Wikipedia talk:Page Curation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:New Page Triage)
Jump to: navigation, search

Who can use page curation?[edit]

As autoconfirmed user with more than 500 edits and over 37 articles and familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, can i use page curation log to mark new articles as reviewed?Is it require prior permission? Zarghun11 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Glitch with deletion nominations[edit]

Articles that have been nominated for deletion keep coming up as "reviewed" or "unreviewed" in the feed, instead of having the black garbage can icon. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing this as well and it's inconsistent. Here is one nominated for CSD with a garbage can icon:[1]. Here is one nominated for CSD with a green check mark icon:[2] Does WMF monitor this page, or does this need to be reported somewhere else? Perhaps Okeyes (WMF) or Quiddity (WMF) can point us in the right direction.- MrX 13:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Marking as reviewed[edit]

I'm not sure if anyone's going to respond to this (I've been thinking about it a lot) but I'm concerned with the amount of articles that are attended to (adding tags, etc.) but are not actually marked as reviewed. I personally have spent a lot of time to mark these as reviewed to ensure it was attended to. I'm given to understand Twinkle/etc. does not mark the article as reviewed. Is this accurate? I wish more articles would actually be marked as it would save time. SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Using Twinkle for patrolling new pages is practically deprecated along with the old new page feed. Users wishing to patrol new pages should be encouraged to use the new New Pages Feed and its Curation Toolbar which automatically marks articles as patrolled when they are tagged. Anyone who comes across patrollers who are still using the old system are free to leave a kindly suggestion on the patroller's talk page, and at the same time asking them to refer to WP:NPP to learn more about patrolling.- -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hold on. When was it determined that Twinkle is deprecated for NPP? I've been using it all along, and I find it more flexible and easy to use. Also, there are cases where tags can be added to an article and it's not desirable to mark them as patrolled. The reason for this is to get addition reviews from other new page patrollers. For example, when it's unclear whether an article makes a claim of significance, but it is evident that the subject is probable not notable and the article is unsourced. I routinely add unsourced and notability tags, and leave it unreviewed so that someone else can look at it.- MrX 12:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
ETA: Scroll up three sections to see the other reason that I don't use the page curation toolbar.- MrX 12:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Hold on MrX! I did say 'practically' deprecated, so don't try taking things out of context. Please read also everything else I said. Twinkle is probably fine in the hands of experienced patrollers, but we fought tooth and nail to get the New Pages Feed and its Curation Toolbar developed for the very reason that the majority of patrollers have little or no experience at all. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for jumping to conclusions Kudpung. Indeed I should have read your comment more carefully.- MrX 13:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I have to say, I love the new pages feed and it's more convenient but I'm concerned by some of the pages that aren't marked. Go to the back pages and you'll see: pages are viewed and tagged but not actually marked. SwisterTwister talk 17:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I also see the opposite problem a lot: pages that are recommended for deletion, whether by CSD or PROD, keep coming up as "reviewed". I think maybe something buggy is going on with the software. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The new system is the best thing for Wikipedia since slied bread. After heavy lobbying following some long and detailed research we managed with some intensive real life discussions at the very top of the Foundation's organisation to get them to develop the new new Pages Feed and Curation Toolbar. This was one piece of software in which the WMF really excelled and answered an urgent community requirement. Unfortunately, they don't do this anymore, preferring to impose new top-down software packages which the community never asked for and does not want and due to their committment to those things they have officially withdrawn their support for further development of the NPP Feed. Any bugs that are left in it might be addressed after multiple cries for attention, but it appears that most of them will be left in a long queue as not being of sufficient priority. One downside is that the senior WMF developer who was at least sympathetic to many community requirements has now resigned from the Foundation. The only one who was taking any notice for a while was Okeyes (WMF) and he helped get some bugs addressed but he appears also to have since been reassigned. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested removal of a sentence[edit]

I suggest removal of the last sentence of the lead, which reads To learn more about patrolling new pages in general, please see the check list of recommended tasks and tutorial at WP:NPP, and consider enrolling at the New Page Patrol School.

Extra vigilance while patrolling[edit]

New Page Patrollers are asked to be particularly vigilant for pages suspected as being created or edited by paid users. The criteria to check are listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody. More background on this important story of enormous abuse is at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-02/Special report.

Generally, inexperienced or too rapid patrolling are the main reasons that such articles get patrolled and slip through the net. If patrollers come across pages they don't know what to do with, they can leave them and pass on to the next one. Ideally however, they should not be too embarrassed to ask for help at New pages patrol/Noticeboard. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

'Created by' filter does not work[edit]

Filtering for user name in the New pages feed does not work for me on Chrome. It doesn't let me write anything in the text box. --Ita140188 (talk) 07:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. Have you tried a different browser? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried on Safari and it works. However it doesn't work on Chrome neither on Windows or Mac. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I use Firefox on Mac. It works. Suggest your problem is local. Tried emptying the cache? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
As I said, I tried on Chrome on two different operating systems (Windows 8 and Mac OS X 10.6), on two different computers. I guess it's not a cache problem. --Ita140188 (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems the problem is solved. Was it only me? --Ita140188 (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Very strange, having experienced the problem for several days on 2 different computers and operating systems not connected in any way... --Ita140188 (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I was unable to replicate it on any of my Macs with either Safari or F/Fox. It's no secret however, that the servers that operate peripheral tools are in a mess and that the responsible employees (if indeed there are any) are not concerned. There is nothing that we volunteers can do about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Problem renominating page for deletion[edit]

I happened to see these edits after linking to an AFD from someone's talk page. I moved that nomination to a second discussion page, and then did some digging around. The original deletion discussion was closed as a redirect back on August 28 of last year. Based on the page history, it looks as though the article was deleted and then recreated as a redirect. So I'm guessing that page curation assumed it had never been AFD'd before and thought it was creating a new AFD page, rather than appending to a long-closed one. When I used Twinkle to redo the AFD, it correctly went to a (2nd nomination) page, but I'm not certain it would have behaved correctly if there hadn't already been an attempt by Page Curation. —Torchiest talkedits 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Curator/patroller does not respond[edit]

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)

Placement of Cleanup-bare URLs[edit]

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).