Wikipedia Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

And someone will help you put it in the correct location. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: thanks for doing this! English Wikisource recently relaunched Wikisource:News. I'd love for it to get included if you don't mind. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Please look at the right in orange ('NIEUWSBRIEVEN') at the main page of Dutch Wikinews -> next step within each newsletter: click on 'Bron' (= 'source' in Dutch). Thanks for your nice template! Ymnes (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymnes: it seems everything listed there is listed here, except for "Nieuwsbrief Wikimedia België", which I assume refers to [1]? I've added it to the template. Is there something else that needs to be added? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's all right in this way. Ymnes (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Would you mind adding fr:Wiktionnaire:Actualités? Jc86035 (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jc86035: that page seems to not exist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose fr:Wikt:Wiktionnaire:Actualités is what you meant? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How was this made? What is the source of all these old records?

I have sometimes seen a newsletter effort come and go but what a trap all this is! So much labor and likely so few readers, with so little hope of being sustained! Anyone thinking of starting a newsletter should have access to this to see the barriers they will face. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Not really sure I fully understand the question. But I mostly used Wikidata for the Signpost-like stuff, and the old List of Newsletters for most of the Wikipedia/WikiProject stuff. There was some general sleuthing as well. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a post to Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) suggesting the development of a Meta-focused weekly newsletter, partly performing a new role unrelated to existing newsletters and partly filling the void left by the Signpost's recent change to become a monthly publication. Talk page watchers might be interested in that, or perhaps this talk page would be a better place to have that discussion (the idea lab page doesn't seem to be particularly active at the moment). Jc86035 (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/About.

The Signpost is a monthly community-written and -edited online newspaper covering the English Wikipedia, its sister projects, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia movement at large. The original name of the newspaper was The Wikipedia Signpost; it was shortened to the The Signpost in August 2010 as a symbol of an expansion in scope beyond the English Wikipedia.

We have been a Newspaper for almost 15 years. See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-01-10/From the editor, the 1st issue.

The name, The Wikipedia Signpost, was chosen to be like the name of a newspaper, since a newspaper is what I would call this project

and five other uses of the word "newspaper" in the first "From the editor" compared to no (zero) uses of "newsletter".

All this might seem like a tempest in a teacup - what's the difference between a newspaper and a newsletter? First, we've always been a newspaper, which implies that we're doing journalism. We self-identify as a newspaper. If we identify as a newspaper, rather than a newsletter, people should respect that and not do original research to impose their own POV.

Being a newsletter would imply that we simply collect press releases and similar from the official sources, e.g. the WMF, and reprint summaries. That's a PR type of operation that we don't identify with. There are no "official" sources on enwiki as far as we are concerned. We don't take orders from the WMF, ArbCom, admins, etc. We're an independent newspaper that reports on these entities.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 12:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editor-in-chief
The Signpost

That is simply utter and complete bollocks. Newsletters are not mere collections of press releases or reprint summaries, nor are the term newspaper and newsletter mutually exclusive.

Definition of newsletter: a small publication (such as a leaflet or newspaper) containing news of interest chiefly to a special group
- Merriam Webster

This is exactly what The Signpost is. Additionally, anyone looking for Wikimedia-related newsletters like the French Wikimag or the German Kurier will obviously be interested about The Signpost.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is clearly a lot of distance between Wikipedia:Administrators' newsletter–an unsigned talkpage template?–and The Signpost. However, what's the point of having a link from this navbox to a Wikidata item representing it, not to Signpost itself, regardless of what word describes it? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, there's distance, some are general (Wikipedia/Wikimedia-wide, like the Signpost, Wikimag, Kurier), others topical (Admin/Bots/Military history). But's that rather immaterial, those are all ways to keep up about the Wikimedia movement (or areas within it). As for the Wikidata link, it could stay or go, but it does make it easy to check if new Signpost-like things have popped up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm starting to see both sides here. On the one hand, we want a way to amalgamate and direct users to various community discussions. On the other hand, we don't want to equate all of them in terms of "intensity" or approximation to a journal. Maybe simply the title of the navbox is wrong. It does seem to be a misfit if the navbox contents already have several exceptions to the navbox title: the noticeboards definitely aren't newsletters.

