Talk:The Signpost/Archive 1

Ironic notability tag
Okay, thats not irony really is it? Anyways, the only provided source just gives a passing mention of the Signpost, and is not in-depth in any way. --allthefoxes (Talk) 18:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of The Signpost (Wikipedia) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Signpost (Wikipedia) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Signpost (Wikipedia) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Relevant articles from The Signpost

 * Relevant articles from The Signpost -- possible sources for further information

-



-

Considering whether to research from above for additional sources on history of The Signpost chronologically over time.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikimedia Foundation?
Is this category necessary? Or, would a Wikipedia-specific category be preferable? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A Wikipedia category would be better. The SP isn't part of the WMF. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, unless there is a more appropriate subcategory. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: Deletion discussion closed as "Snowball keep"
This article recently was the subject of a deletion discussion to assess Wikipedia community consensus to delete or keep the article.

The result was Snowball keep.

Discussion may be seen at Articles for deletion/The Signpost (Wikipedia).

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Fast Pete ;) my research was too late there, perhaps it's of use here...
 * Der Spiegel Der Spiegel (links to)
 * FAZ Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (links to)
 * Süddeutsche Süddeutsche Zeitung (links to)
 * heise online heise online (links to) --.jsMD''']] 04:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much,, I've looked through those links above and ended up incorporating the last source you suggested as a reference in the article. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

First issue
Can we somehow restore the first edition by redirecting the redlinks to where the subpages were moved later? (I know it can be found in the archives, but some people like to look into the "real" history) --.jsMD''']] 05:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You can see it also at Wikipedia Signpost/2005-01-10. But you'd have to ask with, as those are redlinks within his userspace at the link you gave. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Before launching the first issue, I worked on the articles in my user space and then moved the articles to the Wikipedia namespace when they were published. All of the revision history moved with that, so the redlinks don't provide access to it. The user subpages also can't necessarily be pointed to a subpage from a specific issue; for example, I used the "FtE" subpage for more than one "From the Editor" note. So not that I necessarily object, but I'm not sure what this would bring back, or maybe I'm not understanding something.
 * Anyway, in terms of what constitutes the first issue, as far as I'm concerned it begins with the revision that has all of the articles when they "went live", so to speak. I didn't explain what I was doing to anybody beforehand, nor did anybody ask that I recall. So it's not until they were published that I shared this and people started reading it. The first few revisions do reveal a bit the order in which I added articles, I suppose, but that's about it. --Michael Snow (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Full archived copy of first issue for educational purposes now located at: Welcome to the inaugural edition of The Wikipedia Signpost. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Accessdate and Archivedate
Usually from my prior experience with the Featured Article Candidates discussion process, whenever there is "archivedate" it is required to also have "accessdate".

Also, whenever one "accessdate" is used in even one citation in the article, for increase of standardization and uniformity, it is required to have "accessdate" filled out for all other citations.

Thank you for your understanding,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * This is not how most discussions regarding the CS1 templates have resolved--there is at least some consensus at that talk page that adding the accessdates where we have an archive URL and date is useless. This is because having an accessdate helps us to find the page at the time of interest. However, with an archive URL and date in hand, that makes the accessdate irrelevant, because I can always get to the information of interest at the archived URL.
 * I am skeptical about your statement: whenever one "accessdate" is used in even one citation in the article, for increase of standardization and uniformity, it is required to have "accessdate" filled out for all other citations. . Please provide a location on a guideline or help page which substantiates your claim. (Hint: WP:CITEVAR is not that location.) --Izno (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And in fact, your statement is contravened when a data item has no URL but has a presumed accessdate, as with the JSTOR ID'd item I've just removed again (per Help:CS1). Permanent IDs as with JSTOR, DOI and the like do not have accessdates because I can again always access the data at the permanent ID. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It means the date at which that editor was successfully last able to access that material at the link. And yes, I've been specifically asked this in multiple Featured Article Candidates discussions, so I'd very much rather not decrease standardization and uniformity in an arbitrary way, and rather keep all citations the exact same way, please. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Please see required use of "accessdate", specifically for JSTOR, as noted at JSTOR. Thank you! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:JSTOR is neither an guideline nor policy. The only requirements for a JSTOR link are the bullets listed at WP:JSTOR; all other items are examples. Which link? What if an item has both a JSTOR ID and a DOI? Which does archiveurl apply to? The answer, as at Help talk:CS1 and even Help:CS1, is a resounding neither and should accordingly not be included in that case. Your interpretation that everything must have an accessdate based on your discussion with reviewers is neither a guideline nor a policy, nor even on a documentation page and is strictly contravened in at least one case, meaning "everything must" is a flatly incorrect statement. --Izno (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See also the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:The_Wikipedia_Library/JSTOR/Archive1, where a separate consensus from that at Help talk:CS1 suggests that your usage of accessdate for JSTOR links is not correct. --Izno (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * More information in citations can only be more helpful for future readers to assist in verification. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is clearly untrue per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Including the total page count would be more information but would not be helpful in assisting verification. Please provide a policy or guideline to support your views. --Izno (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I already provided WP:JSTOR. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Which I have already pointed out is neither and where I believe you to be citing does not have consensus on its own talk page. Please provide another which actually supports your view. --Izno (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The existing practice is shown at WP:JSTOR. Editors should give "accessdate" to show future readers what date they were able to access material to verify with the citation. To not do so is irresponsible and wrong. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of proper citation with "accessdate", may be seen at HighBeam. Thank you, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

