This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:New pages patrol. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
On New Pages Feed, if I set it to show me only unreviewed pages, sorted oldest first, it shows the oldest unreviewed page as being from 30 May. 168 days ago. At the bottom of the page, it says "(oldest: 244 days old)". Why the disparity? —Tom Morris (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait, I think I figure it out. Hey User:Kudpung. In the tool menu on the left there is a "curate this article" button. It pops up the menu. For those working on this generally awesome tool: Not too big a fan of having it hidden like that. So...there is my feedback. :) SarahStierch (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It stopped loading all of its own. However, after clicking the 'Curate this page' link in the side bar once as Sarah suggested, , it loads again every time now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's built into MediaWiki, so I don't know if that's possible. You can access it without the feed, assuming you navigate to a page in the patrol queue. If the page isn't in the patrol queue the tool would presumably be of limited utility. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
A bug noticed
Hi! I've noticed a bug in the Page Curation Tool. When I use it to tag an article to be speedily deleted under A10 (Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic), it automatically sends a notification to authors talk page. But, the problem is that the notification looks like this (for example):
Hello Hore55,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged List of airports in Western Norway for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[{{{article}}}]].
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, a few of us have been combatting a block evading IP hopper. IE, One of their common practices is to create massive user page link farms favoring their pet causes. I'd like to be able to search user space for new pages over X bytes. Our friend's template is currently over 200,000 bytes, but the filter would be most useful if it could be customized. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
When I was checking Arrayán (TV series), there was a red flag noting that the originator user: Lgcsmasamiya was blocked. The user was not blocked at the time the article was created and was not blocked at the time I was reviewing the article. Since it is hard to imagine how a blocked user could create an article anyway, I was wondering whether we needed this feature? Op47 (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The feature is potentially useful since it warns of articles created by socks which were later blocked (indefinitely). In the case you show it seems indeed to be not of much use.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I see. In other words, if I see this warning then I am to check the block log and if it a block as a sock puppet then I should act on it. Otherwise if I see no real problem then I am at liberty to ignore the warning. Thankyou for your time. Regards Op47 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily act, but exercise more care when reviewing an article since it has higher probability to contain vandalism, copyryght violations and similar stuff.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Per resolution of this Village Pump proposal, orphan tags are now to be placed on the talk page, not the article page. AWB & Twinkle are implementing this and a bot is in work to move existing orphan templates to the talk page (see this discussion if interested in details). The Curation Toolbar will also need to be updated. Thanks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
This is an annoying bug because the the "add details" button doesn't show in the default window size of the curation tool pane. If you don't scroll down, you don't know it's there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Empty Section Template
There isn't any "Empty section" template
This section is empty. You can help by adding to it. (January 2014)
in page curation toolbar, we have to manually edit the page and add the template. Admins please add this to toolbar and makes it easier for editors.UBStalk04:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
When I go to [[2]] there are a load of articles. Taking 1 as an example Travis Thiessen reads:
Travis Thiessen (hist) · pagetriage-bytes: Object doesn't support this property or method · pagetriage-edits: Object doesn't support this property or method · pagetriage-categories: Object doesn't support this property or method · No citations
Created by Jasonstru (talk | contribs) · pagetriage-editcount: Object doesn't support this property or method
Travis Thiessen (born July 11, 1972) is a Canadian retired professional ice hockey defenseman who played over 700 games across North America and Eu...
Right clicking on this and selecting open in new window gets the article with a menu at the right hand side. Clicking on info gets the following:
This page is still unreviewed.
This page was created on 28 July 2013 by Jasonstru (talk | contribs)
pagetriage-editcount: Object doesn't support this property or method
Stats: pagetriage-bytes: Object doesn't support this property or method · pagetriage-edits: Object doesn't support this property or method · pagetriage-categories: Object doesn't support this property or method
Possible issues No citations - This page does not cite any sources.
History pagetriage-edits: Object doesn't support this property or method · show full history 20 August 2013
•19:13 · Cydebot · Robot - Moving category Peoria Rivermen players to Category:Peoria Rivermen (AHL) players per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 13.
2 August 2013
•00:50 · Purplebackpack89 · played for both ECHL and IHL Peoria Rivermen
28 July 2013
•12:43 · Jasonstru · ←Created page with '{{Infobox ice hockey player | played_for = Cleveland Lumberjacks Colorado Gold Kings Flint Generals Indianapolis Ice London Knights...'
Clicking on the heart gets:
Select the names of editors you wish to thank.
Jasonstru – pagetriage-wikilove-edit-count: Object doesn't support this property or method, Page Creator
Purplebackpack89 – pagetriage-wikilove-edit-count: Object doesn't support this property or method
Cydebot – pagetriage-wikilove-edit-count: Object doesn't support this property or method
Clicking on the tick gets:
Mark this page as reviewed if you're done checking it.
Add a message for the creator: (optional)pagetriage-characters-left: Object doesn't support this property or method
Clicking on tag gets a normal display (although intermittently, the list of types of tags appears below the "check list box" of tags, making it difficult to add new tags.
and delete gets a normal display.
Clicking on minimise correctly reduces the menu
Clicking on next page correctly goes to the next page
Going back to the info "flyout", Right clicking on a user, say Purplebackpack89 and selecting open in new windows gets you the user page. Clicking on user contributions gets his contributions and clicking on edit count gets you his edit count.
Hope this all helps. Op47 (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
There should be an option, actually multiple options when tagging an article for notability concern. I believe as there are subject-specific notability guideline, there should options accordingly to make it easy for initial contributor to understand. AnupMehra✈15:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Twinkle's tagging interface uses a drop down with more options. It is compatible with the NPP workflow, to me it really is just a matter of preference whether a patroller prefers Twinkle's broader options or the Curation Toolbar's simplicity. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I've uploaded a picture for you.(pic)It just stuck like this. Nothing seems unusual though. I may check it through another PC when I get my hands on one, just to check if it is only my laptops problem.--Tco03displays (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
That's just strange :/. Does that happen if you change the filters? Say, set it to not show reviewed pages, or not show redirects? Ironholds (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I just tried it on a PC with Chrome, still the same problem and it does't change when I use different filters. I have no idea why it acts like that, it is indeed strange.--Tco03displays (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I am having the same issue. Chrome Version 32.0.1700.76 m, Windows 8.1, and the Curation Toolbar displays intermittantly and sometimes in the bottom left corner of the page. Why is this happening? Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, the fact that an RSS feed is an RSS feed and not just a feed suggests it doesn't have to ;p. A web feed is "a data format used for providing users with frequently updated content." - that seems to describe this quite well. Ironholds (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, yes; if you look at the first revision the page creator added it. Presumably the page was previously deleted and he or she is copying the text as saved before the deletion. Alternately, they wished to highlight the issue and grabbed a tag from an existing article without paying attention. Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Any bugs reported over the last couple of days?
