TITLE Page[edit]

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed

<meta name="robots" content="noindex"><meta name="robots" content="noindex"> The inspection results include the following expandable sections:

URL status (live test)

Availability (live test)

This section of the tool describes whether the page can be indexed by Google. However, a positive result is no guarantee that it will appear in Search results.

The page and its structured data must conform to Google's quality and security guidelines. The live URL inspection also doesn't take into account manual actions, security issues, content removals, or temporarily blocked URLs.

Availability statusThe section heading includes a short, descriptive reason for the status of the URL, explaining why the URL is or isn't on Google. This will be "URL can be indexed" if the URL is able to be indexed, or a warning or failure value similar to (but not exactly the same as) those listed and described here. See details.The time of the live test.The user agent type used for the live test.Indicates whether your site will allow Google to crawl (visit) the page, or block it with a robots.txt rule. If you don't want to block Google, you should remove the robots.txt block. Note that this is not the same as allowing indexing, which is given by the "Indexing allowed?" value. Read how to fix a blocked page.Whether or not Google could actually get the page from your server. If crawling is not allowed, this field will show a failure. If crawling is allowed, page fetch might still fail for various reasons. See explanations of fetch failures. "Crawl allowed?" indicates whether you want the page to be reachable; "Page fetch" indicates whether, if allowed, Google could actually reach the page.If your page is blocked by robots.txt (see "Crawl allowed"), then "Indexing allowed" will always be "Yes" because Google can't see and respect any noindex directives. Because of this, your page might appear in Search results.is fine here. If your page is one of a set of similar or duplicate pages, we recommend explicitly declaring the canonical URL. You can declare a canonical URL in several ways: a <link rel="canonical"> tag, an HTTP header, a sitemap, or a few other methods. There is no guarantee that Google will choose this URL, but we will take this into consideration. For AMP pages, the canonical should be the non-AMP version (unless it is a self-canonical AMP).

Which index coverage issues are tested in the live test

The live test can't detect all page conditions, or predict indexing success with 100% confidence. This is because some types of issues are not, or cannot be tested in real time, such as canonical selection or whether a URL was submitted in a sitemap. If a condition is not checked, the live test result might be URL is available to Google, when in fact indexing will fail due to the condition not tested in the live test.

Here are a list of indexing issues from the Index Coverage report, and whether they can be tested in the live test:

Index statusTested in live test?NotesExcluded by ‘noindex’ tagYesResults shown in the Indexing allowed? field.Blocked by page removal toolNoYou can check this in the Temporary Removals page.Blocked due to unauthorized request (401)YesResults shown in Coverage status and the Page fetch field.Crawled - currently not indexedNo Discovered - currently not indexedNo Alternate page with proper canonical tagNoInformation about Google's canonical choice is only determined at indexing time.Duplicate without user-selected canonicalNoInformation about Google's canonical choice is only determined at indexing time.Duplicate, Google chose different canonical than userNoInformation about Google's canonical choice is only determined at indexing time.Not found (404)YesResults shown in Coverage status and the Page fetch field.Page with redirectYesResults shown in Page fetch field.Soft 404NoClick View tested page to see how Google renders the page for indexing. Very low content pages can be classified as soft 404s during indexing. Learn more, and how to fix.Duplicate, submitted URL not selected as canonicalNoInformation about Google's canonical choice is only determined at indexing time. Additionally, the live test does not determine whether a URL was submitted using a sitemap.Blocked due to access forbidden (403)YesResults shown in the Page fetch field.Blocked due to other 4xx issueYesResults shown in Coverage status and the Page fetch field.Page indexed without contentNo Indexed, though blocked by robots.txtYesResults shown in Coverage status and several other fields in that section.Submitted URL seems to be a Soft 404No‡Click View tested page to see how Google renders the page for indexing. Very low content pages can be classified as soft 404s during indexing. Learn more, and how to fix.Submitted URL returns unauthorized request (401)Yes‡Results shown in Coverage status and the Page fetch field.Submitted URL not found (404)Yes‡Results shown in Coverage status and the Page fetch field.Submitted URL returned 403Yes‡Results shown in the Page fetch field.Submitted URL blocked due to other 4xx issueYes‡Results shown in Coverage status and the Page fetch field.Submitted URL marked ‘noindex’Yes‡Results shown in the Indexing allowed? field.Submitted URL blocked by robots.txtYes‡Results shown in Coverage status and several other fields in that section.Redirect errorYesResults shown in Page fetch field.Server error (5xx)Yes, but...Your page might not have server errors during the live test, but a server error can occur during actual indexing. Success in the live test is not a guarantee of success later.

