In progress · 10,145b last edited 2026-09-10 10:45:55 by Mitchsavl Resources
Checklist
N Headline
N Subheading
N Ready for copyedit
N Copyedit done
N Final approval by editor-in-chief
Discussion Graphical pageviews for the English Wikipedia article Human penis, between 2026-07-28 and 2026-08-26 from the pageviews tool
I was a guest presenter in a podcast. Here a proposal for covering it in the "in brief" section. I feel reliable in reporting the contents of the one-hour podcast to save the effort of editors here listening to it, but anyone else here can make a call on what to do with this.
If you load up this article on mobile the Dolly Parton images make the next look terrible. I noticed this issue in an article from the last publication after release as well. I think the problem is the image template, but I am not sure what the right fix is. I think this is effecting all articles.Czarking0 (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Signpost does not have a firm AI policy, except to inherit the Wikipedia policies, and to check in here about AI submissions. This piece was supported with AI. Would anyone identify any AI aspects of this which need to be addressed, other than disclosure, for this piece to get editorial consideration?
This piece was previously published in the author's userspace on 26 August. Are there any aspects of the prior publication which hinder editorial consideration for Signpost publication, which would need to be addressed?
If this piece were to be published in Signpost, then it needs to be adapted in certain ways. Before I rally to organize that, would anyone like to speak up in support or opposition to opposing this, for any reason? Bluerasberry (talk)14:11, 3 September 2026 (UTC)reply
At the very least, disclosure should be upfront, at the very top: most readers won't scroll all the way to the bottom if the disclosure is hidden there, and a disclosure visible to all readers is essential for intellectual honesty. Clarifying in which ways AI assistance took place (e.g. whether it was writing whole paragraphs, copyediting, compiling data, bringing the structure, etc.) would also be needed, as "supported by AI" will not tell the reader much. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Chaotic Enby: The author put a notice at top. Could you please check what they did and comment on the sufficiency of this disclosure?
I really appreciate the feedback, as Signpost increasingly gets submissions including AI. Any comments about balancing contributors' desire to use AI to express points versus readers' desire to connect human to human is helpful. I am sympathetic to all sides and not sure what to do. Bluerasberry (talk)17:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The notice is helpful. As AI use becomes more widespread, this is indeed a question that deserves to be raised. Wikipedia is relatively cautious regarding the use of AI in reader-facing content, and I would expect readers of the Signpost to have similar expectations here. In the same way as our article guidelines will tend to prioritize the benefit of readers rather than the convenience of editors, it makes sense to have similar guiding principles here.An issue we've had when writing guidelines for LLM use is the inherent broadness in meaning of "copyediting", which notably differs across varieties of English. Even despite the explicit link to basic copyediting, our WP:NOLLM policy had to be amended to clarify its intended meaning. The Signpost, as far as I know, doesn't have an equivalent guideline, but I expect its readers to be left wondering if this term is being used in the same way here, namely spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
Move these up to the appropriate position as required (e.g. adjacent to News and Notes). Copy the section header from the submission page into the |Submission= parameter so that the "Check status" button appears and works correctly.
We have a new contributor, CatPencil, who has gone through some rounds of editorial development of this submission with me at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions#Fandoms_and_the_Wikipedia. I think the submission is in good shape for consideration from others here, and I recommend it for publishing.
If you're from China, have you hit up 银河科幻大会? Why this? @CatPencil: are you Chinese? Very few of our readers can read chinese characters so this seems like a really random and poorly presented thing to bring up.Czarking0 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Heyo, @Czarking0: actually hm, I suppose should've seen this coming. When I was adding that, it was my third round of editorial editing the article and I was supposed to globalize the outlook, I put it to the intro, but then I moved most to the other parts of the article instead, seems like I missed that, as to where I should place it; as per this request I changed the place, and change it to the native chinese version. However, I did not change the name. I put similar spanish and french articles with their native names, so I feel like it would be unfair to treat the chinese one diffrently, instead I rather describe the article shortly so anyone would have an idea what it is. Thank you again. :) let me know how it looks! 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I am in favor of using some foreign words and text in our articles. I know these characters are inaccessible to many, but English Wikipedia also supports many other languages. There is a lot of anti-Chinese propaganda in the world, and to show that China has fandoms would be surprising to some and humanizing otherwise. We are in an age when mainstream United States media uses non-English language casually without subtitles or captions, such as the heavy Korean language use in the Netflix's most popular movie, the English language film KPop Demon Hunters, or the unapologetic dropping of Chinese cultural concepts in the very popular The Three-Body Problem media franchise which that Chinese con has promoted. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean culture are the basis for perhaps half of the fandom cultures, and a wikilink in context leading to more information is not so confusing or surprising.
