Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archives/Page Curation/Archive 2

More Autopatrollers

What about extending autopatrolled to any editor who has produced one or more GAs / FAs, regardless of whether or not they've also produced 49 almost-meritless unreferenced stubs ... ;P Pesky (talk) 21:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• No, WSC, I was referring to my comment above about having a distinct and wider RfC on this precise issue. And Pesky, no ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Debundling from Administrator rights makes sense on a theoretical level, but in practice I don't think there are any ongoing problems with Administrators abusing page creation. I think the threshold of 50 should be regarded as a vague guideline rather than a rigid rule. There are some people who start lots of bad stubs who may not be ready with even 100 starts; others with a couple dozen might be perfectly ready in terms of firmly understanding inclusion and sourcing standards. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A good point :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

One practical difficulty with making GA and FA writers Autopatrolled is that we don't know whether their other articles would be notable or not. Our FAs and GAs may be our best articles, but they aren't necessarily our most notable ones. Also the Autopatroller userright is only relevant if people actually create new articles - you could in theory be a prolific FA writer and yet have a new article count of zero. Appointing more Autopatrollers would certainly improve the Newpage patrol process, if we were to do so I'd suggest that the following routes would make most difference:

1. Currently we don't make someone an Autopatroller if they have a history of copyvio. I'm not sure what proportion of copyvio is picked up by newpage patrollers as opposed to corensearchbot and anyone else who sniffs out copyvio, but my impression is that page patrollers are not doing those sort of checks. If they aren't then perhaps we should stop worrying about copyvio when we appoint autopatrollers as it won't make a difference. If some newpage patrollers are checking for copyvio then maybe we can workout a guideline, how many copyvio free new articles does a former cut and paste merchant need to contribute before we can safely assume that they've stopped committing copyvio?
2. We used to expect 75 articles before we'd consider editors for Autopatroller; Then we cut that to 50, and that is discretionary. However we aren't very good at spotting the qualified candidates and appointing them. In particular the editors who quietly contribute a finely honed new article a fortnight often get overlooked when it comes to appointing Autopatrollers. I don't see this as something that triage can deal with, we really need more admins to plough through Wikipedia:Database reports/Editors eligible for Autopatrol privilege. There are plenty at the bottom of that report who could uncontentiously be made Autopatrollers. ϢereSpielChequers 16:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

1. I agree with WereSpielChequers -- we need more admins working on this; but not just at the p. to apply for the right, but actively suggesting it or even just giving it to editors we see who deserve it. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Locking an article for triaging

The project page now talks about a new "article view", a dedicated interface for articles you reach through Special:NewPages, you can also "lock" an article reserving it for you (to prevent conflicts) and use a dedicated editor to edit the article without leaving the article view. If you lock an article for your triaging will others (not using NPT/NewPages) see that lock too? Will locking/unlocking be an individual contribution? --08:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

I like the idea of reducing edit conflicts at NPP and can see a big advantage in enabling patrollers to target the articles that their fellow patrollers aren't working on. But there is also the risk of spammers tag teaming and having one account create an article and another lock it. So the mechanic of this is important. I'd prefer terminology such as reserve over lock as lock implies an overly rigid demarcation. ϢereSpielChequers 08:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's ultimately the same action, but sure. And yes, that could totally happen - if the spammers did not mind (a) still having other people able to see it and (b) others being able to review their actions as soon as it is pattrolled and the window is closed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, any technical ability to restrict edits to an article, even temporarily, needs to be controlled to prevent abuse. The biggest thing for me is preventing accidental multiple notifications (particularly speedy notifications) from simultaneous CSD nominations since these multiply the biteyness of the experience for editors. VQuakr (talk) 02:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps a time shutoff? If no actions are taken within N minutes, unlock? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as it was implemented in a way that prevented abuse. If this just was a specific color code on the NPT display rather than a function that actually restricted modifications to the article, then I suppose the potential for abuse is much lower. VQuakr (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll find out what the plans are and get back to you :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not what "locking" means. I'm not sure that's the best term. It's not about preventing other people from editing the article; it's a mechanism to prevent duplicative work (e.g., two people start triaging the same article at the same time). The system will be smart and will let you know if someone else is currently looking at an article. That's all this is.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So will it tell you "you can't edit this article now, somebody is in" or only warn you "somebody is currently triaging this article, please triage another one"? That's the basic question. --21:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

It will tell you "someone is currently triaging this article, please select another one" if you attempt to directly access it, or it simply won't show up in your triage stream until it's freed.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, a misunderstanding at our end; thanks Jorm :). I'll amend the NPT page when I'm less sleep-deprived. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If it simply won't show then there is a risk that it can't be overridden even for obvious attack pages. This makes the system worryingly gameable. ϢereSpielChequers 15:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Jorm just said it would be indicated :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The "lock" feature is very useful. However, I suggest you choose another name to prevent further such missunderstandings. How about "book out"? Or "take"? Or "receive"... it makes sense to say that a user has received an article for triage.

On a more general note, the Special:PendingChanges page could probably benefit from such a system (assuming PC is adopted). The edit conflicts and associated wasting of time was probably one of the things that annoyed people most during the PC trial.

On a more philosophical note, WP:STiki manages to avoid this whole issue by only showing its users one thing at a time and never showing the same thing to two users at once.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Liking all three notes :). We'll probably debate wording slightly later on; at the moment a priority is shipping the prototype. And pending changes new features are definitely something that should be discussed with the wider community - I'm not really in a position to make calls on that. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes. I wouldn't suggest that someone makes a big change to PC without discussing it more widely first.

In terms of the terminology... I know you say it isn't a priority now... but when will it be a priority? It's one of those things that always seems small but can make a big difference. I wouldn't want to wait until there is a whole load of documentation etc that will have to be changed... because that will make changing the terminology more difficult.

Yaris678 (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on all fronts; terminology is Important. To be honest, I'm not sure yet; we're going to get through the current sprint and then timetable the components we still have to complete :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

OK. Cool. Timetabling the components we still have to complete makes sense to me. Obviously, a certain amount of flexibility on timing may be required, but it lets people see when the different bits will be discussed. Looking forward to seeing the prototype. Yaris678 (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Another suggestion for a name, instead of "lock": "reserve". Yaris678 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I like "reserve". - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Me too. I've asked the WMF version of Ironholds to take a look here. Arcandam (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Love it! (sorry, I'm allegedly on holiday, so my responses will all be somewhat delayed). I'm passing it on to the designer now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding a NOINDEX tag to unpatrolled articles

Hey guys

After suggestions here, we've opened a Request for Comment on adding the NOINDEX tag to unpatrolled articles - basically ensuring they can't be syndicated by google. If you've got an opinion or any comments, head on over there and post your two cents :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A (massive, sort of) update

Hey guys! Big update on what the developers have been working on, and what is coming up:

coding

• Fixes for the "moved pages do not show up in Special:NewPages" and "pages created from redirects do not show up in Special:NewPages" bugs have been completed and signed off on. Unfortunately we won't be able to integrate them into the existing version, but they will be worked into the Page Triage interface.
• Coding has been completed on three elements; the API for displaying metadata about the article in the "list view", the ability to keep the "patrol" button visible if you edit an article before patrolling it, and the automatic removal of deleted pages from the queue. All three are awaiting testing but otherwise complete.

