Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Archives/Page Curation/Archive 8

Placement of Cleanup-bare URLs

Page Curation places Template:Cleanup-bare URLs at the top of the article. However, the documentation of the template calls for placing it "at the top of the references section". Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Finnusertop. That part of the template description is almost certainly an errror. Twinkle also places the banner at the top of the page. The top of the page is the usual location for most banners and where they will attract the most attention. It is also technically very difficult to change this in Page Curation as it would involve a major intervention for a small detail which the Foundation is no longer prepared to do for the New Page Patrol software due to the fact they consider its development to be now complete. I will shortly amend the wording of the template documentation to reflect its actual use.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up, Kudpung (talk · contribs). Not all templates, however are placed at the top of the article: templates concerning a section (e.g. Template:Unreferenced section or Template:Copy edit with |section). It's not a simple question to answer whether the bare urls problem concern the whole of the article where refs are defined or the reference section where they are rendered. Some maintenance message templates are placed in sections for good reasons. You should check with whoever has experience with Cleanup-bare URLs to confirm. (Another example: Template:Uncategorized should be at the bottom - Curation does place this at the bottom). Anyway, most template documentations are far from perfect and it causes problems from those who try to follow them. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The template documentation recommends that patrollers attempt to clean up naked URLs before they tag the article. That said, I do not believe tat it is up to the patrollers to do this for long lists of sources or to improve the the work of lazy editors. I appreciate your concerns, but I've been a coordinator of NPP for many, many years, and was part of the action several years ago to rewrite ad reform our tags and their hidden functions. Twinkle is a non-Foundation 3rd party script which does what we ask its skilled inventor and developer, AzaToth, to do. The WMF built the Curation Tool partly on my recommendation. They now consider it a completed piece of software that does not require any further maintenance, and the WMF employee who carried out the liaison for its development has bee reassigned. (With the large, recent turnover in WMF staff however, with the right amount of lobbying, that could change). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

There was a recent RfC on the very similar {{refimprove}} on the template's talk page. The consensus was clear, indeed overwhelming, for placement at the top of the article, not in the references section. The reasons listed there should all apply to {{Cleanup-bare URLs}}. But the reflinks tool, while not providing fully finished citations, will generally give somethign rather better than bare URLs, and requires little work from a patroller. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Kudpung and DESiegel. I think the parallel to refimprove is helpful. I don't know why the reflinks tool is mentioned in the Cleanup-bare URLs. It's probably due to the idealistic wording in the documentation that prompts editors who place that tag to try to fix the problem first. If I tried to fix every bare URL I saw, that would be all I ever had time for on Wikipedia. I treat the Cleanup-bare URLs tag much like refimprove: to let the editors and readers know about an article-wide problem (as opposed to a few instances that can be tagged with Template:Bare inline and Template:Citation needed). I place these tags hoping that the significant contributors are made aware of the problems that they could have avoided, and they - being familiar with the sources - are in the best position to fix. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 01:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Curator/patroller does not respond

A few weeks ago, I created a person article on a dear colleague who is a researcher in population science: Richard Gisser.
Then CoffeeWithMarkets came along and tagged the entry with a broadside of criticisms, at least some of which are undue: the page is not an orphan, and while "grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling" are of course matters of subjective interpretation to some extent, I really don't know what he or she might have meant. The same goes for the "encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia" - my tone certainly wasn't selling any candies as I tried to draft this article in a style and wording adequate for a personal page about a social scientist. And there are quite a few inline citations, in fact I moved several from the weblinks section. The problem is it seems impossible to get in touch with CoffeeWithMarkets as he does not respond on his talk page to any of the authors who approach him on similar counts.
Please look into this issue as the page certainly looks awful with these multicolor allegations which I hold are spurious. --WernR (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are some examples of problems that I see:

• "Apart from that,..." (tone, style)
• The three paragraphs that start "From 1977 to 2005,..." have no inline footnote citations.
• Most of the references don't meet WP:RS or WP:INDEPENDENT

It may help to read WP:TONE and WP:MOS. - MrX 12:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints, MrX, I read into it and did make changes to accommodate your #items 1 and #2, and as for #3 I agree I was quoting the staff website of the institute itself but then again, this is a research facility and not a commercial enterprise. Doesn't that make a difference? --WernR (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much of a difference, no, WernR. Wikipedia may not be used to promote any entity, including worthy non-profit organizations and individuals. All biographical articles must fullfill our guideline on notability of individuals, and independent sources are needed for that purpose. Non-independent sources can be cited for non-controversial content, such as dates and names of staff members, but that does not contribute to establishing notability at all. I don't see any independent reliable sources that discuss Gisser at any length or depth, and there should be a minimum of three or four, as a rule. DES ^(talk) 18:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I searched the Net and added some more sources, any better now? I read the guideline and still feel quite confident that this person is worthy of note, although of course there are much more German-language sources on him---or could those be cited in the English WP as well? --WernR (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WernR, the currently cited sources do little or nothing to establish Gisser's notability. The first five are all to pages of organizations of which he is a member or employee, and so will not count at all. The others are all mere passing mentions, listing him as a member of this or that organization or project group, but not actually saying anything about him, except for the one that is a list of papers he has published, and a session chair notice (which is usually provided by the chair and so is a primary source). Sources in non-English languages are perfectly acceptable. If possible please provide an English translation of article titles, and perhaps source names where this would be likely to be helpful. The various cite templates provide the parameter |transtitle= to list a translated title. DES ^(talk) 23:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will look into this asapest. Good to know that non-E sources are okay, I'm a translator at heart. --WernR (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

How about these changes? --WernR (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not much improvement yet, see my comments at Talk:Richard Gisser where this discussion really belongs anyway. DES ^(talk) 22:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProjectwise Filter

Page Curation tool is a very good tool. Just a small suggestion, having Wikiprojectwise filter or say categorywise filter would be helpful. I understand users don't tag or categorized the articles in first attempt. I am mainly interested in Wikiproject Spaceflight, Wikiproject Astronomy & would be glad to review new articles under them. Thank You - Ninney (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How do you turn it off ?

The page, and the help page, should explain a way to turn this off.

How do you turn it off ?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Or also, does it only show up for new articles and not all articles? Is there a way to personally modify or tweak how it functions for different users? — Cirt (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Very good tool

I find this tool extremely useful and would like to express gratitude to whoever developed it! It saves a lot of time when patrolling new pages. Well done. rayukk | talk 11:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Problem with Page Curation Toolbar

Hi, When i open New Pages Feed, Page curation toolbar don't display. I have this problem from 7 November 2015. Can any one help me out.( Gowhar Nabi^TALK 11:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC))

How to determine if a page was patrolled

How can we tell whether a given new page has been patrolled, or if a given page was ever patrolled when it was new? Is it simply the absence of the "Mark this page as patrolled" link? Special:NewPages and the New Pages Feed will give the information, but only if you can spot the page you're interested in. It'd be nice to have "patrolled" as information in the Page Information or the Wikidata entry.