‡The live test does not verify whether a URL was submitted in a sitemap. Therefore, indexing issues will be evaluated without any consideration about whether or not they were submitted.

Enhancements (Mobile usability, AMP, and more) (live test)

Additional response data (live test)

View the rendered page

You can view a screenshot of the rendered page as Googlebot sees it. This is useful for confirming that all elements of the page are present and appear as you intend. Differences might be the result of resources that are blocked to Googlebot.

A screenshot is available only for the live URL test with a successful test result. Screenshots are not available for the indexed URL, or for non-successful fetches of the live test. The page must be reachable to generate a screenshot. If your page is behind a firewall, you can expose it to the URL Inspection tool using a tunnel.

To view the rendered page:

Inspect the homepage of your site.Click Test live URL on the index results page.Click View tested page on the page verdict card to open additional information panels. If this option is not available it is typically because the page cannot be reached for the live test.Click the Screenshot tab.Request (re)indexing

You can request that an inspected URL be indexed by Google. Indexing can take up to a week or two; you can check the progress using this tool.

Some caveats when requesting indexing:

Indexing typically takes only a day or so, but can take much longer in some cases.Submitting a request does not guarantee that the page will appear in the Google Index.There is a daily limit to how many index requests you can submit. If you want many pages indexed, try submitting a sitemap to Google.

To request indexing for a URL:

Inspect the page URL.Click Request indexing on the inspection result page for the URL. If the page passes a quick check to test for immediate indexing errors, it will be submitted to the indexing queue. You cannot request indexing if the page is considered to be non-indexable in the live test.

To request indexing of many new or updated pages, your best choice is to submit a sitemap, with the updated pages marked by <lastmod>.

Troubleshoot a missing page

If you think your page hasn't been indexed, here's how to verify and troubleshoot the issue.

Check the index status of the page. Inspect the URL, either by entering the URL in the inspection URL textbox, or by clicking the inspect button shown next to a URL in one of the other Search Console reports (you might need to hover over a URL to see this button).The initial test results show you Google's information about the URL in the Google index. These Google index results are used to generate search results. Note: This initial page is not a live test of the URL. Live testing is covered later.If the URL status starts with "URL is on Google", then the page should be available in Google Search. You can verify this by searching for the URL in Google. If the page isn't in search results:Check the Manual Actions report and Security Issues report for issues affecting that page. Issues on either report can prevent your page from appearing in search results.Check to see if someone has temporarily blocked the page.If none of the previous issues affect the page, continue debugging the issue as described here.If the URL status is URL is not available to Google, then expand the Availability section.The Availability section header should include a label describing in brief why the URL could not be indexed. See the list of values and possible fix instructions. If the label is URL is unknown to Google, it means that Google hasn't seen that URL before, so you should request that the page be indexed. Indexing typically takes a few days.If Crawl allowed? is "No," that means Google can't crawl the page because of a robots.txt rule, which prevents Google from crawling the page. Read how to test and fix this issue.If Indexing allowed? is "No", that means your site is returning a "noindex" tag or header that prevents Google from indexing the page, which enables it to appear in Google Search results. You'll have to remove this tag or header from the page before Google will index it.If you've changed the page since the crawl time listed, you can test your current version of the page by clicking Test live URL. If the status shown at the top of the page valid, then the page can probably be indexed (note that not all indexing issues can be detected by the live test).

Known issues

In a few cases, we don't report the sitemap for a page that was submitted in a sitemap. We are working to fix this.

