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

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. -- 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. Tony   (talk)  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. Skomorokh  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! 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. - BanyanTree 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. Tony   (talk)  02:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Ah, Banyan says it's the "rather interesting" comment by the nominator that is quoted here.  Tony   (talk)  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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 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. Portals and topics (and sounds) should be covered if there are any changes, and oops, there was 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. I'm adding mention now, but I'd have delved more into them if I'd done this properly. Tony   (talk)  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. 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. Tony   (talk)  13:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)