I just wanted to check in to find out whether this tool leaves a default summary when a 'curator' checks a page/article? I encountered some strange activity on a number of pages on my watchlist and received email notifications of activity without any apparent activity and sans even an 'nx' summary.
This has all been triggered by one particular user of the tool who hasn't responded to my queries as to whether it's a bug or something he's forgetting to do in order to alert watchers of having come through and leaving watchers to wonder whether the page has been redirected (or some other form of naughty activity).
@Iryna Harpy: when you go to the "notifications" section of your preferences, is "Page Review" checked for "email" and "web"? If so, then yes, this bug has been identified. Currently, you by default automatically get a notification when someone merely patrols your new page (even if your page was perfect and all the patroller does is sign off that nothing needs to be fixed). Quite understandably, no one with the power to fix it has followed up on the problem over the weekend - though how anyone ever thought that this was a good idea in the first place is a bit beyond my understanding. VQuakr (talk) 08:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
@VQuakr, I assume you are referring to 'Notifications' where my page review notifications are set to web only, yet I still received an email notification. I only have 'Talk page message', 'Mention' and 'Edit revert' set to both. Although, judging by the discussion you've linked to, it appears to be a similar problem, these were all disambiguation pages which I didn't create. Due to the copious number of pages on my watchlist, the only relationship I can establish is that they were all pages I fixed with Dab solver. I wonder whether the script imported into my js could somehow be identifying me as the creator as all of these tools end up overlapping? I'll check into whether I was the last editor on these pages tomorrow. Hope this helps. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
(Link to) explain Page Review, please
Having got a notification that my new page had been reviewed I looked for an explanation of what that meant;
I thought it might include an evaluation of the page.
Since this is about the tooling, it is obviously the wrong place, but it is where I ended up.
I think that the notification should include a link to help the recipient to understand what it means;
a link on WP:Page Curation (not just when you start added a section to the talk) would also help.
WP:NPP seems better than nothing as an explanation, but is aimed more at reviewers than the reviewed.
PJTraill (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Cautions and process advice
Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help is the page linked directly from Special:NewPagesFeed. On the old Special:Newpages there is an editnotice with a number of procedure suggestions, including "'Don't bite the newcomers: cleanup tagging within minutes of creation can discourage new users. Consider using Twinkle to welcome newcomers, and placing {{uw-draftfirst}} on their talk page if a first effort needs deleting;
On Wikipedia:New pages patrol there are more such procedural suggestions. Both pages include a request to patrol from the back of the queue, and not to tag for speedy deletion to quickly, particularly for A1 and A3. Little or none of this is directly on Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help, although it is on pages linked to from there.
Is there a way to put some of this directly at the top of the new pages feed, or failing that at least put it on Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help directly, so it is more likely to be seen by NPPs as they are patrolling or preparing to? This might help avoid some conflicts and errors in tagging that now occur. DES(talk)22:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea. However, unlike most interface messages that can be edited by admins, this can probably only be done after a lengthy discussion with engineers at Bugzilla who will almost certainly look for counter arguments. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
You need to add the category and WikiProject tags first. I'm not sure that this s the right stage to segment by them. Also the individual wikiprojects that want this sort of info can already opt into reports with much more info than this re new articles in their wikiproject. ϢereSpielChequers19:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Please remove username and edit count from the new pages feed
Who created a page should not matter for a page reviewer. Please remove the display of the count, to prevent bias against newcomers (editor retention). Gryllida (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of thought went into the creation of the feed. I could think of half a dozen reasons why all that meta information is absolutely necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely the user name and edit count matter. If a biography is created by a user with an edit count of 1 and a user name of "Cathysucks", you can bet I will check it first. We even formalize giving less attention to experienced article creators with the autopatrolled permission. Not biting newcomers is a behavioral issue that would not be solved by giving patrollers less information. VQuakr (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
And from the meta information a clueful patroller will recognise spam, spam user names, COI, promotion, Autobio, COPYVIO, vandals, hoaxers, block evasion, etc. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate the concern, and it's a real problem. But on balance, I think it's useful information. Ideally, seeing an edit count of 1 would remind patrollers to be especially kind and lenient, e.g., waiting a while before tagging the page/risking an edit conflict, not tagging more than one or two problems at a time, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Again, as pointed out by VQuakr it's a behavioural issue that will only be addessed by better education of the patrollers or even insisting on a set of minimum qualifications for patrolling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
There have been times when I have used the username to patrol articles created by the same person. I've also used the redlinked talkpage info to identify people worth welcoming. This info is worth having. ϢereSpielChequers19:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. For a more positive use case, it's useful to be able to go "I saw this great article by [user]. I see [user] has written 12 other articles in this view. Let's prioritise those". Ironholds (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't turn this off
I seem to have accidentally enabled this toolbar, and now I can't get rid of it. Apparently there should be a cross at the top of the toolbar, but it's not visible for me. (Firefox 19.02 running on Windows 7). Any ideas? Optimist on the run (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Can you take a screenshot? I'd also suggest not running a version of Firefox that is *counts* at least seven version numbers out of date, but... Ironholds (talk) 17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
See right. The software should be compatable with any relatively recent browser - not everyone wants to upgrade every five minutes (or indeed is always able to). Optimist on the run (talk) 17:22, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hit the button at the top, then hit the X (really we should make the tutorial clearer). I agree, we should provide pretty wide support, and it looks like we do support 19 - but it is now a year old, and likely to get worse, which is rather silly for something with an auto-update function. Ironholds (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that - it seems to have worked. Incidentally, I disable auto-update as I have a very slow internet connection, and take the view of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Optimist on the run (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I started with it today. But after the first page, it failed to load. It also did not showcase my entries, and I had to redo the same from edit source.
Although the tool seems nice and easy, it should also give an option of executing whenever required if someone closes it by mistake. So, like an .exe file or a .zip file, from where this can be launched.
