Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive 8

Two new templates proposed
The no-longer-working state of Jarry's polling template got me thinking about whether or not this could be done entirely within Wikipedia, allowing the poll to update results in real time, as it were, instead of forcing us to ask questions far beforehand. After a lot of wrangling I'm surprised to say that the answer is, yes! It requires the creation of two subpages every time a poll is made but it can be done: a working mockup is here. Try voting: it's fun to watch the bar move.
 * Polls

The advantages over the old format is that because it handles all counting using Wikipedia parser functions the poll can be updated in real time by the votes of the users, and it further requires no further effort on the part of the pollster once the poll (requiring subpages be created to cache votes) is implemented. The striking visual nature of Jarry's effort can probably be reproduced once I play with some opacity triggers and image transparency: right now it's just a simple stacked bar chart. Visual ideas would be appreciated. Done.

The disadvantage is that this hinges on users not changing inputted text while voting. My hope is that an edit-notice will provide enough warning of the need for them not to mess with the format too much&mdash; the template relies on doing a hidden character count on vote collection pages and so will be really easy to break if someone decides they want to say, paste the opening chapter of Moby Dick in. A much more robust Lua function's been put into place which will be much, much harder to break.

A lot of work remains to be done. Res Mar 16:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After a full day's work I've realized I'm approaching this from an impossible angle and will have to redo most of it. Time to learn Lua I think. See Village_pump_(technical). Res Mar 03:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Never mind it, using Lua Mr. Stradivarius did in five minutes what I spent two hours failing to do and the template complex is now fully operational! To test out operations try out the poll at right; to see documentation and extensive semi-automated setup instructions see the documentation on the page.
 * I confess that when I figured out this is possible I jumped a little bit in my chair. I was expecting any number of reactions&mdash;but certainly not silence! Well? What do you guys think? Res Mar 06:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks terrific, . This week's news and notes could potentially have a poll in it, so perhaps we can test it out! Thanks for your work on this.  Go  Phightins  !  14:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Although now when I click yes or no, I am taken to a "bad title" page.  Go  Phightins  !  14:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It won't be ready for use this week; maybe next week. I've got to squash more bugs (like the one you're mentioning) and automate a couple of things (opening poll display only after X votes, closing the poll after Y). I also want to set up support for a third polling option though that may be more of an optional feature. But do watch this space! Res Mar 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: Fixed that, I forgot to enable a default case for button clicks. Res Mar 15:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Status update: I'm about to do another dry run and if all goes well we're clear to go. Very extensive documentation and a tool-assisted creation has been outlined here. <b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 18:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅; there was one final bug to squash but now it's done and fully ready to go! <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 19:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Three-option polling now a reality! <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 01:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Series

After the earlier discussion I finished a rewrite of the Series template which allows the creation and configuration of story-hiding breakpoints. You can see the code in my sandbox and a full working example at Sandbox; a fast example is at right. This template is a provisional update on the current Signpost series template with several modifications: This is basically ready for immediate substitution. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 16:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * An ability to introduce a "More articles" breakpoint has been defined. To set the article number at which to begin hiding items in a dropdown list, use the parameter  to control the number of items to be hidden. This allows hiding stories in a series for display neatness: there has always been an unresolved problem with series expanding beyond the length that the original authors accommodated for and breaking accepted formatting in old articles. This fixes that problem.
 * To accommodate this change the orientation of the articles has been changed-in-place to be in reverse chronological order, whereas in the past this template would display items in chronological order: that is, this provisional update lists articles with the newest at the top and the oldest at the bottom whereas the old one listed them with the oldest articles on top, newest on the bottom. Only the orientation is changed&mdash;parameter inputs remain the same and continuity is preserved with currently-placed, older series templates in articles. I believe this is an acceptable sacrifice to make, however.
 * would it break the existing functionality of the templates already being used? If so, let's implement this at Wikipedia Signpost/Series 2 rather than painstakingly replacing all of the old ones. If not, let's start using it! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't be sure until you jump, but there's nothing in the new template that would cause incompatibility. Seeing as how I'm deadlocked on the vote template (it looks like I'm going to have to learn Lua, see this), I'll take a look now. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 03:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Done; check it out in action! <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 04:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