All other elements are either undergoing research, or about to have development started. I appreciate this sounds like we've not got through much work, and truthfully we're a bit disappointed with it as well; we thought we'd be going at a faster pace :(. Unfortunately there seems to be some 24-72 hour bug sweeping the San Francisco office at the moment, and at one time or another we've had several devs out of it. It's kind of messed with workflow.

Stuff to look at

We've got a pair of new mockups to comment on that deal with the filtering mechanism; this is a slightly updated mockup of the list view, and this is what the filtering tab is going to look like. All thoughts, comments and suggestions welcome :). I'd also like to thank the people who came to our last two office hours sessions; the logs will be shortly available here.

I've also just heard that the first functional prototype for enwiki will be deployed mid-April! Really, really stoked to see this happening :). We're finding out if we can stick something up a bit sooner on prototype.wiki or something.

I appreciate there may be questions or suggestions where I've said "I'll find out and get back to you" and then, uh. not ;p. I sincerely apologise for that: things have been a bit hectic at this end over the last few weeks. But if you've got anything I've missed, post it here and I'll deal with it! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A request

I know that this is a minor aspect, but if we could get the Page Logs included (so as to help quickly detect "I didn't hear that" type events and cases where the article is deleted for a reason and has come back as a zombie. I know it's a truly minimal portion of the NPP workflow, but it's one of the things I check to see if there's a CSD that applies. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be awesome :). So we're talking: user creates article at URL X. I delete it. User recreates article at URL X. [non-admin], or [admin who doesn't have OCD] comes along, and can't immediately see if anything was previously at that URL, treats it as if it were a first creation? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. In 90% of the cases the peeking at the "Page Log" is just to help firm up a "Is this suitable for WP?" feeling. It's a extra bit of information, but can help the triagers decide to treat it gently, or to take out the cluebat, or to bring out the rod of smiting. Hasteur (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That is a really great idea. I'll email the development team now, hopefully have a response for you this sort of time tomorrow ;). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Just want to second this as A Great Idea. As an admin, whenever I check an article I look to see if there are relevant deleted revisions, it can be a tremendous help in determining whether or not to delete something (obviously for G4s, but also to see what other admins have had to say). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Nudge Any update? Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not yet, but I've got a meeting with the team this evening, so I'll bring it up if they haven't by then :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like the answer is "sure, that'd be relatively simple, I'll include it" :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --joe decker^{talk to me} 20:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

bug in the current version of New Pages

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38479
Resolved

Hi guys, just wanted to make you aware of a bug in the current version of New Pages, to ensure it doesn't happen in the new version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#possible_BUG_.28error.29_in_the_wikipedia_software Azylber (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know :). I'll check on the prototype right now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it's in the new version as well; filing a Bugzilla report. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Happy to help. Azylber (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me know if you see anything else you might like changing :). Would you like me to let you know when we have the functional prototype deployed on Wikipedia so you can give it a spin? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

ok, but I'm not really into patrolling. The only reason I've found this bug is because I've written 200 articles, and I always check the NewPages page to see if they've already been patrolled. By the way, it looks like you have a "nice" backlog :p Azylber (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh; okay, neat :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Tags and Twinkle

As a developer of Twinkle, I was thinking about the possibility of somehow intertwining Twinkle's "Tag" module with the tag list in New Pages Feed's "curator" view. It seems a bit silly to have two different JavaScript tagging tools in use. Perhaps Twinkle could share the same list of tags and categories as NPF, or perhaps Twinkle could even call upon NPF's UI to present the same tagging interface within a Twinkle-style window. Just some thoughts; Twinkle is fairly popular and it would be confusing to have two competing tagging interfaces/lists of tags floating around. What do you think about the matter? — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea :). I'm afraid I'm technically meant to be on holiday this week, but I'll try and find time to properly respond soon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is, indeed, an interesting idea. I believe that the tagging system is going to be implemented as an API system, so you should easily be able to call to it.

As far as the "multiple tools" bit, the issue here is that Twinkle is more of a "power user" tool, and we are building something closer to a "mid-tier" tool - a teaching device, perhaps - designed to aid new patrollers ease into the process gradually.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. However, from the mock-up, it looks as if the list of tags available from NPF will be quite extensive - good enough for anyone. The list of tags is one of the most high-maintenance aspects of Twinkle, and I'd be very happy to offload the maintenance of it to someone else!

I'll look into this in more depth when NPF is rolled out. — This, that, and the other (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Return to Feed

Is it possible to implement a feature that allows the reviewer to return to the feed directly from the article? Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 13:02, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be interesting; it depends. The problem is lots of people have lots of different methodologies, and we have to adapt to all of them. We are looking at a change that would have links automatically open in a new tab, which I think would be pretty useful and mean you always have the feed sitting there. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk page link bug

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38614
Resolved

All talk pages have a "&redlink=1" attached to it, so that when you click on it, you're actually clicking on the username plus that "&redlink=1" attached to the end. --MuZemike 18:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep; bugzilla knows of it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Question

I'm seeing a lot of people reporting bugs here. Is a beta of this thing live? If so, where is it? Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 14:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a beta live; they shouldn't have access to it. I'll make some inquiries. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's live?

I just got a newsletter saying that NPT is live on enwiki now. Where is it? I'm unable to find a link. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 16:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

We're not fully distributing it until Wednesday; we're using this as an opportunity to test for bugs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Check out Special:NewPagesFeed. Yaris678 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The Oldest Unreviewed Article is...

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38930

Tartar sauce. I found this hilarious due to the fact that the article was created back on 2002-04-10. Is there going to be some "up to this point all articles are assumed to be reviewed" or should we start cleaning out articles that are obvious passes? Hasteur (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks like something that has to do with the page being moved. The page was previously named "Tartare sauce" and was moved yesterday.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah; this is a known bug :). Benny Situ, our awesome backend engineer, is fixing it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Release date

Is there an estimated release date for the non-prototype? SwisterTwister talk 06:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no official release date as yet. I should expect late June for the full product to be released.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 06:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

April Debut?

Perhaps it's crossed information, but wasn't there supposed to be a first level demonstration of the new interface this month? I ask because there's only a few days left in the month. Hasteur (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Argh, I'm an idiot and misread the page title the first time around. Yep; we've had very very minor delays to accomodate some community requests (and because I've spent hours on end playing around with the software to discover any and all rare bugs. My favourite is one that appears precisely 50 percent of the time when you take a particular action). May 2nd is looking to be the date of deployment - we've scheduled and booked it - and after a couple of days of us kicking the feature around and checking it doesn't make anything else on Wikipedia explode, I'll be running around asking everyone to try it out and give feedback. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

