Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archives/Page Curation/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User pages getting feedback from Curation bar

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T41543

This user page shows up with a curation bar on it, User:Arun sharma 101 much like the screen shot I posted above.

See

Another user rated Arun sharma's userpage and he got the following feedback regarding his user page from User:RexRowan who did not actually edit his talk page but this note showed up as if he did:

Begin post:[1]

-- A page you started has been reviewed! --

Thanks for creating User:User:Arun sharma 101, Arun sharma 101!

Wikipedia editor RexRowan just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

User page creation, ok.

To reply, leave a comment on RexRowan's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

End post

What is Arun sharna supposed to make out of this? If you look at his page and his attempts to figure out wikipedia and even the Teahouse, he's only going to be more confused. He's asked for help but not gotten much. Should the Curation bar be giving feedback to new user's pages like this?

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(In reply to the above post) I think the curation toolbar is supposed to appear on user pages (for getting rid of the spam and vandalism ones, and whatnot). The note is something that can be added when patrolling a new page. Does answer your question? David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the feedback note on his page makes no sense to me, never mind an editor from India who is trying to figure out wikipedia. I thought the Curation bar was for articles only. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a behavioral thing (it's the patroller's choice on whether to leave a note), not something with the CT. David1217 ^{What I've done} 22:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Many patrollers go OTT with their tagging. They apparently need to understand that superflous commenting will probably not help the new user either. There have been suggestions in the past to turn NPP into a user right. While I do not think that it's particularly necessary any more than it is for vandalism patrol - at least not a software controlled user right - clue and experience are needed. Perhaps now is the time to start thinking of a tutorial for this new tool, which should conceivably begin with the caveat that NPP is probably not a task for raw beginners. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We're going to have a full tutorial come the formal launch in September. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation feed vs. "back of the unpatrolled log"

I noticed that the so-called back of the unpatrolled log goes back approximately 30 days, while the Page Curation new pages feed goes back longer than that, even though it does not allow us to mark an entry patrolled (i.e., even if I mark it reviewed, it does not show up in the patrol log, nor on the page's patrol log).

Can anyone explain to me why this is happening? --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

So, in order:

We've deliberately made it so that unreviewed articles will appear infinitely. This is to relieve pressure on patrollers by removing the "siege mentality", and making sure that nothing slips through the cracks. It's based on different database tables from Special:NewPages out of necessity, so the change doesn't work both ways.

Patrolled and reviewed are different fields in the database, which means that we can't have both appear in the "patrolled" table without hideous amounts of duplication. Instead we're building a better log for reviewed actions, which should be done by the release in early September. Note that reviewing something should be simultaneously patrolling it, but the action won't appear in the logs as a review. If it's not appearing as a patrol either, let me know and I'll look into it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Keyboard shortcuts

Is there any chance of keyboard shortcuts for the Page Curation toolbar? It's lovely to use but as a long-suffering mouse-hater, it'd be nice to page curate from the keyboard. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, because the page curation toolbar doesn't use proper links but uses divs, I can't use Pentadactyl to use it either. Accessibility please!

—Tom Morris (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Keyboard shortcuts are absolutely in the planned design. They require a bit of usability thinking, but they'll be worked on in an upcoming sprint. My goal is to make this tool extremely fast to use (if you know exactly what you're doing) and extremely easy to use (if you don't). --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

An excellent goal, but I wouldn't make it too public - it might get misinterpreted. One of the major problems with NPP is that inexperienced users are often simply doing it too fast and even trying to use 3rd party tools for it (Tom, please don't misunderstand me here - I'm referring to new and/or inexperienced patrollers). NPP, if done the way it is recommended, often means doing a few more checks than are available from the feed interface and other 'speed' tools. For example, I regularly catch nonsense, attack, and copyvio pages pages that have been patrolled or tagged A7 or simply PRODed, and CSD & PROD candidates sent to AfD. Toxic pages are also a clue to other vandalism and sockpuppetry which take some time to unravel.

WhatI would like to see is faster loading and reloading, and more preference filters for selective patrolling.

Perhaps also, there could be a link on the feed to WP:NPP with a message such as: If you're new to this, please check out the tutorial at WP:NPP first. It doesn't help anyone when one-line stubs get nine tags slapped on them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Faster loading and reloading is not exactly an alternative to keyboard accelerators. One involves keyboard accelerators; the other presumably a new datacentre, a faster internet connection for you, less stuff in the feed or any combination of the above ;p. Preference filters we can do; what sort of ones would you like? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I'm getting tired of seeing 2 sentence stubs being tagged with refimprove because there are only one or two refs and every statement in the article is sourced. Ryan Vesey 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested; we'll see what we can do :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'd like to add a sorting option to the feed to allow sorting reviewed pages by reviewing editor. Perhaps just filtering it so you only see the reviews of a specified editor would be enough (I mostly want to be able to see a list of articles I've marked as reviewed), but anything more would be cool. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively you can go to the patrol log. Yours is here. Ryan Vesey 00:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We will have a new reviewing log, too - perhaps we can try to integrate it more with the toolbar? So the info pane would have "patrolled by X ([linktothelog|see what else X has reviewed])". How does that sound? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. I knew of the patrol log, of course, but I was under the (probably mistaken) impression that reviewing through NPF/Page Curation didn't feed into there. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that's correct (long story. it'd lead to duplication is the TL;DR version) but we're building a replacement. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Build autopatrol nomination into the tool

I came across page curation, marking H2Overdrive as patrolled, and then took a look at the page curation tool. I think it's very good work from the WMF. I spotted quite a few articles by users that had thousands of edits, such as Sendai River by User:Prburley. His work really does not need to be in the queue, he should just be autopatrolled. I should really be autopatrolled, although I've never bothered asking for permission. I've never bothered asking, because I would never see any benefit from it myself - it saves NPP guys' time, but not the user.