TEDx talk on astroturfing on Wikipedia
Helo, I've found this. Good luck! --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors are not particularly impressed: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_182 --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Me neither. It's still relevant news. --NaBUru38 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * We've already covered it in ITM: Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-02-11/In_the_media Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I had missed it. Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Double delivery
Hi all, apologies for anyone who received the Signpost twice in successive sections ... not sure what happened. ? Was anything odd during publication? Anyway, the issue is so good, I suppose you'll just need to read it a second time !  Go  Phightins  !  11:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I got a double delivery too. Sounds like a newspaper delivery boy that got lost and, just to "make sure he got all his assigned houses covered," delivered a second paper to the houses along his route. Well, if you lost your first copy (or used it to make paper maches), you at least have a second! --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  12:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. K6ka is right. ..Ṫ Ḧ <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 13:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was unless he was awake at 5am EST (10am GMT) ... could this be a hiccup on MassMessage's side? It double-sent globally too, also six hours apart.  Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , Ed, this is unrelated, but can you hop on the IRC sometime today? I've already given my spiel to Phightins and Gamaliel. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 16:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I assure you that for once I was completely passed out at 5am.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Special:Log/massmessage says that the bot sent it out twice. Nothing in MM :) Legoktm (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can be on later tonight (about four or five hours?). that means that I need to go poke Jarry again. Thanks for letting me know! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I will match you but at that point it's uncertain I'll be able to stay for long. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 23:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm currently taking care of a sick woman and, this being a new computer, don't have my Chatzilla settings anymore. Name a time tomorrow evening and I'll be there. I'm really sorry, ResMar. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

White House flexes Wikipedia muscles, with moderate results
I was surprised to see the White House tweet and blog  about an "edit-a-thon" for Black History Month. According to Meetup/DC/African Americans in STEM, the result of this were new articles for LaSalle D. Leffall Jr., Kimberly Bryant (technologist), Margaret S. Collins, Henry Aaron Hill, Leonard C. Bailey, and Thomas W. Talley (someone tagged this last one for speedy deletion). Also Ben Montgomery, St. Elmo Brady, Charles L. Reason, and Mary Eliza Mahoney were improved, and a new image loaded for Christine Darden. (I double-checked the participants' contributions and didn't see any others)

On one hand, yes, the White House called and people answered. But on the other ... this amount of effort is routinely matched by some of the more active Wikipedians on an individual basis. Whether or not a single person makes a difference in Washington, when it comes to Wikipedia -- one dedicated individual can match the output of a White House call for action. I find this surprising and ... oddly inspirational. Wnt (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * -- ITM secondary lead, perhaps? The White House running an edit-a-thon is a big deal ...  Go  Phightins  !  04:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This will be featured prominently in the next ITM. Just not enough time to get it in this week.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Newsroom tweaks
I have moved this discussion from the newsroom to here. Let's please keep the newsroom relatively clean; suggestions for articles go here (or even better, to the suggestions page), the newsroom ought to be for internal discussions. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 02:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Following separate discussion with the head editors I have reorganized and refactored the newspaper's internal organization somewhat. The changes should be evident at the newsroom. All, <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 03:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Archival effort
{{Hidden|1=Extended content|2=

Conversations from the Resources talk page
Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Series

Conversations from the Tutorial series talk page
}}

Single-page view
Just a query and suggestion here. Whenever I get the delivery on my talk page, I normally go to read the issue through the "Single-page" link. However, that link has been red for a long as a day after publication lately. When it's still a redlink, I just plain don't read the issue, and I've forgotten to read issues right away as a result. Whatever has changed recently, can you un-change it so that the "single-page" version of The Signpost is a valid page at the time of delivery? Thanks,  Imzadi 1979  →   20:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an issue with redirects. I'll ask Jarry to change the page address in the bot delivery. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Internal discussion (2)

 * The part Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work. - That was Oprah who said it. I take her word for it. --Hafspajen (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist. While I'm very sure that it was unintentional (really, I can't stress enough that I'm not blaming or mad at you or anything like that), I don't feel that it should be in a description. Is that alright? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I simply have to say, I do not agree. Which part of the :Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise. Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work. - is sexist? It was maybe a joke, but part of it was serious. I am going to reinstate either way the: Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise. -
 * Can't find ANYTHING offensive with this. Not a word, not one single word of it. About the part Ladies, don't write off the young guys – it can work...  - I don't find it sexist at all. I what what is this sexist? ON THE CONTRARY:  In this world where people only look for women who are young, beautiful and all guys try to find YOUNG women, who are willing to look up to them because they are like ten years older and so called wiser  and measures their value in youth and beauty -  our friend Sheikh Mijwal al-Musrab stands out as a shining star. It is a man who married a woman twenty years older than him and made her happy. Excellent. Just wonderful. Every woman, every feminist, every person who cares about a woman should applaud this. It is a man who cared for a woman for what she was, and have seen her with his hart and not with his eyes. And succeeded to won her heart, above all stupid  barons, all  kings, a princes, a colonels, and counts who never succeed to keep her for long, because she left them. That was no woman who knew nothing about men, I can promise you. I now reinstate the part: Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise.' Hafspajen (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender. The above is not. Hafspajen (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I move this discussion to Signpost talk. And if you remove this once more I remove all the enrty and leave nothing but: Jane Digby (created by William Charles Ross, nominated by Alborzagros ) This miniature by the artist William Charles Ross portrays the fascinating Jane Digby. - That is what I have to say. Hafspajen (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * For one thing, it used the patronizing word "girls" instead of "ladies" before I changed it. The Signpost was two days late waiting for FC and we had to make a last minute call late in the evening our time on Friday, and that was the decision we made.  We appreciate and value the time all of you take to create FC as it is an important part of the Signpost, but when it is significantly late we have to sacrifice our time at odd hours as well, and we have to make decisions like this without the luxury of being able to discuss them with you before publication.  We are willing to discuss editorial decisions with you in private or in public, but delivering public ultimatums is not professional or appropriate.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, last night while we were in the process of publishing, we noticed that the summary in question could be perceived differently than we know you intended it. After asking for some input from others, we decided it would be best to pare the summary as we did. We certainly do not think you intended it to be "sexist", but as perception is reality, we needed to guard against it being perceived that way. Thanks for understanding.  Go  Phightins  !  18:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You apparently tell me that you didn't afforded the 'luxury of being able to discuss them with ME before publication. But you decided to discuss it among yourselves. Now answer me just one question: Do you, Gamaliel, Ed and the guys deciding this - DO you know if I am a man or a woman? Please answer the question with a simple yes or no. Hafspajen (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes-
 * No-

