This page is to discuss the upcoming issue of The Signpost. For suggestions of a topic to cover, see Suggestions. For proposals for a feature, see Submissions. For general or technical issues, praise, queries, or complaints, see Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost.

To help centralize discussions and keep related topics together, Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/SuggestionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/SubmissionsWikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here.

	Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45
	This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 3.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-08-11 12:44:11 ( v t e ) Writing: 6 August 20:00 (-4 days ago; 133%) Publishing: 7 August 20:00 (-3 days ago; 150%) Deadline has started. (refresh)

The Signpost (talk  · chat)
About Archives Subscribe
Newsroom (talk) Coordination Submissions Suggestions
Writing Content + resources Formatting (cheatsheet) Style Technical (talk)
Recent changes: main · talk
Newsletters
v t e

Awaiting Copy Edit and final check, but everything is done. Comment originally posted by Valorrr at 02:33, 13 May 2025.

m:Proposal for Closing Wikinews may be covered in Signpost. GZWDer (talk) 08:34, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

m:Talk:Public_consultation_about_Wikinews is better link. --ssr (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed an article published in the right-wing JNS by Aaron Bandler on the basis that it was unattributed to its author -- a prolific RW advocate (formerly employed by the Daily Wire among others). The Signpost published two briefs in the last issue which identified neither his participation nor his POV. The article I removed is an interesting case in point. Only after very strongly worded citations from various pro-Israel thinktanks and NGOs (unwatch.org, NGO monitor, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Foundation for Defense of Democracies) is it mentioned that the NGO EMHRM was actually downgraded in a recent RSN discussion. I think if this is published, at the very least, mention needs to be made of Bandler's energetic advocacy campaign. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:47, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this criticism directed at me for posting the link? I'm not sure what you mean "unattributed to its author"; none of the items I included in this edit did include the author, except one that I noticed was notable and written about himself. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the Signpost should not become Aaron Bandler's in-house megaphone. I can see that you probably didn't realize that the author was on a mission. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 04:11, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this. I sense some fundamental misunderstandings here about the role of ITM. It's not the Signpost's journalism award section where we honor and recommend the best press coverage of Wikipedia (or even serve as their in-house megaphone), but much closer in function to a press review or media monitoring service for the community. Throughout the Signpost's two-decade existence, this section had featured countless news articles that got basic facts about Wikipedia wrong (unsurprisingly, cf. Gell-Mann amnesia effect), or were highly opinionated in ways that are not compatible with various Wikipedia's values or community consensuses, or made unfounded bias accusations. (Of course, under general Wikipedia policy there are limits to what sites can be linked at all. If you feel that the Jewish News Syndicate should never be linked on-wiki even outside mainspace, perhaps submit a request to put it on the URL blacklist and see if the community agrees with you?)

While context like the name of a journalist who wrote a linked piece, their political allegiances, their previous publications about Wikipedia or their former employers can be very useful for our readers (and I'll see to add something in this particular case based on your hints), it is by no means required. (Also BTW, I'm a bit confused by this edit summary - seems you actually said there that you had yourself added the kind of context to the last issue whose omission you are now criticizing?)

Lastly, it seems that you sidestepped Bri's question. I find your edit summary here problematic (Last month the same editor added two briefs Aaron Bandler was involved with) - insinuating that there might be a systematic effort by Bri to push this particular author, rather than just him having done the bulk of the usual ITM preparation work of adding items from Google News etc. (Not to speak of the fact that "involved with" seems to be doing a lot of work in case of that first "brief", an article in The Jewish Journal by someone else about a panel where Bandler was 1 of 12 participants.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the podcast was 2.5h long and Bandler was one of the most talkative that for me constitutes involved. All that I corrected last month was the claim that Bandler's article was by rather than in RealClearPolitics. In do doing I did warn in the ES that he was a former Daily Wire journalist (generally unreliable publication). I see he also had unattributed publications back in an January, February, and April Signposts as well. I guess I was indeed under the misapprehension that someone actually read the articles which were posted in ITM and so would notice recurring authors and axe-grinding tone. My apologies to Bri for misunderstanding the authorial responsibilities for the briefs. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 08:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I've seen a Bandler-WP piece that's not focused on the "WP is unfair to Israel" view. Presumably it's an angle that has a market, and they are often published in mainstream (mostly Israeli-ish, I think) media. Afaict, he's written about 10-15 such articles in 2024-25, someone could make a Category:Wikipedia beat reporters page for him. So, with this output, I don't think it's strange he keeps turning up in the Signpost. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SashiRolls: I do not want to obligate you beyond your interest, but I invite you to make an editorial recommendation to The Signpost or write an opinion piece, however brief that is. I was unaware that this author is repeatedly publishing Wikipedia criticism of this sort. I would like wiki user opinions on how Signpost should evaluate what seems to be hate-based material, and how we should share it.