Vishal Bakhai 09:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
No I did not close it on the first page. The only trouble now is that, it does not launch anymore, and although, I can manage anyways, it really felt like a good tool. Still, if it can be embedded as a zip or something. Vishal Bakhai04:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
No, it cannot be embedded in a ZIP. Again, it is server-side code. Can you give an example of a page it's not appearing on? Does a "curate this page" link appear in the left toolbar? Ironholds (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Issue with 2nd nominations to Articles for deletion
It appears Page Curation is having trouble nominating a page for deletion at AfD for a second time. Usually, to nominate a page for deletion at AfD, a page titled "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGE TITLE" is created. However, if the title has been nominated for deletion for a second time, a page titled "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGE TITLE (2nd nomination)" should be created instead. Page Curation appears to just be adding a nomination at the bottom of the first nomination page. This happened with the page Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal. It was nominated for deletion once before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal and deleted. The page has since been recreated and nominated for deletion again by Mabalu (talk·contribs) using Page Curation. The tool tagged the page with the AfD notice appropriately, but added the nomination to the end of the first nomination page see diff. The nomination should have been created at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal (2nd nomination), which it has since been moved to. Mz7 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
You know you can stick multiple URLs in the same field, right? As an alternative to building in "as many boxes as any template writer decides could be useful to someone" this sounds preferable. Ironholds (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
This extension has been mentioned on the French WP Village Pump and I said a consensus should be shown before we ask for it, so a poll page was started and so far almost everybody seems to want it. Next day on the talk page someone noticed that bugzilla:48552 to make the extension "agnostic" and suitable for our WP has the lowest priority, and on bugzilla:42322#c1 in a similar case details were asked about the local deletion process but the installation was not done.
Could somebody tell us more there on the poll talk page: is this hopeless, or could it be adapted to our deletion process, or could we just ignore the deletion part and keep the rest? If you do not know French, there are enough people on the French WP who know English and will be willing to translate. Thank you in advance: Oliv0 (talk) 05:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeees, you reported this above. Did you try searching for a 'curate this article' link on the side? What browser/OS are you using? --Ironholds (talk) 04:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey friends, I'm having a trouble. I want to add something in the script used by Page curation. I frequently use Page curation to review pages. And honestly I always use Page curation to request articles for CSD. But I often face a problem to keep track of those article. (I sometime have 100 edits per day) And I have 1800 articles on my watchlist. So, I can't track if the article is deleted or the deletion tag has been removed by the author. So I want to add some code to the MediaWiki script so that it can create a subpage similar to User:Jim Cartar/CSD log created by TW. And it will update whenever Page curation is used to add a CSD tag. I think it will also help other users to keep a record. JimCarter(talk) 18:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Just leave me a talkback when some respond to this proposal. Thank you. JimCarter(talk)19:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, that seems reasonable, but it's not actually a script - it's a full extension, subject to all the normal code review processes and deployment protocols as much as any element of MediaWiki. So it might be a pain. One thing I can suggest doing is looking at the page curation log; if the link is red, it got deleted, if not, it's been denied or the user has removed the tag (although there's actually a bot that should be catching tag removals by the author). Ironholds (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I have another problem. I often use my mobile phone (Android 4.2) to edit pages (even this edit is made by my phone). So I was thinking if MediaWiki developers can enable Page curation for mobile too. Thanks. JimCarter(talk)07:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmn. I don't think that's currently on the books, although it would be nice. I know the design (big round buttons) was intended to be used on tablets, at least. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe the mobile interface is in the process of being rewritten as a skin, so that all your functionality (such as user scripts) works properly. For now I think you have to use the desktop skin (a link at the page bottom) in order to use this tool. —Gryllida (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The Page Info panel should take into account tags on the article
Steps to reproduce:
Open the Page Curation toolbar on an uncategorized article.
Tag the article with {{Uncategorized}} (with the "Add Tags" panel).
Wait for the page to be reloaded.
Open the "Page Info" panel.
Expected behavior: The "Page Info" panel shows that the page has no categories but that the page is tagged as such (perhaps by not using the red text and/or suppressing the red number on the toolbar).
Actual behavior: The "Page Info" panel ignores that you've already tagged the page, adds "No Categories" to the "Potential Issues" section and shows an alert on the toolbar.
Hi all. I discovered this tool today when a summer student I'm looking after was told that their user page had been reviewed. The notice didn't make it clear what the review was about, and it looked initially like it was a review of the user rather than of their user page. It would be good to make the echo notification a bit more obvious, and perhaps so that it links back to this page or a general page about what 'reviewed' means?
Also: enabling the curation toolbar is really non-obvious. Shouldn't it appear under Preferences/Gadgets or Beta? If it's there, I can't spot it. It seems that you turn it on by visiting the new pages feed, then clicking on one of the articles, after which it sometimes appears and sometimes doesn't, and not always in the same place on the page? (At one point it appeared on the bottom-left of the page rather than the right-hand side for some reason.)
Mike, there should be a link that says "Curate this article" under the "Tools" section in the left-hand sidebar.
About the bottom-left position: I've gotten that error a few times myself, and am interested in knowing what causes that. APerson (talk!) 12:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
PageCuration should support tagging and rating pages during review. A user script does the tagging and rating. I think that these two processes — tagging at least — would be useful to do during a page review.
--Gryllida (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Actually I really like that suggestion. Would be so useful to be able to tag something with the right wikiproject(s) during the review process. It's very easy to miss doing so and then you get the occasional gentle scolding message on your wall for not doing so.... Mabalu (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
A reasonable enough suggestions but unfortunately many patrollers refuse to use the features curation already has and most patrollers won't do everything they're supposed to do anyway. Until NPPer becomes a coveted user right for the hat collectors it's unlikely that patrollers' performance will be improved. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The effect of this tool on newcomers
I've been looking at the articles by new users recommended for deletion in the last couple of days and am rather alarmed to see that 40% of these recommendations are made within 10 minutes of the article first appearing (based on a sample of about 50). Indeed I've seen 8 examples where it's happened within 2 minutes. I think it's fairly obvious that this behaviour will have a very negative effect on the new user. In the example that alerted me to it, they hadn't made another edit in 4 months. I won't be able to give a comparable estimate for a month or two as stats are unavailable to me once the article has been deleted.
