Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue/Archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page retained for historical reference. Main discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost.

{{

{{#switch: {{{1}}}
| 1 = 2010-06-07
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 23
| 3 = 2010-05-31
| 4 = 2010-06-14
}}

(I am currently the managing editor of the Signpost, cf. [1][2], responsible for the publication process.)

Thanks!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 09:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done, but it doesn't seem to have published the next issue. Mjroots (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  Hmm, seems to have published after a purge, but the bottom links aren't right. Mjroots (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The noinclude needs to immediately follow the } rather than be on a seperate line.

books

} 10:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, see also the diff. Just remove the extra line break and every thing should be fine.

(It didn't do much damage anyway, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2010-06-07 are looking fine already.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Mjroots (talk) 10:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

{{

{{#switch: {{{1}}}
| 1 = 2010-06-14
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 24
| 3 = 2010-06-07
| 4 = 2010-06-21
}}

(Be careful not to insert an extra space before the "<noinclude>", see discussion above - only the numbers should change in the diff.)

Edit summary should be "publishing Signpost Volume 6, Issue 24 for 14 June 2010".

Thanks!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done. ÷seresin 19:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

{{

{{#switch: {{{1}}}
| 1 = 2010-06-21
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 25
| 3 = 2010-06-14
| 4 = 2010-06-28
}}

(Be careful not to insert an extra space before the "<noinclude>", see discussion above - only the numbers should change in the diff.)

Edit summary should be "publishing Signpost Volume 6, Issue 25 for 21 June 2010".

Thanks!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done JohnCD (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

{{

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#switch: {{{1}}}
| 1 = 2010-06-28
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 26
| 3 = 2010-06-21
| 4 = 2010-07-05
| 5 = 2010-07-12
}}

(Be careful not to insert an extra space before the "<noinclude>", see discussion above - only the numbers should change in the diff.)

Edit summary should be "publishing Signpost Volume 6, Issue 26 for 28 June 2010".

Thanks!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, took two attempts as I missed your request for a specific edit summary.

Bencherlite^Talk

20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#switch: {{{1}}}
| 1 = 2010-07-05
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 27
| 3 = 2010-06-28
| 4 = 2010-07-12
| 5 = 2010-07-19
}}

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, but the display is buggy at the bottom (see "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/ ..."). What's up with that? - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems you sorted it out. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

{{

Please update the page to the next issue, replacing the content before "<noinclude>" with the following:

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#switch: {{{1}}}
| 1 = 2010-07-12
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 28
| 3 = 2010-07-05
| 4 = 2010-07-19
| 5 = 2010-07-26
}}

(Be careful not to insert an extra space before the "<noinclude>", see discussion above - only the numbers should change in the diff.)

Edit summary should be "publishing Signpost Volume 6, Issue 28 for 12 July 2010".

Thanks!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 19:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done +

gr

20:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

{{

Please update the page to the next issue, replacing the content before "<noinclude>" with the following:

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#switch: {{{1}}}
| 1 = 2010-07-19
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 29
| 3 = 2010-07-12
| 4 = 2010-07-26
| 5 = 2010-08-02
}}

(Be careful not to insert an extra space before the "<noinclude>", see discussion above - only the numbers should change in the diff.)

Edit summary should be "publishing Signpost Volume 6, Issue 29 for 19 July 2010".

Thanks!

Regards, HaeB (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Done.

Bencherlite^Talk

14:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

{{<includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>#switch: {{{1}}}
| 1 = 2010-07-26
| 2 = Volume 6, Issue 30
| 3 = 2010-07-19
| 4 = 2010-08-02
| 5 = 2010-08-09
}}

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done, and since the page is now unprotected, you can edit it yourself from now on. Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I exclude bot edits from my watchlist. This week's and last week's Signpost have been posted by a bot; which page do I watchlist now to check for new issues? - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, good question. Perhaps if I

WP:IAR'ed this one and refrained from using a bot flag for updating the Issue page? It's probably not just you who hides bot edits (I hadn't thought of this possible issue, I admit). I shall set it to perform that edit without the bot flag and see if anyone complains. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss}

.] 11:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

IAR rules! - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not required that all mechanical edits be flagged, and I doubt that editing with a frequency of once per week will cause anyone to seriously complain about flooding Recent Changes or Watchlists. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue.