There is limited editorial organization available to read these pieces and note that the same author is publishing the same kinds of stories. It takes a little while for the insight to come, so thanks for making it. Thanks also for your apology to Bri, because yes, I confirm that the media reporting in the Signpost is just a round up and we depend on people like you to help evaluate things like this. I really appreciate your compliant, and I really appreciate that apology. Now that we know, what should we do? Keep linking, mark the stories with some kind of disclaimer, avoid linking like we do with blacklisted publications, or what? Bluerasberry (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been in favour of including comment from ideologically motivated critics in ITM, if they have a reasonably large audience. The community should know what is being written and read out there. A little contextualisation doesn't hurt, as long as it doesn't come across as polemical. Andreas JN466 17:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not publish Breitbart because it is on WP:BLACKLIST, but they have a lot bigger audience than Jewish Journal, and they publish a lot of articles attacking Wikipedia ht tps://www.breit bart.com/tag/wikipedia/ . So Andreas, that goes against your wish to cover news with large audience. This Bandler person seems to want Wikipedia extinguished and is rallying for anyone to attack it, as in the Tax-Exempt Status.

Breitbart is blacklisted for not doing minimal fact checking. I do not know anything about JJ's content, but it seems there is a new and recent protest by some who felt strongly enough to try to establish a competing Jewish journal.

Contextualization seems helpful from newspapers that have a strong agenda in mind. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure we have never published Breitbart ... I seem to remember we did a few times way back when ... (checks old issues) ... See e.g. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-06-10/In the media, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-06/Arbitration report, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-10-28/In the media, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/In the media and so on.

I hadn't realised TDA was still so busy! At some point it becomes repetitive. At any rate, I'm really not in favour of listing three or four Breitbart pieces in each issue's ITM. I am also against a blanket ban though. If an article of theirs gets attention elsewhere I would mention it. Then again, Breitbart is not an issue over which I would lose sleep. Andreas JN466 00:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your text does exactly what you described: contextualizing without being polemical. Thanks! -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:49, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am inclined to agree with Andreas and HaeB. It's obvious (at least to me) that Breitbart is not a source of great repute or credibility, but neither are a bunch of the things we cover in ITM. The point of the column isn't to endorse everything being said in every source mentioned, but to allow readers to keep abreast of media coverage, and thereby roughly public opinion and image, of our projects. Of course it should not be front-page news every time a guy complains about something, but if it's something that a lot of people are reading, then it is something Wikipedians ought to know about (if in some cases only the fact that people are reading it, and not whatever accusation itself, which may be exaggerated or false). jp×g🗯️ 19:43, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit worried about reports of violence in Nairobi, the site of the August 6-9 (check) Wikimania. I asked WMF Communications about the violence, and got a submission. It's really important on a story like this not to overemphasize it and unnecessarily scare everybody away, nor underemphasize it and mislead our readers about possibly unsafe conditions. This submission comes close to the right balance, but I'll suggest adding one direct short sentence. It's a bit promotional, but I think this is normal for Wikimania organizers, and we know how to appropriately tone it down a bit. See

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/In_focus

I wanted to use the rubric "Wikimania", which we've used before, but that rubric has been removed from the standard selection, and my usual method of adding rubrics doesn't work any more (why not?). I'll give a quick copy edit soon, but help editing would be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man is born free, but everywhere he is moving around goddamn boxes on a Sunday swing shift.

— Jean-Jacques Rousseau

It seems the tentative deadline for this issue set on the first of the month has just elapsed; a couple articles look decent (ITM is quite far along, but ITM is mostly stubs). In focus and Community view and Traffic report look mostly ready, but for the most part these are reprints, meaning we would basically only have one article of original reporting if I were to publish right now.

