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/Suggestions and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions redirect here.

Deadlines (UTC) Current time is 2025-06-04 14:14:52 ( v t e ) Writing: 6 June 00:00 (2 days left; 8%) Publishing: 7 June 00:00 (3 days left; 12%) There is 1 day, 9 hours, 45 minutes and 8 seconds until deadline. (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

We are a bit constrained on dates in order to have a reasonable time to prepare issue 7, and to allow a second issue in May. Can I suggest we set May 12 and 26 as the next two publication dates, and stick to it? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me (provided we get the current issue finally out in the near future). Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri That's fine, but we could also set a single date (around 20 May or something) if we do acknowledge that the news are coming in at breakneck speed...

We should also keep in mind that we might get more updates on the Ed Martin situation, as well as the disputes over in India and France, about half through May. Oltrepier (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sticking with my May 12 proposal when resetting the timer post publication, but it is still open to discussion (of course). Maybe with issue 6 being so full, it's OK if we go ~10 days for issue 7? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri I would give ourselves even one or two more days, just to make sure we don't have to rush it... : ) Oltrepier (talk) 08:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to bump it out. The timer belongs to the team. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm all for collective decisionmaking here, but we should also make sure that someone is available to carry out publication at the scheduled time - will you and/or User:JPxG be at 22:00 UTC on May 13?

(Also, no strong opinion about the next issue in particular, but in general let's please try to keep the publication deadline on US weekends, also per previous discussions.)

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking a look at it now. Currently, my work schedule changes between the morning and night shift in the middle of every week, which this week is tomorrow, meaning I am scheduled to be in a warehouse with no Internet access at 22:00 UTC, and am off at midnight Pacific (which is 6:00 UTC). The good news is that my schedule is frequently changed to random other shifts with zero notice, so maybe I don't have work tomorrow -- who can say? -- I am not allowed to know. I will be available tomorrow night, which is UTC's morning, I habeeb.

It looks like for this next issue we have a couple articles which could be published: the community view, in focus, obit, and debriefing look basically good to go (some light copyediting for formatting and style). ITM is mostly good, it looks like. N&N has bones, although some time has been requested to finish it out. Disinformation report is also marked as not ready.

Wikiproject report and technical report do not have bones; t-shirt is ???.

I guess this is an issue. jp×g🗯️ 08:17, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, by "issue" I here mean "edition" rather than "problem". jp×g🗯️ 08:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it's 6,989,736 articles on en.Wiki. 7 million will need more than 1 full Signpost article. 6 million had about 4, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/2020-01-27 for some ideas. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple extrapolation from today's reading - 3 days later - gives 3* (7,000,000 -6,991,136) /(6,991,136 - 6,989,736) = 19 days, or May 26 which is Memorial Day. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones I guess we could write at least four once again: surely it would need a mention in News and notes, but maybe an In focus, a Community view and an Interview with the article's creator (if they're down for it) could also be good ideas! Oltrepier (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there are only 7,000 articles left to go. Article count does seem to be slowing down a bit. Maybe million article milestones aren't as big a thing the seventh time around (add divorce joke here). But there's no way that it won't happen within a month. Maybe we just add a small note under "Milestones" in New & notes to let people know it's coming and ask for input at the same time. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:42, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A simple extrapolation from today's reading - 9 days later - gives 9 * (7,000,000 -6,993,308) /(6,993,308 - 6,989,736) = 17 days, or May 30. (Maybe I should recheck my calculations!) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It happened on May 28, maybe. There are some disputes of the true 7M article, indeed, more disputable and the news should cover WP:MEATBOT, WP:MASSCREATE, etc. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 05:42, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official report, the seven-millionth article was Operators and Things, created by Therapyisgood on May 28 at 02:26 UTC. A few other articles across the New Page list are also listed, including 1955 Yuba–Sutter floods, British American Hospital, Khorastava rural council, Nikolay Alyokhin and Taraxacum angustisectum. Oltrepier (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NightWolf1223, following up on the above discussion: I have now moved your draft to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Technology report, but can you confirm you are still aiming to have this ready in the upcoming (~May 13) issue?