Related: if a new page is not yet patrolled, but gets additional edits within a few hours or days, does the ability to patrol it go away? David Brooks (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the easiest is the absence of the link, the absence of the the curation interface, or otherwise one can check the logs for the page. No, if the page was not patrolled edits do not make it patrolled.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Made a mistake!

Hi everyone! I just started doing New Page Patrols, and I made a mistake. I assumed that totally non-English pages were criteria for CSD, but I realized afterward it wasn't. I removed the tag and replaced it with the Non-english tag, but it still shows as tagged for speedy deletion. How can I undo this? Thanks! Air ♠ Combat _What's^{up, dog?} 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The page is at 야성의_동맹 Air ♠ Combat _What's^{up, dog?} 18:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It may have been server trouble or something with the page text AirCombat. I rarely tag non-English articles as this of course but I've never had any trouble tagging articles. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 08:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Special page in sa.wikipedia

Hi ! I have two questions.

1. I want to make this kind of page in sa.wikipedia. Can you guide me how it can be possible ?

2. I mark pages as "Patrolled". That is also my Wikipedia related work. So Can I know how many pages are patrolled by me ? NehalDaveND (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

NehalDaveND Well I think this tool is especially helpful here because English Wiki is so busy so it certainly helps go through all the new pages. It seems the Wikimedia Foundation started this tool but you can likely ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) where some of the software developers comment. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 08:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your Q2, if you patrolled pages in English Wikipedia using Page Curation, then the pages you had patrolled would be listed here: Noyster (talk), 09:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool Tool

great tool, makes patrolling pages so much easier and much faster to do. --Mr.Luther34 16:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

More functions

This tool is massively decreasing the workload of patrollers. Thanks to this tool, tagging speedy deletion templates only takes a few seconds and no longer requires patroller to hand-send notifications to SD-tagged users.

However, the tool is not perfect. If the curation bar could integrate categorization toolbar that would be great and saves a plethora of time for patrollers.

Also, I found the speedy deletion portion of the page curation is indeed incomplete. It does not cover redirect speedy-deletion tags, which is used frequently.

Again, I am expressing my sincere appriciation to the developer of this program. With these functions, the tool could be even better.

Ueutyi (talk) 06:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle

I tried, if you use both twinkle and this, they will fight each other – this doesn't let the patrol of twinkle. 333-blue 02:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 8

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T130804

JavaScript is no longer supported in Internet Explorer 8. The browser note at the top should change from "This tool may not work correctly in browsers older than Internet Explorer 8." to "This tool may not work correctly in browsers older than Internet Explorer 9.". While Internet Explorer 9 is no longer supported on Windows 7 as of January 12, 2016, it is still supported on Windows Vista until April 11, 2017. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Tool for moving to draftspace

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Drafts § Tool for moving to draftspace

I review a fair amount of new, undersourced articles and many of these need to be kicked to draftspace and tagged for AfC. Is there any tool that already automates this? (moves page+talk to draftspace while suppressing redirect, updates wikiproject tags, sanitizes page of cats & tags, and marks the page as an unsubmitted AfC draft) If not, this macro would be incredibly useful. czar 17:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a useful addition to the Page Curation tool. Maybe suggest it over there? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:10, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Thoughts? czar 08:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Unwatching this page—please ping me if you have feedback.  czar 04:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't open curation toolbar

Clicking the "Review" button from Special:NewPagesFeed does not automatically open the curation toolbar any more. Any fixes for this? I'm using the latest version of Chrome for Windows and have Twinkle enabled. Iamoctopus (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem, and use Safari with Twinkle. MB298 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried to rule out Twinkle, but it's not disabling for some reason when I disable it from Gadgets Iamoctopus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Page Curation window is more user-friendly

The Page Curation window is more user friendly. Very easy to use. Regards and thanks. --Prof TPMS (talk) 15:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Unreviewed pages

The icon for unreviewed pages has been changed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion problem

For some reason, the articles I've marked with deletion appear as reviewed instead when I choose "no indication of significance" or more than one criteria. Is it just me? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Same here; usually happens when it's an A7 or G11; a combination with G12 does work however. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Very Useful tool

It makes it a lot easier to edit, put various tags on, This should be made available to everyone. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Toolbar of favorites, or else a top category containing the 3 most common things on new pages: Orphan, no category, no citations.

It would improve the speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virophage (talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Virophage (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

User Auto-patrol

There are as of now, something around 16,000 users pages that need reviewing. If a bot could go through it that would be great. Virophage (talk) 05:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Stub tags

It would be great if the page curation software would not allow editors to add {{stub}} to an article which already has a specific stub tag: it's always going to be wrong. Latest example I've come across is Jasser Yahya. PamD 07:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I concur! I've been slogging through the Category:Stubs and finding a fair number of them already tagged with a more specific tag. I figured it was somehow automated. Is there a way to either disable this feature or toggle it on/off? Her Pegship (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROD

Why is prod even an option on pages specifically ineligible for it? TimothyJosephWood 17:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

RfD tagged old redirects in the New pages feed

The oldest page end of the New pages feed is polluted by RfD tagged redirects. Can that be prevented? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Unreview bug

Unreviewing an article does not add your signature to the message left on the user's talk page. Sine-bot is turned on, but I would prefer it to be automated as part of the subst/template placement.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Reviewed articles still marked as unreviewed

Articles that have been already marked for deletion are often still presented as unreviewed by the tool. Most of the times, opening an apparently unreviewed article reveals a speedy deletion tag. This is quite annoying and time-consuming. Isn't there a way to fix this? --Ita140188 (talk) 03:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Improvement, bugs, and any other business

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and we look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Probably a bug...

Recently, the page M+A appeared on Special:NewPagesFeed. I believe this to be a bug as 1) the page is a redirect and 2) it was created 5 years ago. Never experienced anything like this before. Omni Flames (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The article history shows that as a new original article, dated 15 June 2016, and there is nothing in the deletion log (if the redirect was cleared for the article). Do you have a diff showing the redirect?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

@Loriendrew: Huh, that's strange. It was definitely a redirect before, and I checked the history and it said it was created in 2011. The page has been deleted now, so not sure what I can do... Omni Flames (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I've seen this a few times as well, if you look at the oldest unpatrolled pages you'll probably see some close to the back. It seems as though if a redirect was created, and then subsequently the page was changed from a redirect to having actual content, it will show up as a "New Page", but with a creation date of when the redirect was created. I don't know if this is necessarily an undesired behaviour (as they are functionally new pages content-wise), but it would probably be more appropriate if the date of the 'new' article was the date the content was added (as opposed to the date the page was created). I don't know if that's technically feasible, but that would make the most sense to me.