I have an extremely painful and gnarly injury on my left thumb, so I was really dreading getting on the computer, but as it turns out, I basically never use it to type on a keyboard anyway, so this is no barrier. Since I do use it to move around boxes, I am going to try to not go to work tomorrow, which means I may perhaps even able to do some writing. If this succeeds, I will be able to probably fix up the discussion report, although unfortunately my prophecy has come to pass and way too much time has gone by (e.g. I would have to run it a second time).

There is a very good Comix which got sent in, which we should use also. jp×g🗯️ 04:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working in the morning, then attending a funeral in the afternoon. Good luck with everything. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've wrapped up a ton of N&N stuff, elaborated so in my section below. Please ping me if you need anything from, else I'm likely to be unavailable until publishing time for this issue. Soni (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded a ton of N&N, and think it's nearly complete, save for copyediting. There's multiple significant news stories for this cycle, so I've cut a couple to bunt them for the next issue or another future section, probably (GRDC, CENT discussions).

The overall N&N section seems to still be significantly longer than I prefer, so I currently prefer just cutting the WMF Bulletin section altogether, or some splitting off of N&N for this issue. I'd strongly prefer a delayed "Bulletin+rest of movement" summary than repeating the 14 May issue, which seemed to not actually cover anything (courtesy ping @JPxG:).

Overall, I think this issue's N&N seems to be mostly done. Soni (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now realise Signpost does have a policy of writing issues beforehand, so started Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next next issue/News and notes already. That should help cover everything that'll be skipped for this issue. Soni (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni, Bri, and JP&G: I've been worried all week about the proper balance for the possible violence issue at Wikimania, so I added a section in N&N.

Sorry for the last minute change, if you don't like it, just take it out. Sincerely, Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HaeB: doesn't think that addition was actually news. If so just take it out. Perhaps I'm particularly sensitive on the topic. I'll likely be unavailable today. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are referring to the confusion I experienced while reading this story, and expressed here. After looking into the provided sources, I have just edited the story further with the aim to make the news angle that you apparently intended a bit clearer, also e.g. by adding a link to 2025 Kenyan protests. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I highlighted a section that seems to have a factual error. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit is basically done. I left in a questionable assessment of his support for a particular U.S. presidential candidate which in the article Hulk Hogan wording is part of a "complicated legacy", but in the TR is "tarnishing his reputation". ☆ Bri (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In the media looks ready to me, except for final copy edit.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Recent research, some last minute magic from @HaeB: is all that's needed!
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus an important article - it is NOT a reprint! I asked for info on the recent violence in Kenya (re:Wikimania), and we got this. Copy editing and good judgement is all that's needed. I'll likely add a bit more at News and notes to gently let people know the potential problem and refer them to In focus
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Humour Hey! It's funny. What else do we need? A bit of copy editing!
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes Needs some work. 5 TKTKs need filling in, and a piccy needed. Maybe one of the usual election piccies? But this is a remarkable turnaround. Thanks @Soni, Jayen466, and Md Mobashir Hossain:.
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view says it still needs copy editing, otherwise OK
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Traffic report headline is ok imho, but I never fully trust my copy editing.

That's 7 articles. The rest aren't really close, unless I missed something. I think we can publish tonight even if we have to invoke our "we miss you, JPxG" procedure. I shouldn't approve In the media, Recent research, or In focus myself. @JPxG:

@Bri: will you be available to publish?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably be Wednesday evening (Pacific time) before I can. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's tentatively schedule it for Wednesday evening (PT) then. JPxG can do it earlier if able. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday night leaves me free after midnight. I have, at long last, finished the discussion report -- it needs only an image. jp×g🗯️ 21:59, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all - I have updated the deadline template to Wedndesday evening midnight Pacific Time accordingly. I will have RR in publishable form, and should also be able to help tie up loose ends in ITM and N&N.