go ahead. Hafspajen (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We were all online publishing the Signpost at the same time. The bot is down we had to publish manually, which is laborious and time-consuming, so thankfully others were there to assist me, and we collaborated via a Skype chat.   In the process of publishing, someone brought up the passage in question.  I have no idea what your gender is and it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  At the time we did not know or discuss who contributed the language in question (which would have required searching the edit history, something we did not do) so it would not have mattered if any of us knew your gender.  Our concerns were not with you, your gender, your thoughts, or your intentions, only the language used.   We believe your intentions were positive and not negative.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't answered the above question. It is not irrelevant in a discussion about being accused of sexism. Not a bit. It is the core of the question. If you don't know - than you all made the sexist assumption that I am a man making derogatory comments against woman.


 * If I am a woman, in that case you three are now forcing me to step up and disclose my gender, to defend myself. Because in that case I can't be making sexist remarks, can I?
 * If I am a man - than I must defend myself as I did above.
 * Wrong in all ways. Either ways - do you wish that I should here and now disclose my gender? If you do, I will. Hafspajen (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I most certainly made no assumptions about your gender. What I saw was language that could potentially be construed as sexist, something we've been accused of missing, and decided to play it safe. Your gender is, to me, immaterial. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it is not immaterial. Because if a woman wrote the above - it is not sexist. If a man did it, it is.  Hafspajen (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * is a woman. Do you think User:Sagaciousphil - the above remark is sexist and a derogatory comments against woman? Hafspajen (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No one has accused anyone of sexism. We do not think you are sexist.  We disagreed with your choice of language, that is all.  At the time we made the decision to change the language, we did not know or care about the gender or identity of the author.  You don't have to be sexist to accidentally make a mistake that someone perceives as sexist.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What Gamaliel said. Someone I trust told me that she thought it was sexist, so I took it off, thinking it was an uncontroversial editorial choice that still had an enormously interesting blurb (that's a lot of affairs!). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * How am I supposed to interpret the words (posted on my talk) :  Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist.  If you don't think I am sexist, don't say so. Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

*Firstly, let me thank Hafspajen for all the work undertaken - I'm sure that was also "laborious and time consuming". Please explain how the comment can be perceived to be "sexist" and by whom? As a British female I just cannot see it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC) And it does come across as Hafspajen being accused as being sexist. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No doubt it was difficult and time-consuming for them, and I have repeatedly praised Hafspajen and others who put together FC for their hard work.  Why do you find it so difficult to believe someone would perceive something in FC that wasn't intended by the author?  After all, right now you are perceiving an accusation of sexism where there is clearly none.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I beg to differ - and I find your comment and tone unbecoming of an Admin. I'm withdrawing from any further participation in this "discussion", it just reminds me of the way certain areas of SignPost are being used. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 20:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well... that's a pretty low bar for being unbecoming of an administrator, no? We're trying to maneuver to protect the Signpost from undue accusations, that's all. Clearly the FC team puts in an enormous amount of work each week, and everyone else—especially content contributors—appreciates that. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ask AGAIN: How am I supposed to interpret the words (posted on my talk) :  Hey Haf, sorry for reverting you but I thought it would be best to keep it out while we're talking. In my view, and the view of a woman I asked for comment, the last sentence is pretty sexist.  If you don't think I am sexist, don't say so. Hafspajen (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * She said the sentence was sexist, not its author. That is not the same thing.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence was sexist. Not you. I am have written sexist sentences without being a sexist person. These things happen even when we don't intend to. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Näää. Tell me then how the sentence was sexist. And also who is SHE who said She said the sentence was sexist, not its author, may I ask. Hafspajen (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Difficult not to perceive it as such, if someone tell you you write sexist things.
 * Just tell me then how the sentence was sexist. And point me to that discussion you had  can't notice any discussion about the topic anywhere, not newsroom or any talkpage. Hafspajen (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Was it: Older woman-young guy – it can work? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Was it: Their marriage was happy? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise? Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We asked two women about the passage in question. We are not going to divulge their identities without their permission.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of "girls," which has commonly been used as a demeaning term, and the whole concept of demanding that ladies consider younger men for their marriage possibilities. I'm not going to name who gave me the opinion—it would have a chilling effect. This she read the sentence without any context (read: knowing who authored it) and gave an opinion. That's all. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nobody is answering my question (girls were removed when you removed the bit already, and and yes Ladies were an improvement, thank you Gamaliel) :

