One thing to note is that this template (Single talk) uses kind of an ugly hack to get the date out of the page name: {{#invoke:string|sub|{{PAGENAME}}|27|36}}. Essentially, it gets "2022-11-28" as a substring of {{PAGENAME}}, like this:

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2022-11-28
                        111111111122222222223333333
               123456789012345678901234567890123456
                                         ^        ^

This means that it will only work right on pages whose titles follow the exact format of "Wikipedia Signpost/Single/YYYY-MM-DD". This shouldn't be a problem, but it could become one, and I want you to know about this if it starts breaking for no reason.

Update: I fixed it, due to being a genius.

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2010-01-04. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

• Any chance of a link to find out why ArbCom resysopped GlassCobra?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an explanation or two in this discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone who put in so much work to have some content featured! And thanks to everyone who participated in the review process. Scartol • Tok 14:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The misguided news articles that attempt to paint Wikipedia in a negative light because of random examples of vandalism always irk me. They prey upon the average reader's lack of knowledge about how the encyclopedia's inner workings function. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yet another premature death -> [1]. Has there been enough for WMF devs and dictators alike to pull their finger's out thier arse and enable flagged revs?   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed Falcon. BTW Promethean (and I do agree), you can now get a detailed breakdown of where the devs are with FPPR, see the techblog. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 09:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The FT article exhibits certain characteristics in common with some dodgy Wikipedia articles: parts of it are well written, other parts poorly written, and when considered as a whole it's bollocks. Columnist Andrew Waters strongly implies that Wikipedia has no existing peer review process whatsoever, which is an insult to those hard-working editors who spend much of their time assessing articles.
Of course, giving Featured and Good articles preferential rankings over unsourced stubs in Google search results would not be a perfect solution, but it would surely be more meaningful than pie-in-the-sky ideas like having some Googlebot attempting to analyse and rate editors and articles.
Mr Waters then tries to trivialise the WP:Flagged revisions/Sighted versions proposal, describing "a plan to improve the English-language version ... by subjecting changes proposed by newcomers to approval by more experienced editors and flagging up any revisions" as a "minor but highly symbolic innovation". Whether an effective end to the era of "the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit" would be an improvement is open to debate, but to describe it as "minor" displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of Wikipedia.
He goes on to observe "The problem is not necessarily that the average quality of articles is low; rather, that there is no way to tell which can truly be relied on." Much like newspapers, then. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-01-04/News and notes

The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2017-10-23. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-10-23/Blog

• Wait, where are the featured pictures? Opencooper (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
• "14-floor-tall high-rise"—Who let that through? Tony (talk) 03:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Barbara (WVS). I disambiguated the wikilink Rudolph to the article Rudolph. If this was not correct, or your intention, please undo my edit. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Barbara (WVS). I corrected the spelling of Ralph the Warewolf to Ralph the Werewolf. If this was not correct, or your intention, please undo my edit. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I insist that you continue to check up on the things I have written. Sometimes I write too fast, and get sloppy. I'm sending you a barnstar for being so nice and posting a comment here. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

But, of course, Ralph is Alf's sister. Yes, I'm way behind.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. I do wonder how many readers have no understanding of Green Acres. I mention it again in the next Signpost humour article. Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 01:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You can now order the devices fully assembled from Wiki Project Med Foundation for what they cost to make and ship here. We have so far shipped 34 devices off to more than a dozen countries. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I was amazed with the information that was provided in the Wikipedia Signpost related to the ongoing fight against the fake news which is revealed through the social media. The concept of WikiTribune must be a good initiative in order to eradicate the rumours which would mislead the people. Abishe (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Advances in Applied Sociology is a predatory journal. I would amend the article to point that out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Headbomb: amended, and tks for letting me know. As an aside, I did not in fact write that section of the article, and don't feel like you cannot edit the article itself to correct something. I watchlist all my old signpost articles, so if there's something very, very wrong done to a page. I will fix it. As another aside, I greatly appreciate the work you do on Wikipedia and you are one of my many role models. Any advice you might have for me is greatly appreciated. Happy editing! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well your name was on the byline. I consider the Signpost to be akin to a public newspaper. I'll fix typos/formatting, but changing the substance of something is too far for me. I noted the correction as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm very impressed by Wikiproject Military History's recent one thousandth featured article milestone. Well done, guys. Abyssal (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be very helpful if someone could update Wikipedia:Fundraising statistics, a page which currently includes no post-2015 data. – Athaenara ✉ 22:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the message is getting across, clearing the goal in quicker and quicker times... I still find myself pointing out to people that it wikipedia is in the top ten sites and yet no adverts ... all thanks to the good nature of donors, great job fellow humans!

:) 09:35, 31 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leevanjackson (talk • contribs) 

"One reason for the new location was to move into a smaller space." Income escalating, size of the bureaucracy growing at a cancerous rate, and we're supposed to believe that WMF is trying to move into a smaller space? Uh, that I seriously doubt. Very, very seriously, I doubt. How much was the old rent? How much is the new rent? Which space is more trendy? Did WMF try to get more space at the new site and get put on a waiting list? There is absolutely something missing from this picture... Carrite (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The post about Wikimedia UK's GLAM projects appears to take credit that the upload of 100,000 images from Wellcome Images was a Chapter project. As per the Wikimedia blog post I wrote about the project in 2015, this was managed by myself as an "independent Wikimedia Commons volunteer". There was no support given to me by the UK Chapter, had there been I would have taken care to provide Wikimedia UK full credit. Could statements about who did what be kept clear, and preferably stick to the courtesy to credit the right person when appropriate, even when an unpaid volunteer?

Most of my more interesting GLAM related projects are listed at c:User:Fæ/Project_list if you ever need to check. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Did you have any involvement with Wikimedia UK at the time? MPS1992 (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No. --Fæ (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh. Apologies for the slightly loaded question then. I don't think the article directly implies that the 100,000 images were uploaded thanks to Wikimedia UK. Presumably there was some work on the part of Wellcome Trust themselves too. It would be nice if the article (this page) could be updated to mention your involvement. MPS1992 (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to clarify that it was Fae who helped with the upload. I was not at Wikimedia UK at the time and was unaware of which person was responsible for doing so. I think the article makes clear that we could not have the impact we do as a charity without our community and we welcome the positive contributions of anybody who wants to participate in helping with our projects. Institutional partnerships take time and energy from a lot of people, and when they are successful we all win together as a community, which is what I was trying to emphasise. Jwslubbock (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the slight rewording, however the use of "and now", makes it appear that the nearly 100,000 files uploaded to Commons must be at least in part after the funded residency started and is counted as part of the successful deliverables from that project. However based on checking upload reports via the wiki database, there have been no new uploads to c:Category:Files_from_Wellcome_Images as part of the residency project, in effect uploading came to a halt. Just to reiterate, the uploads were not part of the impact of the charity, neither were they part of any unpaid volunteer "helping with [Wikimedia UK] projects", they were a result of me, as an individual, asking for access to high resolution originals, which the Wellcome Library were kind enough to provide to me on a disk. If there have been significant uploads from the Wellcome's collections as part of the residency project, please do provide a link to where they are. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-10-23/Traffic report