How is the deployment test going. Edinburgh Wanderer 16:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We ran into some issues when we tried to deploy last night and couldn't :(. Luckily, forewarned is forearmed, and now that we know what the problem is we've politely booted the other project I'm working on out of its deployment window today in order to get things released. It should be done by tomorrow morning - if there are further delays, I'll let people know :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, tried again, more issues! Ugh. I'm really sorry about this :(. The new plan is to try again on Monday, then conduct some internal testing, poking and prodding to make sure nothing explodes, then opening it up to the community probably the following Monday or Tuesday. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How did the Monday (May 7th) deployment go? Interested minds would love to know. Hasteur (talk) 20:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It is being tested, and bugs are being worked out. Deploying to the English Wikipedia helps us see a huge array of possible problems that we simply don't see in a test environment. Works great, though, IMO.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

no--178.167.165.65 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot NG

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38837

I notice that ClueBot NG is down as the top reviewer. Hmmm... does this mean that someone can create a new page... and then add vandalism... and then ClueBot NG reverts the vandalism... and then the page counts as reviewed. That doesn't seem right. Yaris678 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

agreed. This applies to all bots. Only humans can review, even if a bot gets there first. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting bug! I'll find out what is happening. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I've worked it out - the list isn't distinguishing between patrol and autopatrol. And since ClueBot creates a load of user talkpages (and then patrols them automatically).... Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Now reported, classified and being dealt with. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

autopatrolled articles vs. patrolled articles

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38640

Most of what I do at NPP is check the patrolling by new eds, and I'd appreciate a filter that lets me see only the patrolled articles.
But I also like to check specifically autopatrolled editors from time to time. To a certain extent I can do it by recognizing their user names, just as I do at the regular NPP. But it would help to be able to see separately as well as together the articles by nonautopatrolled editors that have been patrolled, and the ones by autopatrolled editors. It would also help very much to be able to see for the patrolled but non-autopatrolled articles, who it was that patrolled them--not just in the list, but ideally also as a filter . DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The first filter is a good idea; I'll discuss it with the developers. The second, what do you mean, exactly? A search-by-who-patrolled feature? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Brainfart; the first filter is already being (indirectly) debated and built :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

So, I worry that this would lead to far too many options and a cluttered UI. I'll bring it up, but as an alternative - what do you think about having merely patrolled/unpatrolled/nominated for deletion, but "autopatrolled" be a highlight for each article in the same way that "new user" or "no categories" is now? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

as long as there is a default setting, I see no reason why a choice of which items to display is confusing whether it is 5 or 20. Those who do not want to figure out the options need not use them. (And I think the current default of unpatrolled is very much the right one for inexperienced users.) But it will be a help to at least see the information. DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha. And what do you think of my alternate suggestion? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The most important interface change needed

Is an ability to jump back a specific number or edits or days, as with NPP. I remember when NPP did not have that feature, and it was great getting it. I have been unable to tell if the complete file loads when you open it, it scrolls too slowly. NPP, for comparison, loads a fixed number at a time, which you can adjust to fit your own screen size and connection quality. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point; I'll discuss it with the developers. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I will say that with infinite scrolling, the ability to "jump back 10 days" (or 15, or 20, or...) is potentially limited. But I'll try and get a more specific rationale, and maybe a workaround if it makes sense. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not limited. It's totally something that can be done.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

False blank pages

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38928

(Apologies if this has already been discussed). While perusing I've noticed a number of pages which come up on the list with no below description which makes it appear like they are blank, content-less pages. Although, once opened it is clear these actually do have content. Examples: Wagaya no Rekishi, Institute of Pulse Processes and Technologies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, St Mary's Church, Portsea, Nënshat, Paçram, Shkodër. They all have infoboxes so I suspect this might be the issue.

On the other hand, the best new feature is certainly being able to see redirects; I've already corrected a few which weren't quite formatted right. France3470 (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're aware of the issue - it's in bugzilla and a fix will be worked on soon :). Thanks for the feedback! It's great to know that the redirect element is proving useful. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Redirects don't need cats and are OK as orphans

I'm not totally sold on the idea of including redirects in this. The idea is that redirects are cheap and if anyone finds them useful then they are useful. Every now and again we get some trigger happy tagger trying to delete a bunch of redirects because they don't seem obviously useful to them. If this tool brings them to more people's attention it could result in more incorrect tags. But if we are going to have them please can we not highlight the ones that are uncategorised or orphans? I don't want to be callous to the little dears, but it really isn't a problem if a redirect is an uncategorised orphan. However being a redirect to a redlink is an issue and it would be sensible to display that instead. ϢereSpielChequers 05:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've now spotted that I can filter them out, but either that is a new implementation in the last few minutes or we have a bug. When I went into my preferences it was preset not to include redirects - which hadn't worked. But setting it to include them and then resetting it back to exclude them did work. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll notify the devs :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Niggles

Looking at the prototype:

• Currently the Mark as patrolled button doesn't appear to be enabled.

  Where? It works for me :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've just tried it on Großherzogin Elisabeth (ship), I'm on Ubuntu if that helps. ϢereSpielChequers 11:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

And it doesn't appear, or does but doesn't work? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The button is there, but merely clicking it won't affect the article, I've tried incantations, threats and even a bit of air guitar, but the button won't respond. ϢereSpielChequers 13:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Shifting from Lynux to Microsoft however worked a treat. But I can't now retest Lynux for a few days as my main machine is away for an upgrade. ϢereSpielChequers 11:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Aha. Lemme guess; the button appears, clicking it does nada - and at the same time, the article feedback tool box doesn't show up? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I opted to hide the AFT some time ago, so no I don't see it. But what has that got to do with something working with Microsoft but not Ubuntu? ϢereSpielChequers 22:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Correlation does not equal causation, WSC :). There's a bug I found which appears very randomly - 1 in every 25 pages opened, or greater - that causes AFT4/5 not to load and the review button not to work. What OS you're using is irrelevant; if you'd gone to a different article on the same OS you probably wouldn't have seen it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Curious. I can't test either again now because it's gone, and I haven't been able to use my lynux machine for a couple of days, but on Microsoft I marked several articles as patrolled yesterday and on lynux several failed to be patrolled the day before. If the odds are 1 in 25 then the chances of all the articles I tried to patrol with lynux being among the 1 in 25s would be quite low. Correlation may not equal causation but if not its a pretty flukey scenario. ϢereSpielChequers 22:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38929

• On Dominic scaletta the creator's talkpage appeared to be redlinked, so I was assuming that the author hadn't been told that their article was tagged for deletion. Until I checked and they had been informed. Do we have a bug in the way that articles tagged for deletion are displayed? I subsequently welcomed another author, this time of an unpatrolled page. After clicking refresh the link to their talkpage remained red. If there is some delay here it makes it difficult to spot where people are tagging newby's articles for deletion and not informing the authors.

  Thanks for reporting this! Sticking it in bugzilla now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38622

• Sorting oldest first while not displaying patrolled articles brings up far too few old unpatrolled articles for the 3200 unpatrolled figure to be correct.

  Yeah, the way the aggregate is counted is known to be off :(. I think Benny is planning to work on that for the next deployment, but I'll check. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  If that stat is recalculated on the fly then it may be part of the reason why the page is a little slow to load. If so it would be good to get rid of it, or calculate it to a separate page every few minutes and transclude that. If each patroller goes back to that screen every minute or so then even a slight delay in refreshing the screen is unwelcome. Also it needs to default to unpatrolled articles in mainspace, most people aren't concerned about unpatrolled pages elsewhere or unpatrolled redirects. ϢereSpielChequers 07:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  The second issue is already in bugzilla; the first, I'm not sure how it's worked out. I'll check in with Benny, our backend developer, in the meeting we're having tomorrow evening about bugfixes/enhancements. A cached version would certainly be best if the alternative is slowness. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• I like green for patrolled and charcoal grey for tagged for deletion, but I'm unhappy with pink and a red button for unpatrolled. The old system had yellow for unpatrolled, white would do equally well but yellow would at least carry something from the old system. Ideally we'd use that warning red on pink one to warn people of high risk articles such as those by people previously warned for creating hoaxes and other badfaith articles.

