Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archives/Page Curation/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

Stub tag should be added before inter-wiki links

WP:ORDER says that stub tags go after everything except inter-wiki links. In this case, Page Curation has helped the editor to put a {{stub}} after an inter-wiki link. (It shouldn't have been added at all as the article already has two nice stub templates, but that's the issue I've already raised!).

Relatedly, Page Curation seems to put {{stub}} and {{uncategorised}} onto the same line, and in random order, with the stub tag sometimes, wrongly, coming first. Any chance that Page Curation could (a) keep them on separate lines and (b) put the stub tag consistently into the right place? PamD 15:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

BLP unsourced

Is it just me, or is it not possible to add {{BLP unsourced}} using Page Curation? I end up using Twinkle to add it. Is that a deliberate design choice? —Tom Morris (talk) 10:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh; looks like that's indeed the case :S. Want me to look into adding it? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Might be useful. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Oliver is /away

Hey all

So, I've been at the WMF for 346 days now, and I've spent 345 of them (weekends, weekdays, christmas, etc) working. As of now, I'm on my first proper holiday. If anything genuinely urgent comes up, you can find me via google talk (okeyes[at]wikimedia[dot]org) or on IRC in #wikipedia-en. Other than that, I am outta town until the 8th :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Anything non urgent, of course; talkpage or email are fine, but there will be a delay in replying :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Have a nice calm, relaxing break. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

More useful db-multiple user notices

Hey all, when this tool notifies a user about an article tagged with multiple tags, would it be possible to have it give a little blurb about each tag , instead of just using the generic "variety of reasons"? Twinkle didn't do this at first, but it relatively recently began to do so, and I think that was a lot more helpful for new users, especially since that, if the article does get deleted, they will have no easy way of knowing what tags were placed on it. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly the next issue that I was going to raise. Thank you for bringing it up, because I am still resorting back to Twinkle for many operations. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how possible it is in the time we have, but I'll find out :). If not, we can add it to the next iteration. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Page Curation team,

I was doing some NPP just now, using the page curation tool, and marked an obviously promotional page for Speedy deletion using the check-boxes in the system. Two minutes later I received the barnstar below from User:WilyD who closed that speedy nomination, thanking me for giving a clear, polite and most importantly concise message on the original user's talkpage. I couldn't take the credit for that since in actual fact the talkpage message was automatically created by the page curation tool itself. So, splitting the difference, he's agreed to jointly award the barnstar to the page curation team itself for excellent talkpage template writing. So, congratulations team - here's (probably) the first barnstar a WMF team has received:

		The O Star of Brilliance
		I, WilyD, hereby award Wittylama, and the whole Page Curation team the O star of brilliance, for recognising that new editors, even those with promotional intent, are people, and treating them as such.

Sincerely, Wittylama 07:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll send it out to the team :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter

Hey, all! Another issue to report: the speedy deletion removal tag (edit fiter 29) is keyed to look for the removal of {{db-.+}}; since the Page Curation templates don't follow this format, they don't get picked up. Can a friendly admin add the appropriate logic? Also, on this note, how does SDPatrolBot interact with these templates? Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

After looking at it, it looks like SDPatrolBot won't pick up on them; I've posted to User talk:SDPatrolBot about it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

First of all, congratulations on developing what has to be the best and most powerful scripted tool on Wikipedia. Having used it fairly extensively, it works like a charm; one can only hope whoever developed this thing is involved in other such projects, because this will be an unqualified success. A couple very minor ideas for improvement: 1) Automatically group multiple top-of-page tags into a multiple issues tag, even if there are already tags present at the top of the page. Sometimes I'll go though, find one issue, then decide to add another tag; they appear as two separate tags when added separately. Other times the article will have previously been tagged but needs another, and again the new tag appears separately. Not a big issue, obviously. 2) Consider adding the context and wikify tags (since learned is deprecated) tag to the ones available in the curation interface -- I've had to do those manually. 3) This is more ambitious, but it would be great to have a stub type selector that pops up when you check off the stub tag. It could work sort of like HotCat does, i.e. if I start typing in "spain-footy" it'll come up with the right stub tag dynamically. The addition of this would make the tool especially powerful. I'd say about 50-60% of articles in the new pages feed (from the back of the queue) are stubs, so it's quite a common task. --Batard0 (talk) 12:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Another ambitious idea: put in a merger proposal tool. Sometimes you come across articles that should be merged into others, and the process of proposing a merger properly is somewhat laborious. --Batard0 (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas, and the compliments! :). Yeah, we're about to work on a proper notifications system after this, which'll be fun :D. So, I've got to be honest, we probably don't have the time to work on these features right now - we're about to wrap up. However, we'll be taking another pass early next year, and I'll stick these on the list for that :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

"Reviewed" vs. "Patrolled"

I'm a little confused as to how the Page Curation toolbar works with new pages and their logs.

If I mark a page the green check mark on Page Curation, and then look at "All page logs", it will show that I "reviewed" the page, but the patrol log will be empty.

On the other hand, if I view a page from the regular Special:NewPages link, and click on "Mark as patrolled", it will show that I patrolled the page in the logs, but the review log will be empty.

Why is this happening, and furthermore, what is the point of having two separate logs for what is essentially the same thing? --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 05:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

The old spaecial:newpages calls it patrolled, and the new pages Feed calls it reviewed I think New Pages Review is a far more appropriate general name for the process rather than New Pages Patrol. I believe the issue of logs has been discussed somewhere above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Eastlaw: the problem is how MediaWiki's logs are set up. They're two different pieces of software and they take their sources of "what is a new article" from different database tables: we can't have something auto-mark as patrolled and reviewed, in some cases, or put them in the same log, because articles exist in one that don't exist in the other. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Potentially useful

I still need to watch the video (this page does not really explain what this tool does well), but I wonder if this tool has options to interact with new editors? As in, I often review the new article feed for several WikiProjects, welcome new editors, invite them to those projects, and I have templates that I use to introduce them to things like DYKs (ex. Template:WikiProject Poland welcome, User:Piotrus/TDYK). Would this tool help to automate this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Not as it is at the moment :S. Theoretically, if templates can be subst'd within templates, you could always add the template syntax in the "leave a message" bit - but that's rather kludgey :). Want me to add it to the to-do list? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

If you could, please. I think it would be helpful to have a list of such partially personalized, friendly "encourage to do something constructive" templates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Cool :). A warning that we probably won't get to this now, but in the next pass over the software. I'll add this to the to-do list, though :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Different namespaces

What about new pages in the non-user, non-article namespaces? Are they no longer to be patrolled? --Cgtdk (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. It only gives Article and User, and only one or the other, not all-in. You can still get them the old way, though. Peridon (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'm just wondering if there are any plans to support these namespaces in the page curation feature. --Cgtdk (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Eventually, it'd be nice; we can fit it into the next release, hopefully :). At the moment, though, we prioritised the most common ones. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Great! --Cgtdk (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Odd things