Hi, FacetsOfNonStickPans, could you please elaborate on this submission? It looks likes it's text copied from a website. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EpicPupper thanks for the ping. I did not place the above text here on this page. Please delete this. This IP edit is not me. (I deleted the draft after a failed attempt to write a Signpost article but that was a few weeks back and has nothing to do with the content above.) FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @FacetsOfNonStickPans, sorry for the confusion. {{completed}} (for the archiving bot) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 21:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why you should source your plot summaries[edit]

Status:
V ?
Approved
{{completed}} (For the archiving bot) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A conference on "Dark Matter of Wikipedia"[edit]

Status:
V ?
Cancelled
@Temp3600 and HaeB: Sorry, I almost missed this submission. It's not long enough for a full article. I'll suggest posting a shorter version to a mailing list under "call for papers" Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smallbones:Could you share me more information on the mailing list? Thank you!--Temp3600 (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rambling[edit]

Status:
V ?
In development
Looks like a good start to an op-ed to me. I like "trying to do bonsai with a chainsaw" as a blurb. - Bri.public (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! As much as I like the turn of phrase "bonsai with a chainsaw", I must admit I don't think I've used it very accurately. Hopefully I can find a better place for it. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We must hang out in different places—I can't remember anyone complaining about how hard it is to modify Wikipedia. The communities in the venues I frequent basically aren't interested in trying to edit Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isaacl, thanks for sharing your experience - is it because they don't realize one can, or because they've given up? Enterprisey (talk!) 05:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not germane to the topic under discussion for most people; they're just using Wikipedia as a resource. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to have some traction for publication so I'll add the Signpost formatting later today. - Bri.public (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
never mind, the new revision is formatted ☆ Bri (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Our live chat supporters[edit]

Status:
V ?
Cancelled
@ΟΥΤΙΣ: It would need to be a bit longer. Concentrate on the helpers, less on yourself. Give some real (or slightly disguised) examples. Say more, opine less. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Seven Ages of Wikipedia[edit]

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
@Xdude gamer:You might move it all to prose - poetry is hard! I'll ask that you think of some real editors as you rewrite - it sounds fairly theoretical right now. It might take 3 or 4 rewrites, but you may have something here. Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:17, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright sounds cool! xdude (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did finish it, so whichever editors you can find would be much appreciated. xdude (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perspectives of a long-time Wikipedia user and editor[edit]

Status:
V ?
Scheduled

Four billion words[edit]

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
  • @Smallbones: Thanks for the feedback. I've cut the text from 782 words to 318 words; let me know if I took too much out. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November AfD report[edit]

Status:
V ?
Needs review

Arbitration report[edit]

Status:
V ?
Needs review
Never mind, I finished it. Would very much like some guidance (to which end I pinged arbitrators on the page). jp×g 01:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How to write a good DYK hook (by a gal who only sometimes writes good DYK hooks)[edit]

Status:
V ?
Approved
@Theleekycauldron, sure! "In focus" would work as the column. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{completed}} for archiving purposes. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Youth culture and notability[edit]

Status:
V ?
Published
  • @Waggers, EpicPupper, and JPxG: This looks pretty good to me. It's not exceptionally long, so if needed it could be expanded. I'd be happy to edit it but those changes would be mostly minor and discussed with Waggers. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{Completed}}

Why page titles are important, and how you can help[edit]

Status:
V ?
Needs drafting
Self-accepting now that I have the power, mwahahaahahahaha.... 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Survey of the Wikipedia Cabal[edit]

Status:
V ?
Needs drafting
Hi @WhinyTheYounger, this could work as an opinion piece. Please feel free to draft it. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists love Wikipedia and Pride[edit]

Status:
V ?
Approved
Thanks Wugapodes! I'm accepting this and asked for licensing permmision here. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes: An Overview[edit]

Status:
V ?
Approved
Hi Urban Versis 32, and thanks for the submission! This piece looks great so far. My only feedback would be to expand it a bit; it's currently slightly short for what The Signpost usually publishes. As a suggestion, perhaps some words about creating a userbox and the rules around doing so (e.g. divisive content) would be helpful. I personally quite enjoy using this tool. Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 01:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will expand my article. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk | contribs) 01:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's expanding along very nicely, but I feel this would be best suited for In focus instead of Tips and tricks, much like last issue's Wikidata tool. @EpicPupper: do you mind if I move this submission to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/In focus? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the move to In focus. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 01:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb I agree as well. I’m moving it now, cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP lobbying the WMF to provide better Page Curation software support[edit]