  Discussed on IRC, but repeating everywhere else - on the first point, yellow is a difficult colour, UI-wise, because screens can't process it well. On the second, our 501 status prevents us from building such a system directly - although I am looking into ways to get around that. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Amber would be OK by me. And anyway I thought red/green was the most common form of colour blindness ϢereSpielChequers 13:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As for 501 status and making such decisions, I would be totally happy with a configurable system whereby the only things marked in red were ones that failed a logic test that the community had put into the system. Just give us the ability to do so. If you want me to set them then it would need to be one page for "article contains any of the following" and another page for "author has had articles deleted under the following codes in the last 30 days." Others would doubtless be able to handle something more customisable. ϢereSpielChequers 15:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; that's what I'm going to suggest. I'm talking to the devs and others about it on Tuesday. Some of the work has already been done as a delightful accident, but it may be that even with that it's too large a project to build in the time we have without taking a load of other things off the table. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Fewer pages are appearing on my screen, that's a pain for me as I tend to be quite selective as to what I patrol.

  Yeah :(. We're going to look into ways to maybe tighten the interface and allow for more to appear (or, at least, add keyboard accelerators) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Moving the mark as reviewed box up to the first line and reducing the size of the date from Big to small would help. The date should be in a smaller font anyway - the general rule should be that the bigger the font the more important the info. ϢereSpielChequers 13:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38930

• Dancing With A Dead Man (album) is an article from the AFC program that was moved to mainspace today. Great that the system now picks it up as unpatrolled, but if it is dated per the creation date it is never going to the front of the queue. Can we treat moved to mainspace as the creation date for such articles?

  Bugzilla'ing it now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers 20:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages Feed disabled

Hey guys :). We're getting reports of some kooky errors the extension is causing (which is creating much confusion. The errors in question shouldn't even be possible) and so the developers have disabled the extension until we can work out what is going on. I'm going to push to have this be of highest priority.

Thanks for understanding! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

That's sad, this had already got to the point where I would rather use this than the old screen. When it comes back we should put a note in the old screen that an alternative screen is available to be tested. ϢereSpielChequers 07:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The plan is to do that right after the next deployment of bugfixes, which'll be in (if I'm counting right) 1 and a half weeks. That way we avoid throwing a half-finished tool at 3000+ people. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

sadface I didn't even get an official link to start playing with it. I'll think happy thoughts for it to come back shortly. Hasteur (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I stuck it on your talkpage with the logs! :P Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Great, with all the fuss at my two main WikiProjects (Articles for creation and the Teahouse), I haven't even gotten a chance to test it... _{P.S. Special:NewPagesFeed is the elusive link.} --Nathan2055^talk 19:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll be redeploying in the next hour or so.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice! I can't wait to give it a try. Thanks, Nathan2055^talk 19:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages Feed Re-Enabled

Howdy! We have re-enabled Special:NewPagesFeed on the English Wikipedia. We're not entirely sure but we think that toolbar showing up was a caching issue. However, we've taken steps to make sure it doesn't appear anyway.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It may, according to Kaldari, reappear on some odd randomised pages - but much more rarely, and it should eventually clear. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

well, I'll let you know when it works, but so far it just says "Please wait..." - jc37 13:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be cacheing; try refreshing the page? :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

No change. I also tried opening it in separate windows (now I'm back to a single window - the first one) still waiting. - jc37 13:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It may be something in firefox (I'm using the most recent version afaik). I broke down and opened internet explorer (I haven't used that in ages lol) I got the please wait for about 10 3 seconds then an explosion of colour as the page presumably did what it was supposed to. So it may be a firefox issue? - jc37 13:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh; I'm getting it fine in firefox on both Windows and Xubuntu. Very odd :S. Tried a hard, cache-clearing refresh (Ctrl+Shift+R)? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. several times now. Still "Please wait". - jc37 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh; okay, I'll speak to the devs when they wake up. Lemme know if it fixes itself in the next 3 hours or so. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the "Please wait..." in IE. Is the page huge? I couldn't tell that it was even trying to load anything though. LadyofShalott 13:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be working for me on IE, with no delay. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 13:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not particularly huge; there may be an issue with first-time caching. LoS, if you could try the waiting-or-clearing-your-cache trick too? If it doesn't help I'll poke the devs :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've got it now; I may just not have been patient enough with my slow connection. Now, I notice the word "Reviewed" is appearing at the bottoms of new pages that have been either patrolled or autopatrolled. Is that deliberate, and can we get rid of it? LadyofShalott 14:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's deliberate; would you rather the note just didn't appear? Note that we are introducing an un-patrol function, so this will have a purpose :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, without that function, it just mars the page. (As it is, I don't think it belongs there.) If it's going to actually have a purpose though, I'll reserve judgement. I can see a use for un-patrolling. Another thing now that I've tried to play with it some: I can't seem to mark an article as reviewed. If I choose that link, I just get a # sign at the end of the URL, like this: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenyatta_Day#>. LadyofShalott 14:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So, clicking "review" just opens the page up with a hash sign at the end? :S Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

When I click the review button, it takes me to the page, with a link saying to mark the page as reviewed at the bottom. Then when I click that, I just keep the page (it doesn't reload) with the hash sign added to the end. LadyofShalott 15:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally I've started seeing major lag times today. My watchlist keeps telling me so. The last message was: "Due to high database server lag, changes newer than 152 200 seconds may not appear in this list. " - I don't know if this implementation has anything to do with it, but i thought it was worth mentioning. - jc37 14:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it doesn't - we implemented almost identical software last week and didn't notice the problem. Just to be on the safe side, I'll check in with the ops people. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. But was pending changes implemented back then? The two together could be causing issues? I am noting now that "reviewed" is now appearing at the bottom of pages. (I didn't know that that was supposed to happen.) - jc37 14:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes has been active for years, just with restrictions on its use :). On the "reviewed" front - this will, soon, have a purpose. At the moment it does stick out, yeah :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok.

(In the spirit of trying to figure it out) Also noting that this was just implemented: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#MediaWiki_1.20wmf3_deployment_happening_shortly_complete.

Also the lag is at 245 564 now and still climbing steadily. I hope it's resolved soon : ) - jc37 14:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I've got 976 lag now. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 15:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

JavaScript for 'mark this page as reviewed'

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T39022

It would be quite nice if the JavaScript for 'mark this page as reviewed' could fail in a non-silent way. I do a lot of editing on the train, where I have a very spotty 3G connection. I quite like doing new page patrolling on the train as I can open 10 or 20 tabs when the connection is working. The problem is, like a lot of Ajax controls, it fails silently.

If I mark something as patrolled, I don't actually mind if it tries repeatedly until it gets through. Usually, I will have moved to the next tab and started reading that.This is a definite problem with alot of web apps: having spent 15 years being trained by the web to expect synchronous communication mediated through the UI of the browser, when the behaviour of the page differs from that of the browser, I get extremely frustrated. Ajax controls often fail unpredictably or silently or report success when actually failing. This is all rather confusing.