I looked at PC not long after it started, and when I closed the window, the slider thing with the symbols on followed me to other windows. I told it to close, and it did. Very efficiently. I've just been into PC again to investigate why I'm finding unlikely tags at CSD, and I can see no way of turning it back on again. Is this deliberate, or am I the only one that has told the thing to go away? The rest of the page loads OK, except that there seems no end to the page. The ordinary slider for moving up and down can be slid to the bottom, but them pops back up a bit. I slide it down again, and it does it again, producing more articles. There is no way of getting to another page, which makes returning to something extremely difficult. It seems to be working the whole list with no page breaks. Peridon (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That is in Firefox 14 and Monobook on XP Pro. Peridon (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Have just found 'Curate this article' in toolbox. It opens a new copy of the page. That's all. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Glad you found a solution :). And, yes, the list view is infinitely scrolling; what's the problem there, exactly? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I haven't found a solution. Just another problem... 'Curate this page' when clicks opens a copy of the page. Doesn't do anything else. Just an exact copy of the page. The problem that I originally posted was that I cannot curate pages. There's nothing there except a list, a header, a footer, and a 'set filters' thing - which restricts choice to Article or User space (one at a time) and doesn't allow templates or Wikipedia space to be seen. When I first looked at PC not long after it started, I was followed by a thing with symbols on that slid up and down the page (and obscured some of the text) when I left PC. I told it to go away. It did. Now, I can't find any way of getting it back. The problem with the infinite page is that one can't go back to something by moving through pages. You have to scroll (slowly) through an infinite list which shows five or six items at a time. I'm not worried too much from my own point of view, as I have no intention of using the thing, but thought I'd point out that page breaks are useful. My real gripe is not being able to check out what the deletion tagging says, as I suspect there could be a clarity problem over 'significance'. I'm finding pages tagged 'delete - significance' when they are nothing like A7 candidates - and this from experienced editors (one of whom has returned to Twinkle for its greater clarity). I wanted to see what the tagging thing actually says, but can find no way of getting into it. Peridon (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I do get a 'Review' button on each entry. That does what clicking the article name does. Just opens the page in a normal article view. Peridon (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Weird: the "Curate this page" link re-opens the toolbar for me after I've closed it; it doesn't open a new page. Just FYI: the label on the A7 tagging is: "No indication of significance. An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (for example, a band, club, or company, not including educational institutions), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability. (A7)" Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks clear enough - or is that the actual red tag you mean or what it says on the button of death? Peridon (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That's what it says on the checkbox; you check the box, and then there's another button to click that applies any and all checked tags. So, I guess it's the "button of death" option. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It's working now - three times I tried it before and nothing except a copy. I've seen what's in there now, "No indication of significance" in bold smallish type, and the explanation in very small grey type below. I think that's where the problem is. They're reading the bold bit. not the hard to read bit. Peridon (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My ideal design (for whatever that's worth) would be to have basically what's there now for A7, but when you choose it, you get another box that forces you to choose among the different sub-tags, which I think would be a good way of drawing attention to the definition of A7. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Good thinking. It's better too for the customers to have a more specific tag. I thought Twinkle had different ones, but it doesn't seem to. (They change things around this place without warning.) Peridon (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Customers? :P. And we'll look into it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Cannot continue on own pages

When reaching one of ones own pages while browsing through the unpatrolled new pages with the toolbar, the toolbar disappears. It would be nice to be able to click the next button instead of being forced to go back to the new pages feed. --Cgtdk (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, guh. I'll bugzilla it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Great :) --Cgtdk (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Should curation include checking incoming links? Or check on correctness of page name?

Time and again when stub-sorting I find a page created with a bracketed disambiguation which is not accessible from the base name. (Jamie Richards (footballer) is latest example, though I've now added the hatnote at Jamie Richards). In a few cases, the disambiguation is not needed at all, so the page needs to be moved to the base name. In many other cases, the page needs to be linked by a hatnote from the article at the base name, or added to a disambiguation page.

There are also pages with titles which are wrong: capitalisation wrong (Geeta chhabra, now moved), or "The" included inappropriately, or an abbreviation added in brackets after the title (The Korea Elevator Safety Institute (KESI) illustrated those two problems, before I moved it), or non-standard disambiguations, or other glitches like titles being included Dr. J.K.Mandal.

I suggest that the work of Page Curation ought to include two questions:

• Is the page title correct?
• If the page title is disambiguated, is it linked from the base name (by hatnote or dab page)?

If the answer is "No", the Page Curator ought to fix it, or add some tag which puts it into a category where someone else will be alerted to the problem and fix it later.

For the second task, it would be wonderfully helpful if the "Page info" could check, for any article title including something in brackets, whether the article is linked from the title without that bracketed component, perhaps flagging it up for attention if this link (which could be two-stage via a hatnote to a dab page) is missing. A computer ought to be able to do it easily! There are a few cases where a title includes a bracketed component which is not a disambiguation, usually titles of artistic works, but in those cases there is probably still a need for a link from the shorter form which readers might not think to search on.

PamD 09:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll stick it on the to-do list :). I've got to be honest, we're pretty much wrapping up this round of development, but we've got a second one coming up next year that we might be able to squeeze this into :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Miscellany for Deletion(user pages)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T43029

Does not work. When you click "Mark for Deletion", Page Curation gets stuck.--Müdigkeit (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't? Crud. Okay, I'll stick it in Bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Future software (please comment!)

This should be a useful place to gather ideas on future features people might like :). So, some I've picked up above:

• It'd be nice to be able to add granular stub-tags - maybe something HotCat-like?
• Wikiproject tagging, also cool.
• Could we have more granular notification templates for db-multiple?
• Adding tags to pages that already have tags on them should trigger the re-working of all the tags under a "multiple" header.
• Support for non-user/article namespaces.
• It'd be useful that if we have a page titled "X (Y)" (in other words, a disambiguated page) it checks to see if it's linked to from "X" and flips an error in the info pane if it isn't.