Note that several sections are still marked as needing copyediting at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#Article status.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good right now with the exception of a few hems and haws over punctuation. It is 6:30 a.m., and every time I publish when sleep-deprived I mess a bunch of stuff up, so I plan to sleep and then run once alive again. I think this will be a good issue (and remotely on time, at that). It's morning again on Wikipedia! jp×g🗯️ 13:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boom goes the dynamite. There were also quite a few things in the suggestion/submission box which I cleared out and put in -- we have a pretty damn solid issue this time! Wegweiser is throwing a fit over some nonsense or other, but the actual publication process worked imo. jp×g🗯️ 07:51, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones I am ready to work with Wikipedia Signpost. Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 04:32, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to doing this -- see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2025-04-09. I did the main work for this some years ago (e.g. writing scripts that would put the pictures on the archive pages and actually getting the subheds out from the main Signpost page's history which is the only place they ever existed). There are still some things I have to fix (e.g. it looks somewhat bad in old pre-piccy issues), but barring that I think this is good. Also note I got subheds on the main pages themselves, like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2025-04-09, which also means they will show on talk pages and subscription boxen, which I think will help with writing (e.g. no longer have to cram all pertinent information into the hed). jp×g🗯️ 07:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, note the redlinked image there -- this very often happens with traffic report images (i.e. of popular IPs and celebs etc)..... fixing this has to be done in like 4 different places... ugh... jp×g🗯️ 07:09, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

somewhat bad is an understatement. It looks like this or some other recent (within the last five weeks) change broke the archive issues for multiple years, which are now all full of repeated "TKTK Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem ..." text (example - compare this snapshot from June 16). Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this fixed it, thanks! (The placeholder piccies still look somewhat bad indeed and the previous look was more compact and readable, but at least the displayed text is no longer affected.) Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a {{Signpost/snippet-nopic}} that can be used for this. Currently, the way it works is that {{Signpost/item}} passes through the archive display mode to {{Signpost/snippet}}, so it could be given a switch to pass it to -nopic if no piccy params were supplied (would need some testing). jp×g🗯️ 21:36, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like this: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Archives/2010-08-23. jp×g🗯️ 01:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ran into a dry spell, seemed nowhere to go

Good luck turned the tide, I'm on my way

I remember loading big trucks when the summer sun was hot

You know, I could still be there, but I'm not

I am now employed at something that is not a deliberate attempt to create the physical reality of Hell, and will be online tomorrow to copyedit and prep the issue. jp×g🗯️ 09:44, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, Bri, and HaeB: Congrats to JPxG. I'd guess most of us have been through a job that's "an inferno worse than Dante's" (to quote Ira Gerswhin) and I'm very happy to see that you've emerged from it. My apologies for when I was impatient or even snarky.

I'm at the beach this weekend, but it's cold (hurray!) and I've got a few hours today to work in the library (but not on Sunday). I should be able to complete most of what I started at ITM, but not the big story on the WMF lawsuit in the UK (which has not had a ruling yet). I also posted a Disinfo report from User:Grnrchst. It could use a bit of copy editing. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:32, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITM looks gucci, N&N can use some work, traffic report's fine, discussion report is a HUGE PILE OF SHIT needs me to finish writing it, and DR is great. This should be quick... jp×g🗯️ 12:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: AELECT could probably just be its own section. jp×g🗯️ 12:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Thanks for posting this! I will note that quite a few things have changed since I originally posted this, so I may need to provide an update before publication. Will see about writing a wee update tomorrow. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Smallbones: What would the deadline for this be? There's quite a few things I wrote in the report that no longer make sense (i.e. the recommendations for banning and reaching out to other wikis), so I'd want to give this a proper go over to ensure readers aren't reading old out-dated information. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will be awakening in the morning and going through to copyedit and do final checks (much of today I worked out (hopefully) the last of the kinks of the noticeboard monitor script). @Grnrchst: If there's anything special you want to do with the disinformatsiya report, I can save that for last -- for the most part it looks great to me. jp×g🗯️ 12:11, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: I'm working on updating it now, thanks for giving the time. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: One question: the report links to a bunch of diffs that no longer exist due to article and file deletions; should I leave the links in or remove them? --Grnrchst (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the file deletions (on Commons) I can do nothing, and would recommend trying to find an archive.org snapshot to link to. For everything else, we can either do the same (unlikely to be indexed if they're as deep a link as a diff), or I can view the deleted diffs and quotate from them. Lmk if you want me to email you diffs/etc or which ones you want to get at. jp×g🗯️ 13:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: The links to the diffs were more a way to provide evidence for the initial investigation. I'm happy to look for archived versions, but I don't think it's necessary to quote them. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted diffs are the following: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] None of them appear to be archived on the wayback machine. As far as I'm aware, all of them are included in the linked spreadsheet. I'm just not sure whether to leave these in for posterity or remove them to save readers the hassle of clicking through to a dead diff. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes: oldID showing Woodard on top should be linked; use of present tense needs to be changed to past tense; clarify that some of the referenced pictures have been deleted; updates on process of article deletion should be added, mentioning some projects decided to delete and keep, and their reasoning; clarify that some of the named users have been confirmed as sockpuppets by an investigation; thoughts from editors of other Wikipedias on this should be added (e.g. the comment from a Tumbuka Wikipedia editor); the response from the Swmmng music company should be mentioned. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG and Smallbones: I have updated the article. It should be ready for copyediting now. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit done. I suggest the editorial team write an intro that explains why some of the diff links are dead. Perhaps –

