Wikipedia talk:Page Curation/Suggested improvements/Archive 1

Archive 1

Redirect filter

Ref.: Wikipedia talk:Page Curation#Finding redirects

Hopefully, this is the page referred to as a "Wishlist" in the referenced discussion. We need that function that lets us filter just for redirects to begin working so we don't have to hunt and scratch to find redirects. Please help us and fix that!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done We have had the ability to filter for only redirects in Special:NewPagesFeed for quite some time now. Also to save future searches, the first link above is now archived at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archives/Page Curation/Archive 9#Finding redirects. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Populating the list

This list page was created by Noyster and is probably going to be a valuable resource, but only if the work is not left to me alone again. While working through the archives to compile and consolidate a to do list (which is independent of, and not the same list as the 17-page report I submitted to he WMF in June at their request), I note that the employee who was at the time responsible for monitoring the page at WT:Page Curation was unilaterally selective about what requests and bugs would be forwarded to the developers. This list is therefore likely to be somewhat longer than Noyster intended, but now is the time, once and for all, to address these issues and also to insist that development of mw:Article Creation Workflow/Landing System/Archive 1 which was started by Jorm gets reopened and compleed - it's the other half of the entire concept of quality control of new articles as begun in 2012 and should be high priority. Pinging WereSpielChequers, Scottywong, DGG, The Blade of the Northern Lights, vQuakr, MelanieN, Ritchie333, Esquivalience, Σ--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Off topic - wrong venue

As per my WP:AN post, there must be options to see full list of unpatrolled templates, unpatrolled wikipedia pages, unpatrolled Portal pages. Can you add that section? As right now there is no option to see unpatrolled templates, wikipedia pages created before one month. --Marvellous Spider-Man 01:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Marvellous Spider-Man Such lists are available in their respective categories.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC) That existing list show temaplates and wikipedia pages created within one month period. Unpatrolled templates created in July, unpatrolled wikipedia pages created in June are not visible. Right now we cannot see beyond 9th August. Tomorrow we can't see beyond 10th August. I found so many useless templates and wikipedia pages in one day. Pinging@Samtar and Fram:. Marvellous Spider-Man 01:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC) Marvellous Spider-Man, I'm sorry,I'm not able to correlate to what you are discussing here. Perhaps (almost certainly) this is the wrong venue for the issue you wish to discuss. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Refactoring restored

I have WP:BRD restored the refactoring made by WMF staff.

1. While done in good faith it was probably not realised that this page needs to be kept in its integrity as an archive of progress on these issues.
2. The entry numbers are part of the L2 headers which serve as anchors. These entries are linked to from other places.
3. It took me an hour to do this (see history) please do not revert again without a community consensus.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, but can you check your numbering against the TOC? You missed two sections ('deletion logs' and 'Proposing Autopatrolled for user creating new articles of a very high quality') and skipped 41. 16:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: I did this with my volunteer account, for the record! The numbering in my opinion doesn't make sense. They were out of order, some were repeated, and others were duplicate topics. I can't believe you spent an hour on this, next time just ask me to restore it. I used my text editor to quickly remove them and could have restored them just as quickly. Anyway hopefully you see why the numbering is a bit of a weird system. If you want permanent links and numerical values tied to each proposal, consider using Phabricator as that is what it's designed for. The wiki always has broken links to discussions, and the numbering isn't going to help that, it's just going to confuse people and make this list hard to maintain — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry MusikAnimal, but whichever account you are using you are still the same person, and at the moment your participation appears to demonstrate that you may possibly be representing the opinions of your employers which may be in conflict with those of the community. If you do a massive refactoring of a page like this you will need to get consensus for it even if it had some minor imperfections. You can't simply delet content like this because it is embarrassing to the WMF. Sorry, but I and many other volunteers are getting fed up with the smoke and mirrors coming from the Foundation - it took me an hour of my UNPAID time to revert your edits and it was not fun, believe me - check the history. What actions like this will eventually achieve is to drive people like me away from Wikipedia, and I believe that is certainly contrary to the philosophy of the movement. Perhaps you could take just 15 minutes to read WP:KNPP and see if you would like to refactor that too. It was once rally a pleasure to collaborate with you, but since you changed sides it has become less easy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow. I apologize, I really meant no harm. Not using the WMF account just means this wasn't done in the capacity of WMF or endorsed by them. I was just trying to clean up the page as I've been working through it. No, it is not my job to work on Page Curation, this falls under the purview of another team. They have their own triage system and I don't know where these issues fall under it, but as a volunteer developer I thought I'd help out and take care of the easy wins. My contributions to Page Curation are entirely done in my free time, and your attitude is not giving me the sense of reward I was hoping for. The notion that I am representing the opinions of your emplotyers which may be in conflict with those of the community is crazy talk. I did not delete anything because it was embarrassing to WMF, please stop making things up. There is no secret WMF agenda, and I'm the same person I was 13 months ago before I got my dream job. I was merely trying to clean up the page so it was easier for me to process what features I can work on, which ones are duplicates of other requests, etc. Rest assured I'm on the same team as you, if you'll let me! Sorry for trying to help — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Archiving completed suggestions?