Other ideas, fellow 'pedians? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey Okeyes. In the "set filters" menu, I'd like a box for "no citations". In other words, I want to be able to to filter the results to see only articles without citations. Thanks. Love the new tool, by the way. Braincricket (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• Please put {{stub}} on a line on its own, not the same line as {{uncategorised}} (example). It's specified in WP:ORDER, and it saves stub-sorters having to move it. Shouldn't be a big job, surely? PamD 17:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

• My old A7 subtag hobbyhorse. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• On the topic of WikiProject tagging, anyone who is interested should check out User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. It's a great tool, I'm not entirely sure if it works on internet explorer. If we wanted it added to the curation toolbar, we could probably use that script as a starting point. Ryan Vesey 18:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oh yeah: Twinkle will automatically post a welcome message template before deletion notifications if the user being notified doesn't have a talk page. That's a nice feature; could we have that, too? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Sounds useful :). I imagine we'd want our own template. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• Probably. Twinkle uses one geared for this situation, but it could probably use a little more...personality. :) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

• There should be a way to flag new users who remove the tags or categories added by the new page patroller. I have encountered this problem of two different pages.--Mdy66 (talk) 13:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Edits that remove speedy deletion templates are already flagged through the edit filter: see Special:AbuseFilter/29. It's been recently updated to account for the Page Curation templates. What do you mean by flagging users? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• • In this article Kho (surname) the tags were removed three times. The article hadn't been marked for deletion... by flagged I meant edit filter.--Mdy66 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's a job for the folks at the edit filter, not here. Although, I'm not sure why we would need to tag those; they're allowed to be removed by any editor. Speedy deletion templates have that filter because they're not allowed to be removed by the article's creator. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

By tagging an article that marks the article as reviewed, so shouldn't removing the tag also mark the article as unreviewed again? I could go back and do that manually...--Mdy66 (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Minor UI changes

I think that a good idea might be to have the background of each listing change as you hover over it. Also, I think the next article button on the page being curated should honor your settings in the new pages feed page. Thegreatgrabber (talk)^contribs 22:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide more details? :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Love it... When it works.

I love the new idea of Curation. However, I've only gotten it to work one or two times so far. What happens is the page just never loads. The left sidebar comes up, and everything else does, but the interface usually says "loading" forever. Any ideas on why this is? gwickwire | Leave a message 23:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That's really weird :S. What OS/browser combo are you using? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

{{stub}} tag being put in wrong place : unresolved bug

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T43216

As you ask for "unresolved bugs"...

This edit shows that Page Curation is still sometimes putting {{stub}} in front of {{uncategorised}}, and on the same line. Sometimes it puts them in the other order, while still putting them on the same line. WP:ORDER specifies that the stub tag goes at the end, after everything except inter-wiki links. If Page Curation puts {{stub}} in front of the other tag, it's just that many more keystrokes/mousework for a stub-sorter to move it to the right place and expand it. Some of us sort a lot of stubs, so Page Curation is wasting a fair amount of our time. Please fix this.

Two components:

1. Make sure that {{stub}} is placed after other tags
2. Put it on a separate line (slightly lower priority as it's just one keystroke to fix)

Thanks. PamD 07:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bugs

I was looking for pages that hadn't been reviewed and I was given pages that had been autopatrolled. The tick was grey for these pages unless I'd clicked on show metadata first, then the tick went green. If I clicked on the grey tick for an autopatrolled article I got asked if I wanted to unreview an article and I did once by mistake. This posted a poor template with a broken signature and no mention of page curation on the talk page of the original reviewer. They asked me what on earth, and I agree.

I think that the page curation thing should warn you it is going to post things on people's talk pages and I want to see what it is posting in my name - as I only saw them when I looked in my contributions. Secretlondon (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

While I have no problem with it posting the message now that I know it'd do that, I also got it by the new bug causing the tick not to be green automatically on loading. This is a serious regression. KTC (talk) 23:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's problematic :S. I'll find out what's going on. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Tag appearance in tool

It would be great if one of the three most important tags, {{orphan}}, were on the Common list. Also, {{underlinked}} should join it on the Metadata list.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Define "important"? The common tag is for most-commonly used :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The feed shows only three possible red flags, colored red: "No categories", "Orphan", and "No citations". Only the outer two are on the Common list.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, please add {{unreliable sources}} and {{third-party}}. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Could the tool detect if some one else is editing the article?

In response to a user reacting badly to an edit conflict from a NPP editor making a minor edit within a minute of creating an article, I was wondering if this new tool could detect if/when an article is being edited, and whilst it shouldn't prevent tagging or patrolling, but just warn, and maybe suggest that the patroller wait awhile. Most chat programs can detect when someone is writing a message, not just when they hit send/save, so could that be done here? The-Pope (talk) 14:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent idea. I'm going to leave a note at WP:VPT to see if somebody there could give us a way. Ryan Vesey 14:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I have raised it at WP:VPR, but more places the merrier. Not sure where the devs or the real decision makers read. The-Pope (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

We've actually got code to display "agh! edit conflict!", but I have no idea of how well it scales (or not), and it's sort of a mammoth task. I'm afraid I can't promise it any time soon :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

To do this it the system would need to log that the editor had been opened, by whom and when. So far so good. Then it would need to be specified what action to take if another editor opened the editor. Would it distinguish NPP editors, or to be more precise editors working through the tool interface? How long would it be before it considers an attempted edit "stale"? Who would it warn, and when? The second editor always?

(Note: this is different from spotting that someone is actually typing, that would require a more subtle client side development.)

Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

I am not a programmer. I have no idea what is possible, what is not. I just know that some other web based programs have detection of what's going on elsewhere. I know that here we don't. I don't want to lock anyone out, I don't want to prevent editing, I don't even want to know who else has it open. Maybe it should only happen via the curation tool, to lessen the load on the servers. How about in that big space next to the "add # selected tags" it would be great if a nice red warning popped up "warning, another # editor(s) has this article open in edit mode for the last # minutes. You may want to delay your tagging to avoid causing an edit conflict" or something more succinct. It would only be useful if it was fully dynamic, ie it went away automagically when they closed it or saved it. Tagging takes seconds. Normal editing often takes minutes. I know that when you are on a NPP roll, you don't want to "come back later", but this could help, in some cases. It won't solve every case, but at the moment, we have no idea of what else is going on until you hit save. Can we do better? The-Pope (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We actually have some code for detecting if multiple people are editing an article - but it's not been checked for scaleability or quality, and I'm not sure if and when we'll institute it :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I wasn't commenting on the possibility, just that a bunch of parameters would need to be fleshed out, which would probably need community input, as well as technical, and ideally a bit of research. Rich Farmbrough, 15:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC).

Search filter

The tagging window is rather large and has a lot of content. Why not by default open it in a 'search' mode, where the presented tags are filtered based on your textual input ? I think that would make it a lot more userfriendly and faster to tag. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll add it to the list :). That is potentially a bit of a pain to code, so I can't promise it right now, obviously. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Unreviewing pages

Now we see the curation panel for all recent pages which is great (and I believe it should be the first step towards FR, when this panel should appear for all pages). However, I have done the same mistake already three times, and I have seen at least two other people made it. If I try to review the page which has already been reviewed, I obviously unreview it (with the automatic message sent to the reviewer). However, the interface window for reviewing a new page and for unreviewing look exactly the same, hence so many mistakes. It can be easily avoided if unreviewing - which I guess only occurs in exceptional cases - has its window somehow highlighted, for instance, by red font or yellow background. This would help to avoid the confusion.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

indeed; usually the icon should go green rather than grey, but a bug stopped this happening, for some reason. There's actually a fix for this already and it should deploy on Thursday. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Lost the thingey

The page curation 'thingey' has gone away and I can't get it back. It appeared on an article of mine so I closed it. Now when I go to the new pages feed it doesn't show. Yesterday I needed to refresh the page to get it to show - now that doesn't work either. Secretlondon (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Please try clicking the "Curate this article" link near the bottom of the toolbox in your left pane (YMMV in skins other than Monobook).   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Stubs

A minor assist to stub-sorters is to use the template redirect {{-stub}} instead of {{Stub}}. It would be cool for the tool used this too. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC).