I'm not arguing about the intrinsic worth of any of these articles but rather that the tool is too powerful in the hands of inexperienced editors. e.g. when one presses the Delete button on the Curation Toolbar, it alerts the user that the article is only 2 minutes old, but fails to point out that it's by a new user (although stated policy is that it shouldn't happen within 10-15 minutes.) Even experienced editors make mistakes when they first put up a new article and if WP was fulfilling its duty of care, the response to the first mistake should be an offer of help not a brusque "We don't want you" message. That may be impracticable but one thing that's obvious is that this tactic is hurting particularly those from developing countries whose first language isn't English. The documentation for these tools have even omitted the old Don't bite the newcomers adage from the New Pages page.
Even in a couple of days I'm learning to distinguish those editors who make timely and helpful suggestions from those who don't seem to take any care. Is the use of these tools subject to any monitoring by WP? If it isn't, could I suggest that such monitoring is needed. Chris55 (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'd make three points.
The first is; 50 people does not a sample capable of statistical significance make. The standard there is 0.95 so you'd need...a minimum of double that even before we get into things like standard error. This is not to trivialise your experimence, merely to note that it is not necessarily representative. In fact, yes, a lot of newcomer articles are deleted - User:EpochFail does a lot of research in this area and I think the percentage I've heard him throwing about is around 80%.
Second; NPF is indeed powerful. But the workflow mandates a message to the user that makes clear how to appeal and who to talk to. The alternative is a mix of Special:NewPages, which uses much more complex messaging and doesn't always mandate them at all. I'm not saying it's great, but it's better than the status quo - and the "brusque we don't want you" message is actually based on kind of a lot of A/B testing as to how to make the messages as non-discouraging as possible. There is, of course, a limit on how far you can do that when they're negative messages :(. If you have suggestions for improve them, though, note them! The developing countries point is interesting - I have access to our db in my professional capacity and so could actually run an observational study there if you'd be interested in the quantitative results.
Third; yes, it is subject to monitoring by the community. You'll note as well as review, it contains an unreview button, and everything is very deliberately logged. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Your first point is obviously true. On the 2nd, I've suggested the tool could identify newcomers (including when the next button is used). It could also delay listing them for 5 or 10 minutes. I realise there are some categories of attack articles that need to be dealt with immediately, but your citing of EpochFall's findings are frightening. The Delete button is very tempting and in some ways needs less thought to use it than some of the others. Maybe only one or two possible reasons should be available for very young articles. Some criteria need more time to be evaluated. That's for starters. Chris55 (talk) 08:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey folks. Thanks for the ping. Chris55, I'm stoked that you are looking into this. I agree that it is a problem. The mean time between edits is 7 minutes and the median time between edits is more like a half hour (due to log normal distribution), so if we CSD tag something that is less than half our old, we probably (1) caused an edit conflict that confuses the new editor and (2) tagged something while the work that would make the tag unnecessary was being done anyway. Given that most CSD's are A7s (no assertion of notability) and not spam/vandalism/attacks, there doesn't seem to be a need for this haste. I think that a critical misunderstanding baked into the NPF is that, once a page is created, it is immediately ready for review. If we could somehow delay NPF for 30 minutes after page creation I think that we'd see higher quality page creations at time of review (therefore less deletions) and more retained good faith newcomers. This seems to be worth an experiment. Ironholds, do you know who I might contact to pitch this idea and run a limited test? --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 08:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Maybe Ironholds can point us to the maintainers. A possible improved design would have several 'entry points' to the process: "immediate" only for flagging attacks, copyvio etc, but a second at say 30 minutes or 1 hour which allows for a fuller range of reviews. Many people would prefer to do the second, but the present tool only allows a single entry point. A third entry at 7 days to review the effect of the first two would also be useful. Chris55 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
NPP is our first and most important firewall against totally unwanted rubbish - and that is unfortunately a very high percentage of the 1,000 or so non-autopatrolled pages that get created round-the-clock every day. Thanks to Ironholds and a few others who fought for and worked on the development of New Pages Feed and the Curation Toolbar, it was the best piece of core software to hit Wikipedia since sliced bread. Unfortunately it's still only as good as the people using it and that has been the main problem all along because ironically, such 'maintenance' areas are magnets to very young, very new, and very inexperienced users.
Until NPPer becomes a coveted user right for the hat collectors, it's unlikely that patrollers' performance will be improved. I believe that before any improvements are made to the software. we should be looking at that angle - and until that happens we will continue to lose some newcomers who create good faith but inappropriate pages, who might have nevertheless stuck around and created something worth keeping. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I really like the suggestion of delaying the article going up for review for 30 minutes or so, to give it a chance to shape up properly - in principle it's kinda awful that a page can be trashed on within seconds of creation, before it's had a chance to be edited up properly. I do wonder how many of the 80% deleted pages by "newcomers" were created by sockpuppets or disruptive editors previously banned under other IDs - probably not that many really! I thought Kudpung กุดผึ้ง's comment in their edit summary that it's usually new users who patrol pages was an interesting point too. I have certainly seen quite a few pages "approved" through review that shouldn't have been. When I've (not all that regularly I fear) been page patrolling I try to look for all new pages without categories in order to add appropriate cats (particularly important for BLPs) and have come across quite a few inappropriately cleared pages such as completely unreferenced BLPs or obvious copyright violations that were waved through. It's been mentioned qute a few times, but when you tag a page with issues, it REALLY should NOT automatically mark it as reviewed unless you want it to be reviewed. If such tags added during the review process are removed then the page should automatically be marked unreviewed again - if the issues have been fixed then it should pass. Mabalu (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Whenever I can, I spend about an hour on NPP a day. Not to patrol the pages, but to patrol the patrollers. On average I have to ask at least one patroller a week to stop patrolling until they have either leaned to read and write English or reached 8th Grade. On very rare occasions I have had to threaten topic banning or even blocking until they understand that Wikipedia is not a game. The sooner the patrollers realise that Wikipedia is neither a MMPORG nor NPP an old fashioned pin-ball machine, less crap will slip through the net, and fewer good faith creators will get bitten. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kudpung: you've provided this theory (that we have a large number of patrols by inexperienced editors, or a large number of inexperienced patrollers) before. I've gathered data to validate or invalidate it and found it incorrect, and presented that data to you. In the absence of an explanation as to why the data is missing something I would suggest making a different argument.