That said, I think the new interface is a big improvement. Being able to filter and patrol the new users and blocked users so on is a big improvement. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Posting to bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

mark s patrolled delays

Orthomegas cinnamomeus took three clicks to mark as patrolled, as did another page. Can we get it changed so that it marks them as patrolled on a single click like the current system does? ϢereSpielChequers 15:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It should already do that; I'm not sure why it isn't. The existing database lag problems, possibly? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

–- I made that article! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

WSC, it's working fine for me. Try again? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't work on IE at all for me... Works like a dream on Firefox or Safari though! --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Define "doesn't work at all"? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Last night i tried it and it took three attempts at clicking the mark as patrolled before it accepted it. I was using Safari so don't think its the browser.Edinburgh Wanderer 16:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, it won't review. I'll make an autoclicker in Visual Basic later and have a go with that. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Having the same problem, except mine's not going at all. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Having same problem (using Safari) — will not accept my review click, and serves me a page already reviewed by someone else. Otherwise I like it but might want it as an option, so I could still use the old one. Also: I liked the option to choose 5 or 10 day old pages --Greenmaven (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Could one of you possibly record a screencast so our devs can see the precise process? :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't open in tabbed browsing

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38615
Resolved

When I do NPP, I like to open the page I'm patrolling in a new tab from the unpatrolled list. I'm in IE8 on this computer, and Firefox on another computer that I sometimes use, and while I can right-click the article in the NPF list, it's not completely intuitive - I'd like to have an opt-in preference that would cause clicking the "Review" button in the feed to open the article in a new tab. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Already building that :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Just came here to suggest the same thing :) one of my peeves about the old system was always having to right click top open in a new tab. Other than that the system is pretty slick, I like it so far. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this is evident to everyone else but me...

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38613

But what exactly is the significance of the logos/insignia on the left side of the page? The green check mark and the red exclamation? Would it be possible for there to be an explanation of their significance on the New Pages Feed page itself? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're looking into providing some :). TL;DR - green is patrolled, red is unpatrolled, grey is "nominated for deletion". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you make the icon clickable to something that explains things then should resolve that. ϢereSpielChequers 15:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does it used color border AND an icon? Spotting large icons is fast enough, without adding visual junk. The style rule at Wikipedia is that color be used only when it is needed for clarity or to improve access or show functionality or serve as a warning. None of these apply here. In fact, if the default is going to be unpatrolled articles , both the symbol and the color are totally unnecessary for that view. DGG ( talk ) 16:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The default isn't going to be unpatrolled articles, and quite frankly...the Wikipedia style rules are irrelevant. If you mean "the MOS", user interface design is distinct from article structure and should remain so. If you mean "how the rest of the site looks", from a usability point of view the rest of the site looks awful. The colour border and the icon is because the icon provides a hint of what the colour means, and the colour is visually distinctive. We could just use a tiny icon, yes, but I'm not sure if anyone would notice it without trouble.

On WSC's point: there is currently a mouseover cue of "this is what it means". The clicking action is being reserved for a feature still in development. I'm looking to make the mouseover more prominent. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

useful for most people, but not me

I find that using it I can do somewhat more accurate patrolling of individual items, and assume others will find it so also--therefore this will be extremely useful; for general purposes, especially for beginners.

But I cannot do what I usually do and rely upon doing, and the only real reason I go to NPP at all, which is scan for problems. The old interface is great for that: I can see groups of edits by a single editor over a hour or so; I can immediately see any unusual activity; I can see groups of articles that can be approved without much question; I will without specially trying notice immediately obvious nonsense or what is likely to be such ; and, most important, I can scan a large number of articles for some of the sorts of articles I think I can particularly work on effectively and quickly more than most patrollers; I can very quickly pass over what I had better leave to others.

To scan, I need the largest possible number of items displayed, so I can pick up patterns. No multiline format will possibly work for this, thought there are things that would make it more compact. Reducing the font size helps, but there seems to be a design limitation in the spacing of the boxes: the space on the bottom margin of each box seems to be fixed. (or it might be the space surrounding the Review image. ) I think a smaller space would work as a standard. A somewhat more drastic change would be to let the box collapse into two lines if the window is set wide enough. (The length someone can scan varies--I wouldn't suggest avery wide display for a default.I now I;m comfortable with a much wider line length than many)

However, if some of the screening features and most particularly the planned. can be incorporated into the regular NPP list it would be helpful,

I know I am not going to get this display optimized for the way I like to work--the basic design is not compatible. Nor should it be optimized for me: I think the basic design is suitable for most people and most uses. All I really hope for at this point is the continuation of the old watchlist also. I wouldn't ask for a special format to be designed from scratch--my presence at NPP is not that important. But keeping the old interface available I & probably a few people who work like me can make a specialized contribution; otherwise, I can't. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the old interface will remain available - we are also looking to introduce things like keyboard accelerators to the new one. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Footballers

It would be nice if you could filter out words contained in the article. When a slew of footballer articles comes up I bypass them because I don't know enough about the sport to judge (most of the time), it would be nice to be able to exclude articles based on search terms. Probably not a practical addition however. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I imagine that would be fairly difficult, I'm afraid :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Lego tire

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38617
Resolved

Lego tire is coming up as unreviewed, but I created it, and have the Autoreviewer flag. It was created in userspace, and moved (by me), is it not picking up on autoreviewed pages?--kelapstick^(bainuu) 01:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh, interesting; I'll submit it as a bug. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, actually, I know what this is - it's a move-associated bug, and one we're aware of :). Hopefully it should be fixed with the next deployment. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool for Cats. Thanks --kelapstick^(bainuu) 11:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kelapstick, stop playing with your Legos and listening to your kitty songs. My gosh, I never thought Canadians could get any wimpier. You better have your mom check under your bed tonight for monsters because the evil Wikipedia monster is coming to get you. Bgwhite (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Interaction with Twinkle

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T39055

If you patrol from Special:NewPages, and then use Twinkle to, say, add a cleanup tag (or to mark the article for deletion via CSD, PROD or AfD), the process of doing this marks that particular page as patrolled (presumably Twinkle is pulling the rcid from the URL and then sending an asynchronous request to the server to mark as patrolled at the same time as it is adds the tag or deletion banner etc.)

I know that when I've patrolled from Special:NewPages, I've used this consciously to kill two birds with one stone: I've thought "Oh, this article is fine but it needs to be marked for copyediting, so I'll just tag it with Twinkle, which will also mark it as patrolled".

The flip side of this is when one wishes to leave a tag but also not mark it as patrolled: I might find some concerns about sourcing, but still want to leave the article for another patrolled to look at, so I'll then open up a new tab with the same article, but without the rcid in the URL, so I can tag it without marking it as patrolled.

With Special:NewPagesFeed, Twinkle doesn't do anything in terms of patrolling. If I tag something with Twinkle, that doesn't change the patrolled status of the page if I've arrived from NewPagesFeed rather than NewPages. I'm actually okay with this: I'd rather separate out the behaviour of marking as patrolled (which, to me, means "this is good to go, no other NPPers need to look at this") from tagging (again, I may be in a hurry, and only spot one glaring issue that needs tagging but have not completely patrolled the page).