Making it somewhat easier to add prefixes? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Info for db-repost

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T43913

While marking an article as having been previously deleted under an AfD, I noticed that - in contrast to Twinkle - no opportunity is provided to indicate the name of that prior deletion debate. Without that, the admin dealing with the CSD will be lacking in crucial information when the repost has not used the previously deleted article name. It would be good if the tool offered that input parameter, as it does with the equivalent CSD A10. AllyD (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, it doesn't? To bugzilla! I'll try to get this sorted :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ally, did you file a report about this in the bugtracker at bugzilla.wikimedia.org? If so, could you paste the bug number here? --Malyacko (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Ally? ;p. And sure; done so now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Any way to revert (on an individual user basis) to the old version?

I understand why some people prefer this much more...but where I used to be able to quickly scan 50 titles, I'm now stuck with far too large text, too much info and images for only 5 or 6 titles on screen at a time. The annoying toolbar that pops up even if I'm not accessing a new page from the new pages feed is also quite annoying to me. I'm know it's not going back sitewide, but is there a script or something to copy to disable this version? --Onorem♠Dil 19:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, could you not just use the old version? Special:NewPages remains fully functioning. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick-n-dirty: User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/oldschoolNPP.js. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why I asked. Sorry to have bothered you Okeyes. I didn't realize that wasn't the page that was linked to off the recent changes list. Thanks Writ Keeper, but as long as I can bookmark the original, that'll work for me. --Onorem♠Dil 14:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability help info

Under the Unwanted Content section, the notability tag states "The page's subject does not meet the notability guideline." This should be changed to "The page's subject may not meet the notability guideline." I was worried when I used it the first time that it would put a harsher tag on the page than the regular notability tag because the word "may" was not used. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

A10 problems

I have the feeling I'm not the first one to bring this up, but I can't find anything else anywhere. When I tag a new page with A10, enter the article duplicating, press add details, etc, that info is not transferring to the usertalk page of the author. See for example Coups d'etat of the Seychelles, which I tagged recently. The duplicate article, History of Seychelles, showed up fine as a link in the db template, but I had to add it on the authors talk page. Am I doing something wrong, or is something else doing something else wrong :P ? "Pepper" @ 21:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Have you checked your Twinkle settings? (If that's what you use.) Its default settings are to only send messages for certain criteria. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 14:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nah, this is about the curation tools. See the link above for the problem. "Pepper" @ 17:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar not appearing

When using the MonoBook skin, the page curation sidebar won't appear. When using Vector it will. Is it possible to get it to appear with MonoBook, or would I be forced to use the Vector skin? Mason Doering (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

More filters for New pages feed

The new pages feed along with the curation tool is a good way of reviewing new article. However, I felt if it is possible to add a new filter based on a particular term, for example if I enter "India", all articles having the term "India" will appear in the feed. This will help in thematic and better review due to interest and understanding of the topic by a reviewer. Another way might be to show the articles based on the rulesets used by AlexNewArtbot. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 06:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

That would be pretty interesting. I'm not sure how easy it'd be to build in, and we've actually now stopped development, but I'll keep it in mind for the second pass we take over the software next year :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did you stop development? --Cgtdk (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

To move to other projects. Specifically, project Echo.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't to say "we've just decided to up and leave it half-baked"; we were always planning on stopping when it worked, then taking another pass to add new features later once it had been used and people had identified what was most useful. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Toolbar missing

The Curation Toolbar is missing when I access a new page. Why?--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmn. Did you close it? Is there a link titled "curate this article" in the sidebar? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't even see the link in the sidebar. --Mjs1991 (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Hide Bots Filter

We should have a filter that allows us to hide pages that were created by bots as they are already patrolled. XapApp (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• You can choose an option of not showing the pages which have been already patrolled (these include the pages created by bots, by autopatrolled users, or patrolled via the curation interface).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation not following AfD instructions

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T44650

Current the instructions at WP:AFD instruct that the edit summary of the AfD tagging should include "Afd: Nominated for deletion; see [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NominationName]]", Twinkle also includes a link to the AfD in the tagging edit summary. Would it be possible to have page curation do the same thing? I for one find the AfD links in the article history useful. Monty₈₄₅ 05:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sensible! I'll stick it in bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

How can I get the toolbar to show?

I'm able to see the "curate this article" button when I'm viewing a newly created article, but why can't I access all the useful features when I'm reading articles that have been around for a bit? Some things aren't going to be relevant (e.g. speedy delete) but I may still want to do many of the other tasks it facilitates. Wittylama 06:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Because the feature only applies to newly created articles or articles that haven't been reviewed yet. If you have Twinkle, the feature has all features similar to the curation toolbar--Mjs1991 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - I'd always thought that Twinkle was for Internet Explorer only for some reason. I've enabled it now. But still, Page Curation is a much prettier system that I would prefer to use... So, it's true that it's actually not possible to force-enable it? Wittylama 06:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

False tagging

Editors using this tool appear to be creating false tags. For example [1] is actually an article with 6 links. How does the Page Curation tool determine an orphaned page?--Traveler100 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe the tool determines anything, the user does. Looks here like someone made a mistake e.g. confused orphan with deadend or dint check what links here. NtheP (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

No, the orphan tag is not reliable.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the orphan status is hard to calculate on the fly - it's calculated (I believe) when the article is initially created, with regular-ish updates. But things can slip through the cracks. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I would like there to be limits on who can tag with Curation. That is, perhaps the user should have to have a certain number of edits under their editorial belt before being able to tag with Curation. I ran across This entry at DYK, and have noted on the template. Brand new editor with 26 edits to their credit used Curation and tagged excessively on an article. Two of the tags (orphans, bare urls) were not applicable. The tagging tool is so tempting to use. And all you have to do is click off the selections in the "Add tags" pop-up box, and the article has tags. So tempting to just click all the boxes, even if you don't know what the tags mean. It could so easily get out of hand with no controls. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

