Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-04-09

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


Comments[edit]

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2014-04-09. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Featured content: Snow heater and Ash sweep (1,924 bytes · 💬)[edit]

I find it hard to believe that reviewers passed the Jupiter diagram, considering how fussy the forum is about focus and composition (quite rightly). Take a look at the enlarged display: is the lower-level text around the planet readable? Fancy using grey instead of white on the black background, and not using another colour for the main text (such as Great Red Spot).

I'm surprised at the standards applied in the forum. Tony (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the text and apparently so could the others who voted in favor. The Great Red Spot appears brown in this photo. This article says "The GRS varies greatly in hue, from almost brick-red to pale salmon, or even white." --Pine✉ 07:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could mention that the diagram passed FPC at Commons, so that's at least another 15 people who were convinced by it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

D'Oliveira affair[edit]

"The boycotts lasted more or less intact until 1991", apart from seven South African rebel tours between 1982 and 1990.Rjm at sleepers (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this story

News and notes: Round 2 of FDC funding open to public comments (1,298 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Thanks for the summary. Will WMF's plan be covered in next week's report? --Pine✉ 06:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page linked in the OUP access 'in brief' story says it's for people in the US. Is there more information indicating it's available elsewhere? Nev1 (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special report: Community mourns passing of Adrianne Wadewitz (9,876 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

  • Though you are no longer with us, we will continue to celebrate the ways you have made us better, and how you inspired us through the edits you've made, the relationships you've fostered and the ideals you brought to the project. Thank you for being bold, and doing the Wikipedia Weekly interview that connected you to the greater community and motivated so many other female editors and academics. Your work and your time with us will live on, as long as Wikipedia lives on. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So sad when we loose genuine contibutors, and wiki-colleagues like this. We also lost User:Cindamuse just recently, a real double blow. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 04:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • Indeed. That's a terrible loss to us all; AW had done more than practically any other Wikipedian for our community. I can only hope that this will encourage some Wikipedians to reconsider risking their lives in such a fashion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the thorough report. We will miss Adrianne. A report about Cindamuse will be published next week. --Pine✉ 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had occasion to work with AW on several articles when I was first writing featured articles. She was one of the most skillful and brilliant editors ever on Wikipedia. A terrible loss for the free content movement, and for anyone who values good writing on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share the sense of loss, both of a nonpareil editor and of a young person cut off in her prime. So terribly sad. Requiescat! Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never before encountered this description, and am unaware of any "controversy" surrounding the Plagiarism Dispatch that Awadewit collaborated on along with several of Wikpedia's finest writers:

    ... a controversial article titled "Let's get serious about plagiarism" ...

    Perhaps someone can point me towards or explain what was "controversial" about that Dispatch, and according to whom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are new here, young sir, a controversial article is one that has the potential to create or exacerbate conflict, by making people question their proficiency in article-writing by calling it cheating.
Terrible news story, by the way. You should pick something better to write about. This topic is the worst. I hate it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that after reading the talk page, SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), such as this section. Describing it in that way was not intended as an insult, and indeed, the entire article is meant as a tribute. Moni3 (talk · contribs), I fully agree. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I miss you Adrianne (I also miss you, Cindy, and no, I haven't forgotten about you, you diva..<3 ) SarahStierch (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Ye gods. I haven't talked to her for a while, but just the other day I was talking about some of the things I learned from her - Mary Wollstonecraft's didactic novel for children, Original Stories from Real Life, and the structure of the development of English children's literature from didactic novels being all that was suitable, to an appreciation for allegory and fantasy. More than that, I learned a lot about how literature itself works, how movements grow, become outdated, and are replaced. I remember wondering what she was doing, and wishing I could get in touch with her again. More than that, I remember her. She was an amazing person, full of energy, enthusiasm, and kindness. She will be missed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This may be crazy, but, is there any chance of an article on her? Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think she was notable enough as an academic yet. In 20 years she might have been. --Pine✉ 02:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Adam. Is being a notable volunteer for Wikimedia (a global, notable organization) not enough of a good reason? Moreover, I get about 5,580 google search results ([1]) and even some in GoogleBooks ([2]). The fact that The Signpost was even able to make such a long story is evidence of her notability. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 18:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MarshalN20: She fails WP:PROF as well as WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. She was a good editor. I was glad to attend her memorial service at Oxy. That's where the story ends. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have waited, in humility and sadness, to ask my question. I ask this as a former rock climber myself, and also, I started out here on Wikipedia five years ago writing biographies of rock climbers and mountaineers. I survived a dangerous rock climbing fall myself 35 years ago. So I confess that I am curious, in what I think is a positive way, about the circumstances of her death. What, precisely, went wrong? Perhaps the understandable and justifiable grief about her death can, at least in part, be channeled into improved coverage of climbing safety here on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The prurient in me wants to know the circumstances of both deaths; but in the end, it's trivial compared with the fact of the cruel robbery, and dignity and privacy seem to be more important right now. I'm interested to know whether the community would accept notability for a deceased Wikimedian in terms of their publications for the movement. Tony (talk) 06:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Someone should write about it, but there is the customary time of bereavement that we must allow her loved ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Nicotera (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden and MarshalN20 I think the case for an article is improving.
If her death or events connected with her death are noted then that helps. --Pine✉ 23:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification Pine. I also appreciate Chris' explanation, but I must respectfully disagree that this is where Adrianne's story ends. I am not claiming that she was a notable academic, even though she certainly had the potential. She was a notable Wikipedian, both as a volunteer researcher/editor and advocate, and I consider that this should amount to something. Regards.--MarshalN20 Talk 00:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Traffic report: Conquest of the Couch Potatoes (999 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Discuss this story

Edit: Ok, I see you got your list from Wikipedia:TOP25. I'm not sure why the two lists differ. -Newyorkadam (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

This is a weekly list; your list is monthly, and covers the month of March. This list is already in April. Serendipodous 05:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject report: Law (0 bytes · 💬)[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-04-09/WikiProject report


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2014-04-09&oldid=1125229934"