For the sake of argument I did some more recent data-delving, specifically looking at the last 3 months of patrols (for anyone who reads R, the script can be found in this gist).
Working out the density of patrols or patrollers by edit count is difficult because we have a few editors with extremely high edit counts, which pushes things off. But if we log-scale the values we find that most patrollers, and most patrols, are done by people in the middle of the range of edit counts. Generating quantiles for each class (distinct patrols, versus distinct patrollers) indicates that that middle-of-the-range is between 500 and 11k edits - only 25% of editors had edit counts below 470 edits, and only 25% of patrols were made by people with fewer than 1017 edits.
Patrols that got reverted/unreviewed is a smaller dataset (only ~1k results, rather than 20k, in that period) and the non-log-scaled results are similarlynon-useful, but log10s of the reverted editors and the reverted patrols again shows that they're in the middle of the range; newbies are not the people who get things wrong. In fact, quantiles for unique editors who were reverted show that only 25% of them had editcounts below 712 edits, and quantiles for reverts overall puts the lower 25% bar at 880.
So if there are problematic patrols, they're less than 5% of cases. And they're mostly made by people more experienced, in terms of edit-count, than the base level of patroller experience. Ironholds (talk) 23:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Oliver, yes we have had this discussion many times over the last four years. Unfortunately, 'only' 25% of editors had edit counts below 470 edits, and 'only' 25% of patrols were made by people with fewer than 1017 edits rather tends to prove my points (i.e. therefore, at least 25% of patrolls are potentially incorrect) rather than discredit them; furthermore, your stats do not and cannot take into consideration patrollers' age and/or maturity, block logs, rejected creations, CSDd/PRODed creations, other templated warnings or informal polite requests to improve whatever they are doing, and the NPF software does not mandate anything at all - most patrollers only do the bare minimum, even addressing only the low hanging fruit, hovering with their finger on their mouse button every time they refresh the feed, and that's why they pounce too soon, hence my analogy with computer shoot-'em-up games.
AFAIK, I am the only admin (or any other user for that matter, perhaps with the exception of DGG) to continue more or less systematically monitoring the quality of the NPP process for years, and if I were humanly capable of patrolling every single patroll and the editing history and user page of every single patroler, you will find again that your 5% statistic is way, way, under par. This underlines yet again that some contractors and/or staff are often reluctant to accept what the community is telling them and prefer to rely on some math and scripts that bear no relation whatsoever to reality. Ironically, we need more people to patrol the patrollers, which I am sure you will agree would be kind of ridiculous. What we do need is some kind of encouragement to patrol along with some clearly defined criteria of experience.
In contrast to the Foundation who still appear to be only interested in reporting overall growth in user registrations and page creations, as a volunteer community member I am committed to examining the quality of new pages as well as the competency of those who patrol them. At the moment, NPP in spite of its excellent new software, is still practically as dysfunctional as it ever was; far too few genuinely competent editors are prepared to go there, and even fewer exploit all the excellent features that the Foundation built into it. Based on what they actually appear to do whether experienced or not, the vast majority of of patrollers have never read WP:NPP and don't and won't until they are asked by an admin to do so.
We have a similar issue with AfC for which however, on my initiative, at least a minimum set of qualifications has been adopted for reviewing article submissions. NPP is by far the more important process and we cannot rely on surmised WMF stats that attempt to demonstrate that there is nothing wrong with the quality of patrolling. With all due respect, I would suggest that the Foundation leave these issues for the community to identify and resolve, and just address the bugs/improvements in the software as and when required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Re paragraph 1: you're saying not many edits equates to potentially incorrect? Again. people whose patrols are reverted tend to be more experienced than the norm, not less. There's no real indication from the data that it's the newcomers screwing things up. Re paragraph 2: well, first, contractors are staff, second, you'll note this is my personal account, and third, you'll note that it's not like I'm inexperienced at patrolling. If you're arguing against scripts and for anecdata, I have a big pile of anecdata too, and it doesn't agree with your conclusions ;p. It's clear from your post, however, that this is not going to be a productive conversation, and so I'm going to bow out of it rather than waste the time of you, myself and the potential audience. Ironholds (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Lately I've been focussing on AfC more than NPP, but I check NPP every few days. I don't review systematically (tho I did at the old NP a number of years ago), but try to spot someone doing it drastically wrong and checking what else they have been doing there. Kudpung's results are correct, and further studies will verify the details--we do not need such a high standard as .95 significance to be reasonably sure we need improvement. Waiting for more studies when there is a serious problem, and there are obvious partial solutions, is the typical bureaucratic device to avoid addressing a problem. Given that WMF is inherently a bureaucracy, I prefer solutions the community can adopt on its own. I see this discussion as a consultation on what would be best to propose, or at least best to first propose as a partial solution. step.
We should require the patrollers to demonstrate competence, and to remove from patrolling those people who do not show it. Access to NPP and the curation bar should be limited to the same standard as AfC. This is a direction that is worth pursuing. (it's limited, because the raw NP log is still available, but that's not so attractive to beginners) Kudpung, your opinion? Ironholds, we need your continued input. You have more experience than Kudpung or I on what is practical to program. DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Delaying A7 at NPP would help, and this is a policy change that the community can adopt by itself. (It would need to be implemented by programming, but if there is a clear policy requirement for something, a programming solution has always been found). It would be more effective to delay A7 altogether, at NP as well as NPP, and we could certainly try proposing it. I think there's a reasonable chance of adoption. Again the community could adopt this by itself. I suspect it will be more difficult to program, but it should be possible. And at least it can be enacted as forbidden, which will give us a good response to those who do it.
Delaying NPP altogether has the danger of delaying action on more critical problems than A7. This is a real difficulty, because the immediate removal of dangerous material is a potent deterrent. In the past, this has prevented any such solution to the problem. It might be more acceptable now, because we could do it on NPP while retaining it for NP. And we have much more effective edit filters that in the past--the extensive amount of utter junk present 7 years ago when I started doing this is much diminished.