−
 * Was it: Older woman-young guy – it can work? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

− 		 −
 * Was it: Their marriage was happy? Hafspajen (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

−
 * Was it:Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise? Hafspajen (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

− 		 −
 * YOU can answer it without ever telling me who said it. Hafspajen (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And the context was: Sheikh Mijwal al-Musrab was a man who married a woman twenty years older than him and made her happy. She was forty-six, and he was twenty-six. He was a man who cared for a woman for what she was, and have seen her with his hart and not with his eyes. And succeeded to won her heart, above all barons, all kings, a princes, a colonels, and counts who never succeeded to keep her for long, because she left them all and : Their marriage was a happy one. Some say this kind of thing never works out. Reality says otherwise - Hafspajen (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it made as much sense without the following context. That said, I probably could have left the "happy" sentence. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * May I? I think its sexism is marginal (for clarity's sake, this is what we're talking about, I believe), but if I were running the show I wouldn't print it either. Sorry Hafs. Oprah said this? If she did, it was for a very different audience than the Signpost. Besides what I think is marginal sexism, there's tone (but perhaps I'm too formal) and content: it suggests that women always marry men. But yes, "Their marriage was a happy one" could have been left. But let's please realize that "sentence A is sexist" is indeed dependent on context etc., and that no one is accusing no one of being a sexist. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Women who are forty-six, together with a guy who is  twenty-six are often  harassed by society and are indeed regularly  facing people making derogatory comments against the woman, yes, sexist comments from all the others. Oprah said this, yes - when making a program about women living happily together with younger men. Married, living in serious relationships. AND we also made a lot jokes in the Singpost - before. And some women do marry men, the above example was about a man and a woman, and just how are we supposed to bring in same-sex marriage into it? And before anyone starts that part - I am not against that either. The Swedish church do allow gay marriages. And has woman priests to. All priest-candidates  are regularly asked before getting into the program :Do you have anything against  to perform blessing or joining together in marriage a gay couple  - and if you say, I am against, you are out. Hafspajen (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * May I add a few comments? I think this discussion is actually about several different things, and they've all gotten tangled. Regardless of what one thinks of the quote, Hafs has told me that s/he was up all night working on the Signpost - that is, actively editing on WP. If the editors working on the Signpost is indeed a team, it would have been courteous to ask Hafs what s/he thought before removing the quote. Not asking Hafs may have made him/her feel as if s/he were not an equal member of the team. Also, this is the second time in the last few weeks that I've seen hurt feelings and misunderstanding arise out of a rush to get Signpost ready for publication in a very short time. Isn't there any way to work ahead a bit so that there is a little more time for discussion before publication? CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above comment. It was told, somewhere above: After asking for some input from others, we decided it would be best to pare the summary as we did. I agree, why wasn't anyone asking me?  I was spending my Saturday that in fact I intended to spend a very diffent way, by editing the Singpost. Circa eight- nine-ten something hours. I was up until dawn, fixing this one and putting up the next draft, all night. Here next issue. I could have told you the story THEN; instead of NOW, publicly, as you stated above. And about the rest (not this issue) why - well, my theory is total lack of communication. Nobody knows what the others do or intend to do. Hafspajen (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought we were working as a team. I was actively editing all night, so you could have contacted me. I feel it would have been more courteous to ask me before removing the quote than to remove it first and let me find out after publication. Regarding the quote, I do not understand how it can be perceived as sexist. Could somebody please explain to me exactly what in the quote is sexist, and why? Hafspajen (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haf, we can't monitor everything that is added while it is being added. We published only minutes after you finished! We're going to start a dialogue this week to get our houses in order (with regards to communication), and I'm very hopeful that will be able to code a bot to significantly lessen the manual labor you all have to to. As for the sexism,  explains it well above. I'd add that "ladies" and "girls" are words that should be used cautiously. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't wait for a bot with bated breath, unfortunately the problem looks to be more complex than I initially imagined. Did you know that WP:GO is also updated manually? Since 2004? Wow! Nonetheless I'll look into at the end of this month. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 03:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean, I did know, but being clueless in these matters, I did not know would affect the construction of a bot. :-p Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Signpost MfD
(conversation moved from Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions)