I should be able to contribute one full story and one brief item, too, both of which would fit best here, but could go into N&N instead in case there won't a "Technology report" this time.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we haven't heard back, it looks like it might not be possible to include this section in the upcoming issue.

That said, it seems that Valorrr might be interested in taking up the slack. Valorrr, I would recommend to just go ahead and start contributing things to the draft, no need to wait for an official appointment (this list is honestly always a bit outdated anyway). I assume you might already have familiarized yourself with the content guidance for this section. I - and hopefully other Signpost regulars too - would be happy to assist in getting it into shape, and also (see above) contribute some content myself.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a question @HaeB, would it be possible that I am now classified as an "editor", or not? Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 23:22, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also basically did it all. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 23:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I made some edits (let's always try to include a link to the source of the information, or to the thing being described).

Regarding the section about current bot approval requests: I don't think we want to simply transclude {{Wikipedia:BAG/Status}}. (For one thing, Signpost articles capture the situation at a particular point in time.) The way it appears to have been done in at least some previous "Technology report" editions (example) is to use subst instead ({{subst:Wikipedia:BAG/Status}}). But I'm curious what other people familiar with the topic think is the best format.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Would I be classified as an "Editor", now as stated above or? Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 01:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please coordinate with the rest of the Signpost team before starting a new section as you just did here (also, as a Wikipedia editor you should be aware that copying text from another page requires attribution). Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, sorry for the error. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG, Bri, HaeB, Oltrepier, and Soni: It looks like we'll have at least 6 articles. My Jay-Z article is about ready to submit tonight and should be interesting. And my Iskander interview should be ready to post in N & n in the morning. Let's try to take every step possible to get this one published on time! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:50, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones Actually, I don't know if I'll be able to contribute as much as I would have liked this time, and I'm so sorry for that... Oltrepier (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you need more material for this issue, I submitted a draft at User:Julle/On the hunt for sources: Swedish AfD discussions a couple of days ago, taking a look at how difficult it can be to hunt down sources in – to English Wikipedia – foreign languages, as it's more than merely the language barrier which might be an issue, specifically looking at Swedish articles in the Articles for Deletion process. /Julle (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looked well developed to me, so I went ahead and moved it to WP:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus. I hope we have time to fully copyedit for this issue. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per #May publication dates, it seemed like the date was more of a dream than a plan, although even at this fairly-accelerated pace, it does somehow seem that there's a publishable issue here, so I reckon I may as well just go ahead and do it -- although, like I said I will be moving around boxes at the actual publication date and shall not return for a couple hours ere. jp×g🗯️ 21:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could use copyediting on a few things but we should have an issue... I also drafted a From the editor, would you like me to post it? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently when you are sick you get tired after eight hours of walking around and need to sleep before publishing, so shall it be 05-14 17:00... I don't think I can stomach any additional columns but I guess if you throw it in quick it may be possible... jp×g🗯️ 08:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer, my copy got lost during an overnight security update. It was just a brief "hey we are back after a short interval, we have lots of timely news, and plan to be back in two weeks". If it had been a real effort to write, there would have been more care in saving a copy. Anyway, I had selected this image to go with it, alluding to our fortnightly schedule, and the fact that issues 7 and 8 were planned for the date of the full and new moon respectively. But we are a little off now. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I never expected to see that (humor) article again, but won't object to it being republished. If others don't want it though, please don't.

There is an important announcement from the McArthur Foundation with a video included featuring Jimbo and Denny V. titled 100&change. Since it is a tech topic others should weigh in. I'll put 4-5 lines in Itm, but others might want to change the location. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Video with transcript Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:05, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also f:Wikifunctions:Status_updates/2025-04-30#Abstract_Wikipedia_is_a_MacArthur_100&Change_finalist = https://diff.wikimedia.org/2025/04/30/abstract-wikipedia-is-a-100change-finalist/

Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, got it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems somewhat non pertinent as an ITM item just because it's not "media" as in independent media, but all sourced to MacArthur. But not a big deal. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos that: Thank you and Soni for covering the Charts news, but we should have thought of moving it to "Technology report" now that it is revived.