If the next iteration of the tool were to include a "Request author autopatrolled" button, it could make much better use of the autopatrolled user right and make NPP even easier. The tool already shows author metadata, it could just add it to Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled along with the requester details. - hahnch e n 19:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be really cool :). I doubt we'll include it in this iteration, but next iteration we plan to have an admin-specific version of the curation toolbar which could include functionality like "grant autopatrolled" or whathaveyou. I appreciate that's not the thing you were specifically requesting, just throwing out ideas I've been having. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Questions about the curation toolbar

Two questions, and I apologize if they have already been answered:

How come the toolbar shows up even on articles that have already been patrolled?
Is there some way to opt out of seeing the toolbar, if we don't find it helpful? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

- 1) It shows up on pages that are already reviewed because it's possible to unmark them as reviewed. 2) There have been a few threads about it popping up willy-nilly even when you're just browsing. To the best of my understanding, it's a known bug that they're working on. In the meantime, the toolbar has a little "x" button in the top left, and a "minimize" button in the top right. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I realize it is possibly to close it manually. I was just wondering if there is some way to prevent it from appearing in the first place - since it is only useful when you are patrolling, and is just in the way when you are simply reading. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, it's just a known bug that's on the "to be fixed in the next overhaul" list, I think. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we're going to build in a sticky setting :). If you want to minimise it, it'll remember the minimisation until you un-minimise it. If you want to remove it, it'll remember that it shouldn't appear, but leave a button in the sidebar for you to re-enable it if you encounter a situation where you find it useful. Many thanks to Jorgath for grabbing this :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Another question: I patrolled several articles last night using the curation template, but the record of the patrols is uneven. The articles do show as patrolled if you click on the template, but they do not show up in the patrol log at the article's history page, and they do not show up in the log of patrols made by me. Is this a glitch, or is it because the system is still in transition? I don't remember all of the articles, but they included Hanakapiai Falls and Lowry Bombing and Gunnery Range. --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation doesn't currently report to the patrol log, because of issues with duplication that were too long for Okeyes to explain to me. They're building a separate log, which we'll be able to access with the full rollout of this. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Aha, we have a solution! So, Page Curation does report to the patrol log insofar as "when you review a page, it also patrols it, and that action will appear in the patrol log". The issue here is that the pages in question were more than 30 days old, which means that there wasn't an entry in the patrol log for the software to mark; from a Special:NewPages perspective, the page in NewPagesFeed didn't exist :). I'm really enthusiastic to get the Page Curation log in so we can resolve this. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. So if I were patrolling from the front (which I almost never do) I'd be registering entries in my patrol log, but from the back not a chance unless we get it under 30 days. Will the Page Curation log be retroactive - as in, will it be able to read reviews from the test period? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It should be able to, but I'll find out :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Informing new creators of article guidelines

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Informing new creators of article guidelines (For information only - debate for this pre-proposal is now closed and consensus assesed). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Bug with Wikilove link

Hi there, I have found a bug that inserts a space before the sig when using the "Wikilove" button, leaving

Mdann52 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Hope this can be fixed, Mdann52 (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me an example? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

a confusion I have

I thought that once the article has been reviewed, then it is checked as patrolled. But now I see that it's only checked as reviewed if it "passes". So articles that have been checked and tagged remain "red". Maybe there should be a "yellow" for "checked but not passed". That way it would prevent "red" articles from being repeatedly checked. Am I making sense? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is this possibly a confusion between the "review" that Page Curation does and the old-style patrol? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Prevent {{stub}} being added to stub-sorted articles

A suggestion: if an article already has a subject-specific stub tag like {{Iran-footy-bio-stub}}, then the Curation Bar should grey out the option of adding {{stub}}. Even experienced editors have occasional lapses on this, and new editors do it regularly, and it wastes the time of stub-sorters. PamD 09:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A grand idea; I'll include it in a current bug we have open on a similar thing. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, new bug; I lied forgive me, oh wise consensus! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You say in the bugzilla that you'll fill up a spreadsheet of stuff. Do you mean a spreadsheet of stub tags that would cause it to prevent {{stub}} from being added? That is a lot of stub tags. Would a simpler idea be to prevent it from adding the tag to any page containing -stub}}? I believe every stub follows that format and I don't think anything else would end that way. Alternatively, it could check the categories a page is in and prevent it from adding it to any page in a subcategory of Category:Stub categories. Ryan Vesey 13:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan's right: a search for -stub}} would work nicely. Stub categories might be slightly less safe to search for, as they sometimes get assigned without a proper stub template being added! PamD 13:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Underscores again

This time it's in nominating for AfD: I nominated Zach Booher for deletion, and while the AfD page is named normally, the link back to Zach Booher is actually to Zach_Booher. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:57, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agh! Thanks for letting me know - I'll poke the devs :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Similar experience with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Delmay. The subject and search links include the underscore. BusterD (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Checkmark at left of page, also trash can . . .

It it is not immediately obvious what the green check mark and the trashcan ikon mean on the left side of the page. What DO they mean? Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The green check mark means that an editor has already reviewed ("patrolled") that article. The trashcan means that an editor has nominated the article for deletion via speedy deletion, Articles for Deletion, or Proposed Deletion. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I've wondered if the green check mark means the article has been patrolled (e.g. tags put on it etc.) or does it mean the article is good to go. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, I suggest adding the word "Patrolled" to the checkmark — or at least a "P". GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a key question: "What do we mean by patrolled/reviewed?" There needs to be a description or checklist somewhere, and linked from that tick, to indicate just what standard we are aiming at. I find "un-patrolled" articles which two other editors have looked at and tagged using page triage but not marked as good to go. If we hope to expand the number of editors joining in the page triage project, there needs to be a clearer description, somewhere, of what makes an article acceptable to "mark as reviewed". If there's such a list at present, it's not easy to find. PamD 06:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree! MathewTownsend (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems like the sort of thing we should include in the tutorial for the "official" launch in late September :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Add tags" window drops below bottom of screen . . .

The bottom of the "Add Tags" window does not show on my screen. I have to drag the whole window up with my mouse in order to see it. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't on mine, that's weird. I'm going to pre-empt Okeyes here and ask you if you could upload a screenshot of that problem. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a screen shot, but how would I upload it here? GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard then link to it here with (for example): [[File:filename.jpg|thumb|Screenshotname]] . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

No need; this is a known issue (I've actually encountered it myself). Our devs are looking at ways to move the toolbar slightly further up the screen to prevent it happening. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Inverse problem: Can't always get the open-toolbar link to appear in the toolbox

Sometimes, when I revisit a page that I've previously reviewed, the "Curation Toolbar" link in the toolbox on the left doesn't appear. I don't know if it should according to the programming, but I'd like it to. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Huh! Screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Here. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm getting the same thing :). Looks like the problem is it has now fallen out of the queue - reviewed, over 30 days old? It falls out. It is going to be 60 days, and initially was, but there are backend issues because of the high number of people using the tool (most definitely a Good Thing). Until a long-term fix is available, which should be relatively soon, the devs have cut it from 60 to 30 days to prevent 1 too many people trying to filter at the same time and all the wheels falling off the servers. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

So in other words, it's another one of those "grit your teeth and do it the hard way until we get the full version out" things? Also known as "the price of being a beta-tester?"

- Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

A nice way of putting it :P. I'm hearing it in the voice of a TSA agent ("Sir, I know you don't want to be irradiated and forced to take your shoes off, but it's the price you pay for being a beta-tester.") Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible bug?