One example I'm seeing is Voga - created as a redirect at [1], then changed to having actual content at [2]. This is showing up on the New Pages Feed with a date of 20:23, 7 January 2007 (same date/time as the original creation). PGWG (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Propose optional templating while un-reviewing pages

While un-reviewing pages, the tool compulsorily leaves a template on the talk page of the first reviewer. This may be problematic sometimes. If I remember correctly, this used to be optional earlier (maybe around March or April 2016). Could this be made optional again? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Lemongirl942, could you explain why this could be problematic? Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This has something to do with WP:DTTR and also in certain cases where one editor (the original reviewer) has asked another editor (the un-reviewer) to stay away from the talk page. The moment I un-reviewed a page, it automatically leaves this templated warning. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand. There's no easy technical solution for that. The softwre notifies the original reviewer. However, I regularly patrol 100s of new pages (only to check on the quality of the actual patrolling) and it's not often I have to unpatrol an article that puts the message on the wrong user's page. We are currently working on an update to the Page Curation software, More important however is when you unpatrol a page, to check on that reviewer's editing history, If they are very young, very new, or just don't know what they are doing, leave a message on my talk page and I'll take it from there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, the proportion of pages that I have had to unreview is tiny (I think less than 5 in the last 6 months for me). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I just realised that the "mandatory templating" is useful in a certain scenario. Sometimes, inexperienced editors also unreview a page. In this case, sending a mandatory templated message helps to draw the attention of the original reviewer. Looking at the whole situation again, I think the mandatory templating is a useful feature to have. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Search new articles not reveiwed

Ive noticed that the new pages feed is massive compared to when i last saw it.

I, like all of us, are not an expert on everything so don't feel l should review quite a few articles. Could perhaps a search function be built into the new pages feed so that i can search for items that i might be able to review quickly, for example, articles connected to Australia, which i might be able to review quickly based on my own knowledge of Australia.

This might help get more items reviewed more quickly. Just a thought. Jamesbushell.au (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Jamesbushell.au, That would involve some very sophisticated and expensive software based on semantic search algorythms. The whole point about new pages is that most of them have nothing that can be used to sort them by any kind of categories or subject matter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Could it just be a keyword search then?Jamesbushell.au (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Possily, Jamesbushell.au, but the WMF is not going to do this just for Autralian articles. It would have to be done to cover every kind of article - andthat would be a monumental task; less scientific in its approach than a semantic search, but every bit as time consuming to develop. New Page Patrollers are not required to be subject experts, they just need an excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: New Page Reviewer user right

It is proposed to ensure that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. This user right would bring new page patrolls inline with the requirements for the reviewers at Articles for creation, and the systems for according minor user rights such as rollbacker, template editor, page mover, etc. (see: Requests for permissions). The discussion is taking place at: New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

enable

Hello; How can enable "Page Curation" on the Arabic Wikipedia ? --Bdareen-بدارين (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to open a new Phabricator ticket. Showing that there is consensus in Arabic Wikipedia to switch on the tool would be a prerequisite.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Page Curation toolbar disapearing

Is the page curation toolbar disappearing for anoyone else? So far in the past 24 hours it has disappeared for me on Ooredoo Oman, Kevin de Queiroz and HOP! Channel. I've tried looking for it in the left toolbar but it's not there either. I used to think was some kind of bug related to me editing the article, but I have no edits to HOP! Channel. Thanks! Happy Squirrel (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

This happened to me on a few articles the past couple of days. Appears to be very intermittent and unrelated to any actions of others (marked as unpatrolled, etc.)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Happysquirrel, Loriendrew, Thank you for your feedback . The Foundation is currently taking a renewed interest in Page Curation and your issues will certainly be added to their 'to do' list.

That said, as far as I recall, the Curation tool only appears on pages that are accessed from the New Pages Feed. As a first resort, you could try clearing your browser cache. Also, an intermittently slow Internet conection (not always realised by many) can leave some elements of a page or related extensions not being loaded. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Not true (well, for me) on both parts. My curation tool also appears when accessing through a user's contribution page. The problem of not showing up seemed to be article specific. Even going through the feed, it will appear for one or more articles but would never work on the article where it does not, no matter how many times I may refresh/close/restart.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 11:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Like you, Loriendrew, I have used Page Curation hundreds of times and still do, but I have never experienced your problem. Perhaps you should report it at Phabricator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Leaderboard?

Wikipedia:Page Curation/Help mentions a leaderboard, but I couldn't find it. Does it exist? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa, you may wish to post this at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements, adding, very briefly, some details of what you expect to see. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

COPYVIO

Does anyone happen to know if a COPYVIO bot (Coren etc) still checks new pages automatically? It's suddenly dawned on me that I don't seem to recall seeing many pages tagged for COPYVIO recently. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The system at https://tools.wmflabs.org/copypatrol is checking all draft-space and article-space additions over a certain size, including new article creations. CorenSearchBot has not edited since June. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I wonder what size and how regularly: St. Mary's Church Finedon was three days old when I stub-sorted it, spotted suspicious text, and found it a pure copyvio. PamD 23:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

At the time you tagged it, Pam, it had not been expanded beyond the creator's first edit. IMO, it was big enough to be included in an automatic COPYVIO sweep. After all, there are only around a thousand new pages arriving every 24 hours. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the bot was down at the time; there were no reports filed between 05:18 on September 5 and 00:03 on September 6. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Filtering tool bugs

