Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-06-05/From the editor

• The description under the title uses the word "quinzenário", meaning "fortnightly".
  

—Wavelength (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original choice of Mondays was primarily a product of the fact that when I started this, and was still writing the bulk of the material personally, the best window for the most intense effort was on the weekends outside of my regular workweek. Since those reasons do not apply now, and it's occasionally been a struggle for Signpost editors since, the change in timing is perfectly justifiable. In fact, it's a testament to the conservatism of inertia that the initial pattern has remained nominally in place this long. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been surprised that the deadline hasn't been moved previously; I think I suggested, a year or so ago, that it be changed to Tuesday. In any case, I want to express my appreciation for all the time and effort of the contributors to the Signpost - it's a luxury to be able to stay informed about significant events concerning Wikipedia without having to check scores of pages, personally. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 02:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Ed, I really appreciate your words. On behalf of all the team, thank you for your support. Anyone interested in working with us, read all the information. VítoR™  • (D) 14:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I object to the stated proposal to move the newspaper to Wikipedia:Signpost before the name of the newspaper is settled. This publication is variously called Signpost, Wikipedia Signpost, The Signpost, and The Wikipedia Signpost. If the naming structure is going to be reformed and codified, as well it should be, then everything should have a consistent name. The nice font over the newspaper says that its name is The Signpost and if that is the case, then the homepage should be Wikipedia:The Signpost to minimize confusion. In practice, most people call the paper the Signpost and it is my opinion that this should be the name of the paper, but in that case, the title graphic ought to be changed to omit the "the".

This is an issue which has been addressed before. The New York Times, for example, includes the word "the" as part of the publications name and their formatting of the title elsewhere reflects that.

This publication has already published some stories of interest beyond the Wikipedia community and which have been cited elsewhere. I think it is time to standardize the name as a demonstration of increased professionalism and acknowledgement of the traditions of journalism. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the very definition of bikeshedding (or The Bikeshedding?). Ironholds (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the exact quote, but I recall reading somewhere that when the New York Times dropped the period after their title (see File:Titanic-sinks-new-york-times-thumb.jpg, e.g.), among the voluminous hatemail to Ed Benguiat was a letter from a man who compared it to waking up in the morning, sitting down at his breakfast table, and discovering that his wife had a new face. Anyways, I see it as a good thing that this is all we have to bicker over in regards to the Signpost's management. Publishing delays aside, if everything on Wikipedia were as smoothly run as the Signpost, there'd be a whole lot less drama. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 04:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]