To Do - help would be appreciated
Any help with above To Do list would be most appreciated !
 * 1) Format all citations with WP:CIT templates.
 * 2) As per above, make sure no citations are just simply bare-links.
 * 3) Whenever possible, archive all hyperlinks within citations with Wayback Machine by Internet Archive using archiveurl and archivedate parameters.
 * 4) Check for redundancy in article body text and grammar, avoid both content repetition throughout, and repeated word usages.
 * 5) Research and incorporate additional secondary sources, including those suggested elsewhere on this talk page.

Thank you,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Update: All now appear to be ✅, for now, both as far as archiving links, and increasing citation standardization. Feel free to double-check. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for GA
I've nominated this article for Good Article quality consideration, at Good Article nominations.

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost lede
I was thinking the lede could be expanded with more information about the The Signpost (Wikipedia). QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Any particular parts you had in mind? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 20:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * -- ✅, I've added a bit more info from the History sect to the intro lede sect, per your above helpful suggestion, does it look a bit better now? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of adding or summarising "Wikipedia users Gamaliel and Go Phightins! became editors-in-chief of The Signpost in January 2015; The ed17 noted that during his tenure the publication continued to expand its scope by including more reporting on the wider Wikimedia movement, in addition to the English Wikipedia itself.[50]" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good ideas, I've added that to the lede intro sect from the History sect, as well. Look a bit better? &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much,, the lede intro sect looks much better now with the additions from the History sect. Thanks for your helpful suggestions, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead is a bit of a mystery. Where did Snow go? See "After leaving his post as editor, Snow continued to contribute as a writer to The Signpost until his appointment to the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation in February 2008.[35]" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea, added it. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Notes - source suggestions from Ed

 * Signpost

"US National Archives enshrines Wikipedia in Open Government Plan, plans to upload all holdings to Commons" (press coverage at bottom of talk page) might be helpful. Thanks to that quote from Dominic, all of the press attention stemmed directly from the Signpost. :-) Also, from memory, this got a ton of press (eg the Atlantic). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, I'll look into this when I next get a chance and do some further research! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

-

Notes - source suggestions from, dropping note here from my talk page, to look into further research soon. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Promoted to GA quality
This article had a GA review and was successfully promoted to Good Article quality. Review is at: Talk:The Signpost (Wikipedia)/GA1. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Navel-gazing is just an essay, and the opinion of the essay writers is that "calling out a topic as navel-gazing should be an argument to avoid..." I tend to agree, and think that we are sometimes too hesitant to write about notable Wikipedia-related topics. It seems to me that "navel-gazing" sentiments have led some to recently add additional topics to the disambiguation page, which didn't stick because Wikipedia has no articles, or even passing mentions, of them. But, regardless, opinions based on essays are given less weight in move discussions than policy- and guideline-based opinions. In that regard, I find the opinions of Cúchullain and Amakuru compelling. Those who see no evidence of a primary topic have not presented evidence of competing topics of sufficient weight to contend. Perhaps you should first write the articles about the other Signpost-titled publications, and then revisit this. The 1944 novel doesn't seem to be a strong contender, but the short stub about it doesn't discuss the novel's popularity or cultural impact. "The" is sufficient disambiguation from the posts that hold up traffic signs (we don't actually have an article about the posts themselves). wbm1058 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