The current setup, with a basic difference in behaviour between the new and old versions is worth discussing and informing NPPers of. Some may expect a different behaviour from what they are getting. One other solution is to perhaps consider formally requesting that the Twinkle devs turn off automatically marking as patrolled when one tags: that way there'll be parity between the old and new version, and thus reduce confusion. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bugzilla'd. Actually, the new version should be fully incompatible with Twinkle. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's partly a bug, but it's also deciding what the expected behaviour ought to be. The current situation seems non-optimal. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Rendering issue

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T39054

I found a rendering issue with pages with long titles. I've put a screenshot up here. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Stuck in bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Article created by admin appearing in NPF list

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38617
Resolved

The article William Addams Williams has appeared in the NPF list despite it being created by User:Charles Matthews, an admin. Admin-created articles are automatically patrolled as the 'autopatrol' right is part of the bundle of rights admins get by being admins (see WP:AUTOPAT). Again, screenshot. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That was moved from userspace to article space, which is a soon to be fixed bug, see my comment about Lego tires a few posts up. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Keyboard shortcut for mark page as patrolled

I'm sorry to spam this page again, but it'd be quite useful to be able to select the mark as patrolled link with a keyboard shortcut of the same sort one uses to navigate around Wikipedia (see Help:Keyboard shortcuts). I primarily use the keyboard as excess mouse use can leave me in physical pain. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good point :). We're already building some keyboard accelerator stuff for scrolling - I'll add this to the list and see what people think. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Delays

I categorised Isobel Waller-Bridge, but several minutes later the article was still coming up as uncategorised. Could this be related to the problem with talkpages still showing up as redlinks for several minutes after they've been templated? ϢereSpielChequers 14:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Or it could just be it's set to load status-in-first-edit rather than current-status. I'll find out. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh; I've checked in with Benny, and apparently it should update. Could you tell me the steps you took to refresh the data? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Need a key to the symbols

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T38613

There needs to be a key to the icons and color-coding on the page. Ideally this should appear at the top of the page. (I can suss out the meanings of some of them, but users shouldn't need to guess.) --Orlady (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There's actually a mouseover key (if you mouse over the icons). Can you suggest ways of making this more prominent? :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Mouseover doesn't work for me. Actually no mouseovers at all work as Navigation popups also don't appear. I'm working on Firefox 12. Wonder if that was the same for Orlady? Bgwhite (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Broken on my end as well. I'm also running on FF12, I'm going to test with the latest version of Google Chrome. --Nathan2055^talk 00:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That is, mouseovers don't work? It's only on the icons themselves, not on the colour bars (something I'm going to look into fixing. Grr). NavPopups don't work, no, because of the order in which NP loads things - we're looking into maybe simulating the same behaviour within mediawiki. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mouseovers don't work on the icons at all. Works on IE9, but not FF12... ugh, I thought I'd never say that abomination. In my case, I only check biographies. Sometimes I'm not sure it is a bio, so having navigation popups would be a good way to check. Bgwhite (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

As others guessed, I was viewing the page in Firefox 12, in which I cannot not see any mouseovers. After seeing the replies here, I opened the page in Google Chrome, where I saw the mouseover labels. I was surprised to find that there are only 3 distinct icons -- earlier I had the impression that there were more different icons! --Orlady (talk) 03:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

How odd; I'm getting them fine in FF12! Are you mousing over the icon rather than the colour? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, in IE and I see the mouseovers. I do the exact same thing in FF12 and I don't. I don't get any mouseovers anywhere on the page running FF12. I just ran FF13 beta as a portable app, so any of my FF12 addons shouldn't be active. Mouseovers also didn't work in FF13. Bgwhite (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh :S. Can you email me a screenshot, with OS details? okeyes@wikimedia.org. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Have only article namespace to appear

I often go about NPP backwards. I get a list of new living biographies created during a day and go about working on them in AWB. I use AWB for speed reasons and also it fixes other problems I wouldn't catch. When I see a "problem" article, I view it in a web browser to tag it with twinkle, do a prod or what have you. If it hasn't been patrolled, I mark it. I really like the ability to patrol without going thru the NPP interface because I can kill two birds with one stone.

When I run around Wikipedia doing other things, the "mark as patrolled" or "reviewed" link appears on every page. I'm personally fine with this, but I wonder if it is a good idea to have the link appear in all namespaces. The link appears on User pages, talk pages and Wikipedia pages. I'm wondering if there is a way to only have these links appear in article namespace? Is it a good idea at all? Why do user space and talk pages need to patrolled in the first place? I kept typing paroled instead of patrolled, hmmm New Page Parole does have a ring to it. :) Bgwhite (talk) 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're killing it in all but Article and User spaces :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew showing up

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T39270

Hurricane Andrew is showing up in the New Pages Feed. Set the filter to only unreviewed pages created by new users. It's there, down the list. What's more, it's displayed as being created "By 209.158.178.70 (talk · contribs) · 40111 edits since 2005-08-11 · New editor". IPs can't create pages, and while this editor did have the first edit to Hurricane Andrew in the page history (some history probably has been lost); see their contributions, they most certainly don't have 40,111 edits. Another thing, how does someone with "40,111 edits" also show up as a new user? A new bug? David¹²¹⁷ 02:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh; the interesting. The appearance of the article is a known bug - I'm not sure about the "new editor" and count being off issues. I'll find out what's going on :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The new editor bit, actually - "new editor" is calculated based on if they're autoconfirmed or not. Since IP addresses can't be confirmed.... Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Right; now in bugzilla :). Hopefully the devs will get to it soon - thanks so much for reporting it! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it into Bugzilla, which I have no clue how to use. David¹²¹⁷ 00:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of the time neither do I :S. Not a massively user-friendly system. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark page as reviewed not working for me

I'm frequently finding that 'Mark this page as reviewed' link does not work for me. I use safari and not sure if this a browser bug, but it occurs whether I open the article in a new tab or in the same tab from Newpagesfeed. Is this a known bug? Pol430 talk to me 11:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Doesn't work on Internet Explorer 9 too. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 11:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Here's a question; on the occasions when it doesn't work, does the Article Feedback Tool box not appear at the bottom too? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

"mark as reviewed" not working

Hey all :). We just deployed some new patches and features - it looks like "mark as reviewed" isn't working as a result. Stay tuned; we're investigating and hope to have it fixed soon. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, should now be working :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Graham87's Nostalgia Wiki imports

I want to draw attention to the unpatrolled edits of Animal Farm and Andromeda (mythology). Graham87's tool grabs revesions from Nostalgia wiki and then sticks them in to our side. I've already asked the editor if they can modify their process or if we can try and resolve this. I suspect it's the cross namespace problem. Hasteur (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear :(. Yeah, I suspect so. Hopefully that bug'll be resolved soon; thanks for bringing this instance to our attention! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

From testing that I've done, it does indeed appear to be a cross-namespace problem, and occurs when a user moves a page from one namespace to another without leaving a redirect. I tried a couple of pages from Wikipedia:WikiProject History Merge/04; The Perfect Drug appeared there after I moved it to the MediaWiki talk namespace and back again without a redirect (when going from the MediaWiki talk to the main namespace), while Southland Region never appeared on the feed because when I moved it across namespaces, I left a redirect behind both times. The page Families Need Fathers also appeared on the feed, because [it was moved from the user namespace to the main namespace without leaving a redirect. For now, if I ever need to do a page import, I'll modify my procedure so I leave a redirect behind when moving the page from the MediaWiki talk namespace to the main namespace and just delete the redirect manually. Graham87 03:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, that didn't solve the problem, because Worf appeared on the feed despite the fact that I moved it back with a redirect. I'll wait to find out what the patch does. Graham87 00:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