I was going to propose an MfD for Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Set, Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Deadline/core and Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Tasks/Colour as it seems like they haven't been regularly used in several years. Alternatively, you could mark them if you wanted to retain them for their page history. What do you think? Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No it's in active use&mdash;it's a sub-template for, the core status matrix at the newsroom. Also, two things: we ask that users not get overly zealous with deleting materials in the Signpost namespace: see this discussion for instance, which resulted in a failed MfD and a truckload of ill will. Things that may seem useless now may come in handy in the future (I just brought article status templates back, something we last used in 2012). Second, this page is our tip line, meant for story suggestions only; more general messages should go to the talk page. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 15:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok seriously look before you leap. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 15:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One, I've already asked Gamaliel if I could work on the Signpost categorization system and got the okay to organize pages which lack categorization. Issues like this one will come up during that process. Second, I am not deleting anything, I left a note here describing what I found. I realize that it is up to the Signpost staff to determine whether something is in use or not so I will not be putting forth any proposals. If I see a page that looks like it hasn't been used in several years, I'll note it on the talk page then and you all can decide what to do about it.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 15:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Contact me on to further discuss. If you are interested in categorization there's a project we're starting soon that will be in your domain. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar  15:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if those work pages were not currently being used by Signpost editors, it would be apppropriate to mark them as "historical" using Template:Historical, i.e Historical. I suspect MFD and other deletions have been used sometimes when stuff should be saved. WikiProjects and other Wikipedia-space material should often be kept this way, else we lose our own history of how Wikipedia was built. Workpages and their edit history provide the records of good work done by many editors, keeping them retains our/their ability to document what they did and credit them. So,, if you come across other workpages not being used, don't think they must be deleted. -- do ncr  am  05:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've since deprecated a lot of stuff with Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/Deprecated. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 12:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Refresh
Statement of facts:
 * The content of an article being written is at the discretion of the writer.
 * The content of articles to be published is ultimately at the discretion of the editor(s)-in-chief.
 * When making significant changes or removals editor(s)-in-chief ought to speak with the writer as part of due process.
 * When this is with regards to material added on-deadline or past-deadline, however, prior consent is not always possible.
 * The removal in this case was minor and in no way impacted the general palatability of the article.
 * Continuing to argue over it will get us nowhere.

If we wish to argue about the issue of communication within the Signpost we can commence it here. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 05:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * cf. Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Coordination. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 05:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't count on me. I agree with the part: The content of an article being written is at the discretion of the writer. The rest - no. Dead-lines occur all the time.  If this is not a democratic process,  but an announcement about that discussion forbidden, when it takes two seconds to leave a message - I  can't agree.  On Wikipedia where even admins actions can be discussed, and if editors are not respected but commanded as in the army - no. It was fun, until it lasted.  I removed myself from the regular editors. And, a last minor point - nobody did answered the question. Still. The only thing  someone  told me was that an unknown woman thought it was sexist, without even knowing the context. And who knows, maybe I am a woman myself. If this is true you are loosing the one woman editor you had. Maybe it is true. Maybe it is not true. One never knows. Hafspajen (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Haf, just the appearance of sexism—even in passing, and even if only through a quick reading, not a close examination—is undesirable in a community that has a 10–90 gender split and at a time when males have had almost all of the social and economic power in society for a looooong time. Could you be a little flexible on this? I like the humorous vein of FC. Is that your doing? Tony   (talk)  12:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Partly, yes. Hafspajen (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * With regards to sexism, who the hell cares. With regards to communication, we're an online newspaper, we don't do things the same way the rest of the Wikipedia publication does things. It's not that these things can't or shouldn't be discussed, it's that at the end of the day the editor(s)-in-chief have final say. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 16:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In this case, it wasn't even that we wanted the final say, we just didn't know that this change would be so controversial. We would have gladly engaged in a discussion of this change if we knew it would be so objectionable and if there was time before publication.  We are, of course, willing to engage in that discussion now, as we have been for the last two days.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If it was taken so seriously that the the whole bit was cut, then it's serious enough that it should be able to explain it to me when I asked. I never got any strait answer, the issue was dismissed. If you are so afraid that someone *may* read sexism into something, then that is kind of makes my case. And if me - who possible, who knows -  could even be a woman - or not - but if -and  didn't thought it was sexist, probably it was not that sexist at all. Hafspajen (talk) 18:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue was not dismissed; User:The ed17 and I spent a great deal of time yesterday discussing this issue with you. If you still have concerns, we are still willing to discuss this matter with you.  User:Go Phightins! will also be contacting everyone involved with FC soon to see what we can do to improve the production of that section.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, in that case if you are still listening to me: in my view this sentence was all about the woman having agency. I was recommending women to consider *choosing* young men or at least to *listen to* and *look at* them. The whole point of my sentence was - women *choose*.  Most people find it very hard to think of a woman having agency - in their minds the woman gets mobbed by lots of men and the most she gets to do is decide how many times to say no. If you are used to thinking of the man as always doing the asking and not thinking about what the woman might want, maybe you could miss that that's what I *wrote* was chosing - a choice - one's independent capability or ability to act on one's will.   For what it's worth, that is what I meant.  Hafspajen (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Go Phightins! is attempting to contact you to discuss this incident. Would you please email him?  He cannot email you since you do not have email enabled on your Wikipedia account.  Thank you.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There may be movement soon on getting FC set-up botted, but it'll take a while for the code to come together. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 14:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the whole damned thing is a tempest in a teapot, but here's my opinion anyways. First, AFAIK the general condemnation of the word "girls" is a predominantly American phenomenon (though if I'm mistaken, do be sure to let me know), and thus part of this is quite likely a cultural misunderstanding. (And last I checked, the word was being reclaimed by some circles, such as Riot grrrl, though I doubt it's that mainstream yet)
 * Second, if our benchmark is "may possibly be construed as sexist", that's way too low: even asking a woman the simple question "When are you getting married?" could be construed as enforcing gender roles by saying that a woman must be wed. "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", by the same standard, could be understood as a sexist song. Yes, we have to draw a line, but "may be construed as (racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.)" is probably not it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