– This is effectively the only topic named "The Signpost" with an article on Wikipedia. The Weber State University student newspaper just redirects to the university itself. And even if The Signpost (Weber State University) meets GNG, the Wikipedia newsletter is likely to be the primary topic. sst✈ 06:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The Signpost (Wikipedia) → The Signpost
 * The Signpost → The Signpost (disambiguation)
 * Oppose you have been asked several times by more than one editor please not to place RMs using the argument "only topic with an article on Wikipedia" - please see WP:DISAMBIGUATION and WP:CRITERIA, thank you. There seem to me to be too many journals called The Signpost to justify this. And it makes Wikipedia look a bit self-centric. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: In ictu oculi, in SST's defense for this particular topic, The Signpost (Weber State University) redirects to Weber State University, so ... I don't see why this move shouldn't be made. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge The Signpost to Signpost (disambiguation) per WP:DPAGE. When I do a Google search of the phrase "The Signpost", I get no overwhelming results toward any topic, and instead a mixture of items also pertaining to just the "signpost" search term. Thus I do not see any  primary usage or primary long-term significance of that particular search term. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, support merge. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I still support the page move recommended by, above, but separately I also support merge of The Signpost to Signpost (disambiguation), so as to have one disambig page for the other terms in one centralized location &mdash; they can still be under the subheading The Signpost, there at that other page. I see none of the other publications mentioned at The Signpost have any existing Wikipedia articles at this present time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, essentially agree with comments by, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Eh. I'm kind of against plain titles for generic words unless there is overwhelming evidence they are the obvious and most widely-used subject the words refer to, and I'm not seeing that here.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 15:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Ed.  Calidum   ¤   02:33, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The Signpost (E. Arnot Robertson novel) is not a redirect. And we should not navelgaze upon Wikipedia thinking all things Wikipedia -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are other names with Signpost. There is a reason there is a Signpost (disambiguation) page. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge of the disambiguation page for same topic. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge of the separate disambiguation pages at Signpost (disambiguation) and The Signpost. No opinion on the other proposed move. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose move, because it would make Wikipedia appear to be navelgazing, and perhaps to make it appear Wikipedia is claiming that The Signpost is an original title, while I believe it is not in fact. About navel-gazing, see recent AFD on The Signpost (Wikipedia).  Merging the two disambiguation pages makes sense though. -- do  ncr  am  19:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: "The Signpost" as poetry title: An over-looked usage of the term "The Signpost" is "The Sign-post", 1917 poem by Edward Thomas (poet), who himself died in 1917 in World War I's Battle of Arras, whose writings are known for having a war theme, though usually not explicit. I just added it to The Signpost dab page.  In the grand sweep of things, historically, like for all those affected by The Great War, it may well be a far more important usage of the term. I would prefer to avoid appearance of arrogance by Wikipedia about its newsletter.  And I am not convinced that the Wikipedia newsletter is the most common / most significant.  I rather think there is no overwhelmingly common usage, and "The Signpost" should be a disambiguation page. -- do  ncr  am  19:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't claim for sure that this (Edward Thomas's poem) is about war; IANAP. It seems important as a poem as it is discussed in literary criticism...run Google Scholar to find some instances...one out-of-context discussion is:  "This effect is carried furthest in 'The Signpost', a poem which develops into a (slightly clumsy) dialogue between two voices. Here the use of significant details is at its most explicit: ... In Thomas's finest poems, however, the method is very much less explicit. ..", from essay "Keats and Edward Thomas" by J. Burrow, in Essays in Criticism, Oxford University Press, 1957.  It is compared to Robert Frost's The Road Not Taken in this blog and elsewhere. And there exist cheat notes about it, as apparently it is studied in school, I gather from enotes excerpt (which says one theme is life and death).  Listen to it at Youtube, read by a Jonathan Jones. -- do  ncr  am  19:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And "The Signpost" is the title of a poem by composer Schubert; the poem is included and discussed in this Google book, Schubert's Winterreise: A Winter Journey in Poetry, Image, & Song by Wilhelm Müller, Franz Schubert, Louise McClelland Urban, John Harbison, Susan Youens, Katrin Talbot.  I imagine it may be a title used by other poets, also, in English, or as "Der Wegweiser" in German, or French ("Le panneau"?), etc. -- do  ncr  am  20:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Signpost" is a poem by American poet Robinson Jeffers, which can be read here at poemhunter.com.