Given that some number of suggestions have been completed does it make sense to archive completed suggestions to an archive? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: sure - boldly  Doing... now --DannyS712 (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 and DannyS712:, all the collapsed ones can be archived. I've gone through most of the others, checking at Phab, but I don't always understand from their geek what the actual status is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Two Phab tickets

Hey @EpicPupper. Hope you're having a great day. If you're still interested in helping out here at PCSI, I created the following tickets on Phab that can be added to the PCSI priority table: phab:T315208, phab:T315206. cc MB. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done New location of table: Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements/Phab tickets. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

PCSI Coordination

MPGuy2824, Thanks for offering to help out here too. I reverting the numbering of the table for now. I created the with the intention of using it to track all the issues that need to be resolved - so we can see them all in one place (without going into the phab system). Also, it is the place for us at NPP to assign a priority independently of how they are categorized in Phab. If we ever get additional PageTriage support from WMF, we will need to tell them which ones are most important to us.

I populated the table with the items already listed on this page or over on NPP/R. However there are many more in Phab that still need to be added to the table. I was trying to keep the them ordered by Phab open date. Once all the old ones we are added, the numbering can be put back. We can also delete the "old" numbers that exist on the section headers from 2019 for some of them.

Once we get a comprehensive list, we need to ask all NPPers to weigh in on priorities. Thanks again for taking this on. MB 14:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a query provided by @Novem Linguae of everything tagged Page Triage. There are around 170. There are ~50 in our table, so that leaves 120 more to be considered. I think a lot of these are bugs and not requested improvements. It may be overwhelming to ask people to look at 170 items and pick the top 10 or 20 most important/useful. Perhaps we should split the table into bugs and features and only ask people what they think are most important features. NL can probably prioritize the bugs fixes himself.

We should do something with the "Fixed" entries too. Discussions related to fixed things are archived. We should probably remove them from the table at some point to reduce clutter. Maybe leave them for a month to show stability, and then move them to a separate collapsed table?

MB 15:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I would prioritize adding to the table everything in the "soon" column on my Kanban board. Those are tickets I've gone through and found to be promising.

Up to you guys if you want to add all 170 tickets to the table. I personally think there's a lot of noise in there. Some are outdated, some are unreproducible bugs, some are not great ideas, some are duplicates, etc. If I had more time I would read through all those tickets and triage them more.

On the other hand, if you see a promising one, bring it to my attention and I'll take a look and consider prioritizing it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I was planning to first copy all 170 tickets to a spreadsheet. Would be easier to find duplicates (and duds) that way. I can prioritize on the 25 or so tickets in the "Soon" columns. Also, i'll definitely ping you if i see a promising ticket that is not in that column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

MB, thanks for pre-emptively answering my questions. I had added static numbers just to get an idea of the count (They wouldn't have changed even if the table was sorted on a diff column). Anyway, not an issue. If i'm understanding both of you right, these should be on my todo list:

• copy basic details of tickets from Phab to the table
• archive "fixed" issues every month or so.
• separate bugs from feature requests.
• Remove the prefix numbers from the tasks - I'm not sure about this (see #Refactoring restored). On the other hand this was 5 years back and the numbers don't serve their original purpose right now.

I'll assume its ok to move the table to a sub-page. After that, is it necessary to transclude the table back on PCSI, right now. There doesn't seem to be any added value from it for a bug reporter. Maybe when we ask reviewers to vote to prioritize each entry, we can add it back to the page?

Also, please give me some idea of the timeline for sending THE letter to WMF and for the community wishlist. I wasn't planning to start anything in earnest on PCSI, until i'm mostly done on the 2018 awards. But, if there is a time crunch, then i'll devote more time to this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

1. I was intending to number the table after adding whatever we choose to include from Phab after filtering out the noise. I have been putting entries in the table in order of the Phab open date, so #1 will always be the oldest ticket. I was keeping the numbers off for now so no one ever refers to an item by it's number as they could change. Once we are done building the table, and know that additions will only be new items that go at the end, then we can number it and use those numbers as shorthand.
2. I have confirmed with K that the 5-year old numbers are obsolete and can be removed.
3. Any response to the letter may not be for months; the Wishlist may come sooner. We should have a plan for the Wishlist. 2022 proposals were made in January, although in most years it was November (and once it started in mid-October). If 2023's is in January, we have four months. If it falls back to November, we only have two months to get ready.
4. Everything else sounds fine.

MB 03:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824, it might be a good idea to keep the fixed items in a separate table, instead of just deleting them when "archiving". MB 15:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

TODO list

• Remove the prefix numbers from the tasks. ✓
• Copy basic details of all tickets from Phab to the table ✓
• Archive "fixed" issues every month or so. ✓ - This is a continuing task
• Separate bugs from feature requests. ✓ - I've moved a certain number of tickets that i think are major features, to a new table. If either of you find a major feature in the "Open tickets" table, please move it to the top table or tell me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Unsupported suggestions

There are a few suggestions in the list that have not got any support (e.g. Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements#Keyboard shortcuts?). My recommendation is to archive any such suggestion three months after it was introduced. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think those situations are up to you (or me or whoever clerks it). If you think it's a good idea, feel free to make a phab ticket. If you think it's not a great idea, go ahead and archive it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've never been interested in using keyboard shortcuts for NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Why don't we slap a messages on these first like "This suggestion may not have consensus to be implemented. If there is no further discussion in 10 days, it will be archived". (I just made a comment on keyboard shortcuts). MB 14:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think folks should be ok with a three-month time limit, along with a 10-15 day warning message per your suggestion. I'm not starting this task immediately, but only after the hubbub from the 0-backlog day and the drive ends. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)