Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-05-31/Features and admins

Letter from your editor
The format and content of this page has remained largely unchanged since I took on writing it regularly sometime in late 2008. I think it might a time for some changes. To that end, I would like to know what you, the readers, think would be good changes for the regular Features and Admins page. Is there something you would expect to find here that you don't? Or do you wish something were written a different way, or with more detail? Or something else entirely, be it the design, presentation or content. Please feel free to make any suggestion you have, however small or large. You may leave comments here, at the Signpost talk page, or at my talk page; I will have all pages watchlisted. I am eager to make this page as useful as I can, and so I look forward to hearing suggestions and ideas from you. Thanks. ÷seresin 19:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, a short summary of each RfA would be cool. "Most supports didn't see a reason not to promote, but several objects felt the editor was too young" or something.  It might be cool to know who the noms were for the FAs and other FXs.  Just thinking out loud. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is uncalled for. You've just failed an RfA and then the reasons are trumpeted here very publicly? It's different for a demoted article, though—not so much at stake personally.  Tony   (talk)  12:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A different suggestion: a cumulative (year-to-date) summary for RfAs (even better, a comparison to last year), so, for example:
 * One editor, FoobarIII, was granted admin status; there were also two candidacies closed as unsuccessful. The year-to-date totals are 22 new admins and 47 unsuccessful candidacies, compared to 26 and 44 at this time last year.
 * -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You could have less focus on what pictures (or articles) have just appeared on the main page - that information is highly visible, has already just been promoted, and is easy to find for those interested.

You could mention Good Articles that have just been listed. This information is less easy to find, is useful to have a record of, is motivational for those involved, and serves as an incentive for people to check to see if the listing was appropriate. Good Articles are not promoted anywhere on Wikipedia - they are quiet listings, so a little bit of light to show up poor listings or to encourage those involved in appropriate listings would be worthwhile.  SilkTork  *YES! 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's wonderful the way it is, and I read it every week. You don't need to change a thing. -- &oelig; &trade; 08:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I wasn't going to say any more, but such flowery, blanket praise makes me wonder whether OE has thought about how it might be improved. Please compare with this version, which improves the layout, the use of visual resources, provides in a few places information that might be just a little interesting to readers, and avoids the repetitious "this week", which appears umpteen times. I find it odd to see the word "wonderful" appended to a page that so patently needs improvement, and that has retained the same basic formula for years, as the author points out. The author clearly has doubts about it herself, or wouldn't have asked for comments. Tony   (talk)  15:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope I didn't come across as negative towards the other commenters. I'm not trying to put down anyone elses suggestions for improvement.. of course I'd be happy with any changes that would make Signpost better, a net positive is just that, a plus. I just happen to disagree that this page needs any 'fixing' at all. Personally I think improvements CAN be made, but that it doesn't necessarily NEED any. I guess I tend to hold the conservative views of "Change = Bad", "If it ain't broke don't fix it", "Don't mess with a winning formula", etc. etc. As for my flowery wonderful comment, I'm actually glad I used that particular word (hey I could've said it was 'fabulous' instead ;P) . It was intended to be encouraging, a little morale boost maybe. Because if the author is starting to have doubts then I hope I raised his spirits a little and reassured him that he's doing a fine.. no... wonderful job ;) Especially since he's been doing this regularly since late 2008, I'm just grateful that we have someone willing to make such an effort, and that's why I couldn't presume to think I could do any better. However since the author has requested suggestions, I'm definitely not opposed to anyone's changes if the author really feels that it's necessary. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just a formula for freezing the whole of WP the way it was in 2003. Your extreme resistance to change ("Change = Bad") would mean we wouldn't even have the Internet—and would still make phone calls through a manual exchange. "I'm just grateful that we have someone willing to make such an effort, and that's why I couldn't presume to think I could do any better." I'm grateful, too, but it doesn't mean the product can't be vastly improved. I don't see this in personal terms, whereas you appear to. If you're going to be destructive of ideas for improvement, it would be better if you kept out of the discussion. What is thoroughly galling is the self-congratulation and complacence inherent in your attitude. What, exactly, don't you think is an improvement in the other version? The bottom line you seem to be unaware of is that many people find The Singpost boring, and don't read it. Don't you care about that? Tony   (talk)  03:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, seems I'm misunderstood again. I am definitely NOT trying to be destructive of ideas for improvement, I thought I made that clear already. I'm GLAD if (key word if) it can be improved and don't have any opinion at all about your 'other version'. I am of the opinion that this page (not the entire signpost) is fine the way it is and I have a right to that opinion and am perfectly in my rights to state it in this discussion. Don't be so concerned with me thinking things should stay the same, just go ahead and discuss your improvements, I'm not opposed to them and am not trying to sway others from making improvements. mmkay? -- &oelig; &trade; 06:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be more constructive to comment on the actual changes proposed in the other version. They are listed above, adjacent to the link. Tony   (talk)  06:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this idea is very relevant to this particular segment of the Signpost, but I would personally like to see a summary of the past week's internal events, discussions, and happenings. Juliancolton (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ten promoted pictures?
Only seven are displayed. Is this correct? —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 21:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeeeees, well I fixed it when I put a huge amount of work into improving the page last night, but I don't see it. Tony   (talk)  02:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)