• When I change the filter criteria in the lower section (under "That:"), it doesn't change the number of pages in my filtered list. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• The "pages in your filtered list" never match "total unreviewed pages" no matter how I set the filter. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
• I set the filter to only show "Were created by" to a user. The list came up with nothing. When I tried to turn "Were created by" off, the "Set filters" button was off the screen, so I couldn't click on it or scroll down to it. (I use the Chrome browser with the page zoomed to 125%.) Messing with the zoom I was able to get it, but someone less resourceful then me would be stumped. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Richard. The Foundation is currently taking a renewed interest in Page Curation and your issues will certainly be added to their 'to do' list. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• One more to check out: Jbhunley helpfully observed at the NPP RfC that the "new editors" filter is suggesting all 13,000 unreviewed pages are from new editors; but I've got 19 pages in the queue myself and am extended confirmed, my account's a year old, etc., so it seems like the "new editor" filter may not be working. Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • You need to have "autopatrolled" user right (not "extended confirmed") to be excluded from the list. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I was under the impression that autopatrolled sets your articles to be automatically marked as patrolled, so they don't show up in the feed filter or not. The "new editors" filter is apparently supposed to do something different, but as Innisfree987 has pointed out, it doesn't actually seem to filter anything. Joe Roe (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Oh yes to be clear I am fine with being in the feed--I just assume the filter exists so that within the feed, patrollers who wish may address contributions from brand-new users first, and it's not offering much help to that end if it marks all contributors as new! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC) But I'll keep that in mind for when I hit a point where I think I'm wasting people's time making NPP review my pages! Thanks! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Update on further examination, the filter actually seems to be working, it's only the count that's off. This seems to be true for several filter tools, actually--I noticed this because when I search by my own user name, it does brings up all of my unreviewed pages, but the count at the top of the curation tool still says "13480 pages in your filtered list". I like to think I'm contributing to WP but I have not made 13,000 unreviewed pages! So then I noticed that same goes for "new editors" filter--it does actually bring up a queue of people who have very few edits (mainly <10), but continues to say all 13,480 pages in the NPP queue were made by new editors, when it clearly has removed some users (in the unfiltered list, the first five editors in my reverse-chronological sort have 49,094 edits, 22122, 12997, 205325, 12249. Etc.) Will go ahead and ping Jbhunley and Kudpung as folks who may be interested to know this, especially since I imagine these (errant) stats may be relevant to the on-going RfC. Innisfree987 (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Good sleuthing! Joe Roe (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
• Innisfree987, Jbhunley, Joe Roe, Richard, Diannaa, I don't see how these stats are relevant to any on-going RfC. If these issues are confirmed as bugs, then the place to get them sorted (pun) is at Phabricator, but don't hold your breath waiting for anyone to do it for you, there is no one currently officially (or unofficially) in charge of Page Curation, either in the WMF or among the volunteer community, and still smarting from the distressing behaviour of some of the WMF staff at Bugzilla, I would be the last person to set foot in Phabricator despite any recent claims that it is now community driven. I will point out however, that my own careful sleuthing has caused me to remove the autopatrolled right from several users over the years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Personal page curation log

Is there a way to get the page curation tool to log pages you review or tag in your userspace, like Twinkle's CSD log? I'd like to keep an eye on pages I reviewed, but don't want to clutter my watchlist. Joe Roe (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: There isn't a log to a page in userspace, but here is your page curation log. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe:: It would be good to have one standardised patrol log - a merging of the patrol logs made trough Page Curation by regular patrollers, and of the logs create by the taggings from some users who occasionally use Twinkle. If NPP is to be improved at all, there needs to be a mechanism of motintoring and evaluating the work of the patrollers. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Redirects

Now that The Foundation is currently taking a renewed interest in Page Curation could we ensure that the issues with redirects are on the "to-do list"? The issues have been raised here before (see this and this) and include:

1. Redirects when an RfD tag or any other material is added to them, but they remain redirects, should not be in the New Page feed.
2. Redirects converted to articles should be in the feed but indexed by the date of creation of the article, not of the redirect, and by the username of the creator of the article, not of the redirect.
3. Perhaps more difficult: when an article is converted to a redirect and that action is then reverted, it should not appear in the New Page feed.

It might help if the "to-do" list could be made public, so editors could check if their own concerns were covered and suggest an addition if not: Noyster (talk), 08:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

One way to do this Noyster, and to be sure, is to go through all the archives of this talk page and draw up your own list and submit it to the Foundation or Phabrictor. A little pressure on the WMF might not hurt. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung but I'd prefer this to be a joint effort and reflect any current concerns that patrollers may have. In any case I don't myself have contacts at WMF nor knowledge of Phabricator. So I've started a subpage for suggested improvements and copied my Redirect items over to it. Any patroller is welcome to add further items or comment on those already there. Do we have a deadline?: Noyster (talk), 11:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Deadline, Noyster? I don't know. Is there one after these 5 long years? AFAIK, none of the issues reported on this page and its archives since 2013 have been addressed, so theoretically they are all 'current'. The only deadline I know of is my personal one - when I finally retire because I'm wasting my time and my admin tools persevering with the campaign to keep Wikipedia free of spam and other rubbish, while the community at large does not appear to accept that the quality of NPP and the competency of those who use it are a major issue. I was approached by the WMF after Wikimamnia with a request to provide a list of suggested improvement and I submitted a 17-page report about 6 weeks ago. I wish you success. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the subpage Noyster.

Kudpung, as you and I have discussed, I also think it would be a good idea to discuss fixes and improvement to the page curation tool in a collaborative environment. Not to diminish your substantial efforts and dedication (and thank you!), but if we want the best possible curation tool to keep the "spam and rubbish" out, then there should be much broader input than from one person. - MrX 12:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have absolutely no intention, MrX, and never have had, and never made the vaguest mention, of making a solitary campaign. I only persevered because when I was left holding the baby in 2013, I had (and still have) good relations with a few of the Foundation staff who are still there. I just felt that someone had to get on and do something. It's interesting now to see how eager everyone is to join the bandwaggon now that I have taken some initiative, and all they can do is PA and harass me for it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, appreciate your stewardship and leadership. I'm sorry if anyone is harassing you or otherwise making your experience on Wikipedia unpleasant. I think if we focus on a common vision for how page curation can be improved (tools, process, user rights, and so on), everyone wins. That said, I feel your frustration.- MrX 13:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There still seem to be a lot of suggestions, MrX, that we should be collaborating, but at the moment, two weeks later it still looks as if I'm the only one actually bothered and rolling their sleeves up and even populating Noyster's page and making it public. That's about the sum total of collaboration on Wikipedia, just as we have seen with the current RfC and the efforts of some people at Wikimania who were simply brushed aside by the WMF with empty promises to keep them quiet; now if there had been some response to my many calls for support... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, my Wikipedia time is limited and this is not my highest priority. Feel free to proceed without me and I will join the discussion as I'm able to.- MrX 17:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

MrX, I apologise if you thought I was addressing you personally. We are all volunteers and for all of us our time is limited. It was simply my intention to evoke the general apathy on Wikipedia where everyone expects everyone else to do something and as a result of course, nothing gets done - and if it does, the one plucking up the initiative or even being the messenger, gets shot. Some of the fundamental examples are the lazy page creators who throw in a useless new page expecting some magic team at Wikipedia to make it fit for publication and then complain about getting bitten when their junk gets deservedly put in the trash - and believe me, I'm no deletionist. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)..

