Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newsroom discussions prior to May 2018 are archived at WT:POST.

Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Published

Publishing messed up?

I think that the publishing isn't exactly right. I'm seeing some articles from this month's edition of the signpost on WP:SIGNPOST, but I'm also seeing that the date is wrong and some of the links are red. Does anybody have an idea for how to fix this? I'm a page mover and can move things around if needed, but I'd just like to see if there's something Signpost-specific that I am missing here. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

(EC) I'll take a look at the above Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@Chris troutman and JPxG: Chris - can you take over in the middle? JPxG can you step back and see if Chris can take over. My apologies and thanks for the help. Please communicate here. The situation stands bow as:
@Chris troutman and JPxG: Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The script ran in its entirety, but a couple things were messed up. I fixed everything myself except the one page I couldn't edit (not being a TE or admin). User:Seddon helpfully fixed it here, so everything should be fine now (the main page is rendering correctly now as well). The only thing remaining to be done is the global massmessage. jp×g 01:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Do you have permission to do a global mass-message send? This part is still necessary (as well as publication on facebook, twitter etc that the script helpfully reminded me had to be done manually). jp×g 01:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: I'm just about to handle those. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everybody - it looks like everything is fine - but I'll double check just to be sure - the 2 of you saved the day, despite all my efforts. :-) Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Global mass message went out and tweet is out. I never had a facebook account so that's due out. I don't seem to have the gmail login so I haven't sent to the listserv. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Yikes, I would have helped but I was on cross-state travel when everything was happening. Hope it's OK now. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
(EC) @Chris troutman: that's ok, we can get that in the morning. Thanks again. JPxG thanks for taking the initiative, and pretty much getting everything done. All the on-Wiki stuff looks fine (except for one meaningless quirk). Let's see how the readers like it. At least one comment already in. (Thanks Bri) Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add a note to the script's documentation that the template editor permission is now required to update the Issues page, which is what gave us the hiccup this time. Apparently, that page was automatically TE-protected by MusikBot as a high-transclusion template a few weeks ago; the inability to update that with the current issue ended up cascading through a few other pages (although thankfully not the 1,249 talk pages that were posted to by the mass message bot, lol). jp×g 03:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Good to know. I'll need TE permissions if I'm to publish in the future. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Reader feedback

View reader feedback on issue 10 (November)

All: You can monitor reader feedback by pressing the button. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Publishing in 2 weeks!

The publication timer is set to Tuesday, December 28, which seems like a better choice than Sunday, Dec 26th. I'll be taking that week off in any case and @Bri: has again taken on the burden of being the temporary editor-in-chief during my annual family vacation. This doesn't mean that I'll be completely out of contact, e.g. 2 years ago during my nice warm Florida vacation it rained everyday, so .... I'll try to stay out of Bri's way this time! I do hope to complete some sections of In the media, and perhaps a Disinformation report by Christmas Eve (early). I might even try my hand at a Jimbo NFT story - but I've already rejected 3 of my drafts on ideological grounds.

  • @Igordebraga: - 3 weeks worth of Traffic report looks good. My relaxed tourist view didn't turn up anything that a bit of copy editing can't take care of. There are 1 or 2 phrases that I don't completely understand - so those will be suggested edits.
    • @Smallbones: Which ones? Maybe I'll clarify them before the publishing copy edit. igordebraga ≠ 00:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Week 1, item 1 "Given the transfer was speculation," L'd always thought a soccer transfer was like a "trade" in American sports. Since this is about a manager rather than a player, you'll likely lose most American readers who've never thought that a manager can be traded. They just sign contracts, right?
      • Week1, item 2 "but last week's report does that very well already." (so where is the reader supposed to go?) maybe just leave it out.
      • Week1, item 3 2nd "broke" should be "broken". If I understand it correctly "(I say apparently not because I don't believe, but because I am too obtuse to ever notice such a thing)" should be left out. IMHO
      • Week 1, item 7 "greatest archer Katniss Everdeen" Katniss Everdeen gets an internal and an external link and both are crossed out. I'm confused!
        • Internal link=the character. External link=Hawkeye referencing the character. Both as part of the joke. But rewrote it.
      • Week 1, item 9 "the ensuing shopping sprees were the first off the list at #26." Now where do I go?
      • Week 3. items 2&3 "Still in India, these Bollywood stars got married." to each other? Are they going to leave India (honeymoon?)? One of us should check.
        • #1 is an Indian subject, hence why the mention that the next two spots are from the same country. Thought "to each other" was obvious from the joined write-up, but if you complain, will add those words.
      • Week 3, Item 7. "Thomas Savage" needs disambiguation
Thanks JPxG – do you have all the permissions needed (page mover, mass message sender, template editor)? It looks like you had privs temporarily granted for publication last month. Maybe you could go to WP:PERM to request a more permanent arrangement. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm here again, I can publish if you want - sorry I disappeared for a while, real life took over. I'll be sure to be checking wiki every day, let me know if I should publish or not DannyS712 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Who's publishing