More generally it's a bug caused by any move ever :). Even moving it back doesn't then remove it (I don't think); I said it would be awesome if NPF showed pages moved to the articlenamespace and one of our engineers got a bit too enthusiastic! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

autoreview's pages showing up

Any reason Niger women's national football team, Port of Nanjing, Phosphoryl fluoride and others are showing up when the various creating editors have autoreview rights? Bgwhite (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's an extra dimension of the known bug with moving; we'll see if it reoccurs after that patch comes into effect :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are OK as orphans

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T39711

As it is perfectly OK for a dab page to be an orphan can we not put the big red orphan tag on pages which have the {{disambiguation}} {{Hndis}} or similar templates? See Latshaw for an example. ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a really good point; I'll see if we can put that in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Haz cats

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T39892

Joculator turriger has categories and was indeed created with them a week ago, yet according to this tool it is uncategorised. ϢereSpielChequers 17:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh; odd! I'll screenshot and stick it in bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hmn; it's appearing fine to me :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've cleaned my glasses and tapped the trusty Etch A Sketch that I use as a monitor, and to me it still looks like:

13:05, 9 June 2012 Review Joculator turriger (hist) · 874 bytes · 1 edit · No categories

By Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) · 51844 edits since 2007-06-16

Joculator turriger is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusc in the family Cerithiopsidae.[ Joculator turriger] at World Registe...

This time I displayed articles by Wilhelmina Will, and when you reach the 9th of June you find that one (the others claim to have categories). ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Got it to appear now; screenshotted. I'll submit the bug report now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

About the New Pages Feed system

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T39890

Just a comment to say that I like the new system a lot! It is flexible and easy to use and has worked well for me. I especially like the ease of filtering or selecting the articles I want to review, and the fact that the "review this page" link remains available if I leave the page and come back. I have just one question: are reviews made with this system not logged? They don't seem to register on the Patrol Log, either on the page itself or in my individual records. I think it is useful to have a "paper trail" for new article reviews. --MelanieN (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

They don't?! Oh dear; I think I know what may be happening here. One moment while I test it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Huh, they're appearing for me; see this, which was patrolled using the new feed. How odd. Can you give examples of patrol actions that didn't appear? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Some that I reviewed yesterday: Holley Mangold patrol log, review log; Canyons Aquatic Club patrol log (the patrol shown is for an earlier incarnation of the article 5 years ago) review log; Gérard Gertoux patrol log (again this is for an older version), review log. Also, they do not show on my personal log page patrol log review log. In all cases I clicked the "review this page" link and it changed to "reviewed", and the article disappeared from the "unreviewed" list at New Pages Feed. But I wonder if I am doing something wrong? --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I don't see ANYTHING on my log list that I have reviewed with the new system - probably amounting to a dozen or two articles. Some I did today: Versatel building, Joe Polisena, Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory, Gerry L. Alexander. --MelanieN (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I also see this.

• On the new system, I patrol the oldest pages and they don't show up in my patrol logs.
• I view articles that were created in the past 48 hours via a different way. I mark the pages reviewed and they show up in my patrol logs.
• I wonder if an older article doesn't show up in the patrol logs, but a new one does. I just patrolled the new article Amy Cuddy, via the new interface, and it showed up in my logs. I just patrolled the older article Andrei Vasilevski, via the interface, and it didn't show up in the logs.
• Looking at MelanieN's articles that didn't show up: Holley Mangold old article; Gérard Gertoux old article; and Canyons Aquatic Club old article.

So, it looks like there is a pattern. Bgwhite (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Good spotting, Bgwhite! I always patrol from the back of the list, and with the elimination of the 30-day rule, some of the articles I have been looking at were written years ago. Maybe that's the secret. --MelanieN (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why some of the articles were months to years old and hadn't been patrolled. The majority of them were in somebody's sandbox and were finally moved to mainspace. The new system identifies them as not being patrolled, but the old system didn't. I personally think this is a good, new feature. So, thank you Oliver and your programming minions. I'd noticed these old articles weren't in my patrolled logs, but hadn't thought anything about it until you brought it up. Bgwhite (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha! Okay, I see what's going on here *headdesks*. Yeah, the new system registers them as being in the "article" space - the old one still thinks they're in "user" or "wikipedia" space. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Interesting; alright, I'm going to open a bugzilla ticket and see if the devs can work out what the heck is going on :). Thanks to MelanieN for identifying the problem, and to Bgwhite to identifying a possible source! I'll let you two know if and when we find out what's going wrong. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Auto-Mark as Patrolled

Hello, I just wanted to point out that the new system does not automatically mark as reviewed when making an edit with Twinkle, while the old system did. Other than that the new system is great! Thanks, Athleek123 22:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a good feature. You have to consciously mark the page as patrolled. Too many just add some tags and move on. Bgwhite (talk)

With the number of articles that need patrolling, I think a quick skim-and-tag is the most efficient way to go. Athleek123 02:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, when we finish the Curation Toolbar (think Twinkle, only more powerful and with more UI work) it'll auto-patrol; this explains some confused reports I've been getting about patrolled actions not showing up in the logs, though. I'm not sure if it's worth putting a lot of effort into fixing this bug - by the time we've done it, we'll probably have the CB :). Nevertheless, thanks for the pointer! It answers something that's been bugging me for weeks. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem! Glad to help. Athleek123 17:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

@Athleek. The problem with a "quick skim an tag" is that it doesn't solve anything, it just leaves more garish template around the place and the same amount of work to do. One of the things I love about the new system is that the uncategorsed template is redundant - the system tells us which articles are uncategorised and leaves editors to do the useful bit of categorising. The same thing applies to orphans, I'd like to see it also done for unreferenced and unwikified. ϢereSpielChequers 13:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

How long until the awesome in-feed editor is released? It will make NPP even easier! Thanks, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Final details are being worked out now :). I'm not sure the precise timeframe, but we're hoping for soon after Wikimania (I think. I'll find out.) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

back of the list

Why is Animal Farm showing? It was created in 2001 - one of the very earliest WP articles. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It was moved on June 8, I believe that moving a page marks it as unpatrolled. I'd call that more of a bug than an intentional feature. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Not just moved, that would be a bug. This article was moved into mainspace, and making such articles unpatrolled is a much needed feature that will make this a better newpage feed than the current system. In this particular case it was moved out in order to reinsert the 2001 edit and then returned, so a legit move. However we do have a bug in that the person who did this is an admin, so the move should have been autopatrolled. ϢereSpielChequers 19:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that moves into the mainspace should not automatically become autopatrolled so they get reviewed; however, I was under the impression that a the patrolled status of an article was supposed to be retained through moves. An unpatrolled article should remain unpatrolled while a patrolled article remains patrolled, at least that's what I understood through some conversations with Okeyes. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly how it's meant to work; I remember having an incredibly headache inducing conversation with Benny about it ("okay, so if it's unpatrolled and moved then it should be unpatrolled but if it is patrolled and moved it should be patrolled and if it is unpatrolled and moved to a differen't namespace it should be..."); however, I'm not sure if that was "this is how it is working now and we are happy with it" or "it is borked now and we are changing it to this so that it is awesome" - I can't remember. I'm not-so-secretly about 106 :P. I'll check in and just get confirmation one way or another. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