PROD doesn't mark page as patrolled

If I PROD a new page, the page isn't marked as patrolled, and I have to mark it manually. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

It's configurable in Twinkle and I'm not sure about the page curation tool. There may be cases where a PROD or CSD should remain unreviewed, so leaving that decision to the page patrollers seems best.- MrX 22:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I would have thought that was a good idea. If it's deprodded and you miss it, presumably we'd want a second look to decide whether to take it to AfD or try and improve. Joe Roe (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Template:New unreviewed article

No idea if this is the right place for this, but as recently came up at the teahouse, the Curator should really automatically remove Template:New unreviewed article when the article is reviewed, especially since likely very nearly 100% of the time it is placed automatically by the new article tool. I'm getting the feeling that a lot of people either assume it already does this, or aren't really sure that they should currently be manually removing the template from reviewed pages. TimothyJosephWood 13:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion, Tim, have you listed it at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements ? That's the place where it will get any attention. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

250 character limit

Is there a reason for the 250 character limit when sending messages to page creators? This is easy to exceed when suggesting multiple ways an article could be improved. It seems to be an unnecessary inconvenience, as any reviewer could go around it by creating a new user talk page section from scratch. The text in green is what exceeded 250 characters in this question. Forcing brevity might lead to explanations that are more vague and ultimately more confusing for newcomers. Mz7 (talk) 14:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion, Mz7, have you considered listing it at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements ? That's the place where it will get some attention. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'll check that page out. Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Localization of edit summaries

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T150552

I recently had my menu display languages set to French rather than English, which should in theory only change the appears of Wikipedia for me, yet when tagging an article for deletion using the page curation tool with this setting, it generated an edit summary in French, which should be in English regardless of my personal settings as this is the English Wikipedia. Sjrct (talk) 14:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Main Page

For the first time ever, the page curation toolbar appears on the Main Page. Why did this happen? GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Someone hacked it and it had to be recreated, hence appearing as a new page. Pinguinn 🐧 22:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagging is now in line with Twinkle

Hello! I've created MediaWiki:PageTriageExternalTagsOptions.js which overrides the core tag options with our own custom configuration. Now all of the tags in Twinkle should be available in Page Curation. The biggest addition is the notability templates, which weren't there at all beforehand. Let me know if anyone has any problems. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Still to do, MusikAnimal: add the granular CSD criteria and their specific templates. This is, according to the regular patrollers, one of the reasons why they prefer not to use Page Curation. All Page Curation provides is a rather weak user talk page template:

Hello User:Joe Sample

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Sandeep nokhwal for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page|TB| if you have questions.

It was obviously written in good faith by someone, but it does not provide enough information (I can't even find where the template is parked). I would replace it with something like:

Hello User:Joe Sample

The article Sandeep nokhwal has been tagged for deletion because it does not convey sufficient importance for an encyclopedia page. Please see Wikipedia:CSDA& for full details.

If you want to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page.If you have any questions you can leave a message on my talk page or ask at the Tea House

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This has still not been done, MusikAnimal.Granular criteria are still missing from the Page Curation tool.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. "Tagging" refers to maintenance tags, which was number 23 on the list. Number 21 (CSD criteria) is a separate task and you are correct that it has not been done. I don't believe it is as straightforward to update, but I can look more into when I have the time. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Curation Toolbar Disappeared

I have recently been unable to open the Curation tool on any page. This started a little more than a week ago, and even clicking on links directly from the New Page Feed doesn't open the tool. I can't see any options in the Tools section to manually open the tool, either. Have their been similar issues recently? Jionunez (talk) 12:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Following a recent RfC you now need the new page reviewer user right to patrol new pages and use page curation. Joe Roe (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It has disappeared for me as well, both when clicking on the page and on the "Review" button, and I have the right. Jbh^Talk 13:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Kudpung and MusicAnimal: Jbh^Talk 13:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

• Works for me. However, I have noticed that the user talk page tabs that are generated by the js scripts in my user/js page are sometimes not loading. I assume it's either a js problem or a script clash. Perhaps clearing the browser cache may help but I've tried doing this in Firefox on OSX and it doesnt always work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I was able to get it back by clicking the "Curate this article" link on the sidebar while on a new page. After doing that once it starts coming up automatically as it did before. Jbh^Talk 14:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

There's something related to cookies, involved in this. Doing a hard-refresh of the special page should usually fix it. More details. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joe Roe Thank you for the information! Jionunez (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Nominate for RFD doesn't work in the page curation toolbar.

If you attempt to use the page curation toolbar to nominate a redirect for WP:RFD, it won't work to properly apply the templates. The first time I tried it it gave me an error message about not being able to find the right place to put the template. The second time I tried it (on a different redirect) it told me the page was already tagged with a deletion template (it wasn't). ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Bug

Theres a bug there is no way to review as there is no review button i am trying to patrol but cant as the button is not showing up Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a bug, Flow234. You don't have the new page reviewer user right, which is now required to mark pages as patrolled. If you'd like to start/resume reviewing you can request the right at WP:PERM, but you might not meet the requirements just yet. Joe Roe (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

New pages feed filters

Have the new pages feed filters recently stopped working for anyone else? I'm seeing redirects and already nominated articles in the feed and can't seem to get rid of them no matter what I tick/untick. Joe Roe (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

G3 wording for hoax coming up as pure vandalism

Whilst the criterion (G3) is the same - Twinkle uses more specific wording for blatant hoaxes. Page curation uses generic vandalism wording instead - is it possible this could be updated? (I thought I'd clicked on the wrong option here [3] only to do it again and find the same thing happen). Thanks! Mike1901 (talk) 10:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

One source

Several of the tags under the Sources tab of the page curation toolbar all put {{One source}} instead of the more appropriate tags. For example, the checkbox for "third party sources" ought to place {{Self-published}} but places {{One source}} instead. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Issue with user talk post

So, I just proposed an unsourced BLP article for deletion using page curation, and the message that was automatically left on the article author's talk page had duplicate headings. Is this is known bug, or did I do something wrong? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Possibly Cordless Larry. I'll check it out when I get round to it. If MusikAnimal is watching this page it's something he could probably do even quicker and fix on the fly.

There is also another bug: If one wants to change a deletion tag of any kind, it keeps reporting 'This page is already tagged for deletion' even though the tag has already been removed. This of course then forces the use of Twinkle to get the job done, which is unfortunate because Twinkle is not supposed to be the default page curation tool.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung, I was just about to leave you a message on your talk page to see if you had any idea about what was happening here, and then I saw this. I'm having the same issue as well, but even for leaving comments after review (see here [4] ). I actually prefer Twinkle for CSDs because it is easier to navigate IMO, so I haven't seen if it is impacting there, but I suspect it might be as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, although I'm not a prgrammer, the WMF have practically thrown it back at me to ajust the site js (or whatever it is) in the CSD pane of the curation tool to make it not only as their sleep and do it for us in 10 minutes instead of the 6 hours I've already spent on it. Again, MusikAnimal has the skill to do it, if of course we can twist his arm.... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

If we could enter any bugs/issues directly into Phabricator moving forward that would be very helpful. Make sure to add the "MediaWiki-extensions-PageCuration" tag. This way we can triage, enter it into sprint planning, etc. See mw:How to report a bug if you don't know how to do this. Pinging me in these discussions is fine but the issue will get buried in my notifications, where if you enter it into Phabricator it will be documented and exposed to all developers, volunteers and staff alike, hence the likelihood of it getting fixed is dramatically higher. I've done only minor work on Page Curation so I'm not really the best go-to, sorry! — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done had never done this before. Will do in the future if there are any other issues. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Dead end"