Also, the India Supreme Court news is kind of awkwardly spread between ITM and N&N with a lot of overlap - I think we should feel free to consolidate such things into a single story (it's fine and even encouraged to enrich an ITM piece with additional context from sources internal to the movement, like in this case WMF statements).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't like publishing issues this slim, but there was a lot of news in it. I am deeply regretful I could not contribute anything useful to this issue. Wegweiser is running and should be done in a few minutes: I am late for work. jp×g🗯️ 21:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

21:7 includes humor from the archives, but it didn't move, red link... Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 22:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JPxG! No problems with the publishing script this time? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it fucked up a bunch of the pagemoves. I have no idea why. I changed it so that, instead of batching 16 moves per minute, it will do a batch size of 1, and do a batch every 15.epsilon seconds. I think maybe some API thing changed. It makes no sense why I am ratelimited (I am p sure admins just bypass that altogether) -- whatever. Can be dealt with later. jp×g🗯️ 22:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: Hi, I'm just wondering what happened to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/T-shirt. It's ready to go (minus EiC approval), but maybe the publishing script didn't recognize it as it's not in any usual category. Cheers ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG @Bri I also apologize for failing to contribute to this issue: I've had a lot of other real-life duties and tasks over at it.wiki that have definitely caught up to me in these weeks, and I'm very sorry for it... Oltrepier (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure that we can do something with the most phallic gearbox known to man. Doesn't even need a caption, just post it as the comic with the words "unedited photograph"

Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.9% of all FPs.} 04:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden Well... that would be something. : D

By the way, I'm glad to see you back here! Oltrepier (talk) 18:53, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Community view part 3 is ready for copyediting early. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This news story seems guaranteed to raise major complaints from at least two groups. I don't have a particular expertise in the controversial areas. I was looking for somebody who has handled this topic well in The Signpost before. @Bluerasberry: do you know of somebody who could write this up or even just be an "expert source" in the area? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:37, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the author of 2020-06-28 In focus, "Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism", which touched on online harassment and discrimination, hasn't edited for a while. But perhaps we could include a link to it as backgrounder. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In addition to Ryan McGrady's article for Free Policy Press, which you already added and proposes the implementation of a "Wikipedia Liberty Index", there's also a recent post from D.F. Lovett's "Edit History" newsletter, where he suggests that a banner that emphasized the fact that Wikipedia is "an ever-evolving, volunteer-maintained project owned and operated by a nonprofit organization" would help the platform get less misunderstood and criticized...

Thoughts? Oltrepier (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Signposters. [Following a conversation with Smallbones and HaeB] I'd like to write something based on the TPP piece to pitch to the Signpost. Some combination of excerpts and a paragraph or two about possible next steps (I asked them to put a CC BY-SA 4.0 license on it to facilitate doing so). What would be a sensible deadline for me to get you a draft? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:09, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Sure! What did "TPP" refer to, though? At the moment, we set June 6 as the deadline for the writing process. Oltrepier (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tech Policy Press. :) Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:23, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Oh, that's right! : D

Thank you very much for stepping in. Oltrepier (talk) 19:01, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As previously discussed, I have finished (or at least made functional) the script that parses and entables noticeboard threads. Here is the top 50 or so noticeboard threads since the beginning of the year (47, to be precise, which is the number of discussions above the byte threshold that I set to 70,000).

Sort this by "length" to get them ranked. I think that this would make for a decent discussion report. This is a very large amount, of course -- since it is for five whole months, and not three weeks -- I think if we did this every issue we could go in a lot greater depth but unfortunately there is a lot to cover which means a lot to gloss over quickly. jp×g🗯️ 21:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking on this, more or less, is that we ought to print something, even if it is not Pulitzer material, and that something is better than nothing.