While I'm noticing misfits, the large number of inactive links seems distracting. Does it really belong? Could there maybe be one link to a list of inactive newsletters? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the 'intensity' of the newsletters, they're all in their sections which lets you determine at a glance what their general scope is (the organization varies a bit depending on if you're viewing the normal or expanded version of the template). The noticeboards are in the 'see also/bottom' section (again, depending on if you're viewing the normal or expanded version of the template), since they're clearly not newsletters, but are certainly related to them as ways of keeping up with what's going on on Wikipedia. As for the large number of inactive newsletters, those only appear if you click on 'all newsletters', they don't show up when transcluded. See the bottom of WP:NEWS (or Template:Newsletters#Usage) for how the template appears normally and Template:Newsletters for the expanded version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Sources for news" or "News sources" for the title. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Headbomb that newsletters are not just collections of press releases or reprints (both in the real world, where some companies have specific staff generating new content, and on English Wikipedia, where for example WikiProject newsletters are neither), and can overlap in meaning with newspaper (think of a community newsletter, or the history of the printing press in distributing missives on topics of interest). If a different title is desired, however, how about "periodical"? Also, instead of "Signpost-like" as a category (which curiously omits the actual Signpost), how about "General news", or "News magazine"? isaacl (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those aren't magazines though, and 'periodical' is a mostly useless description (which isn't accurate in many cases). 'General news' might fit them, Signpost-like is clearer, given it could be general news about anything. As for the Signpost being excluded from the Signpost-like, this is what this ridiculous kerfuffle is about. It should be there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost-like is just begging the question, though (the items in this category are like themselves). As a category for this template, it should be clear that "General news" is related to Wikimedia. Regarding the overall title for the template, to me the common characteristic of all the items is that they're issued on a schedule, so "All Wikimedia periodicals" seems apt. isaacl (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost-like vs 'General news' is a minor point, so I don't really care that strongly. However not every newsletter is a periodical (regular publications published at set intervals). However they are all newsletters. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst they may not have fixed set intervals, I believe they are intended to have new issues released occasionally, as is generally the case for newsletters. I think periodical is good enough to cover this type of publication. (I guess they could be called serials, but I suspect this might be confusing to some.) isaacl (talk) 04:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or, we could use the word that actually applies, newsletter. Anyway, I've restored the links to the Signpost. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just offering some suggestions, with the goal of finding some consensus amongst the disagreeing parties. I appreciate you want to keep the term newsletter. isaacl (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Smallbones fails to understand the basic meaning of the word 'newsletter' does not mean that the word should be avoided, or that the Signpost isn't a newsletter, or that it should be removed from the template. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:21, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood your point of view. isaacl (talk) 06:11, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What makes me curious (once more) on this day of peace and goodwill is why Headbomb has so much to say on the subject, and why he can't moderate his tone somewhat. In another venue recently, Bri was questioning whether or not contributors are being driven away. I certainly was, and there were no major scandals during my tenure like there have been since, whatever my or The Signpost 's detractors might try to imply. There seems to be a pattern among former regular Signpost 'staff' that when they get bored with it they storm out of the newsroom and slam the door behind them and turn against it with a vengeance. My opinion on all this is that the publication is neither a newsletter nor a newspaper, it's a magazine, and it's high time it were hosted off-Wiki which would avoid the foul language and the bad faith towards its volunteer editors and contributors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb made the template, so it only makes sense for him to be the one to defend its current contents.
Either way, no one asked for my opinion, so I'll just stay out of it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^🤶 03:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and checked all of the "active" newsletters in this template, and added edit-notes of their latest activity. Any that hadn't been updated since 2020 were moved to "inactive" (except for a couple that seemed like they were currently working on new issues). At present, only a few are active: 11 en.wp newsletters and 9 WikiProject newsletters. jp×g 04:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added date of last publication for all newsletters, as well as the number of issues for all inactive newsletters. jp×g 06:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediapodden is a weekly podcast in Swedish with the recurring sections "News on Swedish Wikipedia", "International news", "Article of the week", and "Meetups". Occasionally, there are special interview episodes in English. Would that fit in this template, even though it is not a letter per se? For full disclosure, I am one of the recurring hosts of the podcast. Ainali (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]