April Fool??
I completely disagree with the vulgar comments made by Adam in this week's FC. Wikipedia is not censored, but does it mean that you can say of scro*** of John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore and the like. -The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 16:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You... do realize that the content itself regularly includes painted nudes and the like, right? Hell, this very week includes Sardines (Inside No. 9), which is far worse than anything in the issue in that respect. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of it Adam and have supported many paintings in FPC. But what is related to the Hafnium and Earl pictures? You can comment on the others of the kind which reveals the nudity, not on the completely unrelated ones. I again say..I DISAGREE...-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 16:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As a possible compromise, could we maybe allude to it instead of mentioning it outright? Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Even Wikitionary says so, which ought to be good. But with signpost, I will say as Gamaliel had it, allusion...-The Herald <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength  17:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work as a joke - sporran scrotum are similar - if we don't use the word. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Well. I don't see it as a problematic word, but I'm also not a large fan of gendered jokes. In any case, you may find it funnier to run with the very concept of a kilt, which is silly enough (in American culture, at least). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I live in Scotland. Wordplay's one thing.. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Gosh, took me a while to got it. Um, saying to a Scottish that kilts are "silly", it's the same as saying saying to an American that the Statue of Liberty is silly, or to an Indian that Ghandi had a silly outfit. I am fine now, if puts me back on the redaction list I will edit again, and well, Hafnium as a sex- toy ...  ..ahem .. well. Huh. You know.   Hafspajen (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At the Wedding of Frederik, Crown Prince of Denmark, and Mary Donaldson, of the Danish prince, the future Danish king, the relatives of the bride, Mary McDonald were all wearing the McDonald clan's kilt at the wedding, when the guests from the bride's side were filmed there was an endless row of guys  entering the reception and all guys  were in kilts, actually.  check out Mary's dad leading the bride in the church dressed in kilt- It is considered a serious full dress. Something the Scottish are very proud of. When the Danish Queen raised and held her speech at the wedding, saying she is welcoming the family of Mary into the Danish Royal family, Mary's dad held the next speech, in kilt, and said he is now welcoming in turn the Danish Royal Family into the members of the McDonald clan ... it is a serious thing, this, you know. Hafspajen (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


 * American culture obviously rules yet again ... to insinuate kilts are "silly enough" is insulting and yet more evidence of American POV pushing. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See, that's why I included in American culture, at least. I'm certainly not certain how it comes off elsewhere. That said, let's not go overboard and start slinging accusations of being an American POV warrior. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything's offensive to someone, in this case there is the trade-off between funniness and the number of offended parties&mdash;in this case, indignant Scotsman. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 21:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't want to mess with indignant Scotsmen.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflicts) Unfortunately, having witnessed SignPost being used to push the POV of certain editors and seen accusations of "sexist" and accusations of editors being "racist" being slung about, I find it sad that the kilt is considered "silly enough" - it appears the only opinion considered "sensible" and not "silly" is the American POV ... ... by the way, a "ping" will only work if you have the courtesy to get my user name right - however I do appreciate courtesy is something many US editors don't bother to extend to British editors. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 21:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So this really isn't about a kilt at all then, is it?  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You've asked a person from Scotland to poke fun of Scottish icons, instead of doing harmless wordplay. And ignoring completely, I might add, the one entry I thought might possibly offend people, and was willing to back down on.
 * So far, I've had complaints about: 1. harmless wordplay. 2. jokingly saying that the person Michelangelo copied from wasn't important. The latter complaint at least had a little merit: the joke needed to be more over the top to make it clear I wasn't serious.
 * Remind me, why am I agreeing to do this? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I ask myself that same question every day.


