Comments

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2012-11-26. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Panoramic views, history, and a celestial constellation (583 bytes · 💬)

There seems to have been an oversight. The River Martin topic recently went from Good to Featured after the African River Martin was promoted last week. GamerPro64 16:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry! I've added it. Thanks! Mathew Townsend (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

News and notes: Toolserver finance remains uncertain (7,231 bytes · 💬)

Only a sort comment on Out of the chapter's 2400 members, who are largely not active on WMF projects, 24 supported the amended proposal and six voted against the changes: Only 30 persons took part in the general assambly and only those were asked to vote - the remaining members of WMDE may have an idea on the topic but I would claim that not more than those who are active in the community really understand it. So I think mentioning 2400 member is really misleading concerning the debate and the vote. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The Toolserver situation can only be described in one way: a complete clusterfuck. I've had numerous Foundation people tell me off the record that they want to "kill" the Toolserver. It has become a political football between WMDE and the WMF. The WMF want to push WMF Labs and WMDE don't want to pay for the upkeep of Toolserver. Who benefits from this squabbling? Nobody. What we'd do if we were grown ups is realise that Toolserver is home to important tools that facilitate the running of the Wikimedia projects (even something like a humble edit counter tool is pretty damn important for en.wp admins and users on a daily basis) and work out a sensible transition plan for moving users from Toolserver to Labs or to continue running Toolserver or whatever. But why make these kinds of technical decisions in a calm and rational way when you can scream and shout and turn it into a game of Chapter vs. Foundation charades? This is one of many reasons I hate Wikipolitics. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the perspective. It is insightful to know that people have this view. Toolserver functions are extremely important to me and I hope that any management disagreements find resolution because I would like to see the Toolserver services developed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The text lacks of some information: The text sponsored by DerHexer also replaced a concrete commitment —to both invest in five new servers and guarantee one full-time staffer—with relatively vague wording, saying that the chapter aims to ensure a "(nearly) trouble-free functionality for the Toolserver", but without specific financial or personnel commitments. My recommendation to change the text was accepted and adopted by DaB. (!) because WMDE bought three new DB servers these days so that five more til early-2013 would be too many. Further, the racks which the WMF provides for new DB servers are almost full. Hence, convince the WMF (viz. Mark Bergsma) to install new racks or that WMDE would be allowed to install and equip them with new servers in Amsterdam. As long as the WMF does not allow WMDE to do that because it wants to narrow its focus on technical issues, WMDE's hands are tied. Further, the WMF doesn't want WMDE to provide critical hardware at all. So, of course, the WMF should provide the necessary tools to replace the Toolserver. I too share the concerns by Merlissmo, DaB. as a toolserver user and developer that the current Tool Labs cannot replace the Toolserver; hence, the WMF should announce a schedule when the promised full replacement of the toolserver (e.g. with providing help or resources to transfer tools from one script language to another or to re-write them or let then rewrite for the new hardware setting). But as long as the WMF does not want WMDE to continue providing the Toolserver, we cannot change that because on this very issue WMDE is dependent on the WMF. So please do not complain about WMDE which cannot change the situation but go to the WMF and request the promised solution for the full replacement of the toolserver like WMDE will do. My personal views, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The "significant amendment" link isn't viewable to most people. 71.62.220.23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right. That's tiresome. Looks like it's not yet published. Why, I wonder? Tony (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem will be that every tool on every wiki with base in the Toolserver will be broken. Each link needs adjustments. I do not know a greater disappointment than broken functionalities.