—Wavelength (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue has two broken links that show up as "[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/|]]"; these correspond to the opinion essay and the sister project articles. They display correctly on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost, for some reason. --PresN 23:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Could not confirm (using latest version of FireFox over a https link.) Checked source code for those two links and both pages had this:

<a href="/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-05/Sister_projects" title="Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/Sister projects">Wiki Loves Monuments 2011</a>

<a href="/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-05/Opinion_essay" title="Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/Opinion essay">The copyright crisis, and why we should care</a>

Could you do a view source on each and report if either differs from the above? (put nowiki tags around the URL). Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Latest FF, http link. Got the same thing at work, FF3.6, http as well. This is the broken page; the working one had the same as yours.

<a href="/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-09-05/Technology_report" title="Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/Technology report">Pencils down in Google Summer of Code, August analysed and integrated HTTPS support in action</a></div> <div style="float:left; clear:left; width:49%; margin-bottom:15px; text-align:left;"><br />

[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/|]]</div>

<div style="float:right; clear:right; position:relative; right:-3%; width:49%; margin-bottom:15px; text-align:left;"><br />

[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05/|]]</div>

<div style="clear:both;"></div>

--PresN 01:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

This comes from the transcluded page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-09-05, where these two links were incorrectly inserted in this bot edit. Jarry fixed them manually just three minutes later, but perhaps you saw the older version - it wouldn't be the first time that weird caching issues cause such problems for the Signpost's template system, which is why we usually purge several pages during publication; I don't know if LivingBot does this. I have now purged these two pages manually, let us know if the problem persists. Regards, HaeB (talk) 13:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That appears to have been it, thank you. --PresN 18:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

LivingBot does purge, although the way it is set up means that the two tasks (editing this page and purging this page) are inseparable. Hence the difficulty this time. I'm pretty confident I've fixed the problem we had last time, though, for future editions. I apologise for any inconvenience. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 18:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I have Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue on my watchlist. When I go there I see no links to discussion of the Signpost articles. When I go to the single-page edition I still see no links to discussion of the articles. When I go to Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20 I still see no links to discussion of the articles.

Only when I click on a specific article from the Signpost do I see discussion. There needs to be an explanation of how to find the individual article discussion on the entry page, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue, and on the single-page edition, and on the book edition (Book:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-08-20). --Timeshifter (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused; having the comments section just below the article itself on the same page is the standard on every single news site in the world- why would it be different here? --PresN 15:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the single-page edition, many people may not know that comments even exist. I just want links to the comments. So people know that there are comments, and so that they can get to the comments quickly from anywhere. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think Timeshifter is suggesting that the comments sections should be moved. It's just that it would be nice to be able to reach them more easily from the single page edition and book edition views. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Also, at the top of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue is this note: "This is a subpage template with no visible output. For the convenience of users watching this page for updates, the latest stories are shown below."

I suggest pointing out that there are comments after each article. So the note might be:

"This is a subpage template with no visible output. For the convenience of users watching this page for updates, the latest stories are shown below. Comments follow at the end of each article." --Timeshifter (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost uses the talk page for discussion, just like every other page on the wiki, so "impossible to find" is somewhat misleading. — Pretzels ^Hii! 16:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we are discussing the talk page here. We are talking about the "Discuss this story" section that appears at the bottom of each article page. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That section is a transclusion of the talk page. — Pretzels ^Hii! 21:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even realize these comments sections existed until I tried viewing the articles one at a time today instead of using the single-page edition as I usually do. I think that indicates that there's a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why there is confusion: I immediately see Timeshifter's problem. Anyway, why not add a (discussion→) link to every story excerpt on
  [•]
  21:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Links could be added to the single-page view, but they are redundant on /Issue as the article pages already include the comments. — Pretzels ^Hii! 23:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Issue is the intro page. People look at the talk page for it (this page we are using) and find no discussion of the articles. They go to the single-page edition and see no article discussion at its talk page. I usually go to the single-page edition, as do most people I am guessing. Cause it is faster to skim the articles. Many people may never look at the book edition, per David Eppstein's comment above.

Even if readers see future links saying "Discussion" on the single-page edition, many people may assume they are typical talk pages discussing article editing. So many people may still never click on the discussion links, and see the comments. The intro page is one logical place to explicitly state that there are comments about each article at the end of each individual article. Then put "comments" links, (not "discussion" links) after each article in the single-page edition. Then no one can miss it. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Volume 8, Issue 39 for 24 September 2012 seems to have been published unfinished! --

Issue 43 (22 October) was re-delivered yesterday. Good luck and all the best, Miniapolis (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)