content directly from a list of footnotes, and support for Opera browsers. Soon to be supported are strikethrough and <code> markup, with mathematical markup to follow.
  • Support for new fonts: Several new fonts have recently been added to the default set available on Wikimedia projects; these include Gentium, a font meant to support Latin-script languages which use multiple
    Pahlavi script; and Old Persian, which supports, unsurprisingly, Old Persian
    . The fonts are not yet available on the English Wikipedia, and no date for their release has been given.
  • Innovative uses for Wikidata: Gerard Meijssen has written a series of blog posts highlighting innovative uses of Wikidata. The selected projects include automatically creating family trees, automatically filling out infoboxes, using Wikidata to identify people in pictures and even automatically-generated multilingual factsheets.
  • Tech news: As always, tech-related posts are also located on Meta.
  • PNG thumbnailing improved: The thumbnailing of
    PNG
    files larger than 35 megapixels has been improved, helping to address an issue where uploading a lossless copy of a large image would result in a failure to create a thumbnail, giving the unfortunate impression that the file was corrupted.
  • MIME search tool enabled: The MIME search tool (Special:MIMESearch), which allows users to generate lists of files according to their MIME type, has been enabled on all Wikimedia projects following a series of performance improvements.

    Reader comments
If articles have been updated, you may need to refresh the single-page edition.
What do you think of The Signpost? Share your feedback.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2013-08-21&oldid=1183872875"