I recognize that non-English characters do not appear in, for example, The New York Times. With English Wikipedia's global scope, and for a global article like this one, I think it is an experimental but not a poor choice. Good call Czarking for raising the issue, and also, good call CatPencil for doing editorial experimentation. Bluerasberry (talk)15:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
Hm, I saw some changes and the edits about changing the chinese articles to the english wikipedia ones(and not other ones), and thanks a lot. They're awesome, but like said here, I'm aware that there's english versions for the other language articles, but I feel like I'd rather use the chinese text and version, as per the projects listed in the piece are directly connected to those articles as well. Another reason is, I feel like it's a much more genuine way of telling the reader that 'hey, look at these awesome conventions in their native language', as thus I did the same with french and spanish as well. Plus, I don't really see them effecting the overall understanding of the piece, nor how it comes off to the reader. If anyone would like to change them, discussing here would be definetly nicer :D 𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕮𝖆𝖙𝕻𝖊𝖓𝖈𝖎𝖑 𝕿𝖎𝖒𝖊𝖘 (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2026 (UTC)reply
I'm all in favor of wide latitude for Signpost contributors. This discussion helped me understand the motivation for showing the Chinese Wikipedia article. I'll go back and reformat my changes later today. My main preference here is that we use wikilinks not external links (e.g. not https://zh.wikipedia.org...) , but wikilinks to Chinese Wikipedia are just fine.
Signpost does not have a firm AI policy, except to inherit the Wikipedia policies, and to check in here about AI submissions. This piece was supported with AI. Would anyone identify any AI aspects of this which need to be addressed, other than disclosure, for this piece to get editorial consideration?
This piece was previously published in the author's userspace on 26 August. Are there any aspects of the prior publication which hinder editorial consideration for Signpost publication, which would need to be addressed?
If this piece were to be published in Signpost, then it needs to be adapted in certain ways. Before I rally to organize that, would anyone like to speak up in support or opposition to opposing this, for any reason? Bluerasberry (talk)14:11, 3 September 2026 (UTC)reply
At the very least, disclosure should be upfront, at the very top: most readers won't scroll all the way to the bottom if the disclosure is hidden there, and a disclosure visible to all readers is essential for intellectual honesty. Clarifying in which ways AI assistance took place (e.g. whether it was writing whole paragraphs, copyediting, compiling data, bringing the structure, etc.) would also be needed, as "supported by AI" will not tell the reader much. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 00:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)reply
@Chaotic Enby: The author put a notice at top. Could you please check what they did and comment on the sufficiency of this disclosure?
I really appreciate the feedback, as Signpost increasingly gets submissions including AI. Any comments about balancing contributors' desire to use AI to express points versus readers' desire to connect human to human is helpful. I am sympathetic to all sides and not sure what to do. Bluerasberry (talk)17:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)reply
The notice is helpful. As AI use becomes more widespread, this is indeed a question that deserves to be raised. Wikipedia is relatively cautious regarding the use of AI in reader-facing content, and I would expect readers of the Signpost to have similar expectations here. In the same way as our article guidelines will tend to prioritize the benefit of readers rather than the convenience of editors, it makes sense to have similar guiding principles here.An issue we've had when writing guidelines for LLM use is the inherent broadness in meaning of "copyediting", which notably differs across varieties of English. Even despite the explicit link to basic copyediting, our WP:NOLLM policy had to be amended to clarify its intended meaning. The Signpost, as far as I know, doesn't have an equivalent guideline, but I expect its readers to be left wondering if this term is being used in the same way here, namely spelling, punctuation, capitalisation, grammar, and other simple mistakes. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)reply