Hi, Notifying the author from the toolbar does not seem to include my signature in my comment. Thanks, Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me an example? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sidebar script

Hey all! If you add the following code to your javascript file, it will place a link to the new pages feed in your toolbox. (It was created by Gadget850) Ryan Vesey 16:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

importScript('User:Ryan Vesey/sidebar.js');

There might be an issue for some users of this script. See User talk:Ryan Vesey/Archive 15#js scripts for more information. Ryan Vesey 17:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

My two cents

This is a good tool, in fact I am patrolling like crazy these past few days. My two cents: 1) I would by default list unpatrolled pages from oldest to newest; 2) I would by default hide pages marked as reviewed

Also I noticed that when I use the tool and mark the page as reviewed, when I then check the page's log, the page still appears as unreviewed and unpatrolled. Is it just me or is it a known bug? --Itemirus^{Message me!} 08:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I also noticed that when I open pages marked as unreviewed, a tag has been previously placed on the article, meaning that someone else has reviewed it before. So why does it still show in the page curator list? This is a major hindrance and slows the work of the patrollers. --Itemirus^{Message me!} 09:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Snap! I'm about to start a section discussing (1), and (2) is a great idea :). The page should appear as patrolled if you've reviewed it - can you give me an example? - and we're still building a centralised log for the "reviewed" action. Ditto example with the "when I open pages marked as unreviewed..." if you've got time :). Note that someone tagging it does not mean it's been patrolled; they could have found it through Special:RecentChanges, for example. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wikify deprecated

{{Wikify}} has been deprecated due to misuse and ambiguity. Can we create a new section within the curation toolbar called Wikify and have {{Dead end}} {{Infobox requested}} {{Cleanup-HTML}} {{Lead missing}} {{Lead rewrite}} {{Lead too short}} {{Inadequate lead}} {{Sections}} {{Cleanup-link rot}} {{Citation style}}and {{Lead too long}} in that section? Ryan Vesey 12:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of those are already present; what would be the purpose be of having a dedicated section, as opposed to having it grouped by subject-matter? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think that Wikify is a subject matter, see here for why I'd put them all in that category. It would also be useful for those editors looking for the Wikify tag. Alternatively, you could leave everything as is, make it impossible to add {{Wikify}} and leave a note in it's place saying that Wikify has been deprecated but any of those templates can be used instead. Ryan Vesey 06:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we get Wikify removed as soon as possible? Other changes can occur later. Ryan Vesey 23:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep; it'll be in the next deployment (which, if I'm reading right, will be Thursday) - along with that are adding some missing templates like G7 and a few others. Obviously there's a far more extensive list of changes (which I am poking people hard in the ribs to get my hands on so I can send out an announcement). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcoming newbies

If a notice from the Page Curation system is placed on a new talk page it is very desirable, I would say essential, to precede it with a welcome message such as {{welcome}} or {{firstarticle}}. That makes the notice less BITEy, and also gives the newbie contributor useful links which should help them do better next time. It seems that this is left to the tagger - see this conversation - but it should be possible to do it automatically: the author notice generated by the PROD template adds "firstarticle" if placed on a new talk page, and the Articles for Creation system is going to do the same - see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Welcome message for newbies. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Making it non-optional would be great - if people as a whole are okay with it :). And I would strongly avoid our old welcome templates (there's a pile of data saying people just gloss over them and it can be detrimental). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

See also. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that some, like {{welcomeg}}, are overwhelming and would be ignored, but I think the basic {{welcome}} is about right - is there evidence that people find that one harmful? By all means devise something better, if you can, but a page-curation warning should never be the first thing on a new user's talk page (except for authors of attack pages). I was thinking particularly of speedy-deletion notices, but Kudpung's extension to other templates is also a good idea. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Not direct data, but the general principle seems to be "more links, bad!" - people get stuck in a Buridan's ass-type situation. I see 14 links there :(. Perhaps we could ask Steven Walling or Maryana to magic something up? They did a load of A/B testing of templates with editors (although I'm always worried they'll think I'm treating them like a one-trick pony: every time we need templates made we go to them). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

NOINDEX and the feed's default ordering

So, we've got a couple of issues that I think we can lock together and resolve :). The first is NOINDEXing. A while back, before we deployed the first prototype version, we had an RfC on making it so that unreviewed new articles would be NOINDEXed. The idea was that this would remove a pretty big psychological issue with page curation, that being the "siege mentality" that we have to keep patrolling because there are attack pages and copyvios that will slip through if we don't. Unfortunately there were some bugs that Ryan identified (thanks Ryan!) and we had to turn it off. We can now re-enable it, although there is one remaining issue that a really old article will occasionally be moved to the back of the queue and thus NOINDEXed.

That brings me on to the feed's default ordering - oldest to newest, or newest to oldest? At the moment, it's newest to oldest, because we don't want attack pages and copyvios to slip through - but there's an argument to be made that people should focus on the back of the queue if they're new to NPP, where there are fewer problems and the consequences of getting something wrong are lesser. My suggestion is that we re-enable NOINDEXing, and then reverse the default ordering so that oldest pages are shown first. Users can still patrol from the front, but if they choose not to the really problematic articles are at least partly neutralised until people get to them. Thoughts? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I would leave the default at newest to oldest. My concern is that if we default from oldest to newest, the people patrolling newest to oldest will only be looking for pages for deletion. That would mean that articles are likely to wait a few weeks to a month before they are indexed which causes problems in search rankings and similar items. Ryan Vesey 06:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oliver makes a valid suggestion. My concern is that the articles at the back of the queue are in fact the difficult ones (though not necessarily toxic) because the low hanging fruit has already been taken by those patrolling from the front. One of the main problems that some patrollers have appears to be in identifying copyvios, and subtle hoaxes and attack pages. To be quite honest, I occasionally don't know exactly what to with some of the older ones. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Tutorial

Could someone please provide a link to where the tutorial is being developed. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

At the moment it's inside my head :). I'll be posting it publicly before the deployment so that people can take a look at it and comment accordingly - note that it's a tutorial on the software, rather than on the subject area. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Most common tags

The "orphaned" tag should be added to "the most common" tags shown when using the tool. It is a very common tag to place on newly created articles. There is an option to filter for orphaned articles when checking the new pages feed, so it is advisable to make it readily available. This would help save a few seconds (no need to click on metadata), but in the long run can help speed up the process.--Itemirus (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding it to be relatively common (pardon the pun) as well; is it more common than any of the existing "common" tags, though? My reasoning is - to avoid masses of clutter, we deliberately split everything up. Presumably one would have to come out for orphan to go into that tab. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why, I just checked out the backlog page; the most common tags are:

Persondata without short description parameter (420K articles)
Has unsourced statements (235K)
Needs references (232K)
Needs more references (194K)
Is orphaned (173K)
Needs coordinates (161K)
Has dead external links (110K)
Needs expansion (102K)
Needs more references BLP (60K)
Of unclear notability (55K)