FYI... Moving article into mainspace and having them reviewed was discussed above in "About the New Pages Feed system". Bgwhite (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Re to OKeyes and Ryan Vesey. One of the classic scenarios is that an editor has a sandbox and every time they complete an article and move it to mainspace they then expand the consequent redirect into a new draft, another is that they establish a new sandbox for each new draft they write. The latter would always be moving unpatrolled drafts to mainspace the former would be moving patrolled drafts. But to me it is irrelevant whether an editor has one sandbox or six. If an editor who is an admin or an autopatroller creates an article and moves it to mainspace then it should be Autopatrolled as if they'd created it in Mainspace. But if an editor who is neither an admin nor an Autopatroller creates an article then it should not be autopatrolled. Whether they create it in Mainspace, a new sandbox or the same sandbox that they've used for their last ten articles. ϢereSpielChequers 22:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain how the current plan would allow a non-autopatroller to move an article to the mainspace and not have it autopatrolled? The only possible situation would be that someone creates a sandbox, another user patrols it (and almost nobody patrols userspace), this sandbox is later used to draft a completely different article, and it is properly, fully moved to the mainspace with the history of the article initially being drafted still attached. This seems like it would be an incredibly rare state of affairs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Until very recently almost every Unpatrolled Userpage would have been unpatrolled for 30 days. Then they will have been marked as patrolled because the queue only lasted thirty days. I believe that has now been fixed for new pages but not old ones. So it will be years before we run out of old userpages. ϢereSpielChequers 14:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, they weren't autopatrolled, they just dropped off the list - but I see your point. But again; lets say that a user creates an article in a new sandbox, or, indeed, a sandbox they've used for the last 10 articles. If they move by copy and pasting, this registers as a new article and isn't patrolled. If they move by using the "move" function...well, they can do that all of once before it stops working. But I'll talk to the devs and see if they can come up with a solution. I have to say I think this is likely to be an edge case; there may be no movement on it simply because we have a lot of things to do, and making something 201 percent better than the old version rather than the 200 percent it is now is likely to be a lower priority than things like finishing the curation toolbar. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there are quite a lot of editors out there with sandboxen that they are ultimately likely to move to mainspace. Maybe only a small proportion of our humongous number of userpages, but a lot of articles. If the new system means that some of these come up as not patrolled then that is better than the old system where this was just one huge loophole. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Moving

Hey guys. So, in about 5 hours I'm jumping in a van and moving all my shit (or "shite", I need to practise) to Cardiff - a city apparently referred to as "the diff". Clearly it was built for Wikimedians!

Although awesome for me, this does mean I'm not going to have unfettered internet access until thursday - I'll be relying on a MiFi unit with 5 gigs of data and trying desperately not to exhaust it. So if I'm slow to respond, this is why :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Red-linked talkpages

I would like to use this to filter for editors who have not yet been welcomed, and though we have a new user filter this doesn't help me because it includes those who are new but already welcomed. In theory I could do this manually just looking for articles where the creator has a red linked talkpage. But the display is so slow to refresh this that it might as well not show. For example S.K. Shrestha is showing as an article by an editor with a redlinked talkpage almost an hour after the first edit to their talkpage. ϢereSpielChequers 14:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It should be faster than that; I'll talk to the devs (there appear to be fairly large lag issues at the mo, on the wiki as a whole.) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Benny informs me it's a known bug that is being sorted :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I'd raised it before. ϢereSpielChequers 13:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

An improvement

I've been using the New Pages Feed intensively over the past few days. It is such a vast improvement over the original Special:New pages that patrollers could be encouraged to use it as the default patrol page; although still in development, and waiting for bug fixes, important additional features such as tagging from within the page, a live feed, and possibly extending the users' choice in patrol criteria, development must be continued as fast as possible - it's been in the pipeleine for a year already.

As is my wont when patrolling, I patrol all new pages, including the ones already patrolled. Although this is an excellent tool for those who already know what they are doing, I fail to see how NewPagesFeed addresses the issue of poor patrolling by new and/or inexperienced users. More to the point, the new NewPagesFeed is so cool, it may even attract more unqualified users to the task. I hasten to remind us all that it was the low standard of NPP that brought this nascent NPP reform project to life. Poor patrolling appears to continue unabated. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of how such a great, shiny and cool tool the new interface has become that I also think it would actually make things worse. I look at 95% of new biographies that come in every day via some reports done on toolserver (when toolserver is actually working, because it hasn't for most of the past week, but that is a different story). This includes biographies created by autopatrolled users. I use AWB because it is faster for talk page tagging and I can get a better view of the article... It is amazing how misleading some reference titles are compared where the url actually links to. I set personal records for the amount of AfDs, CSDs and Prods I had done in May and then again in June. Poor patrolling as gotten worse in the Biography sphere lately. Bgwhite (talk) 05:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this tool isn't anything to do with the quality of new page patrolling in terms of accuracy/inaccuracy of tagging, except as a byproduct of a general goal to improve the experience of users at both ends of the tool.

Development is going as fast as it can; developing the Curation Toolbar is (unsurprisingly) taking a lot of time. I would note that although it's been in the pipeline for over a year, development only really started in earnest in March - so, actually, I think we're doing quite well :).

We are including several new features that allow for the validation of poor patrolling - for example, an easy flyout that shows who patrolled each entry - as well as automatic CSD/PROD/XfD logs so that users' past patrolling records can be identified if a problem is discovered. We were considering a "deletion tutorial" - instead of being given the deletion tagging tool, people who MediaWiki verified hadn't patrolled much would be presented with a step-by-step guide that takes them through what tag is most appropriate for that article, based on the information they provide about it. At the moment, that's very much on the back-burner simply due to time constraints; at the community's suggestion we've included quite a few features that weren't initially in the software, and this is taking up time, leading to us having to make a trade-off. But I'm optimistic that, overall, the software will increase the amount of oversight patrollers can offer one another. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

@BGWhite and Kudpung. If someone has Autopatroller status but their recent articles are below that standard then I think it would help if that were pointed out to them, and if necessary their Autopatroller status should be revoked. I've removed Autopatroller from at least three editors who were still creating unreferenced BLPS. ϢereSpielChequers 12:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't want to say Autorpatroller status was causing problems. I have run into a few bad apples and after some talking, in all but one case was Autopatrol status revoked. The report I use contains everybody's new articles. Very few editors add talk page tags, DEFAULTSORT, etc. Plus, nobody is perfect, so sometimes minor copy editing is needed. Bgwhite (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

OK I think we should discuss the minimum standard for an article to be marked as patrolled, and maybe how useful are some of these talkpage templates? I generally take the view that Newpage patrol is for screening out the spam, badfaith stuff and subjects that don't warrant articles. It is a useful opportunity to get articles categorised and wikified, but there are some things that AWB users and others can do far faster than me and will happen whether an article is patrolled or not. So for example I've stopped doing default sorts and adding wikiproject tags to talkpages. Also I rather rely on CorenSearchBot to spot copyvio. As for some of the talkpage templates - does the BLP one actually achieve anything to justify the time taken to add it and the clutter it constitutes? ϢereSpielChequers 14:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a very important discussion to have; seting social metrics is always good. But I can see it spreading (as it should!) so, perhaps a different venue? The Wikiproject for NPP, perhaps? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Do not rely on the bot to spot copyvio. every article for which there is a likely sources (such as the person's or the organizations's web site) needs to be checked, whether the page is naïvely included in the ELs or not. The bot apparently does not spot internal pages, or at least does not do so reliably. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)