I watchlisted a recently created page I edited, and when I later checked the watchlist, I saw that the page had been marked as a "dead end" in the Page curation log. I'm guessing this means no outgoing links. Considering the other meaning of the phrase, it might be threatening for new users to see this in their watchlist. I propose this to be changed to "no internal links" or something similar. Daß Wölf 01:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable concern and improving that terminology might help newer patrollers. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Dead end makes sense to me. Similar to 'orphan', no need to be all PC about it in my opinion.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Page curation toolbar bug (double header when adding messages when reviewing a new article)

When you use the message feature to add a message when marking a page as reviewed using the page curation toolbar it creates a double header bar (two copies) of the 'A page you started (---) has been reviewed' If this could be fixed that would be great. here is an example.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  (forgot to sign this, sorry folks)

Thanks for the heads up, Bill. To repeat the words of MusikAnimal:

If we could enter any bugs/issues directly into Phabricator moving forward that would be very helpful. Make sure to add the "MediaWiki-extensions-PageCuration" tag. This way we can triage, enter it into sprint planning, etc. See mw:How to report a bug if you don't know how to do this.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Bill and Kudpung this is already in Phabricator and has someone working on it. Just as an FYI. I'll add the diff of this thread to the bug just so people know it is a concern of the community. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Opps, seems we should have been pinging Insertcleverphrasehere instead. Sorry Bill for the pings, The information above is still the case, however :) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

tool tags with notability neologisms in stead of academics

The Page Curation tool tags articles tagged for Notability > Academic with {{notability|1=Neologisms|date=January 2017}} in stead of {{notability|Academics|date=January 2017}}. For an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emmanuel_Navon&diff=next&oldid=762575442 and subsequent edits. Mduvekot (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Mduvekot please file the bug at Bugzilla - I only voluntarily coordinate here but I am not a developer. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

An admin needs to change

        notability_neologisms: {
          label: 'Academic',
          tag: 'notability',
          desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for neologisms.',
          params: {
            '1': $.extend( {}, param['1'], { value: 'Neologisms' } ),
            date: param.date
          },
          position: 'top',
          multiple: true
        },

        numbers_neologisms: {
          label: 'Numbers',
          tag: 'notability',
          desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for numbers.',
          params: {
            '1': $.extend( {}, param['1'], { value: 'Numbers' } ),
            date: param.date
          },
          position: 'top',
          multiple: true
        },

to

        notability_neologisms: {
          label: 'Neologisms',
          tag: 'notability',
          desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for neologisms.',
          params: {
            '1': $.extend( {}, param['1'], { value: 'Neologisms' } ),
            date: param.date
          },
          position: 'top',
          multiple: true
        },

        notability_numbers: {
          label: 'Numbers',
          tag: 'notability',
          desc: 'The page\'s subject may not meet the notability guideline for numbers.',
          params: {
            '1': $.extend( {}, param['1'], { value: 'Numbers' } ),
            date: param.date
          },
          position: 'top',
          multiple: true
        },

in MediaWiki:PageTriageExternalTagsOptions.js (beginning line 549). This should correct the problem. The neologisms label is currently 'Academic' instead of 'Neologisms', and numbers_neologisms: should be notability_numbers:. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Moving forward feel free to make a protected edit request at MediaWiki talk:PageTriageExternalTagsOptions.js — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

"Unremarkable"

This may seem like a minor semantic argument, but I think the choice of wording in the curator can be confusing, especially for editors who have recently started reviewing. Anyone who's seen a few dozen AfD noms along the lines of "article does not establish notability" is probably fairly familiar how even sometimes experienced editors can misunderstand WP deletion policy.

A7 is not an existential criteria as it pertains to the subject of an article. It does not make a claim of fact regarding whether a subject is in fact significant, and less so, notable. A new article about a person who is in fact notable under WP:NEXIST, may nonetheless qualify for A7 if the article is sufficiently poorly written so as to make no claim of significance. In other words, an article may qualify for A7 even though its subject may easily pass an AfD.

The current wording in the recent changes to the curator seems to fairly clearly imply that the person is in fact unremarkable, when the criteria that is actually being applied is that the article does not establish otherwise. TimothyJosephWood 13:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood:, This does not appear to be a software bug. The recent changes to the Curation tool brough it in line with the CSD descriptions used elsewhere. If you consider this issue to be of sufficient concern, probably the first place to discuss it would be at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, elsewhere where? And why do those descriptions matter at all in comparison to the actual policy? This does not require a discussion on WT:CSD because the entire point is that the curator text does not currently reflect the relevant policy. TimothyJosephWood 02:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK those texts were taken from the ones in Twinkle. More reason why Twinkle should not be used for New Page Reviewing if you believe the CSD criteron to be incorreect, but many of us have been using them for a decade or longer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No...I...Maybe I'm not being clear. I don't have a problem with the CSD criteria. I have a problem with the fact that the text used in Curator does not reflect the actual criteria. CSD is a policy. So when Curator disagrees with policy, Curator is wrong, not the other way around. TimothyJosephWood 16:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There are seven A7 criteria in the Curator 0 te same ones in Twinkle. This is not the venue to discuss something that is not a bug. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

And whether or not Curator and Twinkle match has nothing to do with anything. TimothyJosephWood 10:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

As I suggested, consider taking your problem to WT:DELETION. AFAICS, It's not a software bug. If you believe it is, file a case at Phabricator, but that is not the venue for discussing policy. To reuse the words of MusikAnimal: If we could enter any bugs/issues directly into Phabricator moving forward that would be very helpful. Make sure to add the "MediaWiki-extensions-PageCuration" tag. This way we can triage, enter it into sprint planning, etc. See mw:How to report a bug if you don't know how to do this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

CSD notification problem

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T157067

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T157053

Whenever I mark a page for CSD, the tool keeps on loading forever. I can refresh the page and the page will be tagged with the CSD, but the creator of the page is not notified on their talk page. Any ideas? Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 04:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be the case for me too. I've logged it in Phabricator. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The issue is also being tracked as T157053. Jbh^Talk 19:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't see it when I searched. I've commented on the task you created saying they can be merged. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing - Election for coordinators

New Page Reviewing - Election for 2 coordinators. Nomination period is now open and will run for two weeks followed by a two-week voting period.