Note to readers: Some of the diffs in this article are dead links because of deletions made subsequent to writing. They have been retained to show diligence in the findings presented here. – Signpost editors

I can go back and insert this at the top if there aren't any other suggestions. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good idea. Thanks for the copyedits! --Grnrchst (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The note to readers is in the copy now. Anyone else is welcome to copyedit the text. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should probably ask what happens to the old talk page discussion? Will that get moved to the new page or will we start over with a fresh one? --Grnrchst (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling about the talkpage is that we shouldn't surprise anybody with publication of their material. The talk page acts like part of The Signpost in terms of its visibility after the publication scripts are run. (Unless you are reading the single-page edition which suppresses talk pages.) ☆ Bri (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to leave before finishing at ITM. I definitely want to do the Chronicle of Higher Education article write up, I might be able to do it tonight, but maybe not. I don't think I'll be able to get to the WMF v. UK lawsuit (which is not started, but very important.) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: Nothing is currently selected for a lead story; everything is in the brief notes. Do you have a suggestion for one that ought to be elevated? Maybe the dive bar bit? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Smallbones is AFK, I promoted a couple of things to lead items, including the dive bar. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "Something about jumbotrons and fame" was supposed to be a placeholder caption. If someone can think of a good one, go for it. All that comes to mind for me is probably too risky to say out loud. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I got back from the beach and wrote Don't fiddle about the Chronicle of Higher Education article, putting it in slot number 3. That's all for me this issue! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this new? Popped up in my Google News search results today for the vanilla term Wikipedia. The headline "Anti-Israel activists are rewriting Jewish history on Wikipedia — here's why it matters" feels familiar, but we've had a lot of coverage like this lately. Author is Eden Cohen, outlet is OpenDor Media#Unpacked. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It can be a brief, at least (same as the tracegrains one from the sugg page... jp×g🗯️ 03:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Morning277 has asked for an un-ban or fresh start. At the wrong forum, so it was closed without any discussion. 2013-10-09 News and notes, 2014-01-29 News and notes, and 2015-02-04 Op-ed are examples of several Signpost pieces regarding this editor, their business and wider matters. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now open at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Clean start (Morning277). ☆ Bri (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The request has been authenticated via email, which surprised me. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[placeholder] jp×g🗯️ 03:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We should consider splitting off some news segments in another section completely. Currently I am considering some of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Office_action:_Removals_on_the_article_Caesar_DePaço, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_223#alleged_"massive_leak_on_Wikimedia_sites" and Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Announcement_regarding_use_of_checkuser_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. I think they are the news segments that are least like the other "Regular news across the movement" and more like "Security concerns and important updates". They could all use more in depth coverage or better scrutiny than the current N&N "cover multiple topics" Soni (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy this is still like this. Okay uh well woo-ee this might be a while.

Also: During July, 4 functionaries resigned their Checkuser and Oversight rights - Alison, Bradv, Joe Roe and RickinBaltimore.. What the hell is up with that? That sounds like something happened.

Anyway, well, extremely important things are not covered at all and it's midnight so I guess this will have to wait..... jp×g🗯️ 06:56, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah there's a few topics that could use a deeper take or three. On the talk page, arb HJ Mitchell explains is that this is just an inactivity change. I do not know if you plan to look further into this or something else. Soni (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Next_issue/Discussion_report: I think I have come up with a way to make this not look like trash: the formatting is a little weird, but I can reprogram the script to just output that by default. Basically, I have it broken out by board, then the top discussions for the period on each board sorted by signature count -- then each list entry has a place to give a summary, that doesn't just trap everything inside a big table.