DannyS712 it looks like you have all the permissions required by the publishing script. To avoid last-minute pain, I'd like to ask you to do it this month. Can you please confirm? ☆ Bri (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can publish. I'll set an alarm for myself to make sure I login with some time to spare DannyS712 (talk) 06:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! ☆ Bri (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

WMF pauses fundraising banners

See announcement from Pats Pena here: [3]. Note preceding sections on that talk page. --Andreas JN466 22:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Also note this viral tweet: [4] --Andreas JN466 22:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Right now, the fundraising banners seem to have stopped again. Is anybody else seeing any while logged out?

I believe that this year no logged-in users were shown the banners, regardless of their preferences set-up. (I never disabled fundraising banners in my preferences, and still only saw them when logged out.) A user has asked for confirmation of this on Meta:

There has been lots of discussion on the linked Meta page in general over the past couple of weeks, most of it very critical of the size, design and messaging of the WMF begging banners. Hope this helps. Cheers, --Andreas JN466 18:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, The Daily Telegraph ran an op-ed which either has the title "Wokepedia's greed makes a mockery of the season of giving" (online, paywalled) or "Be cautious if confronted by Wikipedia's begging bowl" (via ProQuest, I assume the print edition had this one). What do other Signposters think? Should we cover it in In the media? Or any of the founder's commentary at his talkpage? Or anything else around this? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The non-paywalled version of the online Telegraph article is at https://archive.md/4mImX The headline in the print edition was different; you can see what that looked like in this tweet. Hope that helps! --Andreas JN466 00:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bri: The first complaints on Meta – see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fundraising#The_banner and following sections – seem to have originated from Teahouse and Helpdesk volunteers who said they had to field an increased influx of reader complaints about the banners. Then a couple of VRT people weighed in. The most recent set of comments is from Sj, a former WMF board member, critiquing the current banner approach. Basically, there are always complaints come fundraising season. In past years, they took place on the mailing list. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-18/Op-ed for an old write-up. This year, given that the WMF now actually have designated staff watching and responding on Meta pages, the discussion has shifted there, which is not a bad thing. --Andreas JN466 01:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I respect Jayen466 / Andreas for developing the conversation in the direction of saying that WMF has too much money, and their perspective is one worth including because people have discussed WMF bringing in too much money in the past, but my read on the wiki community conversations is that this is not the majority view. Personally I think we need 10x more money in the Movement. The problem is not that the movement takes money, or that it takes too much, but rather that the donors are giving money to support the Wikipedia community which is familiar and trusted whereas instead the Wikimedia Foundation is controlling money in an overreach of stewardship.
Regarding the amount of money, in COVID for example, governments and off-wiki stakeholders have spent billions of dollars globally for ineffective public health education. Wikipedia is the single most consulted source of information on COVID, and $100 million in Wikipedia content development would have been more effective than any billion spent otherwise. We need a lot of money and support, and the generosity of donors is not in error to assume that editors need sponsorship. COVID is a case where we would need 10s of millions of dollars to get good content for enough topics in 100 languages at a fast speed in an ethical way.
The real story is that at the WMF fundraising page (archived here) the Wikimedia Foundation is raising money in the names of community programs which they have declined to fund, and where they say they are financially supporting them. I think if we listed all those community programs and how much money the Wikimedia Foundation has given them, then that would make an interesting story because the funding amounts are so low. The WMF never asked for permission to speak on behalf of those community programs or to collect money in their names. I am a participant and organizer for Wiki Loves Pride. The LGBT+ community gets a lot of harassment, has been asking for support since at least 2012, and I think the total historical funding in the history of the WMF to LGBT+ projects is about US$250k globally. Despite that, the WMF name drops LGBT+ projects in fundraising regularly. The same is true for other projects they name in fundraising. When WMF talks about diversity, they have not to date meant that they promote diversity in funding allocation, nor do they report at all how much money they allocate to community versus keep for themselves. Leave Rosie out of this because she is busy, but WMF community-elected trustee and founder of the popular Women in Red project has a discussion on her page at User_talk:Rosiestep#WMF_needs_money_for_Women_in_Red. That is one of the most popular projects in the Wikimedia Movement, and I think it has never been awarded any money. It and all the projects listed need money.
I think this is a good topic for journalism but we would need a dedicated journalist / writer to address this very sensitive topic properly, and I am not sure that we have that labor available. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Thanks. What disturbs me is not the amount of money taken as such, but the way it's done. The WMF quite consciously and cynically fosters the impression that it doesn't have enough money to keep Wikipedia up and running. They're treating people like sheep to be manipulated into giving them more money every year, not individuals to be informed so they can make their own decisions on the basis of knowledge. That really sucks in the management of a project like this one.
The failure to provide meaningful reporting on spending is part of the same pattern of obfuscation. And the Women in Red stuff you mention just takes the biscuit. Honestly, I have never voted for a right-wing party in my life, and despise Trumpism, but this "Wikimedia Foundation needs money for Women in Red" really is fake news. In the New York Times. --Andreas JN466 10:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I get it now – what I perceived before was kind of a perennial grousing about the annoyance of banners, but this is more than about this year's banners. It's a good discussion on Rosiestep's talkpage. I can take a try at converting it to a story. Maybe under the title WMF "needs" money for Women in Red. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I missed most of this