I guess we can drop 1, 6 and 8 which are of no immediate utility to a new page reviewer but as you can see "Is orphaned" is probably more adequate in the common tags than "Bare URLs" or "Uncategorized". Besides, tagging an article as orphaned is, in my opinion, of great importance at the "first review" stage; also it is marked by the page curation tool, so it should be readily available. I often set the filter to show only orphaned pages, so I know that every time I click the "next" button after marking a page as reviewed, I know I must tag the next page as orphaned. Finally, the orphaned tag links to a useful tool that suggests pages that can be wikified to solve the problem. It is one of the most useful tags in my opinion. --Itemirus (talk) 19:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphan is one of the most "hated" tag. Most of the orphan tags added come from AWB. AWB users are now advised informally to turn it off by alot of other editors. Uncategorized is really common, but you don't see it up on the above list because editors are actively fixing that tag. Bgwhite (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah; I'd suggest that the backlog page is actually not a very good way of identifying the most commonly used tags. It's a good way of identifying the most commonly used tags that are not then fixed, sure. If someone wants to move them around, I would suggest this; go through Special:NewPagesFeed. Review maybe 50 pages, if you've got half an hour. Tell me what ones pop up :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

A quick Mac update

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T42264

There is now a big 'Refresh' button in the bottom grey bar, and it refreshes very quickly, but the additional information is still not visible.
The flyout on the article pages is no longer visible.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

On the first point, we removed the metadata down there; evidently the update fixed whatever problem yo were having. On the second, if it's been accidentally closed (either by you or the software) there should be a link in the toolbar to re-enable the flyout. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you get rid of the metadata? I sort of liked it. But if it's gone permanently, then there shouldn't be this huge empty grey bar that stays at the bottom of the page. On a different note, when you scroll over the trash icon, it should say who marked it for deletion, like the "reviewed" icon. David 1217 ^{What I've done} 22:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be awesome! I'll stick it in Bugzilla. If we can't get to it now, it should totally be on the list for our next set of reviews. Kudpung, can you give me any more details? on the second bug? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

As I'vesaid belopw, sometimes the link appears in the sidebar, sometimes it doesn't. On another note, the metadata in the bottom grey bar was essential for someone like me who monitors the performance of the patrollers rather than simply patrolling the pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; the fact that it sometimes appears and sometimes does not is useful additional information to have (as opposed to "it never appears"). Yeah, I get why that metadata would be useful - I used it too - although given that you couldn't see it, you haven't actually lost anything ;). There is now a log of all page curation actions, which is actually more useful since it shows the actions of all patrollers rather than the top 5. I'll stick the page curation link issue in Bugzilla now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Auto reviewed and Redirect

Hello, I've got 2 comments. Setting the page to auto reviewed when an editor tagged an article for deletion. As for Redirect, it should be selected by default as I noticed the oldest backlogs were actually the redirect pages. ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ ^(Talk) 13:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you clarify the first comment, please? :). And I agree with the second - I'll file a bug now. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Selection or display of categories

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but has the possibility of displaying any assigned categories been examined. Even better would be the additional possibility of selecting by category (including sub-categories). There is a gadget that does something similar with NPP. Perhaps that tool's functionality could be integrated with this tool. I find I am much happier and more productive when patrolling articles on familiar topics. Since I am not conversant with notability requirements for sportspeople, musicians, etc. when I click on a biography and find it is, say, a tennis player or a musician in a boy band, I just go to the next article (unless I notice serious problems). This also means I can often do more than just tag articles, since I am better able to assess and add reliable sources etc. I wonder if other people would also sometimes be happier just assigning high-level categories (possibly selecting from a list) as a way of flagging articles for other patrollers' attention. --Boson (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page messages: use first person

Can we change the talk page messages left by this template to be in the first person, like other automated messages? It'd be far more friendly. For example, I'd like to change:

Thanks for creating Example, ExampleUser!

Wikipedia editor Pigsonthewing just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please note how I've added categories, and do the same in your other articles, if you can. Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment on Pigsonthewing's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

to:

Hi ExampleUser!

Thanks for creating Example, I've just reviewed it, as part of our page curation process.

Please note how I've added categories, and do the same in your other articles, if you can. Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment on my talk page.

[my usual signature]

if that's OK with everyone. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :). I say be WP:BOLD! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Where is the source text held? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The templates "{{Taggednonote-NPF}}", "{{Taggednote-NPF}}", "{{Reviewednote-NPF}}" and "{{Reviewednonote-NPF}}" :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The first of those is already first-person; I've modified the second. It would be good if someone would kindly check it, before I do the remaining pair. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Moved the message so that it falls after "I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix." rather than at the end of the whole thing - what do you think? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Deletion nomination using Page Curation

I have not a clue what happened, but when I nominated Atlantic Building, my motivation disappeared. Did I do something wrong, or went PC wrong? The Banner _talk 21:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination, y'mean? That's...weird. And you definitely put the nomination statement in the text box? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, I am not sure now. The Banner _talk 02:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, it looks that I have to do two thing: add the motivation and safe it and then (with another button) file the deletion request. Not a very logical and/or user-friendly way... The Banner _talk 04:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean, sorry? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Accidently did it again, and it turned out to be my mistake, based on something quite unhandy. The fact is that when you AfD an article, you have to explain why you want to get it removed. Unfortunately, it is not immediately clear that you have to click on "add details" to store your comments and click on "Mark for deletion" to send the AfD. It gives the impression that "Mark for deletion" is enough to send out the AfD and the explanation. That makes it prone to mistakes, as I did. The Banner _talk 12:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Would you suggest having a lock-in? AfD without adding details and it won't let you proceed? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is better. The Banner _talk 18:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this will shed some light. When PRODing with the Curation tool, it just puts a blank template link on the page and nothing else while Twinkle does the whole job. See the screenshots with both methods and their edit summaries. BTW, IMO, there can be no final release until the edit summaries are correctly detailed. BTW, the 'Curate this page' link in the Sidebar does not always show. And what's happened to the box in the flyout for sending a friendly message to the creator? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll stick that in Bugzilla now. And, yes, clarifying the edit summaries is essential and already listed on Bugzilla. To my knowledge, absolutely nothing has happened to the flyout box - could you provide some details? I've just tested all 3 of them and they're working fine at my end. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That was my error - the message box is still there but I suggest it should be a separate menu item because I can think of many instances where I would wih to leave a message but still not pass the article as reviewed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've just PRODed Android Kothon. The Curation toolbar is now applying the PROD template, but is not including the rationale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you reported this above - it is in Bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Tag bug?