We could certainly tie it to a userright, but presumably we'd have to create a new one (unless you can think of one that is applicable and already exists?) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe Twinkle is limited to autoconfirmed users; this tool is similar in is potential for misuse. The underlying principle needs to be to hold editors accountable for their edits; if a new editor is using this tool incompetently, I think coaching is more appropriate than the bureaucracy of another userright. VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd (as an editor) agree with that. It's also important to recognise that we need to be encouraging people to help patrol new pages - adding a userright in the way of that is another barrier to someone getting involved. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Since Page Curation is based around helping experienced users review pages, The permission may be appropriate for the 'reviewer' permission as they are based around the same topic. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of at least one sysop who was defrocked in part for excessive bot tagging. Curation in the hands of the inexperienced could result in the same excess, as the accumulated result of multiple inexperienced users over a longer period. The sysop's loss of tools were the result of experienced editors who knew it was excessive and knew where to take their complaints. Maybe not so with new authors who don't know the ropes. It's hard to coach new over-tagging editors if you don't know they did it.— Maile (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do :). All deletion tags filter through various, sysop-reviewed categories; if a name keeps cropping up again and again, people take notice. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Good to know. I assume you meant all kinds of tags, not just deletion. Because the issues I found were not for deletion. — Maile (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me an example? Other than the above. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I will be happy to when/if I come across more. This was the first one I'd seen. — Maile (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool; thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

PageCuration is already limited to autoconfirmed users. Let me know if you'd like to restrict it further. Kaldari (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Checklist/process

Is there a checklist or process to follow when reviewing. If so, can it be made accessible quickly and obviously from the new pages feed? Op47 (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There isn't at the moment, to my knowledge :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed a check list - it's also a fairly comprehensive tutorial. It's at WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou Kudpung. In that case, I will have a go at reviewing if time permits. Op47 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

User messages not time/date stamping

See User talk:IbankingMM#Ways to improve Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions for an example. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Strange :/. I'll roll it into the auto-sign thing we're trying to work on. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Still doesn't seem to be working correctly--5 albert square (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Db-notice-multiple-NPF

Hi all, I just noticed that Template:Db-notice-multiple-NPF leaves a pretty vague message that new users probably won't find all that useful. This is an issue close to my heart, as in the past I expanded {{db-notice-multiple}} from when it was in pretty much exactly the same state. Now it leaves a custom message for each speedy deletion criterion that is passed to it. Would people object to me updating {{Db-notice-multiple-NPF}} so that it works in much the same way? And would someone who knows JavaScript be prepared to pass the parameters to the template from the page curation toolbar when I've finished? Let me know if you think this is a good idea or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

A lot of it uses template-parsing parameters, actually. What are you planning to add? :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem I've brought up in the past; don't know if I can be any help, but I do have some smattering of Javascript, so I'd be happy to help if I can. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Code changes: at line 707 of notifyUser in ext.pageTriage.delete.js:

 707                         template = '{{subst:' + template + '|' + pageName + '}}';

changes to:

 707                         template = '{{subst:' + template + '|' + pageName;
 +                           if(count > 1)
 +                           {
 +                             for(var i = 0; i < count; i++)
 +                             {
 +                               template = template + '|' + this.selectedTag[i].code;
 +                             }
 +                           }
 +                           template = template + '}}';

Or something like that, I should think. Not 100% sure about the array indices, though. This would pass the speedy deletion code (e.g. A7, G11, etc.) as unnamed parameters to the template. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like the kind of JavaScript that I would need. I can't say if the particulars are correct or not, though. Also, {{db-notice-multiple}} takes an |article= parameter if the A10 criterion is present, and there are two other optional ones: a |url= parameter for the source page of copyright violations (for G12 and F9), and a |source= parameter for the foreign-language Wikipedia page for A2s. Would you like me to implement some or all of these? And are there any more things that you would like included in the template? I can write just a basic template that only uses the speedy deletion criteria themselves, but I may as well write in other features now rather than going back and adding them later. Of course, every new parameter will require new JavaScript, and maybe a new dialog box for the input if it is not already grabbed by the existing code. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added the new code to Template:Db-notice-multiple-NPF/sandbox. I don't have time to test it at the moment, but you can have a play around with it if you want and see if anything needs tweaking. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Testing brought up an issue about dealing with pages in non-article space. So I have a question - does the Curation Toolbar ever deal with pages not in article space? I need to know whether I should code in the exceptions or whether it's ok to just ignore them. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Page Curation also works in userspace, for things like user sandbox drafts and the like. What's the bug you're running across? I could pass in the parameters to the speedy deletion tag, but do you think it's necessary? I mean, as long as they know that the speedy deletion is because it's a copyvio/duplicate of something, does it really matter that much what exactly it's a copyvio/duplicate of? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The bug is that the template doesn't find the correct talk page for pages not in article space. For example, for File:Smiley.gif it assumes the talk page is File talk:File:Smiley.gif. That's a step up from [[:Talk:File:Smiley.gif]] which the current template produces, but obviously not ideal. Thinking about it, this should be easy enough to fix with the namespace magic words though. For the optional parameters, I agree with you that the URL isn't all that crucial for copyvios, but I do think that the article parameter would be good to have for A10s. For the source parameter for A2s, it may or may not be important depending on the circumstances. At any rate, we should probably concentrate on getting the basic parameters passed to the template - I won't mind at all if the other things aren't done now, as they really aren't that important in comparison. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, it looks like the TALKPAGENAMEE magic word is the one we want; according to mediawiki, it takes an argument now, so we can just pass in the page name to it and it spits out a url-encoded talk page for it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, magic. Thanks for that. :) I've done testing, and the template is now up live. Once we have the JavaScript part working everything should be good. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 00:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, and it would help if people could review the wording of the messages. I just copied them from {{db-notice-multiple}}, and I'm not sure if they will strike the tone that we are looking for. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the notes! I'm going to kick one of our devs and point them at this section :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI

I don't know much about how the tool works, but the first edit I saw it used for was a tag that is utterly inaccurate. Maybe this is useful information for those developing it? -Pete (talk) 05:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not like ClueBot; it's a semi-automated tool, the same as twinkle. In this case the problem seems to be that the tagger was doing it wrong :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons

Is it possible to get this tool to add the BLP tag to talk pages? Op47 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, probably. Is it high-priority? I'd love to incorporate everything, but this stuff has to be hard-coded :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

if Op47 means {{BLP}} then I would say no, as I always remove it and replace it with {{WikiProject Biography}}. I don't see the point of the blp tag. The-Pope (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I just use HotCat to add the "Living people" category to the article; a bot takes care of the talk page tagging. VQuakr (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Okeyes (WMF), I wouldn't be so arrogant as to say this is high priority. The page asked for feedback and here it is. The page curation tool is very intuitive and easy to use. It was just something that I thought of.

The Pope, when I had this to do, I added the Biography template with living= yes as above. I just copied another article and was not aware of the BLP template.