(EC with Bri) 1st I should say that I've got less than 2 days before going on vacation.

My general opinion on the fundraising issue is pretty well-known. I think Wikipedia needs funding for the long-term. There are some folks who campaign against WMF fundraising and I have difficulty imagining a good faith reason why, e.g. Andrew Orlowicz's (sp?) piece in The Telegraph (thanks for the archive link). There is a question of wording but I don't find the WMF's wording being especially pushy compared to e.g NPR or even the local fire department.

Unless I hear otherwise, I'll try to do. Something about the NY Times article (pro and con). Followed closely by Orlowcsx's article (it will be difficult for me to say anything good about it) all in In the media. I'd also like to get something from a Women in Red writer as a stand alone article for January. I'll suggest if he thinks more is needed this issue, that @Bri: figure out how to best handle it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:11, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Bri - I'll just do the ITM stuff I said above. You please edit it (up to full elimination. If you want to do WiR stuff that's up to you. We can handle any questions about January's issue in January. Smallbones(smalltalk) 16:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Got it ☆ Bri (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
We had the wording rodeo already (Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-06-27/Forum), Smallbones, and I failed to convince you , but if you say Wikipedia needs money – only about 30% of WMF spending is about Wikipedia, according to Lisa Seitz-Gruwell. Yet all the fundraising banners ever talk about is Wikipedia. It's as though I were asking for donations by showing only pictures of starving children in Africa, but in fact all the children in Africa are well-fed and I spend 70% of the money in my own backyard. The best thing you can say about Orlowski's article is that the figures for WMF assets and the Möller cost estimate are correct. (The archive.md method of getting past the Telegraph paywall seems to work generally, by the way. There are other ways, like stopping the page load before the banner comes on, or using the "view-source:" prefix). --Andreas JN466 19:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen this? According to that table of Form 990 data (still a work in progress), WMF salaries, benefits and taxes per employee are way out there compared to other non-profits, working out at $191,000 per person. Worth an article next month? --Andreas JN466 09:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Llewee and Bri:

I was mostly exploring some formatting ideas and am glad to see both of you responding. My suggestions:

  • Put 1 or 2 images for each story. These are important enough stories that we probably have enough good photos for 2 for each story
  • I'd cut down the text. The Gallery should be essentially about the photos. Without increasing the amount of text, I'll suggest adding text about the photographers or about how many photo we have on the story at Commons.
  • You might add a story or 2 (with more photos of course!) if there are other important news items this year that had on-the-spot Commons photos.
  • These are all suggestions, of course, but please explore these directions if you have the time. Or revert back to before my suggestions if you don't have the time.
  • I did try to do something like this re:George Floyd at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-06-28/Gallery . You be te judges on how well this worked.
  • A story like this one should work IMHO every 2-3 months. So feel free to experiment with the formatting and text. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones and Bri: I agree that having a couple of images for each story is probably a good idea, and I was going to add a couple more stories over the next few days. However, I don't think its a good idea to cut down the text, each story only has a few lines as it is and I think the text adds to the readers understanding (some of the stories wouldn't really work without it).--Llewee (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to have a section called something like other "other highlights" or "honourable mentions" with a collection of images with just captions and no additional text. Llewee (talk) 17:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes I've been watching and am happy to have the content creator given leeway to do as they see fit. Certainly am not beholden to how The Signpost has handled galleries historically, we are a constant reinvention IMO. I see Smallbones' focus is on capturing and holding the reader's interest. Maybe something like an image section above, and commentary below would satisfy both constraints. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Storming of the United States Capitol

Are there any images available that demonstrate the actions described in the text? This looks like there's not much happening, which obviously was not the case. Compare to File:2017 Women's March at Olympia.jpg for example. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC) fr:Assaut_du_Capitole_par_des_partisans_de_Donald_Trump#Déroulement_des_faits has this good montage. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bri: How heavy is our coverage of the event going to be in this issue? My deletion report currently starts out with January (in which Jake Angeli's AfD was the largest by both !vote count and page size) -- if there is going to be a bunch of stuff about it in every other article, I will probably edit that part down to avoid boring our readers. jp×g 05:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wrong people in Israel gov't image

Please correct the honorable mention section with the Israel government people. One of them is Ayelet Shaked. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed the image to one showing the right two people, plus the President of Israel. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossword

I can edit another Crossword (and provide the answer's for last month's) but I'm afraid I won't have time for much else this issue. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: sounds good! Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Please, of course! I can see from the comments that readers really enjoy this (as do I). Bri.public (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Smallbones: @Bri.public: - the Crossword has been added (along with last month's answers) and is ready for copyedit. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ganesha811, Bri, Bri.public, and Sdkb: I know I promised to be outa here by now. Give me just another hour! (You see why I *really* need a vacation?) I was thinking about just putting the Crossword in a new column/rubric/article called Crossword - Ganesha811 has earned it! Then we could put Sdkb's humourous essay Help:Buying Wikipedia in the Humour column (or alternatively in the Essay column (it is more like an multi-editor essay than a Help article). Last thought - we could use a News from Diff or News from Wiki Education. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
That would be fine by me! Makes perfect sense. We'd just have to relink the previous Crosswords as well so people can go through them smoothly (the Next issue and Previous issue links). Ganesha811 (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Sounds great. I will take care of the page moves in a few minutes. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome to run Help:Buying Wikipedia (or WP:Notability (mailboxes)) sometime. They were originally designed for projectspace but should translate well enough. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

In The Media: Climate change

BIG article about Wikipedia today on the BBC News website "Climate change: Small army of volunteers keeping deniers off Wikipedia". Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Got it here. Not sure what else to say, though. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Call for copyeditors

Several articles appear to be complete and I've marked them for copyedit. Maybe it needs updating but our "about" page lists Bluerasberry, ProgrammingGeek, Megalibrarygirl, and MJL as copyeditors. Anyone can pitch in here. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

We are 1/2 hour from publication (ideally). If someone can check In the media and News and notes, that would be great -- I'm a contributor on each, and don't copyedit my own work effectively sometimes. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

How do you say "absurdly long compound German noun" in German?