More generally, when encouraging new editors to become active in WP process, we need to arrange some means of either teaching them or checking that they have educated themselves. The safest deletion process for beginners to work on is AfD discussions, where there will be other people looking in a very visible way, and usually bad arguments are corrected. WP has always relied on the correction of errors by cooperative editing of many people, and the problems with NPP (and AfC) is that they rely instead on single individuals. The model simply does not work in such cases. Individuals can only be relied on if they are screened, tested, and audited. The usual argument against this, is who will have the time to do it, but looked at from a broader perspective, it saves time in the end because there will be fewer errors that need extensive work & discussion, and more new editors will stay with us. (One of the clearest of all research results, is that people whose first article is deleted very rarely continue). DGG ( talk ) 21:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm neither a programmer, commenting in my official capacity nor assigned to the team that handles page curation support; I do research :). User:Legoktm is points 1 and 3, however. Ironholds (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
DGG & Kudpung, I agree that any change to the software that would affect process should correspond to consensus of those involved in the process (e.g. NPP). However, what I would like to propose is that we run a limited experiment for the purposes of observing the effects of a change. This experiment could/should be designed to only affect a small percentage of new page creations and it would only need to run for a short period of time (a week or so depending on the proportion of page creations) in order to observe a substantial effect (if there is any). I've already secured a few volunteers would be willing to manually work to ensure that new page creations that are more troublesome (e.g. spam and personal attacks) would not survive the 30 minute delay -- not enough yet, but it shows that there's interest in supporting an experiment. I think that the results of such an experiment could be critical for identifying some of the implications of a policy change before we consider making it.
To be quite honest I don't think that running more experiments is going to make us any wiser. Over the last 5 years every single aspect of NPP has been brought up and ruminated upon until it seemed as if the idea makers had run out of steam. What we got out of it all by demonstrating to the the top people in the Foundation through live demonstrations of what actually happens at NPP and without all the mind-numbing stats from p[eople who try to prove us wrong, was the new New Pages Feed and its Curation Toolbar. And that happened surprisingly quickly - it was like going to bed and waking up in the morning and there it was, as if Santa Clause had brought it down the chimney in the night. And it was beautiful. In spite of all the other gimmicks that have been thrust on the community such as VE and MV and weird feedback tools etc, as I've said before, the new NPP suite was the best thing to hit en.Wiki since sliced bread, because it's such an important process, BUT, and it's a VERY BIG BUT, it is only as good as the people who use it.
Tweaking the software to accommodate users who shouldn't be patrolling in the first place is not the way we should be approaching the shortcomings of the NPP system. We should ideally be looking instead at ways to attract a better class of editor to the task and ensuring that s/he is fit for the job.
A few years ago Scott and I practically rewrote the NPP instruction manual and still hardly anyone goes near it. OK, it's long and complex, but not so convoluted that a user of normal intelligence and motivation would feel intimidated by it. The problem starts when newbie editors realise that Wikipedia is not only the encyclopedia anyone can edit, but is a so a free web site anyone can tinker with and go on a button mashing spree. That's what happens when they discover that 'New Pages Feed' link in the tools section of the sidebar. They go and experiment. They don't go via WP:NPP or WP:DELETION, so we are reaping what we have sown, and IMO it's not the way we should be recruiting maintenance workers. Let's face it, designing and building better motor cars and roads may fractionally reduce the number of fatal accidents (and it doesn't here in Thailand). but it definitely does not make people better drivers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No toolbar popped, no "Curate this page" link on the lefthand side. Chrome, up to date. Also, I noticed on another page that the toolbar only showed up if I opened visual editor and then closed it. Save me Ironholds! Nathan T 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing this toolbar anywhere. I remember using it at some point, but I haven't seen it in ages. (Now I can't unreview pages either.) QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hold on, I found it! I had to set the skin to Vector and language to English, and then Page Curation re-appeared under "tools" (not "toolbox" as this page suggests). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
How do I get rid of the page curation toolbar?
About two hours ago, when looking for Special:NewPages, I accidentally visited Special:NewPagesFeed, and now, when I visit certain pages like Dina Rae (singer), the Page Curation bar appears, which I don't want, because it hides content and you have to scroll the page up and down to see what's behind it. Wikipedia:Page Curation#Curation Toolbar says that I "can close that toolbar by clicking on the 'x' icon—or minimize it by clicking on the icon to the right" - but there is no an 'x' icon, and of the seven icons, which are all in a vertical column, which is the "icon to the right"? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
You would perhaps find more on this topic by following the many discussions at and about AfC on the topic of adopting a similar software suite to NPP for use at AfC instead of the Help[er Script.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there was ever any question of 'consensus' per se. The new system was offered and launched by the WMF and one would assume that in view of its excellent features, ease of use, and low learning curve, that most patrollers would have welcomed it and migrated to it. That said, New Page Patrollers tend - apparently - to be rather of transient interest to the task of patrolling so those who are still struggling with the old system are probably few and far between. No developers are officially supporting either system. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to have a time limit on page curation - pages don't need a permanent Sword of Damocles at the right margin. If you find specific issues with an older page, tag it appropriately. I don't think the ability to "unreview" pages outside the 60-day limit, without citing an explicit issue, would be productive. —Swpbtalk15:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Catching repurposed redirects
As far as I can tell, redirects that are turned into independent pages don't appear in New Pages. This seems like a major loophole leading to content forks. Any possibility of these kinds of pages being added? Possibly with an "expanded from redirect" tag? —Swpbtalk21:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm having the same issue - the toolbar just isn't showing. I'm wondering if there's some script or gadget I have enabled that's stopping it - but it used to work for me and doesn't now. WaggersTALK10:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh wait, I found it. I think I closed it once and it's now in a very obscure link titled 'Curate this article' in the sidebar, under the 'Tools' section, on the page to be reviewed. Not sure if that's the problem people here are experiencing though. Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 10:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The article was created as an orphan. Within 3 minutes from its creation there was another article linking to it. (And within seconds from its creation, there was a link to its translation on the Danish wikipedia).
In spite of that, several hours later Fimatic sees that the article is an orphan and places an orphan tag in the article.
The next day when I noticed the tag I removed it, since it clearly did not apply (and never did).
So to sum up:
1) The Page Curation tool causes one wikipedian (Fimatic) to spend time tagging an article, that does not need this tag (any longer).
2) (The article thus presents outdated information).
3) Another wikipedian (me) spends time removing the tag.
This seems to be a not optimal way to spend the editors time and it seems that the issue can be fixed by trying to have the page curation tool present a more up-to-date status to the new page patrollers.
(I am aware that by creating a redlink to the article prior to creating the article itself, this timing issue should be prevented but that seems more like a work-around than a solution).