 * There's a "List of Signpost Poems", determined to be "signpost poems" by their authors. Some but not all use the term signpost or imagery of a signpost, I gather. -- do  ncr  am  20:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: There being no objections, I've merged the two disambiguation pages to Signpost (disambiguation). As for this location of this particular article page, there does not seem to be consensus to move this page from its present location title of The Signpost (Wikipedia), at this time. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I very nearly closed this as "moved" just now. I think maybe I could have done, because the oppose votes are almost all along the lines of "we don't want to be navel gazing", and I know of no policy or guideline that makes that a valid argument. If the topic is notable (and recent AfD result suggests it is), then we should treat it the same way as any other article. I won't close it though, because I'm not an admin, and it might be seen as contentious. I would encourage whoever closes this to think carefully whether the "navel gazing" comments are valid. As I'm not closing, I will therefore add in my !vote; as I can see this *is* the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per comments made above. The only other contenders are somewhat obscure university publications, which have less coverage in independent sources than our own "The Signpost" does. I also think it's sufficiently differentiated from all other contenders at Signpost (disambiguation) by WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:THE and that sort of thing. All in all, I see no reason not to make this move. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. I've cleaned up the dab page per MOS:DAB and found that many of the entries aren't discussed anywhere on Wikipedia. We only cover three topics called "The Signpost": this, The Signpost (Robertson novel), and The Signpost (Weber State University), which has no article, but is mentioned (though not sourced) at the school's page. By the page views, the Wikipedia article dominates: since its creation less than a month ago, it's been viewed |The_Signpost_(Weber_State_University)|The_Signpost_(Robertson_novel) 4,572 times, meaning it's received 98.4% of all views for these topics in the last 30 days. The redirect/former dab page The Signpost has been viewed |The_Signpost_(Weber_State_University)|The_Signpost_(Robertson_novel)|The_Signpost 359 times in that amount of time, meaning that even if every one of the readers looking for the novel (15 views) or the student paper (57 views) got there through the link The Signpost, the vast majority of traffic still intended the Wikipedia Signpost (or other uses we don't actually cover, which is a moot point). Trying to cut down on Wikipedia navel-gazing is laudable, but in this case there just aren't many ambiguous topics, and this one is clearly much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined.---Cúchullain t/ c 17:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That does not take into account the fact that those large amount of views come from the fact that it was on the main page in DYK. The other non-DYK days, the page views don't appear to be fantastic or anything, certainly less than what you are describing. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at the stats for every day, the Wikipedia Signpost virtually always has many times the hits of the other "The Signposts".--Cúchullain t/ c 13:18, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. There is no evidence of a primary topic here from my pov. The hits aren't whopping excluding the main page spike, and the term is used for things like Signpost (company) too. I believe that this discussion and other links are even inflating the non DYK view days a bit, so I imagine the views aren't even as good as they seem now. Nohomersryan (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. No primary topic except a signpost. A definite article is not sufficient disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The definite article is frequently used on Wikipedia as a perfectly valid disambiguator, per WP:SMALLDETAILS. The question is always whether the title in question would plausibly be typed into the search box when looking for a particular page. In the case of a user looking for the signpost article, I think it highly implausible that a user would type "The Signpost" or "the signpost". For other examples of this, see The Office (does not redirect to Office), and The Independent (does not redirect to Independent). Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Guild of Copy Editors
I've requested a once-over from the Guild of Copy Editors, hopefully someone will be by from that helpful guild sometime soon. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Now since ✅ by, much appreciated, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