I'll be outta here by morning. So how do you say "absurdly long compound German noun" in German? It's needed in the "By the numbers" column. @HaeB, Bri, Jayen466, Bri, and AmericanLemming:

Merry Christmas! Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I added the phrase in Wiktionary, Komposita mit Überlänge. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
A correct translation of "absurdly long compound German noun" would be absurd langes zusammengesetztes deutsches Substantiv. Trust me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy Christmas! Of course it's not the absurdly long compound nouns listed at that Wiktionary link that are responsible for the difference – they're the German equivalent of Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis – but the many ordinary compound nouns that are in common use, like "Hauptstraße" ("high street"), "Sprachversion" ("language edition"), "Gesamtzahl" ("total number") and so on. --Andreas JN466 13:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I thought it was kind of funny though to blame the undercount on words like Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz (Gesundheit). ☆ Bri (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Writing deadline approaches

Just a gentle reminder – writing should be completed by 2000 UTC 27 December; that's 12 noon Monday on US West Coast. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, a man can hope, can't he... The deletion and arbitration report should not take much longer -- what else do we have that's almost ready to go? I noticed that last month there were a couple articles that had been started but needed a couple hours of writing to be done (which I didn't have, so I sent it out without them). jp×g 10:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, we're past the deadline now and I don't think Discussion report is in good shape. I just marked Humour copyedited (letting one singular/plural issue go). ☆ Bri (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
I see that "by the numbers" is still marked for copyedit. I can do this (and finish the deletion report) -- would like to get some eyes on that when it is done, because Lord knows proofreading your own work is a quick ticket to embarrassment. As for right now, my arbitration report is finished, if anyone can take a look at it. jp×g 04:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@JPxG: I've now copyedited the arb report. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Serendipity

I would like to post my piece, but I see no empty space to drop my Serendipity article. Vysotsky (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: There is a space for the column at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom, click the blue "Start article" button. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vysotsky: I've looked over what you have written so far, and it mostly looks good. A lead is absolutely necessary before we can run it -- I think it would also be nice if there were a little more in the "no, born in 1926" section (it gets a little tangled). One other thing that would be nice is if there were a little more mystery; that is to say, if the reader went through the same journey as the editors involved, not knowing which birth date was correct until the part in the story when it's revealed. Also, was there a smoking gun that revealed the correct birth date? What went on there, and how was everyone moved to finally accept the correct date? jp×g 09:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No prob. I could do a bit of rewriting. How many hours to go? Vysotsky (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Nine hours, I see. Vysotsky (talk) 10:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vysotsky, JPxG, and Bri: (4+ hours to go) I did a final rewrite/edit - adding in authority control which resolves the mystery better IMHO. I now resume my vacation! Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good. I guess The Signpost doesn't use any footnotes? Otherwise the second remark about authority control (the VIAF part) could go to a footnote of the first remarkt about auth. control. Vysotsky (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I put an external link to the World Cat page. That works IMHO. In general, we don't use footnotes - it's easier to just link without having a big break like "Reference" between the article and the comments. But if there are too many links, footnotes work better. 18:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Almost there

There is half an hour to go till publication which DannyS712 is on standby for. I asked for copyedit assist on copyedit on two articles that I contributed to: In the media and News and notes, but I'd pull the trigger as they are. Not waiting for Recent research unless we hear from the editor in the near future. Thanks in advance to everyone who has contributed to this issue! ☆ Bri (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, please let me know what order to put the articles in (I think last time it was the order on the newsroom page, but its been a while) and when its approved for publication, and which point I'll start the process. I recall there being some technical difficulties in one of the publications while I was away if I read correctly, if that happens I'll plan to carry out the remaining steps manually myself, to avoid conflicts from multiple people trying to fix it at the same time - if I have all the rights needed to do it via the script, I should be able to do it manually too DannyS712 (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I made a few edits to put them in the desired order. I think selecting the correct items in WP:Signpost/Next issue namespace is the first thing you do in the publishing script – please make sure they do have "approved by E-in-C" checked. Then you drag them into the correct order (I'm saying this from memory). ☆ Bri (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Just seeing this - Recent research should be in publishable shape already, but I can definitely use the extra hour. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'm ready when you are, let me know when to start DannyS712 (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Archive_21&oldid=1166235288"