VQuakr that sounds like the easiest thing to do and given that it affects the article itself then this would probably be easier for Okeyes to implement should it be decided that it is a good idea. Op47 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we can fit it in, I'm afraid, which is a pity :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this would be slightly outside the scope of PageCuration, as it is more of a categorization function than a curation/triaging function. Kaldari (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See, I think those are basically the same thing. Page curation is making sure that newly added Wikipedia articles meet the basic standards for Wikipedia articles and sorting them in such a way as to enable other contributors to improve them and handle them appropriately. There's a reason all this clutter exists: to try and make sense of the four million articles on Wikipedia. Page curation tools should be helping to make the lives of the new page curators easier. WikiProject tagging is important because it lays down a way for future subject-specific editors to find and improve articles. {{WikiProject Biography}} with living=yes is preferable to {{BLP}}. But making sure that BLPs are categorized as such is very important to help with enforcement of BLP policy. If the Foundation don't consider it important, it'd be great if someone who cares deeply about it could brew up and submit a patch. I think that Kaldari is wrong here though: making a good first stab at categorisation (through categories, WikiProjects and stub sorting) is a part of the curation process... —Tom Morris (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Layout request

Is it possible to change where the toolbar appears on the screen? Currently, if I use it to tag an article, the "Add a message for creator" field causes the "Add selected tags" button to move below my screen, and I have to drag the whole "Add tags" window up in order to click on it. (Note that I am using a 8.9" netbook.) ... discospinster _talk 21:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so :/. To be honest, I'm afraid we're never really going to build anything that can satisfy all users with all screen resolutions. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Description wrong

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T45239

This description under "tags" is wrong:

Primary sources

This page relies too heavily on first-hand sources, and needs third-party sources.

WP:Secondary does not mean independent. I think that you'd be better off replacing this with {{third-party sources}}. The text properly speaking should read "This page relies too heavily on sources affiliated with the subject, and needs third-party sources."

If you prefer to stick with the {{Primary sources}} tag, then you need to change the text to say "This page relies too heavily on primary sources, and needs secondary sources." WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Agh, you're right. I'll stick it in bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Time

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T45365

The page curation toolbar displays server time (UTC) instead of local time (in my location, UTC+01:00/CET). This is confusing because the rest of the Wikipedia interface uses local time. --Cgtdk (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; sticking it in bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Closing the Curate Toolbox...

How do you close the curate toolbox permanently (at least for a while)? I am still in the process of expanding Gao Xingzhou, and I don't want the toolbox to keep popping up... Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the left top corner of the curation toolbox there is a switch-off button.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  Snap :). Thanks, Ymblanter! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  Did that already; the box still pops up each time I reload/save the page. --Nlu (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have cookies allowed? Or how else should it know you have closed it before? --17:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

I do have cookies allowed, but had it as blocked "from third parties and advertisers" (in Safari). I just temporarily unblocked them all, and let's see if this works. --Nlu (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That seemed to cure it. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to have some sort of exceptions there. So make an exception for Wikipedia server and then you will be able to again block cookies "from third parties and advertisers". Good to hear that helped. --11:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

Glad to see it resolved :). Utar, you want my job? You're pretty good at it ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, thanks :D . I am just making sure you will have at least one five-minute break a day :P . --11:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC), Utar (talk)

Don't let my boss find out ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

-stub

A very minor thing, but if the tool puts {{-stub}} insted of {{stub}} that helps the stub sorters by a key-stroke per stub. And they deserve all our help. Rich Farmbrough, 05:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Tool not loading

I have frequent problems with the Curation Toolbar not loading. Anyone have any tips? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a "curate this page" link in the sidebar? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's really weird. Browser/OS? And does it not load immediately, but load after a while, or completely fail? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Up-to-date Google Chrome on an XP netbook. And no, if it fails, it fails fully, it doesn't load after some time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's strange. Next time it happens, can you look in the developer console for any errors that crop up and throw them my way? It might provide a clue - this shouldn't be happening :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have the same problem (Firefox + XP).Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

and also with IE whatever the latest one is + Windows 7 - so there clearly is some sort of problem with the thing.Jsmith1000 (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not loading for me at Derrick Williams (footballer), but it is on other articles, I wonder if that's because the article in question has been configured with pending changes level 1 protection. (Mac/Chrome 24.0.1312.52) --j⚛e decker^talk 15:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh; interesting :/. And in all cases there's no "curate this page" button? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

in all my cases, and I've since also tried from different computers. I think it just doesn't like me.Jsmith1000 (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is...weird. Again, can I ask for any warnings in the developer console? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A7

Why are the specialized templates not used? FrankDev (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate (or provide an example), plus what the "A7" stands for in the heading? Thanks! --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Andre, I know what he's referring to. Frank: it was felt that adding all the specific templates would really clog the UI. I was pretty comfortable with that decision - we don't lose much in depth compared to the interface clarity we gain. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Would a dropdown menu of sorts that pulls up a list of more specific templates when you use A7 be appropriate? Ryan Vesey 14:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an option we linked into. The problems are, broadly speaking:

1. It's Yet Another Dependency on enwiki;
2. We'd need to make the drop-down pretty narrow to fit inside the curation toolbar flyout, which means it'd either be incredibly long or need cut-down information.

With these issues in mind, and the fact that just using the normal A7 tag does the job, we decided it was probably not worth the hassle and we should spend time on bughunting/adding new features. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's really not a reason that they have to be used. Ryan Vesey 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Tag bombing new article within seconds of their creation

Why are new articles getting tag bombed within seconds of when they are started? Neotarf (talk) 14:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you point to an example or two, Neotarf? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, is there anything you don't have watchlisted? Okay, [2], and the first thing I did was put the translation template on it. [3] Here's an older one.[4] This one actually got added to a list of articles needing translation, even though I had put a template on it, and there was some demand that it be completed in a certain time frame, even though the edit summaries should have shown that it was being worked on a little bit every day. Neotarf (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I wrote something longer at the "Templates for newcomers" thread before I saw your comment here. —Neotarf (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• 49 minutes is not 10 seconds. Please use your sand box or learn how to cope with edit conflicts rather than getting angry with other editors. Remember the tagger has no way to know of you are still working on it or have logged off for the day. The Swedish source article had a reference, why didn't you copy that over with the first edit? Unreferenced articles, even translations, will always attract attention these days.The-Pope (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Two ways to avoid this tag bombing are: use of the {{inuse}} template, or better still, developing articles in user space first and moving them to mainspace when they are sufficiently complete to avoid the risk of them being tag bombed - even many experienced, established users do this. That said, there is still much room for eduducation of the patrollers, and issues of this kind are still best reported at WT:NPP which has not been made obsolete by the curation tool and where replies will also be very rapid. This page is mainly for reporting issues concerning the technical use of the New Pages Feed and the Curation Tool. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that one, then. I used {{ New page }} before, but still ended up with several days of talking about what I was trying to do instead of actually doing it. I see someone even has an essay on it: WP:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

I posted on this talk page because it was the one in the edit summary.

I have not found the whole develop-in-userspace concept to be particularly user friendly, and yes, I did spend several hours looking at the tutorial. It seems to require admin tools to finish, and I suppose some editors have admin friends they can ask to help. The last time I waited for an admin (for a contested page move), it took maybe 3 months, due to backlog. At that point, who can remember what else needs to be linked to the article and from what language wiki. Easier to put everything together while you still have all the the windows open. I seem to remember that the last time I had this conversation, I found out that most people don't really start articles in user space.