Status:
V ?
Accepted
I can copy edit this. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Try this version please, EpicPupper:
An open letter to the WMF has been written by the NPP team asking that resources be allocated to the maintenance of this tool. Active reviewers (only around 100 out of about 750) are unable to keep the backlog at a sustainable level, and software improvements are now urgently required. The letter can be seen here, and anyone who supports it, can consider signing it.
More help is needed to patrol new pages. Interested editors can check the criteria, read the tutorials, and apply at PERM for access to the tools. New Page Patrol even provides a school for reviewers. Especially needed are reviewers who can accurately judge the notability of non-English and Asian topics.

MB 00:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC), Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC) Final tweak of the wording MB 16:33, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MB, Kudpung, and EpicPupper: I've expanded the brief note I added yesterday to News and Notes in line with the above (which I only spotted today). Diff. Does it look okay? Best, Andreas JN466 10:13, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MB, Kudpung, EpicPupper, Novem Linguae, and Jayen466:. Looks fine to me. I've just changed one link for accuracy. Thanks Andreas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest changing "Especially needed are reviewers who can accurately judge the notability of non-English and Asian topics." to "Especially needed are reviewers who can accurately judge the quality of foreign language sources." –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done [1] Andreas JN466 18:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you get when you combine metadata, self-reporting, talk pages and conflicting Wikipedia philosophies?[edit]

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
Ok, this is an article idea, and not a submission. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 13:12, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested for the deletion of this draft, csdg6. FacetsOfNonStickPans (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draft deleted, not published. jp×g 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC) {{completed}}[reply]

New pageview dump export format (concept)[edit]

Status:
V ?
Unreviewed
@Dušan Kreheľ, I can see this going into the technology report. It is a bit short right now and could use some more background and explanation. I fully understand that there might be a language barrier as well. Could you perhaps expand it a bit? We can translate from other languages if you’re more comfortable with that. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 00:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@EpicPupper: I updated the document. You look. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EpicPupper and JPxG: Ah, I wanted to have posted on 1 September. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is done. --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like more a title "Pageview and compression" as now "Pageview compression". --Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article link: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Drafts/Pageview dumps. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The actual links:

--Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separate discussion with several unresolved concerns about this draft: Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#"Concept"_column_in_next_issue. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues unresolved, not published. jp×g 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC) {{completed}}[reply]

On Quality[edit]

Status:
V ?
Approved
@Julle thanks, and sorry for the late reply! I'd be inclined to accept this as an Op-Ed. Would "The façade of article quality" work as a title, and "Article quality will not in itself save us if technology and user patterns leave us behind" work as a blurb (description)? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
EpicPupper: No worries, and welcome back. I'm happy with the blurb. I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with "façade" to describe article quality, but a few suggested titles – if you're happy with any of them, take your pick. (:
  • The limitations of article quality
  • What article quality can't do
  • Does article quality change anything for our readers?
/Julle (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Julle the first one works for me! I've edited the piece. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 05:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is good, and has been published. jp×g 20:18, 31 January 2023 (UTC) {{completed}}[reply]

Busting into Grand Central[edit]

Status:
V ?
Approved
@Ɱ: Right now the commons:Commons:Wiki Loves Folklore 2023. In meta:Volunteer Response Team private ticket:2022112310010222 that organizing team asked Wikimedia New York City to submit some kind of folklore story. I feel that what you have written about myths of this New York City train station is as close to contemporary folklore as anyone can find. You have established sources, told the stories in your own words, and you make an interesting case to sort fact and fiction here in Wikipedia.
Are you able to add an image gallery to this story, including the four myths you describe? This could include the 2 clocks, the basement, and the painted ceiling. If you did that, then
  • This story becomes good for Wiki Loves Folklore
  • It becomes The Signpost's story contributing to that campaign
  • Wiki NYC can showcase this piece at their next meeting, further cross-promoting it
I do not want to put you out of your way for the images, but I think that people have already uploaded images of all these things countless times. Is there a reason you have not already included and labeled the images in this story?
Thanks. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can do this! No worries, we do already have images of the items mentioned in the story. Good to hear from you again! ɱ (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ɱ (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been published. jp×g {{completed}}




       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0