 * You guys were working together long before I came along, I'm sure you know that Ed meant no offense. Some harmless suggestions were made; you are free to accept or reject them as you see fit.  Hafspajen complained that we did not consult him or her before we made some changes to FC that we mistakenly thought would be seen as minor.  This is exactly what we are trying to do here, consult the people who create FC in advance.  I thought that would be greeted as a positive effort.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the ridicule of the kilt serves to emphasise the fact Americans and certain SignPost editors/Admins are unwilling to concede there are cultural differences? SagaciousPhil  - Chat 21:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ed was just pointing out that Americans think it's funny. Others disagree.  So we won't make fun of the kilt.  But really, the suggestion of a joke in a section regularly filled with jokes - for the April Fool's issue no less -- is hardly the cause for drama.  And really, you've pretty much come out and admitted that the kilt is a pretext for airing your preexisting grievances.  I am already aware of your grievances regarding Hafspajen, but please take the opportunity to educate this American about whatever other cultural differences that you feel are at issue regarding the Signpost in general. I try to write with an international audience in mind, such as avoiding too many overly American idioms and attempting to insure that the coverage in ITM is international, or at least as much as it can be with only two languages and a limited amount of time at my disposal.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "" Are you joking, Phil? If you'll re-read my second post above, I plainly stated that I wrote those words to account for the possibility of cultural differences.
 * @Adam, I meant no offense to Scotland, not in the least. I was pointing out another possible angle to take, with the possibility/expectation that it would be rejected. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

(After yet more edit conflicts) I doubt you will want to hear my opinion - yourself and your "co-editors" have ensured (doubtless via Skype/off wiki discussions) that the only POV included is your own; you all caused great hurt and distress, which you have still not acknowledged or apologised for, but continue to consistently "close" any discussions that are not following a path of your choosing while still happily slinging accusations of "sexist" or "racist" as it suits you - of course, you also selectively block/deny talk page access to suit your own agenda ... but, naturally, you all consider your opinion is all that matters - perhaps you should consider asking the opinion of British females about the supposed "gender gap" instead of always deferring to the vocal/vociferous Americans? And, by the way, my husband is Scottish, so ridiculing the kilt is insulting. SagaciousPhil - Chat 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you think I did not want to hear your opinion, why did I ask for it and why did you offer it?  I certainly am not asking for it because I enjoy being denigrated publicly.


 * I am aware of your opinion regarding Hafspajen, and as we have repeatedly said, no accusation was made of sexism, and we have repeatedly affirmed on numerous pages that we do not think that Hafspajen is sexist. I regret what has happened and we have all labored to attempt to address grievances and miscommunications and repair relationships.  I do not know what else we can do here, but we are not going to acknowledge or apologize for something that was not done.


 * I would like to hear some specifics instead of generalities on these other Signpost issues you allude to. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, since you asked: you specifically use SignPost to push your POV regarding gender gap and gamergate; SignPost was recently used to manipulate an AE request. I worked in the media for many years and so can easily recognise media manipulation and POV pushing ... SagaciousPhil  - Chat 22:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "SignPost was recently used to manipulate an AE request."? What?   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * What a short memory you have ... think very carefully - or I guess you could always "phone (or Skype) a friend", perhaps even "ask the audience"? Do you instigate so many AE requests/clarifications that it becomes difficult to differentiate between them? SagaciousPhil  - Chat 23:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Or you could just say what you mean. Your continued vagueness only convinces people of the lack of substance to your complaints.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're instigating AE requests? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Who have we caused hurt and distress to? I've never heard an allegation like this before. Are you aiming these comments at me, Gamaliel, both, everyone, or who? Is your complaint only recent or long-term? What's wrong with our gender gap coverage, aside from there not being enough? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (again after edit conflicts) I can easily be very specific - however, it will no doubt result in you (Gamaliel) slinging further accusations and blocks around: "racist", "abusive emails" (please note I have not and will not ever email you), take your pick. SignPost was recently used to manipulate an AE request; the hurt and distress caused to Hafspajen cannot surely have been forgotten and disregarded by yourselves so quickly? SagaciousPhil  - Chat
 * Since you are unwilling to identify the AE request or how it was supposedly "manipulated" by the Signpost, I can only conclude that your allegations are without any substance or merit.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Forgotten and disregarded" ..... or just utterly confused. Give us specificity, and then we'll all talk on level terms. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