—Neotarf (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Developing a page in user space is identical to doing it in main space (other than hiding categories and some templates if it is going to be days/weeks in your user space) and if the target page is available for use, then you don't need any admin assistance to move it when you are ready. You may be thinking of articles for creation which is mainly aimed at IP or new editors who can't create articles. Whilst the whole site is a work in progress we dont want too many obviously half finished articles in main space. If you put a few internal wiki links and a reference or two in your first draft then you are probably ok to work direct in main space. (and you really need to learn how to deal with edit conflicts. I've had two in this thread alone, and haven't lost any text.The-Pope (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. —Neotarf (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Back to the original question...one reason is that it's easier for patrollers to find and examine new articles than "articles that are stable after creation" or "newest articles at least 24 hours old". -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

[This discussion has been moved to WT:New pages patrol#Tag bombing new article within seconds of their creation —Neotarf (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)]

Unable to mark page as reviewed due to PC?

Derrick Williams (footballer) is showing up as 'unreviewed' in the feed. When you navigate to it, the curation toolbar won't display. The page had Pending changes level 1 configured on 20 December 2012. Might this be preventing the curation toolbar from displaying? Pol430 talk to me 18:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I had the same problem when I tried to patrol the page. Braincricket (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Same here, I mentioned it above at Wikipedia_talk:Page_Curation#Tool_not_loading. I can try unprotect-patrol-protect if people want, I don't know if it's more useful diagnostically to do that experiment or to leave an example for devs to examine. Thoughts? --j⚛e decker^talk 06:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How about protecting another page listed in Special:NewPages, then trying to curate it? Braincricket (talk) 06:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good test (I try to avoid using admin tools in my official capacity, but Joe, if you want to try...) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is the protection causing the problem, it will be interesting to see if the problem lies with PC or semi-protection, or both. Pol430 talk to me 20:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The curation toolbar is definitely being blocked (somehow) by PC1. I turned PC off, was able to get the toolbar, turned PC back on, reloaded, lost the toolbar, turned it back off again and the toolbar was back. (I then marked it as reviewed and reinstated PC1, on the assumption this would be reproducible on some other article when a dev went to check it out. Which might have been unwise (sorry I missed your comment on this, Braincricket) but it worked out, since the problem appears to be reproducible based on my next test:

Based on Pol430's comment, I tested, separately, toolbar functionality under semi-protection and PC1 on Håkan Rydin, and found that the curation toolbar did appear for me when the article was under semi-protection, but did not appear for me when the article was under PC1. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; a fairly serious bug :/. I'll shove it in BZ now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

A7 Criteria Expansion

Per a discussion and resulting consensus [[5]], Twinkle and templates have been modified but was suggested to alert this community page as well. Any help making the modifications would be helpful. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll stick the change in gerrit myself :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, or try to ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Aha; any admin can (and will need to) simply modify MediaWiki:Pagetriage-del-tags-dba7-desc. That should do it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Filter by “no citations”

It would be great to be able to filter articles by “no citations” (like the “no categories” filter). --Cgtdk (talk) 11:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That's sort of hard to do, though; inline or full? They both display in (many) different ways and there will be a lot of overlap :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The feed already says if there are any citations (i.e., <ref> tags). Of course it cannot function perfectly, but it can certainly be useful. --Cgtdk (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! By the way, I think you've done an excellent job regarding the page curation tools. --Cgtdk (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! :D Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for addition - time since last edit

A conversation at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#New_page_patrol_report has resulted in what we think is an actionable upgrade to the new page feed console. Can we add the time since the last article edit to each entry at Special:NewPagesFeed? Ideally this would be on the right, near the creation timestamp. The goal would be to help patrollers assess if the article is currently being actively edited without having to go to the article itself. Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll stick it in Bugzilla; thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the bug report number? VQuakr (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Curation toolbar

I'm getting the Curation toolbar showing up for various pages that I view, even though I am not reaching them via the New Pages Feed. I have looked at the New Pages Feed, but I haven't selected any options to always show me that toolbar - was it my viewing of the New Pages Feed that has left me stuck with this unwanted toolbar? How can I opt out of getting it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw this message just after you posted it. In fact, now I come to think of it, I'm getting the same thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, it's designed to appear regardless of source page for pages in the New Pages Feed - deliberately. The alternative is that rather infuriating problem where you go to a patrollable page, edit it, and the patrol link goes away :/. If you minimise or close it, it should remember the minimisation or close, and you can get it to reappear when you want it by hitting 'curate this page' in the toolbox when you've got to a patrollable page. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Page curation and articles needing translation

Today while stub-sorting I found an article, ছাগু, written in a foreign language and non-roman script, which had been Page Curated twice. One editor had added {{Not English}} and one had added {{Rough translation}}, but neither of them had followed the instruction, given in both those templates, to add the article to the list at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. (Since I added it to that list it has been speedy-deleted as a test page).

Can we arrange for some sort of popup or prompt to remind editors adding either of those templates that they have a second job to do? In an ideal world all editors would read any templates they add if they aren't familiar with them ... but failing that, it would be good to make it easier for them to know the right thing to do! PamD 14:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone smarter than me should probably figure out a way for the page curation tool and Twinkle to do it automatically. They do it with AfD. Ryan Vesey 16:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Concurring with Pam. I constantly find my self finishing patrollers' work (nothing new) especially on non-English pages. Most of them are even too lazy to have quick look in Google Translate to see what the article is about - if they did, they would find that there is enough to understand to CSD them in most cases. It's time now after several months of the deployment of the page curation tool to consider ways of encouraging new patrollers to read WP:NPP where it is all perfectly and clearly explained. It was due to concerns about the standard of patrolling that the curation tool and the New Pages Feed were developed in the first place, but we're still left with only half (albeit an excellent half) a solution to the overall problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Horses for courses, and all, but: no, it wasn't. Page Curation was developed after a long debate in which a lot of patrollers made very clear that they were overwhelmed by the incoming content. Pam: we can probably build something like that in, but I'm sort of concerned at adding more template-specific functionality at this point before we've developed a decent way to generalise the software to other wikis :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible glitch with MfD

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T46426

I don't know what happend with the MfD template here when using the curation tool to do an MfD, but it's not what I expected. Unfortunately I'm not a template expert and I wouldn't know where to start fixing it and the operations associated with it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; reporting. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fortnox Arena

This was reported by the author on my talk page. When I load the article I see that the page curation toolbar sees it as reviewed, but when I look at the article log I don't see the 'reviewed' entry. Is this a curation or MediaWiki bug? I tried the old NPP interface but I don't get the 'mark this page as patrolled' link either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmn. Is there an entry in 'page curation log' or 'curation log'? It really should display on the article logs too :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not when you look at the page logs, no. But it seems that the page was marked as patrolled. Is the curation log distinct from the patrol log? That's weird. Why weren't the same logs used? In any case, the curation toolbar should be able to tell me that the page was patrolled rather than reviewed, especially if I see the page as reviewed but the curation log is empty. That's confusing. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I see what's happening. The curation tool detects that a page was patrolled via Special:NewPages and shows the page as reviewed. The user never sees this in their watchlist because patrolling does not seem to do this. Yet when I use the curation toolbar to unreview a page, a message is generated in the patroller's talk page. This does not eliminate the patrol log entry, and generates one for the curation log. Then when I review it again, that generates the additional curation entry log, and the author's watchlist reflects it.