Whatever would be the future, we should make sure that we form a collective group of generic tools that in future always will work, even if the owner of it changes, because there are already too much tools broken right now. Romaine (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) It's published in WMDE's forum wiki that anyone can enter. I've copied the text to User:DerHexer/ToolserverÄnderung. Again, in short, everything according to my personal knowledge: The Wikimedia Foundation claims publicly that it wants to replace the Toolserver with Tool Labs (with good reason: their technical experience) but doesn't offer all the functions the Toolserver currently has. At the same time they make it impossible for Wikimedia Deutschland to take care of it anymore by not supporting it with further database dumps (with good reason: technical and administrative ones) and further technical stuff in Amsterdam (with good reason too: focussing on critical hardware themselves). Hence, either the WMF will take care of the tools on the Toolserver or they'll change their mind and support WMDE operating it. Since changing their minds would be harmful for both parties afaics, the best solution would be to make Wikilabs/Tool Labs a real replacement of the Toolserver. But that's not WMDE's but WMF's decision. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 14:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The poor performance of the toolserver over the past year has hurt my ability to get and give feedback, particularly when copyediting. Typically I'll say "These are my edits" (for one article I worked on recently). People are a lot less likely to check what I did if they have to laboriously pick my edits out of the page history. Unfortunately, over the past year, the toolserver has sometimes taken up to two weeks to show my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent research: Movie success predictions, readability, credentials and authority, geographical comparisons (1,629 bytes · 💬)

R.König

The paper summary seems to convey the impression that R.König is a "far out there" ultra-relativist / strong programmist. Hope that's what was intended... AnonMoos (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Cities traffic

"the UK [being] Europe's most visible country ... is quite interesting because it isn't the country in Europe that uses Wikipedia the most (Germany does)" - Perhaps it's because the Premier League is Europe's leading football league and British artists (especially actors and musicians) are much more famous than Germans. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I always enjoy reading these interesting Recent Research Reports. Thank you to those who contribute to the reports! --Pine^✉ 18:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. --Noleander (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope Wikimedia can somehow announce the readability issue to frequent editors. I don't think most editors are aware of the advanced level of English they're writing. 155.201.35.58 (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Technology report: Wikidata reaches 100,000 entries (1,969 bytes · 💬)

The Atlantic obviously didn't understand Wikidata, see e.g. «Wikidata will not be about the truth, but about statements and their references. These can be contradictory» at m:Wikidata/Notes/Requirements. --Nemo 10:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
The piece is odd for perceiving the function of Wikidata in ways that I would not expect. I suppose I cannot blame the reviewer's lack of insight - there is hardly any information at Wikidata which a journalist could use as a basis for covering the project. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikidata hit 200,000 items yesterday. At this stage, not that humans have worked out most of the bugs, we're having bots do a lot of the importing (hence 100,000 items in five days) while the humans solve disambiguation issues, make sure that the items are properly labeled, and do documentation. Phase two, where we begin collecting the kind of data that is frequently seen in infoboxes, should be rolled out by January. That phase is going to be a lot more human driven, and so that's when I'd personally see the value in trying to recruit more people to come in. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! 200,000 items about a month. Congratulations to all! Wagino 20100516 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject report: Directing Discussion: WikiProject Deletion Sorting (2,438 bytes · 💬)

I like the idea of offering users significant projects in which to participate, like this one, which do not require a time commitment, and which give the participant a fun experience, and which gets immediate interaction from other users as a result of the participants' actions. WikiProject Deletion Sorting undoubtedly has a huge effect on all users' experience of Wikipedia and the results the project delivers do a lot to increase the community consent and review in the deletion process. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for another great article. I am curious about this statement: "As the sheer number of AfDs continues to grow" I wonder if it is supported by statistics available somewhere (so that I am not told I am full of it next time I bring it up in discussion :-) Ottawahitech (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are regularly updated statistics kept on this sort of thing, but the project's page claims that "Articles for deletion has grown far beyond human scale, with a throughput now approaching 1,000 pages per week and rising quickly." It shouldn't be difficult to find out, since there are daily logs you could sift through like this one for November 30. –Mabeenot (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Most active project "ranked by changes made to articles" is very misleading and irrelevant. It is not articles but projectspace logs that are being changed. Is there any work being done by this project or the WMF devs to make the delsort tools/gadgets work well in all browsers with the full list of projects? The tab tool works ok but it's annoying having to preload the projects into your .js file. Has anyone ever tried to get delsort incorporated into the WP:TW afd creation tool? There is no reason why it has to be a separate step. The-Pope (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)