SignPost carried a piece recently which resulted in Gamaliel instigating an arbitration request against Eric Corbett ... "give us specificity, and then we'll talk on level terms." - joke? There is absolutely no point in trying to discuss these matters with yourselves, you have closed minds and are selective in what you want to hear. SagaciousPhil - Chat 23:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am glad you were finally forthcoming with the substance of your allegations. The Signpost posted a piece written by User:Go Phightins! which quoted comments by Eric Corbett.  A comment on the story by User:Ironholds suggested that these comments were a violation of a topic ban by Eric Corbett.  After I read that comment, I submitted a request to WP:AE to determine if this was a sanctionable violation. That's it.  There's nothing there that constitutes a "manipulation" of anything.  I understand you are angry on behalf of your friend Hafspajen, but that does not justify fabricating allegations out of whole cloth.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, not a joke at all; I'm quite open-minded. I would be worried if Gamaliel had written the story himself, but having no involvement in crafting it, I think he's well within his prerogative as an English-language Wikipedian to file a request at AE, no? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Taking administrative action on something that happened in a Signpost article might be a potential conflict of interest, but submitting it for others to evaluate is not a "manipulation", it was the appropriate course of action.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 00:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ - manipulation and distortion were used; had it been an "appropriate course of action" it would not have been declined. Whatever: the actions by SignPost editors have caused a great deal of distress and hurt to Hafspajen, which are still unresolved, and you no doubt continue to decide everything between yourselves via "Skype discussions" - not exactly the open and transparency supposed to be used by Wikipedia, is it? Any discussion that doesn't suit is summarily closed. Anyway, I have nothing further to add to this "discussion" - there is little point in trying to discuss matters with those who have significant POV problems and I note Gamaliel is slinging further accusations by stating I am "fabricating allegations" - par for the course, I suppose. SagaciousPhil  - Chat
 * Sorry, did you just seriously say that the options are "everyone agrees Gamaliel is right, every time" or "Gamaliel is engaging in manipulation and distortion"? Do you seriously see those as booleans? Ironholds (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * At least in the mass of hot air that was the sexism debate there was a kernel of reason for concern&mdash;the procedures for editorial changes made immediately before publication deadlines. This, here, is just patently ridiculous. I don't have the others' level of patience, phil, and I seriously suggest you go do something more productive. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 01:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You have yet to identify this supposed "manipulation" that you are accusing the Signpost of, while hypocritically complaining about supposed accusations by me.  And the claim that anything submitted to AE that ends with no sanction is some kind of breach of process would be considered laughable by the administrators working there.   But these are all side issues; clearly you are really mad about Hafspajen.  We have labored to resolve this issue but to our regret we have been unable to. We attempted to have a Skype discussion with Hafspajen but they refused.  We find Skype a more appropriate place to discuss sensitive issues than a public talk page where drama mongers can attempt to inflame issues for their own ends instead of working to solve them in a constructive manner.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 01:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

No traffic report this week?
I mean, it's done, it's right there.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  15:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * We'll be running a non-April Fool's issue this evening with ITM, traffic report, and news.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I put a note in the newsroom and pinged elsewhere, but I should have pinged you as well. My apologies. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Serendipodous, thanks for catching.  milo_went at yahoo.com is best email to reach me if anything urgent ever comes up.  thanks.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  16:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Double and triple delivery
Hi subscribers, if you've come here to ask why the Signpost was delivered two to three times in the last three hours, we're as mystified as you are. I've left a question at Wikipedia talk:Mass message senders. Best, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

SVGs used on content guidance page
The SVG images used in Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Content guidance should be redone to sync the names with the rows in the graphics. The way they are being done now relies entirely on users' font settings not being very different from those of the editor who added (or last changed) these images. In my browser, the last names are slightly off in the editor-in-chief image and completely off in the regular-features image. Alternative images containing the names exist at File:Signpost Head Editor Timeline.svg and File:Signpost Articles Timeline.svg, but I suppose the font was judged too small to be readable. In that case, perhaps the SVGs with names could be simply converted to PNGs and the names replaced with larger versions. - dcljr (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I wasn't aware of this issue. The reason I implemented it this way is that it's more useful for readers for me to be able to hyperlink references and names and section names. I tested it on two different platforms, Mac and Windows, and didn't discover issues. Since this appears to be an issue with personal fontage preferences, which to be honest, can and will mess up almost any sufficiently intricate design, I've gone and forced conformance with what my default settings be default. How does it look from your end now? This sort of thing is used in-wiki at times: see for instance clade. If it still doesn't work right I'll poke around at the village pump. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#333333; font-size:small;">Res</b> Mar 03:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite my great dislike of hardcoded font settings, I have to admit it seems to be necessary in this case. Works for me now. - dcljr (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)