• Nomination period: Sunday 5 February to 23:59 UTC Sunday 19 February
• Voting period: Monday 20 February to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March

See: NPR Coordinators for full details. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Curation Toolbar

When I looked at a new page, the curation toolbar used to appear automatically. Now, however, I can't seem to get it to show up. Does anyone know why this is or have a solution? It would be much appreciated. Thanks. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 21:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

With a little research, I found that use of the curation toolbar now requires special permissions. I don't really need to know how to get the toolbar back anymore, but I would like to know when these policy revisions came about. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 21:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rasimmons:They came about back in October and November as a result of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right and Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC for patroller qualifications. If you would like to continue patrolling using the toolbar, please request it at WP:PERM. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn: Alas, I'm 200 mainspace edits away from getting the rights back. I understand that consensus was reached on the decision, but I really think it's crazy that someone who used the tools quite often before these policies were implemented could have them stripped without say (or even a notification as to the changes). I think that restricting access to the useful tools, but leaving the New Pages Feed open to anyone is really counter-intuitive; now inexperienced users will still be able to patrol pages, but without the tools that make the process easier for them. This might achieve the desired effect of reducing issues with curation of new pages, but I really don't like the inconsistent way it's been gone about. Just my jaded two cents. Thanks anyway. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 22:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Rasimons: I'm not sure why you weren't grandfathered in. "Editors who have made 200 uncontested or unreverted patrols, maintenance, or deletion tags between 1 January 2016 and 06 October 2016 and who have a clean block log since 01 January 2016 will have the right automatically accorded to their account via Special:UserRights" Your page curation log shows more than 200 within the applicable time frame. I know Graeme Bartlett did some of the work adding people who were being grandfathered, perhaps he can shed some light on this quandary. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I added those that were on a list, but it looks as if there were insufficient mainspace contributions to be listed. Take a read of Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers and Wikipedia:New pages patrol. You can still tag for problems and for speedy delete (which you have been doing for a year already). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: Thanks. I've read most of the pages under this project, and I mistakenly attempted a request for permissions after misreading my current contribution count. I know that I can still add tags and mark for deletion manually, and I certainly know how, but it's a tedious process that is far more prone to mistakes (such as neglecting to notify users of taggings and so forth) than with the tools. I'm not asking for the tools back at this point, but could you explain why I didn't make the list, given the number patrol contributions linked by User:ONUnicorn? I'm guessing that some of those don't count as mainspace or there were too many that ended up contested, but I'd just like to be sure of what the issue was. I'd appreciate any clarification. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 00:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The list I worked from is at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List3 accorded. See also Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List2 and Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/List4. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• WADR, I think rasimmons is rather out of touch. The new user group was introduced ful four months ago and each of its 3 RfC were widely publicised and well subscribed. RA Simmonds joined Wikipedia in February 2016 and stil only has 301 mainspace edits with only 8 this year so far. One of the major criteria for being granted access to the Curation Toolbar is a demonstrable need for it. The full explanation, including grandfathering, is at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you for your viewpoint. I agree, maybe I may be a bit out of touch, and yes, I haven't edited much this year. If you want to know the reason, it's because I am a chemical engineering student and I regularly have 6+ hours of classes a day with as many hours of homework. Yes, woe is me. I do my best to get on here and improve the encyclopedia when I can. It's not as much as I'd like to, but it's what I can do. I don't want to come off as rude, but I think you misunderstand the purpose of the permissions. They are not there to restrict effective new page patrolling to those absolutely devoted to it. They are there to keep inexperienced users from doing a lot of damage with an automated toolset before anyone can stop them. I hope that you can understand where I'm coming from, as an editor who knows how to patrol pages, and simply wants the tools to do it better, even if I can't be a consistent presence as a patroller. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 21:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not just a 'viewpoint', rasimmons. As initiator of the project with the primary intention of getting NPP finally cleaned up and done properly, I was naturally left wondering at the community's insistence that the bulk of patrolling should still be left to children and raw newbies for whom maintenance tasks are an absolute magnet. After 6 years of striving for a better performance at New Page Patrolling, I'm understandably hanging my hat up and elections are taking place here for new coordinators. Please take the time to explore all the new pages surrounding New Page Reviewer, the navigation tabs are on the top of this page, but you are not ready yet for the New Page Reviewer group. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: As you have messaged me on my talk page, if you would like to continue this discussion, we can do it there. Thanks R. A. Simmons ^Talk 22:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Tagged Messages in New Pages Feed

Why does the New pages feed include messages that already have tags such as "Orphan", "No categories", and "No citations"? If someone has already reviewed them enough to apply tags, shouldn't they be removed from the list? Eddie Blick (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Eddie Blick, I'm pretty sure that those messages are automated and don't determine if further attention is needed; if a page needs to be deleted as BLP violation, for instance. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 16:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

rasimmonsThanks! I didn't realize that any of the tagging was automated. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk)

@Teblick: Anyone can look at an article and tag it, but it doesn't get removed from the new pages feed until someone with the patroller userright clicks the little green check mark to say it has been adequately reviewed. Part of the reason for the recent changes was that newer users who don't understand Wikipdia's policies and processes were doing a LOT of the reviewing, and there was no way to adequately supervise them. With the articles remaining on the list even if they have been tagged, this gives patrollers a way to see if there is someone who is doing a lot of inappropriate tagging and ask them politely to stop. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@ONUnicorn:, Thanks for that explanation. I hadn't considered that non-patrollers could add tags, but what you wrote clarifies things. I appreciate that. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Pages created by autopatrolled user showing up in New Page Feed?

Yoann Salmier and Anthony Caci were in the NPP queue, but were both created in November by Add92, who has had autopatrolled perms since 2009. Is there a reason why these articles should be showing up? They've had no other edits so it's not a redirect->article situation. I've spot-checked a couple of other autopatrolled users and their articles aren't in the queue, so it doesn't look like it's a universal issue. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Answering my own question -- they were manually unreviewed, but this doesn't show up on Page Information. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:55, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Issue with open license text from UNESCO being incorrectly seen by Earwigbot as a copyright violation

Hi all

Just to let you know there have been some issues with open license text from UNESCO used in articles being incorrectly flagged by Earwigbot as copyright violations. The issue is caused by the original text with the correct licensing statement coming from a .pdf rather than a web page, however there are reuses of this text on the UNESCO website and Google Books missing the correct licensing statement. This makes it look like these new articles are copyright violations meaning most of the new articles and additions to existing articles created by Susan Schneegans are being nominated for speedy deletion or removed from articles incorrectly. I started a discussion on Earwig's talk page that has some more information. I'm unsure if this is a wider issue with other open license text sources originally available as a .pdf.

