Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-07-05/Features and admins: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:16, 9 July 2010

Latest revision as of 03:53, 31 January 2023

(4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 2:

<!----------------------------------------------------------------------->

I like the new format very much, and I appreciate all your excellent hard work, but I'm not sure I like the "choice of the week" paragraphs. Keep It Simple. There is already too much competitiveness on Wikipedia, and we don't need subjective commentary on why X's FA is better than Y's. -- [[User:Ssilvers|Ssilvers]] ([[User talk:Ssilvers|talk]]) 15:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks for your kind words, Ssilvers. Concerning "subjective comment", I wanted to bring out the human element of these rich and competitive processes—the fact that real people have opinions there—as well as printing those interesting comments by nominators. The "Choices of the week" are clearly marked as opinions, and ''The Signpost'' has the journalistic capacity to give light to good-faith opinions. The message, I guess, is: hey, what do you, the reader, think? Go have a look at these excellent articles, lists, images, and see if you agree or disagree with those opinions. [[User:Tony1|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</font span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</font span>]] 17:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to applaud the editors involved for the overhaul; introducing attribution, blurbs and critical commentary has made what used to be a dull, brief list into a must-read. Contrary to Ssilvers, I think an injection of a modicum of competitve spirit is a positive development, and the choices of the week will be understood by all to be somewhat subjective in any case. Commendations, all. [[user:Skomorokh|<span style="color: black;"><fontspan facestyle="font-family:New York;">Skomorokh</fontspan></span>]] 18:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Great work, Tony! I especially enjoyed the sentence or two summarizing the new Featured Articles. However, I found myself clicking on the links to all the new Featured Pictures, and I really did like the format used until last week in which all of them were included. Perhaps the new format with only one featured picture is less cluttered, but I really enjoyed seeing all the new FPs on this page. They are all such beautiful images! Thanks again and keep up the good work! [[User:TFCforever|TFCforever]] ([[User talk:TFCforever|talk]]) 23:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I also really like the brief attributed blurbs and critical commentary, especially when it's unintentional (and therefore hilarious) damning with faint praise. - [[User:BanyanTree|Banyan]][[User talk:BanyanTree|Tree]] 02:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

:Ta, but perhaps you'll email me or talk-page me as to which one has been thus damned? I thought the array of featured contect was superb. [[User:Tony1|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</font span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</font span>]] 02:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Ah, Banyan says it's the "rather interesting" comment by the nominator that is quoted here. [[User:Tony1|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</font span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</font span>]] 04:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Love the modifications to this, though if I may ask, will the other featured areas (i.e. portals, topics, etc.) be included as well in future issues? Granted, that may make this more time-consuming, though those naturally have fewer or none in a week to note. [[User:Wizardman|<span style="color:#030">'''''Wizardman'''''</span>]] _{[[User:Wizardman/Operation Big Bear|<span style="color:#600">Operation Big Bear</span>]]} 15:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

:Thanks to all who've said nice things here; and yes, they are only modifications to the structure that seresin has developed over the years. Yes, portalsPortals and topics (and sounds) should be covered if there are any changes, and oops, yes there werewas movement in topics, I see now. I'd be inclined to shift the emphasis away from the main-page appearances (they've just had their day of glory) and to cover portals, topics and sounds. My glitch; it was all done in a hurry because of RL work deadline just before the SP deadline. PerhapsI'm seresinadding willmention covernow, mybut omissionsI'd inhave thedelved nextmore edition?into them if I'd done this properly. [[User:Tony1|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</font span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<fontspan colorstyle="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</font span>]] 18:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you please maintain the comment saying that no featured articles were delisted? I had to go and check, to make sure, because the report didn't say anything about FA delistings. [[Special:Contributions/203.217.95.11|203.217.95.11]] ([[User talk:203.217.95.11|talk]]) 11:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

:It's up to [[User:seresin]]. But to be consistent, it means you'd have to say that for all categories of featured content in which there are no delistings in a a particular week—which is usually most in most weeks. I thought it could be the default not to mention if there have been none. But to tell you the truth, I neglected to check. I'll add a note now about FA demotions. Thx. [[User:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''Tony'''</span>]] [[User talk:Tony1|<span style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)</span>]] 13:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)