translation of references
I see quite a few of the sources of this article are written in languages other than English. I am wondering what is the best way to have this translated. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 16:04, 16 June 2016 (UTC)please ping me

Why is "fortnightly" linked?
... against the MOS guideline.

And the footnote with a dictionary explanation as well???? Tony  (talk)  02:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it defunct?
Is The Signpost defunct? It hasn't published a new issue for three months. Not criticizing, just asking whether its status should be adjusted in this article. - Bri (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been curious about this as well... --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 23:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We have a new issue today, so question is moot. - Bri (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Other projects
This article, quite early on, says that The Signpost is linked to other projects in the Wikimedia Foundation (Wikinews would be the obvious link here). So, is it really accurate to describe The Signpost as Wikipedia's newspaper?Vorbee (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no other newspaper-like periodically published thing, with its own masthead, editor in chief, columns, and other things that make a newspaper. So I think the answer is "yes" it is accurate to describe it as a newspaper. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * News outlet—no paper is involved. Tony   (talk)  05:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor in Chief position
A "citation needed" tag was placed for 2017–2018 leadership events. It's hard because is the only thing I know of announcing the change. I'm not aware of it being announced for the public. The only 2H 2017 "From the editors" was written by Bluerasberry. Not sure what else to do here. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * So how was the position decided? There must be some chat or process that led to it. Or was there an election we can link to? &mdash; Amakuru (talk)
 * No election. De-facto recognition of the job Evad37 was doing. See discussion here, September 2017, confirming and congratulating Evad37 for taking up the "reigns". As far as I know all positions at The Signpost are by self-designation, there has never been any election since I became involved in June 2017. can you confirm or deny this is how things work? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah OK. Well that conversation does seem to back that up. Evad drifted into the role by doing the actual work, and that conversation was what made it more formal. Presumably that's what you could link to from the article then. It's a primary source, but it's unlikely you'll find any secondary ones for that fact. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. I listed publisher as "The Signpost (reader page)", I'm sure it can be fixed if that is unclear or inaccurate. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Positions at The Signpost are by consensus following self-designation. I am not aware of consensus ever removing anyone from a post because I am not aware of there ever being conflict or controversy in the newsroom. People who are in the newsroom, even if they write articles, tend to seek to avoid editorializing to limit their labor.
 * In general in Wikipedia it is routine to name the editor of a publication based on primary sources following the common practice of naming one top person at organizations in any way possible, including by primary sources.
 * I see no reason either in the facts about The Signpost or in editing this wiki article to avoid naming the editor in chief. It does not seem urgent to me and I assume that Evad37 either appreciates the recognition or is at least indifferent. If an editor explicitly asked to not be named then I think wiki spirit and The Signpost could meet that request by making the odd accommodation of having no single named editor in chief.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  13:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Editors in chief have, as far as I remember, always taken on the position through non-standard means, like back-room discussion. I should know. Problem is: it's very hard to get anyone to commit to it, and has become harder to get them to stick around for long. Tony (talk)  08:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what sparked this discussion off, but FWIW for having jumped in with both feet just to prevent the Signpost from closing down altogether, I'm already being harassed and getting PA for what I did. Apart from that, it's a steep learning curve, and it's a lot more than I bargained for. I don't mind continuing to submit content every month, but the June issue can carry "We're hiring" on the masthead. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My memories of how the Signpost Editor-in-Chief position and other roles are selected are generally aligned with how others described the process above. As far as I know there has never been a public election similar to an RfA process. The lack of volunteers for the role, combined with those who accept the job generally having the support of the other regular Signpost contributors, have been factors in how people get the role. In my time at the Signpost, the newsroom regulars, especially the more senior ones, were generally good at developing consensus among ourselves. There was occasional friction, but on the whole I thought that we had a good team spirit. The ed17 might be willing to comment on how his selection as Editor-in-Chief happened, if you are interested. --Pine✉ 04:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I was privately asked to serve by a couple Signpost regulars who thought I was a good fit for the role, would be able and willing to further the journal's mission, and would be around for awhile. Other regulars agreed, and we announced it not long after. More recently, the handoffs seem to have been less formal, with people falling away without notice, and there may simply be no citation for those changes. (Also, a +1 to the problems named by —a steady and long-lasting hand on the tiller is something that could be real useful.) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed
See Former editor-in-chief, The ed17, noted that during his tenure from 2012 to 2015, the publication expanded its scope to report on the wider Wikimedia movement in addition to Wikipedia and its community.[citation needed] QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Credit for story break

 * The Wall Street Journal credits The Signpost for breaking story on Acting United States Attorney General

I am not sure what the precedent is for detailing which stories in a publication get credit from other publications for breaking a story. If this is something we include in the bodies of articles, then here is a description of Smallbones for the The Signpost breaking a story.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is better discussed at Talk:Matthew Whitaker where your proposed change (presumably to #Early life and education) could be taken up by editors to that article? ☆ Bri (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Coverage in Interface
The article cites my research suggseting this piece analyzes the Signpost. I am flattered to be cited, but I just mention TS twice in passing there. I am not sure if it is correct to say that "The Singpost has been analyzed by..." and cite my work. Perhaps it could be changed to "... and mentioned in [citation]", I feel this would be more accurate. Ping User:Randykitty (semi-random ping, but I just don't feel I should edit a sentence related to my own research directly). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)