PS. Since a little while articles created by me on the Danish wikipedia are autopatrolled (based on a half-dozen creations). I actually have a lot more experience with the English wikipedia and I frankly think that there is little gained by having new page patrollers review articles I create here. Is there a place where I can suggest that articles I create become autopatrolled also on the English wikipedia? Thanks.
Hi Lklundin. I don't think the feed self-updates. Once it has listed the basic meta data for a new article it's there to stay until the article is patrolled as OK or deleted at which time it's removed from the list.
It's usually a good thing that Page Info lists "No citations" under "Possible issues", but not in the case of disambiguation pages, which are explicitly not supposed to have citations. Could the Page Curation toolbar be modified to prevent this warning from appearing on any page containing {{disambiguation}}, {{hndis}}, or any of the other variations and aliases for dab tags? Is there a more appropriate place to propose such a change? Thanks! —Swpbtalk15:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello? Anyone? This is where the NPF feedback link points; it would be nice if some developers were watching. —Swpbtalk23:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the right venue, but developers will not watch this page because with support having been closed down for what is supposedly a 'finished' product, they are not being paid to. I am well aware of this anomaly but I think what you are asking is a relatively minor issue and after over 2 years in operation no one else has raised it. Ergo: just try to live with it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, but instead of "trying to live with it", I've raised the issue on Phabricator, and I'm not the first: [3]. It's a genuine software flaw, and it ought to be addressed. Those of us in WikiProject Disambiguation spend too much effort stressing the differences between articles and dab pages to have those efforts contradicted by a highly visible part of the software. —Swpbtalk17:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Curation Toolbar
Curation Toolbar does not seem to work for me since this morning. I can't mark the page as reviewed and the review mark remains "grey" when I click on it (review option does not pop-out). Are there any technical issues here? --BiH (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Same for me: can't mark stuff as reviewed. I wonder if nudging Okeyes might get the relevant people at the Foundation to push the relevant buttons to make this work again. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I have the same problem, all buttons work fine except the tick and tag buttons. Although the deletion button works, this is very strange. Is there a fix? Arbustum (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Glitch with buttons
I have a problem. When I click the Mark as reviewed (tick) button, the button does not respond/do anything. Another problem is the add tags button which has the same problem. Other buttons work fine, including the nominate page for deletion button. Is there are fix to this? Thank you. Arbustum (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Swpb filed it as phab:T84996 already (thanks!). I'll try to find out who has experience with, and time to, work with this. There's a freeze on code deployments until the new year, so nothing can change until Jan 7, at a minimum. --Quiddity (WMF)(talk)17:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
This should be working now - please confirm. Emergency fix deployed, and staff have been staying well after normal hours to keep an eye on it. Ping me if there are further problems. --Quiddity (WMF)(talk)03:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
No. I still get "Tag speedy deletion-duplicate article is missing required parameter." when I try to enter the article name. I'm not sure if this is exactly the same problem as above, but I cannot seem to do anything with the curation tool as of a couple of days ago. Imaginatorium (talk) 03:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Patroller note: No problems found. Unable to replicate the issues. That said, on Mac OSX 10.10.1 Yosemite, (iMac 2013, MacMini 2012, MacMini 2014, MacBookPro late 2014), New Page Feed / Page Curation displays and works much faster in Firefox 33.1.1 than in Safari 8.0.2. Trouble shooting may be easier for the devs (if of course any are watching), with precise details of the platform and browser versions being used. AFAICS, if there are no probs on my machines, then it is not necessarily a WMF bug. Mac users should consider updating their software - it's free and extremely easy but Yosemite certainly looks horrible but like a lot of WMF stuff, it's forced on us so we just have to get used to it ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I feel like "staff staying well after normal hours to keep an eye on it" is probably not the best message to respond to with snarky WMF-bashing (no, it being flippant as well as snarky does not make it better). Grow up. Ironholds (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I personally appreciate the work that the Foundation staff have done to fix this. (I'll do my bit over the next week to patrol the crap out of the new pages feed as a thank you. ) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Right, well after a 3-hour stint at NPP (unpaid, and after hours, of course), and still with a genuine sense of humour and at my age - and let us not forget whose efforts led to the tool being developed in the fist place all those years ago), I finally discover that indeed all is not well with the curation tool. I find that the button for adding the required rationales for COPYVIO and PROD is in fact dead. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I've updated phab:T84996 with a screenshot of the issue and a vaguely-technical note. Thanks. (Many of the staff devs are taking this week off, and I don't think further software deployments are going to be allowed until the new year anyway, but I'll ask around just in case.) --Quiddity (WMF)(talk)18:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Christmas Eve bug-fix deployed (with much thanks to SPage and MFlaschen) specifically https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/181752/ (something something jQuery update broke old parameters something). Everything should work now - I've tested a few tags, and PROD, and they all work as expected - but let me know if it doesn't, and I'll investigate on Monday. Happy Holidays to you all, and kudos for the damn fine task you do here. :) --Quiddity (WMF)(talk)00:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello! While using the Page Curation toolbar, I noticed that {{Not English}} isn't an available tag. Could it be considered as a future addition? Have a great day, MJ94 (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I have not done NPP for a while (I guess a couple of months), and today I had some spare time, but whatever I tried, I could not find the review interface anymore. (I have my que counted from the oldest, so I tried the three oldest unreviewed entries and a couple of more, always with the same effect). Am I the only one who can not access the interface, or is it a generic problem?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Number of "pages in your filtered list" not changing
This has been talked about almost two years ago (see Wikipedia_talk:Page_Curation/Archive_6#.23_of_articles), but is there any chance of this being fixed? The number in the upper right corner changes when you change a "Show:" filter (unreviewed pages, reviewed pages, etc.), but not when you change a "That:" filter (have no categories, are orphaned, etc.). ~EdGl!02:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
For some reason, I can not access page curation from the new pages feed. I can still edit wikitext, but I do not have page curation.
-Will2022 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Lots of user and user talk pages showing up red
For me at least, when I use New Page Patrol, often the usernames and corresponding talk pages of users with user and talk pages will show up in red rather than blue. Does anyone know why this might be happening? Everymorningtalk23:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: Suppress the "unreviewed" notification if the text field is left blank
There are times when a reviewed article is marked as unreviewed so that it will remain in the queue so other reviewers can still see it. This is sometimes necessary when overly eager page reviewers improperly or prematurely tags an article. Unreviewing should not generate a user talk page notification unless the text box has a message in it. It consistently generates confusion (example). I propose that the WMF developers responsible for this functionality change it so that a notification is not sent if the text field is empty.