Is anyone else seeing <pagetriage-welcome> instead of the usual header at the top of the page when using the NewPagesFeed? -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 03:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

bugzilla:40348: PageTriage's Special:NewPagesFeed shows "<pagetriage-welcome>" at the top of the page --MZMcBride (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Reedy (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Add a message for the creator

I just used for the first time the "add a message for the creator" feature when applying tags. The formatting came out a bit oddly (diff); no space left between the previous section, and the signature added four lines down within nowiki tags. France3470 (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Crud! I think I've now fixed it :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sections

If I use "Sections", no date is added.--Müdigkeit (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Agh; will fix :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

CSD, PROD, & BLPPROD logs

This has probably been mentioned before, but the curation toolbar does not add CSD, PROD, and BLPPRODs to the personal CSD and PROD logs that are usually configured through, and populated by Twinkle. I'm not sure how many people are aware of such logs and use them, but I find them immensely useful for following up on pages I have tagged for deletion. PRODs especially need to be revisited to see if they were simply declined by the addition of spurious sources, while CSD templates are often simply removed and not always caught. 03:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Yes; as I have mentioned, there is now a centralised deletion tagging log (which sort of makes adding things to a twinkle log unnecessary duplication). It does need to be tweaked a bit to make it clearer, however. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

And the centralised deletion tagging log is where? KTC (talk) 11:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it personalised? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

here, as linked above, and it's the same as any other MediaWiki log; you can filter it by performer. So this is yours, for example. As said, the summaries and suchlike really need clearing up. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Though helpful, this gives yet another place to check--the personal subpages were an important step forward, and this dilutes their usefulness. It's very good to have new features, but they should be integrated with the existing ones. An excellent recent example is the integration of huggle and twinkle into a gadget. ` DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, not really. Someone is either using page curation or they're using twinkle, not both - you only have to check one of the places. And integrating them with twinkle's method means we duplicate the flaws in Twinkle's method - that it's gameable, that it's inconsistent, that everyone has their own subpage nestled away with no way to review centrally. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can't really blame twinkle for doing that. I didn't even know it was possible to log tagging in the "real" log. (Can twinkle do that, or is it only possible for curation toolbar?) _→AzaToth 22:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not blaming twinkle; you did an incredible job given the limited access we give non-"proper" devs to stuff; personally, I still use it! And I don't know; I'll find out :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation Log in watchlist

I notice all the page curation log entries for a watched page remain after the page has other edits, which also means several page curation actions in short succession on the one article are all listed. In addition, it means that when the page curation action is the most recent edit, the same edit appears twice on watchlist. This is annoying, since none of the filter options work (like say Hide bots, or namespace articles). Is this intended behaviour? If so why, and is there a way to individually change/disable it? (I also don't like the fact that it reverses the username/pagename order, or lacks the diff/hist links, but those are not as important) --Qetuth (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

There isn't, to my knowledge :S. It's not really an interaction that's been seen before (most logged actions are not edits - deletions, for example - and so you only get one edit) but I'll talk to people about a possible solution. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, would you believe I didn't even notice that it looked just like all the other log types? I suppose that means what I'm hoping for is a "Hide logs" switch, but I'm not sure I think that's a good idea to have. Thanks anyway. --Qetuth (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Warning:Orphan.

The Tag "Ophan" might not be up to date, you should check it manually. There might be a link to the side just created some hours ago.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:43, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "not up to date"? What's changed? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

This simply means: Do not tag articles tagged as orphan by Page Curation as orphaned, unless you checked it by yourself. Reason: Some pages are labeled orphaned, despite there is at least one article leading to it. Maybe because the article was deorphaned recently, maybe because someone thought Page Curation should also tag it as orphan when there are very few links.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, gotcha; thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there is something not working correctly: Mohammed Salah (coach) was tagged as Orphan. However, this page had never been one. At least one of the other links existed even before the creation of the article! --Müdigkeit (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Applying a tag with message to page creator

I confess to being a dinosaur (started using computers in the days of punch cards) so I may be missing an option evident to persons more accustomed to modern menu displays; but, working from Firefox, I was unable to complete an action initiated by selecting an unreferenced tag and typing a message to the page creator. What action actually applies the tag and sends the message? Is there a help function somewhere to cover this sort of thing?Thewellman (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think I found the problem. My message to the page creator may have overflowed Curator's available message length. I suggest expanding the available message length. I found the available length inadequate to convey a friendly explanation of a single tag to an inexperienced editor. Abbreviated messages may appear curt and cryptic to inexperienced editors.Thewellman (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Noted; I'll see what we can do :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Two new features

Hey, guys, I have two requests. First, as I mention on Okeyes's talk page, support for the sub-categories of A7, G3, etc. (like Template:db-hoax, Template:db-web, Template:db-bio, etc.) would be nice. Second, in the page stats, could we get something indicating how old a page is (preferably to the minute)? One can calculate it from the page history at the bottom already, but I wasn't really cut out for mental math, and dealing with GMT becomes annoying... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Both sound good :). I've got to be honest, I'm not sure if we can fit them in before we hit "done", but we're planning on taking a second pass in a few months - I'll add these to the to-do list! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Curation for media

OK Anyone want to build an equivalent of this for images?

Twinkle/Furme can only do so much :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We can look at expanding it to the file namespace when we make a second pass :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

is Auto reviewed still acknowledged?

Any idea why this appeared on my watchlist today?

(Page curation log) . . [Legoktm; Martijn

Hoekstra]

- 06:46 . . Legoktm (talk | contribs)

marked Chris Hall (Australian footballer) as reviewed

- 05:44 . . Martijn Hoekstra (talk |

contribs) marked Nick Bruton as reviewed

Should reviewed articles be hidden by default? The-Pope (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That really shouldn't be appearing :S. I'll throw it at bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's probably an unavoidable side-effect of moving a page from userspace to the article namespace. This is actually the lesser of two evils - the only way around the problem would just be to not list pages that are moved to the article namespace at all, which is...less than desireable. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks for looking into it. It made me actually check out the curation tool, (nice bait advertising!) and it looks good. The drop down menu jumped around a bit on opera for android, but it seemed useable. The-Pope (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Opera for android? Patrolling via mobile devices is...new, but kinda awesome :p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Cool! I can't run Huggle, or any other anti-vandalism tool, here, and Twinkle isn't really up to the task. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also getting jumping-around behavior in Chrome for Android. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh; that, we will work on. I know Kaldari has been grumbling about mobile bugs he wants to tackle :). Chrome for Android 18.0.1025308, right? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but... I'm testing other browsers on my new phone. Opera Mini 7.5 shows the page (with the "Refresh list" bar covering part of the second article's data), but doesn't show the tool on 3 of 3 pages checked so far. So far, it works best on Firefox 15.0.1 for Android. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Neat! What's the phone? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Curation Side Bar

Hi, I've been using the new feature and the side bar that is supposed to show up when I click on an article sometimes doesn't come up. Any one know why this is and is there a solution?--Dom497 (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the feed isn't loading... :/ --Dom497 (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I have started using this tool. Overall, I an quite impressed. However, I am experiencing the problems Don497 described sometimes. Using Chrome for Android 18.0.1025308. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Dom, Jeff, are you using desktop or mobile devices? Huh :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I use both, but I haven't tried this tool on my laptop yet. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll shove it in Bugzilla :). 14:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been using it on Chrome for Windows 7.--Dom497 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the NewPages page?