Many thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Earwig's tool just looks for similarities and as far as I know has no way of detecting the license the text is under. Patrollers should be using their own judgement to decide whether that similarity amounts to a copyright violation. – Joe (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joe Roe, the text from UNESCO in question isn't a copyright violation because its under an open license, the issue is that editors are deleting the pages because it looks to them from the tool that the page is a copyright violation which it isn't. There is a notification on the article above the references section that says it is from an open license source but unfortunately that is being missed by patrollers. --John Cummings (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I'm just saying this is a problem with the patrollers not the tool. – Joe (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Joe Roe, ah, sorry, I misunderstood, I spoke to Earwig and he going to try and implement a change in the tool to flag if it has one of the templates used to signify if the text is available under an open license. Can you think of any changes could be made to any of the guidance for patrollers to encourage them to check for open license notifications? --John Cummings (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Whenever I revert material that is either a straight close paraphrase of any source, I have been using the edit summary "copyright issue re-X" rather than the more loaded term "Copyright violation" specifically to note that there are issues that need to be considered as opposed to an absolute conclusion that there has been a violation. Unfortunately, when the entire article is copied, reversion doesn't make sense and it should be considered for speedy deletion, the standard template uses the term "copyright infringement".Not relevant to this discussion, although true.

I do agree that the UNESCO report has a proper license. However, the existence of a proper license does not mean the words are suitable for an encyclopedia. The report is intensely political and not close to neutrally written. While it may qualify as a reliable source for some purposes, I think using it to create articles from whole cloth is a horrible editorial decision. It is my opinion that this article should be nuked, although your point is well taken that the ground should be for something other than copyright infringement.

I note the same author is copying swaths of material and dropping them into other articles. I think these addition should be reviewed carefully for editorial reasons other than copyright.

For what it's worth, I'm not, as far as I know using the Earwig tool, unless it has been incorporated into this tool.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

It might be worth asking for input from user:Diannaa. She uses the CopyPatrol tool more extensively than any other editor. It is my general practice to check to see if the material is properly licensed. I don't think the CopyPatrol does such a check - it may be worth requesting, although it sounds difficult. I know I missed it in this specific case, mainly becasue the article was so bad, I got caught up in the multitude of editorial problems, and didn't check for a license as closely as I should. (Most web sites place a license at the bottom, where it is easy to find, this one has the license on pgae 3, which isn't an excuse for missing it, but it was possible to miss.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I advised Susan on February 22 to add with her citation the fact that the material is copied from a compatibly licensed source. As far as I know she has started doing that or something similar whenever she copies from compatibly licensed sources, and material is still being removed and/or tagged for speedy deletion by patrollers and deleted by admins.A whitelist exists for Earwig's tool and a similar list exists on Meta for the Copyvios tool. Human error will occur even with whitelists. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

AfD error?

I'm not sure if this is a software bug or a user error, but when Page Curation is used to nominate an article for AfD which has already been nominated before, it tacks on the new AfD to the end page of the old one. [5][6]. Has anyone else seen this before? ansh666 17:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I have seen this before a few times. It is a bug. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate speedy deletion notification headings

Hello. I nominated an article for speedy deletion using page curation, and this happened. Any ideas why there were two headings? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That's an A11, right? They seem to be the only one doing it now. I've been meaning to put it in phab for a while now, but haven't yet. I can put the ticket in later, or you can now. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, A11, though I now realise that the notification says G3. I've reported the issue: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T161900. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Moving to draft namespace

Any idea when the 'move to draft namespace' feature will be rolled out? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Probably never because the WMF does not regard the rest of the items at Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements as a priority and they must take their place in the line of other community wishes. We can't do it ourselves because Page Curation was written as a core MediaWiki extension and AFAIK we don't have access to it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, you've got page mover, so you can definitely still do this. It just means you have to manually suppress the redirect, probably manually add the AfC banner (because why wouldn't you), and manually leave a note on the author's talk page.

If you're interested in trying to draft up a user talk template to explain the whole deal to users who have this done, I can try to help out, and we can try to give it a test run and see how well it works. Although, in playing around a bit with Template:Afc move, which is similar in many ways, you are probably going to still get ~5-10% of people who don't get it, and simply recreate the page in main space. So then you're either staring down a cross namespace redirect, (admittedly less problematic when its userspace->draftspace) or you're just in exactly the same situation you were to start with. Some of that may depend on the clarity of the notification. (Although, if I'm not mistaken, some of that is attributable to user's having the edit window open when the page is moved, and recreating the thing accidentally when they hit save.) TimothyJosephWood 12:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Timothyjosephwood, I think TheSandDoctor's question referred to our original intention to have 'Move to draft' as one of the options, along with all the other tags and deletions, included in the Page Curation tool. The actual script behind it would:

• Move the page to draft namespace with all its history (deleting the original and surpressing the redirect)
• Notify the creator
• Time stamp the draft to be listed for nomination G13 if not edited.

All of course which is perfectly doable for anyone who has access to the MediaWiki programming environment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. But making a user space template is the best thing I can do to even approximate that, and... well... would need to be done anyway for use by curator if it actually ever is incorporated as a feature.

It's overall messy though. For example, this god awful mess this morning. What would be super is if some combination of page mover/Twinkle/Curator/whatever gave the option to leave an XNR with a time bomb that bot deleted it after 72 hours. That way if its necessary to leave an XNR to avoid confusing the crap out of the new editor, but do it in a way that's self correcting. And anyway, I'm sure there's lots of inventive ways to abuse that which will ensure it is a completely terrible idea. TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

RfD tags not treated as "nominated for deletion".

Is there any particular rationale for why the New Pages Feed does not treat pages with {{rfd}} tags as nominated for deletion? Is this something we might consider changing? TheDragonFire (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

TheDragonFire Now that I have withdrawn from actively coordibating NPP/NPR issues, there doesn't appear to be anyone watching this page. Please file a bug at Phab directly. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Bug, or some problem at my end?

I have just reviewed the article Eugene N. Lane and wrote some constructive feedback using my iPhone. On checking the article creator's Talk page to check if a url I'd included (to Earwig's copyvio tool) had displayed correctly, I found none of my comments had appeared - just this text: {{{3}}}

I then booted up my PC and start re-writing my feedback all over again. But before I could even post it, I received a message on my talk page from the article creator, thanking me for my feedback and reporting that the link I sent wasn't working. She had clearly received my first review comments, yet nothing was visible on her talk page.

This hasn't happened before (though I am very new to WP:NPP), so might this be a bug in the Page Curation tool, or some problem I had unwittingly caused? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, now that I have withdrawn from actively coordinating NPP/NPR issues, there doesn't appear to be anyone watching this page. Please file a bug at Phab directly. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Feedback to new editors who edit old redirect

When tagging an article, is there a way to send feedback to the editor who turned a redirect into an article in stead of the creator of the redirect? For example: Best Behaviour (Louisa Johnson song) was created as a redirect to Louisa Johnson, and that's fine. A new editor has created an unsourced article from that redirect. If I tag the article as reviewed, notification goes to the person who created the redirect. But that's not who needs to know that the article needs references. Before I submit this as a Suggested Improvement, is there a workaround? Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Mduvekot, Now that I have withdrawn from actively coordinating NPP/NPR issues, there doesn't appear to be anyone watching this page. Please file a bug at Phab directly. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work Kudpung, I will. Mduvekot (talk) 03:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)