As autoconfirmed user with more than 500 edits and over 37 articles and familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, can i use page curation log to mark new articles as reviewed?Is it require prior permission? Zarghun11 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Marking as reviewed
I'm not sure if anyone's going to respond to this (I've been thinking about it a lot) but I'm concerned with the amount of articles that are attended to (adding tags, etc.) but are not actually marked as reviewed. I personally have spent a lot of time to mark these as reviewed to ensure it was attended to. I'm given to understand Twinkle/etc. does not mark the article as reviewed. Is this accurate? I wish more articles would actually be marked as it would save time. SwisterTwistertalk05:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Using Twinkle for patrolling new pages is practically deprecated along with the old new page feed. Users wishing to patrol new pages should be encouraged to use the new New Pages Feed and its Curation Toolbar which automatically marks articles as patrolled when they are tagged. Anyone who comes across patrollers who are still using the old system are free to leave a kindly suggestion on the patroller's talk page, and at the same time asking them to refer to WP:NPP to learn more about patrolling.- -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hold on. When was it determined that Twinkle is deprecated for NPP? I've been using it all along, and I find it more flexible and easy to use. Also, there are cases where tags can be added to an article and it's not desirable to mark them as patrolled. The reason for this is to get addition reviews from other new page patrollers. For example, when it's unclear whether an article makes a claim of significance, but it is evident that the subject is probable not notable and the article is unsourced. I routinely add unsourced and notability tags, and leave it unreviewed so that someone else can look at it.- MrX12:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
ETA: Scroll up three sections to see the other reason that I don't use the page curation toolbar.- MrX12:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hold on MrX! I did say 'practically' deprecated, so don't try taking things out of context. Please read also everything else I said. Twinkle is probably fine in the hands of experienced patrollers, but we fought tooth and nail to get the New Pages Feed and its Curation Toolbar developed for the very reason that the majority of patrollers have little or no experience at all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, I love the new pages feed and it's more convenient but I'm concerned by some of the pages that aren't marked. Go to the back pages and you'll see: pages are viewed and tagged but not actually marked. SwisterTwistertalk17:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I also see the opposite problem a lot: pages that are recommended for deletion, whether by CSD or PROD, keep coming up as "reviewed". I think maybe something buggy is going on with the software. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The new system is the best thing for Wikipedia since slied bread. After heavy lobbying following some long and detailed research we managed with some intensive real life discussions at the very top of the Foundation's organisation to get them to develop the new new Pages Feed and Curation Toolbar. This was one piece of software in which the WMF really excelled and answered an urgent community requirement. Unfortunately, they don't do this anymore, preferring to impose new top-down software packages which the community never asked for and does not want and due to their committment to those things they have officially withdrawn their support for further development of the NPP Feed. Any bugs that are left in it might be addressed after multiple cries for attention, but it appears that most of them will be left in a long queue as not being of sufficient priority. One downside is that the senior WMF developer who was at least sympathetic to many community requirements has now resigned from the Foundation. The only one who was taking any notice for a while was Okeyes (WMF) and he helped get some bugs addressed but he appears also to have since been reassigned. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Glitch with deletion nominations
Articles that have been nominated for deletion keep coming up as "reviewed" or "unreviewed" in the feed, instead of having the black garbage can icon. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing this as well and it's inconsistent. Here is one nominated for CSD with a garbage can icon:[4]. Here is one nominated for CSD with a green check mark icon:[5] Does WMF monitor this page, or does this need to be reported somewhere else? Perhaps Okeyes (WMF) or Quiddity (WMF) can point us in the right direction.- MrX13:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Suggested removal of a sentence
I suggest removal of the last sentence of the lead, which reads To learn more about patrolling new pages in general, please see the check list of recommended tasks and tutorial at WP:NPP, and consider enrolling at the New Page Patrol School.
The first sentence of the lead already recommends reading WP:NPP.
Generally, inexperienced or too rapid patrolling are the main reasons that such articles get patrolled and slip through the net. If patrollers come across pages they don't know what to do with, they can leave them and pass on to the next one. Ideally however, they should not be too embarrassed to ask for help at New pages patrol/Noticeboard. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Problem renominating page for deletion
I happened to see theseedits after linking to an AFD from someone's talk page. I moved that nomination to a second discussion page, and then did some digging around. The original deletion discussion was closed as a redirect back on August 28 of last year. Based on the page history, it looks as though the article was deleted and then recreated as a redirect. So I'm guessing that page curation assumed it had never been AFD'd before and thought it was creating a new AFD page, rather than appending to a long-closed one. When I used Twinkle to redo the AFD, it correctly went to a (2nd nomination) page, but I'm not certain it would have behaved correctly if there hadn't already been an attempt by Page Curation. —Torchiesttalkedits20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
'Created by' filter does not work
Filtering for user name in the New pages feed does not work for me on Chrome. It doesn't let me write anything in the text box. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I tried on Chrome on two different operating systems (Windows 8 and Mac OS X 10.6), on two different computers. I guess it's not a cache problem. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Very strange, having experienced the problem for several days on 2 different computers and operating systems not connected in any way... --Ita140188 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I was unable to replicate it on any of my Macs with either Safari or F/Fox. It's no secret however, that the servers that operate peripheral tools are in a mess and that the responsible employees (if indeed there are any) are not concerned. There is nothing that we volunteers can do about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Very old pages in New pages feed
Why very old pages (some from 2001) keep appearing when sorting the feed from oldest articles? As an example, this page is currently tagged as unpatrolled: Band. I really don't understand why this page should be in the list at all. --Ita140188 (talk) 08:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Ita140188: This is a known fault, which comes up when anything is changed on a redirect page. In the case of Band, someone today erroneously made this page into a redirect. When that action was reverted, the page was added to New Page Feed under its original creation date of 2001, making it top of the list. Some of these cases need to be in New Page Feed - when a redirect is converted to a bona fide article - but under the date of conversion, not the date the redirect was created - and showing the username of the article creator, not the redirect creator: Noyster (talk),10:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
—Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
![[icon]](/wiki/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small}