When I click on "new pages" on the "recent changes" page, I go to the new article curation page. That displays a grand total of 10 new pages on my screen, as opposed to 40+ on the old page (I see that I still can get there by removing the "Feed" from the URL. Sorry to be negative, but I don't like this new page. Not only does the old page display many more articles (so that I can rapidly scan a large number of articles to see which ones I am interested in), but the yellow highlighting makes it very easy to see which ones have already been patrolled. In addition, when hovering my cursor over an article name, I get (using popups) a preview of that page (without needing to actually open it), which doesn't work on the new one. At the moment, when I click "review", I actually do not see any way to mark a page as reviewed. Neither does the review toolbar appear (I use Firefox on Windows7). When I looked at this toolbar earlier, it didn't seem to do anything other than what Twinkle already does. In short, I find that the old Special:NewPages in combination with Twinkle lets me patrol new pages much more efficiently than the new page. I hope that Special:NewPages will not be abandoned completely... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Special:NewPages still works :). I'm sorry you don't like the new setup - the toolbar, however, should be appearing; did you close it? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The "still" in your response sounds ominous... Will it be abandoned in the future? Just to be clear: I appreciate all the thinking and effort that has gone into this, it just doesn't work for me. I see on this page that other people are happy with it. As for the toolbar, I haven't seen it today, perhaps I did close it when I last visited this page a few days ago, but if that happened, shouldn't it come back (or at least shouldn't there be a way to make it come back)? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There is; there should be a "curate this article" button in the toolbox on the sidebar, which will have it pop open again :). Sorry if it came off as ominous, that wasn't my intention - I can't see us shutting down Special:NewPages any time soon. It's in core MediaWiki, so apart from anything else it would be a colossal pain in the arse ;p. And if people are still using it, people are still using it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That was it, it's back now. That's kind of hidden, though... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not ideal :S. Really, what we should be doing is only show the "minimise" button when you've got the full toolbar up, and show the "close" only if you want to kill the minimised one as well. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, pop-ups used to work in earlier versions of the prototype, but it was abandoned fairly early on. This release is not premature, but I do hope that the devs will continue to address many of the issues that have been reported. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I too have issues with the toolbar not always appearing--I suspect that it may be a basis of the script for it working too slowly--just a the list itself scrolls much too slowly when one reaches the bottom, and it takes quite a while until changes are displayed. I agree with giving more data, but it has dis-enabled those who work quickly; I am now using both the new and old systems; at present they are complementary, as the old one lets me scan much faster.

I would appreciate it if there could be a clear statement about which of the various feature requests have and have not been adopted.

The most important problem in checking new pages remains--the lack of any means to catch those article moved into mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Articles moved into mainspace should be appearing. Can you give me an example of one that has not? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Notes

Stub option should allow the creation of the appropriate topic stub if and when known. Otherwise it is of little help and just makes more work for the people at stub-sorting.
In the flyout, the name of the patrolling/reviewing user needs a link to their talk page.
The flyout still covers some of the text on right hand side of the article page - even on the widest screens.
Adding a message disactivates the green 'Add selected tags' button.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding what sort of message? And, yes, the covering is a known problem - I'll look into it. Ditto the others. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

With the current set up it appears that a message can only be sent to the creator if the page is being passed as OK, but not when it is also being tagged. If tags have been selected, when a message is written, the big green button goes light green and inoperative. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen that, when you're submitting tags, there's a "send them a message" box? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course. How else would I have mentioned it? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you crossed the 250 character limit? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

No. That was one of the first things I considered. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, can you provide us with a screenshot so we can look for visual bugbears? I haven't seen this happening anywhere else :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, if the flyout were on the left, it would cover known sidebar menu text instead of article text as it does on the right. As for the stubs, I think it would be a mistake to try to fit WP:STUBS in javascript, as that page is (1) huge to the point of absurdity -- over a megabyte after all the transclusion, (2) not organized in a very intuitive way in many cases if you aren't already familiar with it, (3) maintained manually with plenty of formatting idiosyncrasies, and therefore (4) not very amenable to menu picking. It's probably better to just keep adding {{stub}} than try to present a menu to patrollers who might not be familiar with the folksonomy. —Cupco 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that it would offer all the permutations of the roughly 10,000 possible stubs types, to allow those who know a few hundred to be able to enter them manually through the flyout without having to open up the page in edit mode. In spite of all the benefits of the new tool, flipping back and forth from it an page edit mode is still unfortunately very necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Design improvements to Special:NewPagesFeed

In the setup I'm using, the floating table header and table footer takes up about as much space as one entry, which means that I can only view four entries at the same time on my 15" widescreen display using a slightly-larger-than-default font size. Removing the floating properties may sound like a micro improvement, but in my case it means that I can view 25% more entries at the same time. I can only imagine what it looks like on a small 9" netbook display. Suggestion: Move the content from the footer ("868 pages reviewed this week" and the refresh-button) to the header and freeze it. jonkerz ♠talk 03:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll look into it - sounds sensible, I'm not sure what any objection would be :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

HELP!!!

Does the Navigation popups work on the New pages feed? I use firefox. Harsh (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That is, on the feed itself? Well, if you're using both....does it work? :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, on the feed itself. I tried using other browsers too. Popups doesn't work. Harsh (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That sort of answers the question, then. I've got to be honest, we didn't directly look at what gadgets worked or didn't with the feed, simply because supporting every permutation of gadget and skin would have massively bloated development time. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

But its still great.