It seems to me that this feature should have been implemented using the existing patrol log, or the patrol tool forced to move over to the curation interface entirely. I guess people are expecting their pages to be marked as reviewed, because I've gotten requests to do that from a few of them. But if the page was patrolled, they never see it and they don't know where to look. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with implementing in the existing patrol log is that it would mean duplicate entries, unfortunately :/. That was my preferred option, but wasn't workable .Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. That would have been ideal but I know dev solutions sometimes get complicated. I'll look for a suitable location in the project page(s) to add a note about this, because it can be confusing to users. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disable user notification when a page is marked "unreviewed"

Currently, if a page is marked as unreviewed using the page curation toolbar, a default message is posted on the talk page of the user who originally marked the page as reviewed. Some users may not even be aware that they marked an article as reviewed, since Twinkle (by default, I think) will mark pages as reviewed if cleanup tags are added.

The message left on user's talk pages look like this:

== I have unreviewed a page you curated ==

Hi, I'm MrX. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Article name, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, MrX

This is causing confusion and discord as can be seen here and here

Expected behavior

The fly out box on the page curation tool for a reviewed page has this verbiage:

Mark this page as unreviewed if you think it needs to be checked further. Add a message for the reviewer: (optional) 250 chars left Write a helpful note for Xezbeth. It will be posted on their talk page.

The implication being that sending a message is optional, and would only occur if one were typed in. In other words, one would expect it to work in the same fashion as when a page is reviewed.

Request

Please disable the "message to reviewer" unless a message is explicitly typed into the text box. I assume this is how it should work, so this may be a bug.

Also, please change the message text...

"If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page."

to

"If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page."

...which is grammatically better.

Thank you. - MrX 13:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a bug; people should always receive an automated notification. The message is just an extension of that (an explanation as to why the page has been unreviewed. Which, speaking as a patroller, should probably always be provided: people can't improve if we don't show them what they did wrong :)). I'll see if I can clarify the text as to what 'send a message' means. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that "people should always receive an automated notification". Where is the consensus for this? It's causing problems and I think there needs to be a discussion about addressing the problems and extra effort this 'feature' is creating. - MrX 14:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Without commenting on whether people should always receive notification, please do fix the grammar. KillerChihuahua 15:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

KC, do you not have an opinion about the compulsory messages? I would certainly value your views. - MrX 15:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The grammar is fixed, at least :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. - MrX 18:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have, rather, conflicting opinions. I can see both sides; one the one hand, notification is often required here (such as when posting on ANI) or strongly recommended (such as when overturning an admin action). On the other hand, I can see how it could get very spammy, very fast, and how recipients of such messages may be confused as to why they are receiving them. In general, I prefer opt-in rather than opt-out, but recognize when notification is, or should be, an imperative. I am, in short, of two minds regarding this. KillerChihuahua 15:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

At the very least, make it like DPL Bot notifications so the first reviewer can opt out of the default messages. That way prolific reviewers can avoid hearing about it every time a page is unreviewed for technical (not competence) reasons, while the custom messages for actual review problems still get through. VQuakr (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you give me an example of a "technical (rather than competence)" reason? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• A page is moved or the content is clarified, changing the subject from an event/organization to a BLP that merits additional scrutiny.
• Subsequent edits to the page reveal the possibility that it is a hoax, spam, or attack page.

More generally, why can't we leave it to whoever un-reviewed the page to determine if they think notification is needed? If they do choose to notify, then a custom message explaining why is more appropriate than a canned "this happened." If they just want one more pair of eyes to look at it but don't think the initial review was a particularly bad call, maybe no notification is appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I just received such a message after my import of Pawn (chess) (see the relevant archived discussion). Please make sure the message is properly signed with four tildes. Improperly signed messages are one of my pet peeves, but far more importantly they prevent MiszaBot III (talk · contribs), a commonly used archive bot, from archiving the relevant messages. And yes, I didn't really need that message. Graham87 12:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The messages that are posted when I unreview a page are signed. Perhaps it's controlled by a preferences setting (or a Twinkle preferences setting).- MrX 13:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• The message box is one of the great features of the Page Curation Tool. An editor should be informed when a page s/he has created gets tagged, especially if it's for an issue they could easily have fixed themselves. Good patrolling from the front of the queue, without going overboard with rapid fire CSDs, has a good chance of catching the creators through an orange banner while they are still logged in - especially important in the case of SPAs who might otherwise never return to their articles. Until Wikipedia has a proper landing page for new editors/creators, this message box is indispensable as a first introduction as to what should (and should not) be added to the encylopedia. In fact I would have gone one stage further: I would have the tool place an automated generic message on the user's talk page when the article is tagged, such as 'Hi. Thank you for creating XXX. I have made some notes on issues that you can probably improve. Please consider returning to the article and checking out what can be done. Feel free to remove the tags when the issues have been resolved.' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comments, but that's not really what this issue is about. This issue is about the canned messages that are left on new page patroller's user talk pages, not those of the creators of the articles. - MrX 15:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see - sorry if I had misunderstood. I'm not sure about the canned messages - I don't think I have ever left any of them. If I say anything to a reviewer it's always a personalised comment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

• So, I'm seeing a lot of different opinions here. Personally, I think that even with canned messages, a user should be told their patrol has been undone. Part of getting better at NPP is being able to tell people when they've made a mistake, and if we remove the canned messages there's a pretty good chance that those users who use them will assume it's still being done automatically and a lot of poor patrollers won't be told how to improve :/ Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is that a page is marked reviewed if, for example, someone places a 'ref improve' tag on the page. The user doesn't even know that they have reviewed the article, then, if the page is unreviewed, they receive the automated message and they wonder why. In fact, when I first received one of these messages myself, I was confused, and had a reaction similar to receiving a 3RR warning: I thought I had really done something wrong.

As I mentioned before, this has caused some unpleasant user talk page responses and extra time trying to explain why a user received the message. Perhaps the message should include a link to WP:NPP or a similar instructive guideline. In any case, if the automated message must remain, then I will simply be more selective about marking pages as unreviewed, and when I do, I will include an message explaining why I did it. If someone really comes unglued, I will point them to this thread so they can gain some some further perspective. - MrX 23:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Tweaking the message makes sense :). We could add "this is an automated message to tell you that..." or something, so that people know they haven't got people giving them the beady eye. If you want to write something up I am happy to put it in place :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will work on something as soon as I can clear my mind of other distractions. Many thanks. - MrX 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)