It would be very nice if we could actually analyze these, as I did for AfDs at the deletion report a long while ago (in the days of having time for things) -- but if there is not sufficient time to actually go through and analyze them, we ought to summarize them, and if there is not sufficient time to summarize them, we ought to at least reprint what the closing statements were, and if there is not sufficient time to do that, I think the bare minimum would be to just publish them as a list.

As more time goes by, the job of catchup for these will only become more difficult (as with the quite lethargic arb report), so I would very much like someone to write something fleshing these out, but if this cannot be managed I will just put something in like a very bare-bones list. jp×g🗯️ 21:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A much bigger list is at User:JPxG/sandbox/10k notices 2025, for every thread above 10,000 bytes (broken out by month and sortable by field incl. length). jp×g🗯️ 21:33, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is "entables" the leet speak for "tabulates"? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this list should always skip all behavioural noticeboards at the very least. I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of "tabulating" which threads had the most discussion, when the entire threads is about (say) one editor's misconduct or similar. They also feel ill fitting to compare in the same category as the other type of discussions, like "Village pump discussion on Xyz".

Imo the "behavioural" noticeboards in this list that should be skipped are - WP:AE, WP:AN, WP:ANI, possibly WP:DRN. Perhaps a manual check can leave behind any AN/ANI discussions that are broader, like "What do we think of this part of admin accountability". I just prefer keeping them all out than keeping any "This editor's conduct was bad" discussions in the same vein as the rest.

I also see value in splitting the Village pumps from all other noticeboards, as separate categories/tables but that's not a big deal I guess. Soni (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hat btw, this was blowing up the newsroom. As for propriety on user behavior threads, I have given this some long thought, and ultimately I think it is of public interest. Traditionally, we have covered arbitration proceedings in great detail, virtually all of which are conduct issues (almost definitionally so, as the remit of the Committee doesn't include ruling on content or policy). The justification for this isn't the clicks, or the lulz, but that these proceedings and rulings involve issues of importance to all editors: they are usually on issues (political or cultural) that we consider important, they often involve people central to our community, and perhaps most importantly they involve the interpretation and definition (and sometimes reinterpretation and redefinition) of our norms and policies. A lot of the time, a big dramaboard thread will be about thousands of articles, or some big process thing, or be the impetus for some new policy to be added (or some old policy to be struck).

Of course some propriety is called for with these, as it is with the arbitration report -- particularly it would be tasteless to rank them in the fashion of a "Greatest Hits" reel -- but I do think it is something that warrants a solid and sober analysis.

(It is probably also worth mentioning that AN and ANI have kind of become the all-purpose "throw whatever shit here" zone for the project...) jp×g🗯️ 10:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valid, though I just disagree with your stance. I think if we're keeping them all, it would be best if the list was sectioned based off venue. AE/ANI/AN for "Editor stuff", VPs for "Village Pumps" and rest for "Noticeboards". Or another phrasal.

I think at least that reduces the ickiness I feel + will be a generally better use for the lists anyway (A 100K count RFC on VP occupies a much different space than NPOVN or ANI, in my opinion. So some segregation improves the utility of the lists, imo.) Soni (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What should we cover about 7M? Should we cover about the drama of choosing the 7M article, maybe? Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 12:13, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JrandWP just noticed this! I wrote a brief blurb on the next issue's News and notes. I didn't cover the drama though. Should we? Feel free to expand. – robertsky (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please review, revise, and edit the subsection I posted in News and Notes regarding Musk and Tesla.

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes

I am requesting this just because of the sensitivity of discussing anything in this area. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The DOGE org isn't really "Musk's"; it existed as US Digital Service before his arrival and will probably exist after his departure last week (if I'm not mistaken, reported by USA Today and others). Other than that, I don't see anything wildly controversial. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thanks for reviewing, I updated it. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:32, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph on one of the files being deleted. – robertsky (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, we are preparing this regular survey on recent academic research about Wikipedia, doubling as the Wikimedia Research Newsletter (now in its fifteenth volume). Help is welcome to review or summarize the many interesting items listed here, as are suggestions of other new research papers that haven't been covered yet. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]