Harsh (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Duplication of tags.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T42528

I tried New pages feed, first of all thanks, it is of great use when doing NPP, there is one issue though I faced. Whenever I am tagging a page for CSD and meanwhile some other person already tagged it for CSD, then my tagging process continues and places a tag on the same page. This results in duplication of tags on the same page. In twinkle if I am tagging the page and meanwhile some other person tagged it then I get a notice that a tag has already been placed for the article. So if we get same kind of system maybe duplication can be avoided. Thanks. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 16:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh; can you give me an example page? And I agree, this should be built in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

This should work. --Rangilo Gujarati (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Happened also on Almighty Career, I *think*. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Now in Bugzilla :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

straight praise

I don't have a browser-specific bug. I don't have a complaint. I don't have new requirements. I LOVE this. I'm ordinarily hard to convince, but this works, it's intuitive, it was needed, and whoever designed this did a splendid job. I really appreciate this. Thank you. --Lockley (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this praise. It's really quite good and well thought out. —Cupco 12:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much! I'll pass this on to the rest of the team :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The page curation feature certainly is extraordinary! My only complaint is that the buttons do not work with Vimperator (which is Vimperators fault, but still :C) --Cgtdk (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that :(. But thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Bug

When I marked a page as unreviewed which was marked earlier as reviewed and then give an optional reason, it sends the message to the creator that an editor reviewed your page. It should rather be an editor marked your page as unreviewed. Harsh (talk) 10:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear! I'll fling a bug in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Message left in user's talk page may seem insulting/patronising

A user whose article I tagged because it was a stub and needed more cites took it personally (see my talk page). I understand she felt patronised because she was still editing that page when I put the stub and cite tag on the article, which placed the automatic message in her talk page. The message needs to state more emphatically that the purpose of tagging is that other editors can search for articles that require attention rather than a critique of their work, acknowledge that the user may still be editing the page (and that person using the tool has no way of knowing that), and that stub, cite, mos and other such tags are very common on new articles and the user should not infer negatively on that.

We can't afford to lose contributors over something like this. Alanl (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Setting the display default to oldest first and unreviewed pages only would solve this issue. See #Sort by above. —Cupco 14:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah; in the short-term, feel free to make that clear in the templates. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If I may interrupt, as someone who has only just discovered that this tool even exists, the page in question was emphatically not a stub when it was tagged, which I think the main thing that was at issue. Overuse of these tags is extremely irritating and if everyone was careful to use them sparingly and only when absolutely appropriate, people taking offence would be dramatically less common (not to mention the stub categories etc. would be limited to pages actually in dire need of work, so it's a win-win). Frickeg (talk) 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Praise, and 'undismiss'?

I too would like to add my praise to this project. It's fantastic to see the WMF plan and deploy, in close consultation with the relevant community, tools that help the existing community do their self-assigned tasks better. Better curation tools = happier existing editors = higher likelyhood of new editors being helped/welcomed.

One question though - when I first tried out the toolbar, I clicked on the little "x" (dismiss/close) button and it disappeared. But the only way of getting it back was to go back to the new pages feed (which I could only find by tiny link from the Recent changes page) and then clicking to review a new article. Now today, when I try that again, I can't get the toolbar to appear at all. Is there a way to make the toolbar appear without going through that process? I'm using Firefox 16. Witty lama 03:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit - reading back up the page and the "Curation Toolbar absent" section, I looked for the "curate this page" link in the toolbar. Found it. So, that works :-) Original problem solved. But still, that's really obscure and there's no way I would know that was there - even when I was looking for it. Could there be some visual clue given to the user the first time they dismiss the toolbar to show where they should go next time they want to re-enable it? Like an animation of the toolbar minimising and the "curate this page" button flashing briefly, or something? Witty lama 03:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look at Erik's comment above it looks like we could actually have "proper" walkthroughs - which I'm incredibly psyched about :). In the meantime we can look into your interim suggestion. I'm actually of a mind to just kill the X button completely and have it so that it only shows on the "minimised" version - mostly people seem to just want it out of the way, but still be able to access the tools if they need them, which minimise achieves quite nicely. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And thanks so much for the positive feedback! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Ditto to Liam's comment -- I just did the same thing, and ended up here because I was looking for the toolbar to cooooome baaaaack :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 07:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

And even just writing "to make the curation toolbar appear, click the "curate page" link on the left-hand sidebar" at the top of the newpages feed or somewhere would be helpful as an interim hack, since it seems to be a common question. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 07:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a common issue :). And yeah, that'd be useful: Fabrice also had an idea of having the link flash when you close the toolbar as a visual cue, or be briefly highlighted. Would that help? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

General Feedback

Page Curation tool excellent overall. Better than just pages patrol. New training guide is very useful with the tabbed layout. Possibly branching the stubs message with 15 common stubs would target the stubs as these short articles are so common. Kieranian2001 (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll look into stub templates and the like when we make another pass in 2013. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Different namespaces

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

Cannot continue on own pages

When reaching one of ones own pages while browsing through the unpatrolled new pages with the toolbar, the toolbar disappears. It would be nice to be able to click the next button instead of being forced to go back to the new pages feed. --Cgtdk (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Info button not working, double patrolling

Today the big 'I' button doesn't work. This leads to confusion and double patrolling. Note also at this example the inconsistency of the types of messages that are produced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No signature/time/date stamp

Messages placed through the curation toolbar are not being signed, dated, and time stamped. See this example. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Curation Toolbar absent

On looking at a to-be-reviewed page, the toolbar did appear. I closed it. On the next page it did not appear, so I researched it and found out about the control in the 'Toolbox' section of the left sidebar. So I used that, and got the toolbar to appear. On following pages accessed from the feed page however, the toolbar did not appear and the Toolbox control also did not appear, so there seems to be no way to restore the toolbar. Using Chrome on Vista. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I confirm again that tbis is not working. Unless I have missed something, which is possible, I can't find any options anywhere to turn it on or off. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't see a link in the toolbar? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

What toolbar? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; the "toolbox" section of the sidebar :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing there either. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to look into this? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes; sorry, we've been preparing for the final release. Would you mind sending me a screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I had the same problem occur using Google Chrome, upon closing the toolbar on the right-hand side of the screen it would not reappear on subsequent pages. Upon pressing the "curate this article" link in the toolbox section on a review page, the toolbar reappears, and the "curate this article" link in the toolbox disappears. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
That's the desired behaviour :). Was there a situation in which the toolbar was closed but "curate this article" did not start appearing? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is this the 'desired' behaviour? Who desired it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Desired - "ideal". The Curation Toolbar appears even after editing the page or if you find the page when browsing around, deliberately so, because the alternative is to have it tied to a URL string which means that you can't, for example, edit a page you've found through the feed without removing the toolbar or review buttons (this is seen in Special:NewPages, amongst other stuff). However, the cost of having it appear everywhere is, well, it appears everywhere. It appears on DYKs and new userpages, it appears on anything "new", so we built in a way of closing it. This method has the software remember whether you want it open or closed - the alternative being that you have to close it manually on every single article you don't want it to display on. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Similar problem with IE8. No curation toolbar on opening with the review button, and no link in sidebar. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Confirm for IE8. I'll try later with FireFox 15. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Can one of you send me screenshots and/or OS information? okeyeswikimedia.org. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get to you later. Meanwhile, I was reviewing a page subject to a deletion discussion when the curation toolbar appeared, but just for that article, Wooboo, still with IE8 running under Windows 7 Enterprise. Yet the toolbar still doesn't appear on opening an article with the review button. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's weird :S. We just updated, actually; try now? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Tried first with FF15 - works fine. Tried again with IE8, this time with Windows XP - still doesn't work on the pages to be reviewed. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 00:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