There are fifty so my plan is to basically just give a couple sentences for each. jp×g🗯️ 05:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG I actually planned to make this discussion report a "CENT archives report". Basically a summary of the last N months of centralised large scale discussion, manually condensed into 2-3 paragraphs. As opposed to your table of "Long discussions" that you flesh out with more details.

I think the former needs to happen every few months, so was already planning to use this issue for it. Soni (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that can get done in the next couple hours they will pair like Riesling and Gouda, but the tables are waiting for their food so if the wine or the cheese is not ready one may have to go out alone. jp×g🗯️ 20:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hold my dish, I have a very strong preference for not having my planned section be at the same time as your ones, else I believe the utility is strongly diminished.

That and I'll need nearly 12-24h to wrap up my N&N sections and this one, between my breaks between Wikimania sessions

I will request you hold the next table based discussion report not in the next issue itself. Or in another section name Soni (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Are we planning to hold publication for more writing now? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:01, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the interested, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 6. Not suggesting this as Signpost content, it's a WP:APPNOTE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While updating issue 21:10 with "AI slop" critiques, I stumbled across some AI slop: "Wikipedia Page Creation Expert: How Sangode Oloruntoba Samson (Samson Expert) [new line, smaller font] Helping Influencers and Startups Build Digital Authority". I hope this isn't what we have to look forward to. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ping copyeditors Gerald Waldo Luis, Headbomb, isaacl, Adam Cuerden, & editor Bluerasberry: Deadline is on us; three of six columns are marked ready for copyedit, namely: Discussion report, In the media, and Traffic report. Help?! ☆ Bri (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion report, community view, ITM, traffic report, crossword, comix, everything is ready except N&N. I wrote some about the court order but it seems very inadequate. jp×g🗯️ 00:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is ready to go, right now, with the sole exception of the several stories in N&N that need to be written. If this happens I will press the button immediately. I think these are all very substantial stories, so it will be kind of sad if we publish with some kind of "Blah blah blah some stuff happened here's a diff link" and nothing else... jp×g🗯️ 00:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck it, we'll do it live! jp×g🗯️ 02:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fleshed out some of the N&N stories live that were still needing more information. Apologies for the delays, Wikimania seriously messed with my free time and ability to finish some stories. Soni (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why the crossword is all jacked up? I looked at all the stylesheets and templates and I don't see any changes:

• Template:Signpost/Crossword
• Template:Signpost/Crossword row
• Template:Signpost/Crossword cell
• Template:Signpost/Crossword/styles.css
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/master.css

I have no idea what has changed. It looks like trash in Firefox: the cells are misaligned from the text boxes, it seems. @Bri: It looks like you also tried to figure this out, did you get anywhere with that? It isn't just the one for this issue -- all the previous crosswords are cooked too. My best guess is that something in Vector or the textarea plugin changed (?) and now all of the properties are all shitways. If this is the case, and nobody can figure out a quick fix, then I think we should just hold this until the next issue, because it looks so bad as to be totally unusable -- I don't want to throw this up on thousands of people's talk apge and have it just be jumbled. jp×g🗯️ 00:27, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever, it is cooked for now. Better stuff to worry about.\ jp×g🗯️ 00:38, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed yesterday and put a note on Signpost/Technical. Also saw nothing obvious that had changed. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wait, it looks better now. And it's in the issue. I guess JPxG figured it out? Maybe it was Special:Diff/1304922048 that set it right. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for me that fixed the vertical bars being bad, but the horiz are still clapped out -- at least it is usable now. jp×g🗯️ 06:58, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still has problems on Chrome for iOS (iPad), but desktop and Android look OK. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't get to the bottom of this either but it might be related to box-sizing in .cdx-text-input and the input element immediately under that. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why, but .mw-parser-output .signpost-crossword-inputbox .commentboxInput { min-height: 2.5em; } makes the input fill the entire box, which I presume is what we want. I've edited this style in. We probably need to read up on CSS.

May I suggest a {text-align: center;} for the input field as well in addition to the above? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating -- I messed around with that same element's height and accomplished nothing, but I didn't think to try min-height... jp×g🗯️ 19:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have either; I only thought of it because I saw in the "computed styles" devtool that the height was 32px, searched up 32px in the list of styles, and found out it was from min-height. I wonder if we should ask a WMF CSS consultant or something. Something here ticks me off making my solution feel like a hack.

Anyways, what do you think about centering the text input? Aaron Liu (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]