sighs, looks meaningfully at the developers. Alright; hopefully they'll get on this one soon. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Working with IE8 under W7 as of now. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 17:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Sweet! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Tried with FF ESR 10.0.5 in Windows 7. The curation toolbar only showed up the first time I used it, and now it never shows up. Tckma (talk) 22:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I just started trying this, and I've noticed that it's only available on newer articles, the ones created in the last week or two. Maybe the option at the bottom "Go to the next page in the Queue", which takes me to a random article, is a clue. I do hope you roll it out eventually to include all articles in Wikipedia. Or did you mean it for just the new ones? Maile66 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sort by

Please set the default "sort by" to "oldest". We're trying to get people to review the back of the log, and if you make following that direction the path of least resistance, then more people will do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

We've had a few conversations over this: it seems like quite a sensitive area (non-bitiness versus OMGCOPYVIO). Before we make any changes here, anyone else want to chip in? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Starting from oldest is very much more kind to newbie article creators, giving them at least a few minutes to wrangle with wikitext before the hordes of CSD checkboxers descend upon their work. —Cupco 21:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There will always be a few people who measure their success by exercises of short-term power (number of pages sent to CSD) instead of real results (number of promising articles supported). My theory is that those people can, and will, go to the small amount of extra trouble to change the sort. The people who just want to help out for a bit shouldn't have to take an extra step to do the right thing. It should be automatic for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

There are significant usability issues associated with changing the defaults. Just like Special:Newpages, the New Pages Feed may be used, linked to or referred to for reasons other than patrolling; if the user doesn't have reviewer rights, it doesn't even show the review buttons. Having pages from 2006 show up first (if reviewed pages are included), or excluding reviewed pages, would both make understanding the feature's function harder for first-time users.

Instead of changing the defaults, I would suggest considering a simple and prominent guided tour, which could be relatively easy to build once Terry Chay's Guided Tour widget becomes available on enwiki (see an example on mediawiki.org). That tour could be used to explain preferred patrolling practices, etc.--Eloquence * 22:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well then set the default to unreviewed pages only, and sort by oldest first. The usability issues aren't entrenched because the tool is still new. Would you rather have usability issues or #Message left in user's talk page may seem insulting/patronising issues? —Cupco 14:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough; the point that changing the sort order would give newbies more time before getting tagged is certainly valid. If we change the defaults like that, though, I think we do need to make it obvious what's going on, as the idea that you're visiting a new pages feed but only seeing a specific oldest-first subset of newly created pages is very counterintuitive. At minimum I think we'd need to explain it in the introductory message and make that message dismissible.--Eloquence * 18:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone, for your helpful suggestions on this issue. It's a tough one to solve, because most people's expectations would naturally be to list the most recent articles first, given that's how the web tends to work these days. I really like the idea of a guided tour, and would suggest that we show it as a welcome window the first time people visit, to give them some pointers on how to use this page. We are also exploring ways to encourage folks who are just getting their page started to save it as a draft in their user space first, rather than risk having it rejected prematurely. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The first designs I did defaulted to "oldest first" but I was convinced away from that with the following:

The stuff in the back of the queue is stuff that is NOT obviously spam, attack, copyvio, etc. It's nearly always stuff people have skipped over because it's "difficult" (which is not good to give to new reviewers)
The stuff in the FRONT of the queue is stuff that NEEDS culling because it's possible that it could put the Foundation in a sticky legal situation

Ergo, it's better that we clean the sewage off the floors before we get around to windexing the bathroom mirrors.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand the contradiction of having something called "new page feed" that by default shows that oldest pages first. so until the new page patrol is completely replaced by all this ajax goodness, in which case the curator tools can be moved to that page, How about this compromise: let the new page sort be newest, but amend the curator tool so when a reviewer tries to tag or delete a new article that is less than 24-48 hours old, the tool will remind about not biting the newbie, and hopefully that extra click will slow down some of the overeager CSDing.Alanl (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I think 24-48 hours is a lot of time, but with a shorter time window, I think a reminder like that could make a lot of sense. I've added it to Bugzilla here: T42580 (it's the team's call whether they want to implement it).--Eloquence * 19:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am persuaded. How about just a two hour delay before unreviewed pages appear in the feed? —Cupco 04:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this entirely. It should sort by oldest by default, because it's important to always review the older pages in order to give editors significant time to work on the new pages (at least fifteen minutes). —Comp dude¹²³ 16:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Two questions

Thank you for creating this - I've always wanted to have an easy method to add hatnotes/tags and this is it! I think I might be doing more new page patrolling from now on.

However, I've got a couple of problems:

As mentioned by others above, I too missed the toolbar when I first dismissed it. I read the advice given and found it later on in the toolbar on the left, but only on pages that were unreviewed. I would like to have access to the "curate this article" box when I'm looking at ANY article, not just new ones.
I used the system to leave a message on a new user's talkpage - informing them about the tags I'd just added. I wrote a friendly greeting within the character-limit provided and pressed send. When I checked on that user's talkpage I saw that the system had inserted a cheerful salutation and details of the tags, and placed my note in the middle of that larger message. My text, as a result, looked weird and ungrammatical. I had to change the note on the talkpage so it wasn't repetitive (diff). It would be good if the toolbar would show me the whole message that will be delivered to the editor - not just the part I'm writing. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
So, sort of like the wikilove "preview"? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Or the Twinkle preview. Something I've also been missing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please. What about the toolbar? (Question 1) Whiteghost.ink (talk) 04:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding stub tag

I'm finding quite a lot of cases where editors have added {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub template. The curation toolbar just says "This page is very short" beside the "Stub" tickbox. Could it be expanded to "This page is very short (and doesn't already have a stub tag)"? (Until we get any progress on the requested enhancement of getting this option suppressed in articles which already contain "-stub}}"). PamD 23:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

See also the thread above at #Notes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, saw that. Not sure how useful it would be to try to get Page Curators to stub-sort too - I suspect a lot of {{bio-stub}} would be added, by editors who think they should find any one stub tag that fits, in cases where {{iran-footy-bio-stub}} or {{ChurchofEngland-bishop-stub}} would be more appropriate! Given how many page curators have so little understanding of anything that they're currently slamming {{stub}} onto articles which already have a specific stub template. PamD 07:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)